Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
MASON COUNTY
NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
JULY 2010
Prepared by:
Mason County
Division of Emergency Management
ADOPTED BY THE MASON COUNTY COMMISSION
JULY 27, 2010
PREPARED BY:
MASON COUNTY
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
100 PUBLIC W ORKS DRIVE
SHELTON, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/dem/
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
M ASON COUNTY COMMISSION
LINDA RING ERICKSON, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1
TIM SHELDON, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2
ROSS GALLAGHER, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
CHARLES BUTROS
M ASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
STEVE FINLEY, AMERICAN RED CROSS
MIKE MOLYNEUX, AMERICAN RED CROSS
LARRY WATERS, MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TAMMI WRIGHT, MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CRAIG HAUGEN, MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ROSS GALLAGHER, MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER
MARTIN BEST, MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SANDI KVARNSTROM, MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SANDI LOERTSCHER, MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
JAKE HOLT, EXCEPTION FORESTERS
PATTI JO LARSON, EXCEPTIONAL FORESTERS
BARRY MIHAILOV, EXCEPTIONAL FORESTERS
BOB BURBRIDGE, MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4
JIM MITCHELL, MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #18
MIKE MOTT, MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #18
FRANK PHILLIPS, MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #18
KEN WEAVER, MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #18
TRACY GUNTER, LEWIS, THURSTON, MASON AREA AGENCY ON AGING
JILL EVANDER, MACECOM
ANDREW BALES, MASON GENERAL HOSPITAL
TERRY MIHAILOV, MASON TRANSIT
J. ROSAPEPE, MASON TRANSIT
VICKI KIRKPATRICK, MASON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
JESS MOSLEY, MASON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
CHARLES BUTROS, MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
DEAN BYRD, MASON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
MIKE EVANS, SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE
GARNETT CURTIS, WASHINGTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER
FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
THIS PLAN WAS FINANCED BY GRANT FUNDING FROM THE DHS/FEMA HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... I
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ I
PLAN PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... II
PLAN GOALS .............................................................................................................................. II
PLAN PARTICIPATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................ III
PLAN LAYOUT............................................................................................................................ III
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. IV
SECTION I – MASON COUNTY PROFILE ....................................................................... 1-1
CHANGES TO SECTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1
GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 1-1
CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
LAND USE ............................................................................................................................... 1-2
URBAN GROWTH AREAS .......................................................................................................... 1-2
RURAL LANDS ......................................................................................................................... 1-5
RESOURCE LANDS................................................................................................................... 1-6
CRITICAL AREAS...................................................................................................................... 1-6
COUNTYWIDE LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 1-7
TRANSPORTATION LINKS .......................................................................................................... 1-8
POPULATION ........................................................................................................................... 1-9
POPULATION GROWTH: HISTORICAL TRENDS ............................................................................ 1-9
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ............................................................ 1-10
HOUSING PROFILE ................................................................................................................. 1-12
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY PROFILE ......................................................................................... 1-13
ECONOMIC PROFILE .............................................................................................................. 1-13
W AGES AND INCOME ............................................................................................................. 1-14
EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 1-15
INDIAN TRIBES ....................................................................................................................... 1-15
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 1-16
ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................ 1-16
SECTION 2 –PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................. 2-1
CHANGES TO SECTION............................................................................................................. 2-1
PLAN PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................... 2-2
COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ..................................................... 2-3
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING MEETINGS ............................................................................... 2-3
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 2-7
EXISTING POLICIES, TOOLS, AND ACTIONS................................................................................ 2-8
ASSESS THE RISKS .................................................................................................................. 2-9
DEVELOP THE MITIGATION PLAN............................................................................................... 2-9
DRAFT AN ACTION PLAN .......................................................................................................... 2-9
ADOPT THE PLAN................................................................................................................... 2-10
IMPLEMENT, EVALUATE, AND REVISE THE PLAN....................................................................... 2-10
PROCEDURE TO ADD A COMMUNITY TO THE PLAN ................................................................... 2-10
SECTION 3 –CAPABILITY IDENTIFICATION ................................................................... 3-1
CHANGES TO SECTION............................................................................................................. 3-1
LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 3-1
ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................ 3-11
SECTION 4 –RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 4-1
CHANGES TO SECTION............................................................................................................. 4-1
DEFINING RISK ....................................................................................................................... 4-2
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS................................................................................................... 4-2
IDENTIFYING HAZARDS ............................................................................................................. 4-3
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 4-7
CRITICAL FACILITY INVENTORY ............................................................................................... 4-10
REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES ................................................................................... 4-11
EARTHQUAKE........................................................................................................................ 4-12
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................ 4-12
RICHTER AND MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALES ............................................................ 4-12
TYPES OF EARTHQUAKES....................................................................................................... 4-13
LOCATION AND EXTENT.......................................................................................................... 4-14
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES................................................................................................... 4-16
VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-19
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 4-22
FLOODING ............................................................................................................................. 4-23
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................ 4-23
TYPES OF FLOODING ............................................................................................................. 4-23
LOCATION AND EXTENT.......................................................................................................... 4-23
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES................................................................................................... 4-26
VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-36
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 4-39
LAND SHIFT – SLIDES AND EROSION ...................................................................................... 4-40
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................ 4-40
TYPES OF LANDSLIDES .......................................................................................................... 4-40
LOCATION AND EXTENT.......................................................................................................... 4-40
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES................................................................................................... 4-43
VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-44
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 4-46
SEVERE STORMS................................................................................................................... 4-47
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................ 4-47
LOCATION AND EXTENT......................................................................................................... 4-47
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES................................................................................................... 4-48
VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-49
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 4-50
WILDLAND FIRES.................................................................................................................. 4-51
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................ 4-51
LOCATION AND EXTENT.......................................................................................................... 4-51
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES................................................................................................... 4-54
VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-57
RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 4-59
HAZARDOUS M ATERIALS RELEASE ....................................................................................... 4-61
TERRORISM/CIVIL DISTURBANCE ........................................................................................... 4-66
ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................ 4-66
SECTION 5 –MITIGATION STRATEGY .......................................................................... 5-1
CHANGES TO SECTION............................................................................................................. 5-1
OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 5-2
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... 5-2
IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................... 5-7
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH NFIP .................................................................................... 5-14
SECTION 6 –CRITICAL FACILITIES .............................................................................. 6-1
CHANGES TO SECTION ............................................................................................................ 6-1
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL FACILITIES .................................................................................. 6-1
CRITICAL FACILITIES ................................................................................................................ 6-2
CONFIDENTIAL CRITICAL FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 6-2
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................................ 6-3
HAZARDS ................................................................................................................................ 6-3
SECTION 7 –PLAN MAINTENANCE .............................................................................. 7-1
CHANGES TO SECTION ............................................................................................................ 7-1
PLAN ADOPTION ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 7-2
IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................................... 7-2
PLANNING TEAM ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................. 7-3
MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................... 7-3
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 7-3
MAINTENANCE EVALUATION PROCESS...................................................................................... 7-4
INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANS .................................................................................... 7-5
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 7-6
APPENDICES
PLAN ADOPTION ......................................................................................................... APPENDIX A
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM ............................................................................... APPENDIX B
MASON COUNTY MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM W ORKGROUP ....................................... APPENDIX C
MEETING DOCUMENTATION ......................................................................................... APPENDIX D
PUBLIC INFORMATION ................................................................................................. APPENDIX E
MASON COUNTY MITIGATED PROPERTIES.................................................................... APPENDIX F
TABLES
1-1 PERIOD OF RECORD FOR TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL........................... 1-2
1-2 MASON COUNTY LAND USE-PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COUNTY ACREAGE ............................ 1-8
1-3 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND POPULATION FORECAST ....................................................... 1-9
1-4 HOW POPULATION INCREASED IN MASON COUNTY 2000-2009 ......................................... 1-10
1-5 AREA GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR MASON COUNTY 2005-2025 ....................................... 1-12
1-6 NUMBER OF UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE ......................................................................... 1-12
1-7 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ......................................................... 1-13
1-8 CURRENT INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT.................................................................................. 1-13
1-9 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY MONTH IN MASON COUNTY.................................................... 1-14
2-1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM AND W ORKGROUP MEETINGS ................................... 2-3
3-1 LOCAL PLANNING AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 3-2
3-2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY .................................................................... 3-3
3-3 POLITICAL CAPABILITY ...................................................................................................... 3-3
3-4 SELF-ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY ................................................................................... 3-3
3-5 W ASHINGTON STATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 3-5
4-1 HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT FORM .................................................................................... 4-4
4-2 RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE................................................................................................ 4-5
4-3 HISTORICAL ...................................................................................................................... 4-5
4-4 PROBABILITY .................................................................................................................... 4-6
4-5 VULNERABILITY................................................................................................................. 4-6
4-6 MAXIMUM THREAT ............................................................................................................ 4-6
4-7 SEVERITY OF IMPACT ........................................................................................................ 4-6
4-8 SPEED OF ONSET ............................................................................................................. 4-7
4-9 GENERAL EXPOSURE ........................................................................................................ 4-8
4-10 POPULATION EXPOSURE……………………………………………………………………… 4-8
4-11 GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSURE………………………………………………………4-9
4-12 MASON COUNTY REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES ................................................ 4-10
4-13 W ASHINGTON STATE EARTHQUAKE HISTORY ................................................................. 4-16
4-14 HISTORICAL HAZARD EVENTS FROM LOCAL JOURNAL REPORTS/OFFICE RECORDS .......... 4-26
4-15 MASON COUNTY FLOOD DECLARATIONS ........................................................................ 4-39
4-16 MASON COUNTY (STATE HIGHWAYS) SLIDE REPAIR COSTS............................................ 4-43
4-17 MASON COUNTY SEVERE STORM DECLARATIONS .......................................................... 4-50
4-18 HISTORICAL HAZARD EVENTS FROM LOCAL JOURNAL REPORTS/OFFICE RECORDS ......... 4-55
4-19 MASON COUNTY FIRES GREATER THAN 5 ACRES ........................................................... 4-56
4-20 2008 TIER TWO EMERGENCY AND HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL INVENTORY ........................... 4-62
5-1 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 5-3
5-2 COST-BENEFIT MATRIX ..................................................................................................... 5-4
5-3 COST-BENEFIT PRIORITY RANKING.................................................................................... 5-4
5-4 PROPOSED MITIGATION ACTIONS AND PRIORITIZATION ....................................................... 5-5
5-5 COMPLETED MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR 2004 ..................................................................... 5-8
5-6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPOSED MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR 2010 ........................... 5-9
MAPS
1-1 MASON COUNTY URBAN GROWTH AREAS .......................................................................... 1-3
1-2 SHELTON URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES ..................................................... 1-5
1-3 FUTURE LAND USE ......................................................................................................... 1-11
4-1 MASON COUNTY EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS........................................................................ 4-15
4-2 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD AREAS ..................................................... 4-20
4-3 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS WITH BUILDING PERMIT OVERLAY............................................... 4-21
4-4 FEMA FLOOD ZONES .................................................................................................... 4-25
4-5 FINCH, CLARK, MILLER, AND SUND CREEKS .................................................................... 4-35
4-6 CRITICAL FACILITIES IN FEMA FLOOD ZONES ................................................................. 4-37
4-7 FEMA FLOOD ZONES WITH BUILDING PERMIT OVERLAY .................................................. 4-38
4-8 LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS IN MASON COUNTY............................................................... 4-42
4-9 BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS ............................................... 4-45
4-10 W ASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITIES AT RISK FOR W ILDFIRES ......................................... 4-52
4-11 FOREST AREAS IN MASON COUNTY .............................................................................. 4-53
4-12 DNR W ILDFIRES 1970-2007........................................................................................ 4-56
4-13 DNR W ILDFIRES 2008 TO PRESENT ............................................................................. 4-57
4-14 SKOKOMISH VALLEY REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES .......................................... APPENDIX F
4-15 NORTH SHORE ROAD REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ........................................... APPENDIX F
4-16 HAVEN DRIVE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY....................................................... APPENDIX F
4-17 TAHUYA REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ............................................................... APPENDIX F
4-18 TAHUYA REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY ............................................................... APPENDIX F
FIGURES
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
MAJOR FAULT ZONES IN PUGET SOUND ......................................................................... 4-14
PHOTO OF FLOODING ON U.S. HIGHWAY 101 ................................................................. 4-24
PHOTO OF BELFAIR-TAHUYA BRIDGE DAMAGE ............................................................... 4-34
PHOTO OF LANDSLIDE AT LAKE KOKANEE....................................................................... 4-41
MASON COUNTY SNOW LOAD CODE .............................................................................. 4-47
PEAK W IND GUSTS-JANUARY 20, 1993 ......................................................................... 4-49
PHOTO OF BEAR GULCH FIRE, LAKE CUSHMAN ............................................................. 4-54
HOMES IN THE W ILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE AREAS...................................................... 4-58
CHARTS
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
USGS DECEMBER 2007 FLOOD ELEVATION DATA-SKOKOMISH RIVER ............................ 4-32
USGS DECEMBER 2007 FLOOD FLOW DATA-SKOKOMISH RIVER .................................... 4-32
USGS TYPICAL FLOOD PATTERN OF SKOKOMISH RIVER (JAN. 3-5, 2008) ...................... 4-33
USGS FEMA-1734 FLOOD PATTERNS-SKOKOMISH RIVER (DECEMBER 2007) ............... 4-33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This plan is an update of the 2004 Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP).
Although it is an update, this document has been redesigned so that it looks and reads
differently than the original. All changes to the updated plan are identified at the
beginning of each section. The Executive Summary is new to the plan.
INTRODUCTION
Mason County is committed to mitigating disasters to help make a more resilient
community. An efficiently planned and managed hazard mitigation program can be a
powerful resource in the combined effort by the County, State, and Federal governments
to end the cycle of repetitive disaster damage. Efforts to update the Mason County
Hazard Mitigation Plan are just one of those commitments to the community. As a result
of the development of the plan, Mason County can identify risks to the community and
develop mitigation actions to reduce damage to lives, property, and the economy from
future disasters.
Mitigation provides a critical foundation in the effort to reduce the loss of life and property
and to minimize damage to the environment from natural or manmade disasters by
avoiding or lessening the impact of a disaster. It also provides value to the public by
creating safer communities and impeding the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction,
and repeated damage. These activities or actions, in most cases, will have a long-term
sustained effect.
Hazard Mitigation is key to reducing disaster losses and breaking the disaster cycle.
Mason County has experienced 19 Federal Disaster Declarations and 1 Emergency
Declaration since 1956. Commitment to developing and updating the Mason County
Mitigation Plan and efforts to mitigate vulnerabilities will help to develop a more disaster
resistant community.
Mason County is vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes. The Puget Sound region is
entirely within Seismic Risk Zone 3, requiring that buildings be designed to withstand
major earthquakes measuring 7.5 in magnitude. It is anticipated, however, that
earthquakes caused from seduction plate stress can reach a magnitude greater than
8.0.
Flooding is the most common hazard occurring in Mason County and is the cause of
most disaster declarations. Since joining the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
repetitive loss property claims have totaled nearly $500,000.
Landslides occur in Mason County and are generally associated with heavy
rains/flooding but are also triggered by earthquakes. Slides routinely interrupt
transportation services, cause damage to homes, and recently were the cause of one
fatality. Population growth and pressures to build in areas for “view” purposes increase
vulnerability to landslides.
The types of severe storms that impact the county range from heavy rains/snow to high
winds. High winds have caused extensive damage throughout the county in past years.
Page I
The most noted storm was the "Columbus Day " (hurricane type) storm of 1962. Severe
winds also occurred during the Inauguration Day storm of 1993.
Mason County is vulnerable to Wildland/WUI fires. As of April 29, 2010, there have been
220 wildfires on DNR-protected lands, which have threatened Mason County’s WUI
communities, its infrastructures, and forests. The communities at highest risk in Mason
County include Allyn, Belfair, Dayton, Grapeview, Hoodsport, Lilliwaup, Matlock, Olalla,
Shelton, Tahuya, and Union.
PURPOSE
The definition of Hazard Mitigation according to the Stafford Act: (44 CFR 206:401)
“Hazard Mitigation means any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk too
human life and property from natural hazards.” The purpose of this plan update is to
guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of Mason
County from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s
commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision-makers
direct mitigation activities and resources.
This plan update was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the
Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR
§201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. (Hereafter, these requirements and
regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) or DMA
2000). While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated
mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the
requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction
to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). Because
the Mason County planning area is subject to many kinds of hazards, access to these
programs is vital.
This review will address the Federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR
Part 201. Upon acceptance by FEMA, Plan signatories will gain eligibility for local
mitigation project grants and post-disaster hazard mitigation grant projects (HMGP).
If a community chooses not to participate in the mitigation planning effort, the community
becomes ineligible for any future federal or state mitigation money. This mitigation
money usually comes in the form of a grant such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) or the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grant Program (PDM), which is to be used to implement mitigation strategies and
activities. Examples of eligible activities that could be supported by mitigation dollars
include: relocation, acquisitions, elevation, dry-flood proofing, wet flood proofing,
lightning prediction systems, interoperable siren systems, stream restorations or any
other activity potentially funded with mitigation dollars.
PLAN GOALS
Plan goals were identified in order to develop and implement mitigation measures. They
provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within the Mason County
planning area and were based on the findings of the risk assessment. The goals are to:
Page II
Goal #1: Protect life and property
Goal #2: Protect the environment
Goal #3: Reduce impacts and losses from natural disasters
Goal #4: Develop real time hazard data collection capabilities
PLAN PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Mason County Department of Emergency Management was responsible for coordinating
the development of the Plan update. The Mason County Planning Team (MCPT)
established the Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup (HMPW). A list of the participants
who served on the MCPT and the HMPW can be found in Appendix A and B. These
participants guided the update of the plan, assisted in updating goals and measures, and
shared local expertise to create a more comprehensive plan. Public outreach began
during the plan development process with an informational press release to inform the
public of the purpose of the Plan and the hazard mitigation planning process for the
Mason County planning area.
PLAN LAYOUT
The Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan is comprised of 7 sections which include a
Profile Section, a Planning Process Section, a Capability Identification Section, a Risk
Assessment Section, a Mitigation Strategy Section, a Critical Facilities Section, and a
Plan Maintenance Section.
The Profile Section outlines a description of the County including information about
geography, topography, transportation, demographics, land use and economics.
The Planning Process Section outlines the process used to update the County Plan.
This section describes the plan process, local government participation, coordination
with other departments and agencies, planning meeting documentation, information
sources, and public involvement.
The Capability Section summarizes the ability of a community to develop an effective hazard
mitigation plan based on its capability to implement policies and programs. The capabilities
identified include Planning and Regulatory Capability, Administrative and Technical
Capability, Political Capability, and Self-Assessment of Capability.
The Risk Assessment Section describes the risks and vulnerabilities to the County from
hazards such as earthquake, flood, landslide, severe storm, and wildland (WUI) fires.
The risk assessment includes a description of the types of hazards, the location and
extent of the hazard, and the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazard.
The Mitigation Strategy Section describes how the mitigation strategy was built on the
risk assessment and capability identification. This strategy is based upon the goals and
mitigation measures that are prioritized by cost (including management costs), feasibility
(politically, socially, and environmentally), population benefit, property benefit, and
community priorities.
The Critical Facilities Section identifies those facilities that are key following a hazard
event. These facilities include police stations, fire and rescue facilities, hospitals,
Page III
shelters, schools, nursing homes, and any other structures deemed essential by the
community. By including these in the risk assessment the County is better able to
determine the vulnerability of these facilities, lifelines, or resources within the community.
Since these facilities play a central role in disaster response and recovery, it is important
to protect them to ensure that service interruption is reduced or eliminated.
The Plan Maintenance Section describes the method and schedule for monitoring,
evaluating, and updating the Plan within the 5-year cycle required by regulation and also
explains how the County intends to incorporate the mitigation strategies into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans. This
section includes documentation of the County’s formal adoption by the governing body.
CONCLUSION
As Mason County continues to grow so does its vulnerability to the effects of natural
hazards. The development of this plan represents the jurisdiction’s commitment to
reduce risks from natural hazards and protect the citizens from the impacts of natural
disasters. The result of this plan is a proactive, community mitigation program to help
local agencies, residents, and businesses to be better prepared to prevent and/or reduce
losses from a hazard.
Page IV
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 1 OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN
The profile section has expanded significantly from the original plan (Chapter 1; Section
2-Introduction) in order to provide a more comprehensive snapshot of Mason County.
New information has been provided regarding topography and geography, climate,
growth and development trends, land use, transportation, housing, education, business
and economics, and Indian Tribes.
The purpose of the plan (Chapter 1; Section 3) has been moved to the Executive
Summary and the Task Force information is now located in the Planning Process
Section and is now called the Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup.
The bylaws in the original plan (Chapter 1; Section 4-Introduction) have been omitted in
this plan, as they are not necessary to meet the requirements of the mitigation plan
update.
GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY 1
Comprising a total land mass of 961 square miles, Mason County ranks 29th in size
among Washington Counties. The County is located in western Washington at the
southwest end of Puget Sound. It is bordered to the north by Jefferson County, to the
west and southwest by Grays Harbor County, and to the southeast by Thurston County.
The County’s eastern boundary----shared with Kitsap, Pierce and Thurston Counties---is primarily delineated by the rugged contours of Hood Canal and Case Inlet.
Like neighboring Thurston County, Mason’s topography was heavily influenced by
prehistoric glacial activity. After the ice retreated, the more mountainous areas in the
County’s interior evolved into dense forest land. This is particularly true in the north
County, much of which is incorporated in the Olympic National Forest and Olympic
National Park (elevations in this part of the county reach 6,000 feet above sea level).
The lower elevations (where they are not forested) consist of fertile, but gravelly, loam.
Past glacial activity accounts for nearly 100 lakes that dot the county. The larger of these
bodies are Lake Cushman, Mason Lake, Lake Limerick, Isabella Lake, Timberlakes and
Spencer Lake. Hood Canal and Puget Sound account for most of Mason County’s 90
square miles of water. Two-thirds of Hood Canal runs through Mason County. Two-tothree miles wide in certain places, Hood Canal enters the county from the north and, in
the course of its 30-plus mile stretch, turns northeasterly at the Great Bend to form a
lopsided ‘‘V.’’ Case Inlet forms the lower half of Mason’s eastern boundary. Lying in
County waters are two big islands----Harstene and Squaxin----and three smaller ones:
Hope, Reach, and Stretch. Of the innumerable inlets that break up the county’s shore,
two deserve mention: Hammersley Inlet (Shelton’s access to Puget Sound) and Little
Skookum Inlet (Kamilche’s access to Puget Sound).
The longest and most powerful river in Mason County is the Skokomish. Formed high in
the Olympic Mountains, the Skokomish flows southeasterly through Mason County
before emptying at the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. One fork of the Skokomish feeds
Lake Cushman and the hydroelectric power plant at Potlatch (built by the City of
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-1
Tacoma). Other notable rivers in Mason County are the Satsop and Hamma Hamma.
Originating in the south County, the Satsop flows southwesterly to Grays Harbor and the
Pacific Ocean. The Hamma Hamma runs east near the County’s northern border before
flowing into Hood Canal.
CLIMATE 2
Mason County’s climate can be characterized as moderate-maritime, influenced by the
Pacific Ocean, yet sheltered by the Olympic Mountains. Average temperatures range
from a high or 77° F. in July to 33° F. in January. The average daily temperature in
Mason County is 51° F. The County receives an average of 66 inches of precipitation
annually, with average monthly rainfalls ranging from a low in July of 0.9 inches, to a
high of 10.4 inches in January.
TABLE 1-1: PERIOD OF RECORD : 6/ 2/1948 to 11/8/2002
JAN FEB M AR APR M AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
DEC ANNUAL
Average Max.
Temperature 44.5 49.1 53.4 59.5 66.9 71.8 77.1 76.9 71.9 60.9 50.7 45.0
60.6
(F)
Average Min.
Temperature 33.1 34.5 35.7 38.9 44.2 49.2 52.3 52.6 48.1 42.1 37.6 34.4
41.9
(F)
Average Total
Precipitation 10.47 8.41 6.93 4.37 2.26 1.67 0.94 1.29 2.50 5.84 10.43 11.09 66.19
(in.)
Average Total
Snow Fall
3.9 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
2.1
8.2
(in.)
Average
Snow Depth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(in.)
Max. Temp.: 98.5% Min. Temp.: 98.4% Precipitation: 98.3% Snowfall: 96.6% Snow Depth: 94.9%
LAND USE 3
The lands of Mason County, which are within the jurisdiction of the county, have been
divided into four categories of performance districts. These are urban growth areas,
resource lands, critical areas and rural lands. Each of these categories is described
below.
Within Mason County, designated long term commercial forest lands, national park lands
and national forest lands are not available for development Those three classifications
combined, account for approximately 56.8% of the land within Mason County.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS
An urban growth area is an area where more intensive development is planned, along
with the infrastructure needed to service this growth. All cities, including the City of
Shelton, are defined as urban growth areas. In addition, other unincorporated areas may
be designated for urban growth when additional land is needed to accommodate the
expected population increases and job growth. The urban growth areas, which are
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-2
designated in Mason County, include the City of Shelton, with a portion of its
surrounding area, and the unincorporated communities of Allyn and Belfair. These
communities currently support a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, civic, and
public uses.
Unincorporated Belfair is the primary commercial center in the Northeast corner of North
Mason County. In 1994 Belfair was identified as an Urban Growth Area (UGA) of
approximately 2,200 acres. The current population within the UGA is approximately 900.
Forestry represents the primary land use within the Belfair UGA encompassing more
than 877 acres, and accounting for 40% of the area’s total land.
MAP 1-1: MASON COUNTY URBAN GROWTH AREAS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-3
The Allyn UGA lies along the upper, western shoreline of Case Inlet in eastern Mason
County. Lower Allyn makes up the original community first platted in 1889. It has a mix
of residences and commercial business covering 385 acres. Lakeland Village, a planned
residential development, makes up the largest land area and population base.
The Shelton UGA includes 5,500 acres and contains parcels that currently bisect its
boundary. The existing land use patterns with the Shelton UGA can generally be
described as containing a mix of land uses including residential, industrial, recreational
areas, resource lands and undeveloped areas. Existing residential development is the
predominant land use in the UGA, encompassing approximately 32% of the total land
area. Resource lands equal approximately 25% of the total area, transportation related
uses account for 12%, and other uses such as manufacturing, trade and services, and
cultural/entertainment/recreation represent 15% of the land uses. Undeveloped land
accounts for approximately 16% of the land use in the UGA.
Within Shelton, Allyn and Belfair, residential uses provide a variety of housing choices
including medium to high-density single family and multifamily. Commercial development
includes retail and other business uses. Industrial uses may include light and heavy
industry, production, manufacturing, and resource-based uses. In addition, a broad
range of civic and public facilities such as schools, churches, libraries, parks, courts, and
City and County government exist within these communities.
Since the original plan was completed the boundaries of the Shelton UGA have changed
as shown on Map 1-2. To date the County has been unable to verify with the City of
Shelton as to the reasons these changes were made.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-4
MAP 1-2: SHELTON UGA BOUNDARY CHANGES
RURAL LANDS
Rural lands are divided into several classifications. These classifications identify
performance districts through which rural growth will be managed. These districts
include the following:
• Rural Activity Centers (RAC)
• Hamlets
• Rural Commercial/Industrial Areas
• Rural Tourist/Recreational Areas
Fully Contained Community (FCC)
Master Planned Resort (MPR)
Rural Area (RA)
The Rural Activity Centers (RACs) include Hoodsport, Taylor Town and Union. Hamlets
include Bayshore, Dayton, Deer Creek, Eldon, Grapeview, Lake Cushman, Lilliwaup,
Matlock, Potlatch, Spencer Lake, and Tahuya. The Rural Area is divided into several
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-5
different areas shown on the Future Land Use Map, page 1-11. These areas reflect
different allowed residential densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres, one dwelling per 5
acres, one dwelling per 10 acres and one dwelling per 20 acres. Also among the rural
lands are Rural Tourist/Recreational Areas and Commercial/ Industrial Areas that are
also mapped.
In addition, the ability to designate new fully contained communities has been created in
this plan. The fully contained communities are new urban growth areas that can be
designated through a comprehensive plan amendment on land that was previously
designated as rural land. Urban population growth may be allocated to the new
communities when they are created. Criteria are established in the plan for evaluating
proposals for new fully contained communities when such changes are considered.
RESOURCE LANDS 4
Resource Lands are those areas in the county that have been identified as especially
important for the long-term commercial production of timber and agricultural goods or for
the extraction of mineral resources. As such, they receive special protection to
discourage their conversion to other uses. Mason County has designated and protected
three types of resource lands. These are Long-Term Commercial Forest Lands,
Agricultural Resource Lands, and Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial
significance. The county also designated Inholding Lands that are subject to special
restrictions to protect adjacent Long-Term Commercial Forest Lands. In addition to
designating these resource lands, the county has adopted protections for agricultural
and forest land uses elsewhere in the county.
CRITICAL AREAS
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to landslide, erosion,
earthquake or other geological events. In many cases, hazards can be reduced or
mitigated by engineering, design or modified construction practices. Because of their
susceptibility however, some of these areas may not be suitable for new development.
Per the Mason County Resource Ordinance development within 300 feet of slopes that
exceed 15 percent require a geotechnical evaluation along with a requirement for 50-foot
vegetated buffers from the top or toe of a slope. Approximately 10% of the landscape in
Mason County (excluding Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park areas)
has a slope of 15-30%, and about 3% has steeper slopes of 30-45%.
Wetlands
Mason County includes an abundance of wetland areas. Most of these areas are
associated with larger freshwater and saltwater systems.
Approximately 38,290 acres in the County have been mapped as wetlands as
documented by the National Wetland Inventory Agricultural wetlands and isolated
wetlands under one acre in size are exempt from most of the regulatory requirements of
the Mason County Critical Area Ordinance. Wetland buffers range from 25 feet to 250
feet depending on the category of wetland as determined through a Wetland Delineation
and Categorization Report.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-6
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas
Mason County contains an abundance of marine, freshwater and upland habitat for fish
and wildlife. The Mason County Resource Ordinance guides management of this habitat.
It is divided into two classes: 1) Aquatic Management Areas; and 2) Terrestrial
Management Areas. Stream buffer/setbacks range from 90 feet to 165 feet depending
on the stream type.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Approximately 24,970 acres have been mapped as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in
Mason County.
Mason County includes seven watersheds: Case Inlet, Chehalis, Hood Canal, Lower
Hood Canal, Oakland Bay, Skokomish, and Totten-Little Skookum. Drainage patterns
determine the boundaries of watersheds.
Watershed management plans or action plans have been adopted for three watersheds:
Totten-Little Skookum, Oakland Bay, and Lower Hood Canal. Sub-area plans were
developed for North Mason County (the Lower Hood Canal), South-East Mason County
(the Totten-Little Skookum), and Harstine Island (part of the Totten-Little Skookum). The
watershed plans were developed in cooperation with adjoining counties that shared the
watershed, the Indian Tribes, state agencies and the public, under the guidance of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Flood Hazard Areas
Flooding in Mason County generally occurs from November through April. The greatest
cause of flooding is heavy rainfall combined with snowmelt. The Mason County Flood
Insurance Study lists four areas as most susceptible to flooding. Those areas include the
Skokomish, Tahuya and Union Rivers, and Goldsborough Creek. The Mason County
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance guides development within the flood prone areas
of Mason County.
COUNTYWIDE LAND USE 5
Mason County includes approximately 620,067 acres of land, about 972 square miles,
and an additional 57,600 acres, 90 square miles, of water. Approximately 154,086 acres
of Mason County lie within the boundaries of the Olympic National Park and the Olympic
National Forest. The incorporated City of Shelton occupies an additional 3,900 acres of
Mason County and Tribal lands account for approximately 8,187 acres of the County.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-7
TABLE 1-2: MASON COUNTY LAND USE – PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COUNTY ACREAGE
TOTAL
PERCENT
PERCENT OF TOTAL ACREAGE
LAND USE
ACREAGE
OF
COUNTY
IMPROVED
UNIMPROVED
PARTIALLY
TOTAL
IMPROVED*
Residential
33,137
5,34%
64.74%
0.79%
34.44%
TIMBER
03%
Vacant
52.656
8.49%
15.33%
73.07%
11.2%%
.4%
Commercial
3,538
.57%
35.65%
19.41%
43.92%
.56%
544
.57%
35.65%
1.24%
9.52%
0%
9,845
1.59%
86.94%
5.73%
7.32%
0%
Forestry
139,556
22.51%
.03%
6.17%
7.61%
87.63%
LTCF
199,590
32.19%
.36%
23.29%
0%
76.35%
152
>02%
63.79%
12.76%
23.68%
0%
Transportation
2,368
.38%
88.38%
11.23%
.4%
0%
Utilities
2,079
.33%
10.97%
84.84%
4.21%
0%
Tax Exempt
10,429
1.68%
28.81%
67.67%
3.49%
.03%
National Forest
154,086
24.85%
City of Shelton
3,900
0.63%
Tribal Land
8,187
1.32%
620,067
100%
10.14%
22.96%
6.78%
60.57%
Industrial
Agri/Aquaculture
Mineral Extraction
Total
Source: Mason County Comprehensive Plan-April 1996 (Revised 2005)
*Parcels are classified by the assessor’s office as improved, unimproved, timber, or a combination of all three. Partially
improved parcels contain improved acres as well as unimproved and/or timber acres.
TRANSPORTATION LINKS
HIGHWAY 101 - The highway runs north through Washington, running parallel to the
Pacific Coast, all the way up the western side of the Olympic Peninsula. In the
northwestern part of the peninsula, the highway turns east, and runs along the
peninsula's northern edge, parallel to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In the peninsula's
northeast corner, the highway then turns south, running along the eastern edge of the
peninsula and along the western shore of Hood Canal, until the highway terminates at
a junction with Interstate 5 in Olympia.
STATE ROUTE 3 - SR 3 originates at the junction of U.S. Route 101 in Shelton on the
Olympic Peninsula, and from there heads northeast to Allyn, after which the Kitsap
Peninsula begins. SR 3 then runs through Belfair, Gorst, and Bremerton.
SANDERSON FIELD AIRPORT - Sanderson Field is located in Mason County adjacent to
U.S. Highway 101, three miles northwest of Shelton. Sanderson Field Airport has 51
based aircraft, including 42 single-engine aircraft, 3 multi-engine piston-powered
aircraft, and 6 helicopters. The latest available data indicate that Sanderson Field had
a total of 21,676 annual operations. Runway 5-23, the airport’s only runway, is 5,005
feet long, 100 feet wide, has an asphalt surface, and is equipped with medium intensity
runway lights. Both runway ends have published non-precision GPS approaches.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-8
MASON TRANSIT – This transportation system has over 40 vehicles consisting of
coaches, body on chassis, vans with seating capacity ranging from 12 persons up to
45. People utilizing the services of Mason Transit have grown from 60,000 during its
first full year of operation in 1993 to over 390,000 in 2007.
POPULATION 6
Information from the Office of Financial Management shows that Mason County’s
population was estimated to be 56,300 in 2008, up 1,700 from 2007, and up nearly
6,900 from the 2000 Census count of 49,405. Of the 2008 population total, over 47,320
were counted as living in unincorporated areas of the county. The largest city, and only
incorporated area in the county, is Shelton. In 2008, it was estimated that 8,980
individuals resided in Shelton, an increase of just 538 from the 2000 Census.
TABLE 1-3: POPULATION ESTIMATES AND POPULATION FORECAST
CENSUS
ESTIMATE
2000
2005
2010
2020
2030
State
5,894,121 6,256,400
6,792,318
7,698,939 8,509,161
Mason County
49,405
51,900
58,643
69,568
80,043
SOURCE: OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
POPULATION GROWTH: HISTORICAL TRENDS 7
In 1960 Mason County's population was 16,251, only slightly more than one third of the
County's population in 2000. During the decade of 1960 to 1970, the statewide
population grew by 19.6%, or 1.8 % annually. At the same time, Mason County's
population grew by 22.3% (an average rate of 2% annually) to reach a 1970 population
of 20,918.
The 1960’s marked the start of a period of rapid County-wide population growth that has
continued into this decade. Between 1960 and 1970, the County experienced a
population increase of 28.7% (4,667 people), an average annual rate of 2.5%. By 1970,
Mason County's population had grown to 20,918. During the same period, the statewide
annual rate of population increase was of 19.6% (an average annual growth rate of
1.8%).
During the 1970's, both the County and the State experienced the fastest rates of
population increase in recent history. The County's population rose by an average rate of
4.1% annually, totaling an increase of 49%. At the end of the decade the population had
increased by 10,266 people bringing the total population to 31,184. Meanwhile, the
State's relatively stable annual rate of population growth increased very slightly from 1.8
to 1.9%, amounting to a population increase of 21%.
The rate of population growth slowed somewhat during the eighties. Between 1980 and
1990, the County's population grew by an average annual rate of 2.1 % amounting to a
ten year increase of 23% and a total population of 38,341. Statewide population growth
during the decade totaled 18% (an average annual rate of 1.6%).
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-9
While it is commonly believed that much of the State and County's growth occurred
during the 1980's, the actual rate of growth for the decade was the slowest experienced
in the County since the 1950's. The 10,266 people added to the County population
between 1970 and 1980 exceeds the 7,157 increase during the 1980's by approximately
43%.
In the 1990s, Mason County’s population grew 28.9% (total of 11,064) from 38,341 to
49,405. This represents an increase average of 2.6% annually in that period, about 30%
higher than the state rate. By 2000, Mason County ranked 11th in the State in population
growth rate. Mason County was ranked 13th of 39 counties in rate of growth for the
2000-2009 period.
TABLE 1-4: HOW POPULATION INCREASED in MASON COUNTY 2000-2009
Population 2000
49,405
Population 2009
56,800
Increase
7,395
Percent increase
14.97
Births
5,320
Deaths
4,998
Natural increase
322
Net Migration
7,073
SOURCE: OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, FORECASTING DIVISION/JUNE 29, 2009
The largest age category in Mason County’s population is the 45-49 year old grouping,
which makes up over 4,000 of the 2005 population total. The next largest group is in the
40-44 category, which accounts for approximately 3,900 individuals. 8
According to the 2008 data from Employment Security Department, Mason County is
less racially diverse than the state of nation. Nearly 85.2% of the population is counted
as “White non-Hispanic.” The largest minority group in the county is the “Hispanic Origin”
group at 6.3 %. The “American Indian-Alaska Native” category accounted for 3.3% of the
population in 2008. 9
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN THE FUTURE LAND USE 10
The future land use plan (Map 1-3) has three Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), three Rural
Activity Centers, and eleven Hamlets. The UGAs include the City of Shelton and the
communities of Allyn and Belfair. The Rural Activity Centers include Union, Hoodsport
and Taylor Town. The Hamlets include Bayshore, Dayton, Deer Creek, Eldon,
Grapeview, Lake Cushman, Lilliwaup, Matlock, Potlatch, Spencer Lake, and Tahuya.
The rural area is divided into several different areas that reflect different allowed
residential densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres, one dwelling per 5 acres, one
dwelling per 10 acres and one dwelling per 20 acres. Also among the rural lands are
Rural Tourist/Recreational Areas and Commercial/Industrial Areas.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-10
MAP 1-3: FUTURE LAND USE
In addition to those districts designated in the Comprehensive Plan, the county has also
adopted the approach created in the Growth Management Act of reserving a share of
projected population growth for future urban growth in Fully Contained Communities.
These Fully Contained Communities are not designated and will not be allowed to
develop until after they are approved by a comprehensive plan amendment. When
specific proposals are identified and approved, population from the Fully Contained
Community reserve will be allocated to that proposal.
The county has estimated how the future growth in population will be distributed among
the different districts created in the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1-5 presents the
additional population levels and the share of County growth that would be experienced in
each of these areas in the year 2025.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-11
TABLE 1-5: AREA GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR MASON COUNTY 2005-2025
Area
Share of Growth
Additional Population
Shelton Urban Growth Area
33%
10,500
Belfair Urban Growth Area
18%
5,600
Allyn Urban Growth Area
7%
2,250
Fully Contained Community Reserve
3%
1,000
RAC – LAMIRDS
1.5%
469
Rural Lands
37%
11,480
Total County
100%
31,299
SOURCE: MASON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-APRIL 1996 (REVISED 2005)
HOUSING PROFILE 11
Mason County had 25,515 housing units in 1999 according to the 2000 Census. Of
these, approximately 70% were single family units. Further, 18,912 or 74% of these
units, were permanently occupied. The remaining 6,603 units, 26%, consisted of
seasonal residences or unoccupied units. Mason County Public Utility District No. 3
reports that the number of its seasonal customers within the County has decreased over
the past few years, as more and more seasonal residents make Mason County their
primary home. Table 1-6, Number of Units by Structure, presents the number and types
of housing units in Mason County as of the 2000 census. It also identifies owneroccupied and rental housing for the permanently occupied units.
TABLE 1-6: NUMBER OF UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
PERCENT
OCCUPIED
TYPE OF HOUSING
VACANT
OF
TOTAL
STRUCTURE
UNITS
TOTAL
OWNER
TOTAL
SINGLE FAMILY
Detached
17,864
69.97%
4,824
13,030
10,970
Attached
247
0.94%
77
170
78
TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY
18,101
70.94%
4,901
13,200
11,057
MULTI-FAMILY
2 Units
328
1.28%
102
226
49
3 – 4 Units
205
0.80%
23
182
4
5 – 9 Units
241
0.94%
0
241
8
10 -19 Units
93
0.36%
9
84
5
20 – 49 Units
226
0.89%
12
214
0
50 or more
58
0.23%
0
58
7
MOBILE HOME
5,447
21.35%
977
4,470
3,616
BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC.
816
3.2%
579
237
201
COUNTY TOTAL
25,515 100.00%
6,603
18,912
14,947
RENTER
2,051
92
2,143
177
178
233
79
214
51
854
36
3,965
Source: United States Bureau of the Census, 2000
Owner-occupied housing accounted for 79% (14,947 units) of the County’s occupied
units. This is significantly higher than the statewide average of 65%. Single-family units
represent the vast majority (70.94%) of the County’s 2000 housing stock. Mobile homes
and trailers account for 21.35% of the housing units in the County. Multi-family units
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-12
comprise approximately 4.5% of the County’s housing stock. Most of the multi-family
housing is located in the City of Shelton.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY PROFILE 12
Mason County is a growing business environment due to the access to the range of
transportation alternatives and the experienced leadership of the business community. It
is home to technology companies, manufacturing corporations and other thriving
businesses.
AREA
Mason Co
TABLE 1-7: CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
TIME
LABOR
NO. OF
NO. OF
UNEMPLOYMENT
YEAR
PERIOD
FORCE
EMPLOYED
UNEMPLOYED
RATE
2008
Dec
26,990
24,560
2,430
9%
Source: Workforce Explorer
YEAR
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
TIME PERIOD
December
December
December
December
December
TABLE 1-8: CURRENT INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
CES INDUSTRY TITLE
NO. OF EMPLOYED
Total Non-Farm
14,440
Service-Providing
12,133
Total Private
9,492
Government
5,352
State and Local Government
5,326
Source: Workforce Explorer
Mason County had 14,440 nonfarm jobs in 2008, down 220 jobs from the 2007
annual average total of 14,660. The county posted some positive growth rates
between 1990 and 2006 averaging 3.3% however a drop in 2008 nonfarm payrolls
looks to be carrying over into 2009 and maybe beyond.
ECONOMIC PROFILE 13
After posting an annual average decade-high unemployment rate of 8.6% in 2003, the
county had bounced back in recent years, dropping continuously to a resting point of
5.7%. However in 2008 the annual average rate of unemployment jumped to 7.0%. The
2009 numbers show a January through March average of over 11%. Unemployment
rates will more than likely continue to climb into 2010.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-13
TABLE 1-9: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY MONTH IN MASON COUNTY (PERCENT)
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
1982
17.2
15.7
18.1
15.5
14.3
13.6
13.2
2004
9.1
8.7
8.7
7.5
7.0
7.8
7.1
2005
7.3
7.6
6.9
6.7
6.0
6.4
5.9
2006
6.3
6.6
5.9
6.0
5.7
6.1
6.0
2007
7.0
6.4
6.4
5.5
5.2
5.6
5.6
2008
6.6
7.7
7.4
6.2
6.7
6.6
6.4
2009
11.1
10.7
11.6
11.9
10.4
10.2
9.0
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
11.9
12.3
15.1
13.9
16.1
7.1
6.4
6.1
6.6
6.9
6.0
5.3
5.1
5.4
5.3
6.1
5.4
4.9
5.8
6.1
5.6
5.3
5.0
5.4
6.0
7.1
6.2
6.8
7.3
8.8
9.5
9.4
SOURCE: WORKFORCE EXPLORER
According to the Washington State Employment Security Department goodsproducing employment in 2008 accounted for 2,690 jobs in Mason County, with
1,060 of those in the natural resources, mining and construction sector, with 1,630
counted in manufacturing employment. The goods sector overall has added a
modest 20 jobs since the year 2000. Jobs in manufacturing have actually declined
from the 2000 levels by 70 jobs.
The services producing sectors accounted for 11,760 jobs in 2008 which was up
2,320 from the county’s 2000 total. All the other services categories accounted for
3,410 jobs in 2008. Behind government, that sector was the largest source of
employment in the county.
Government employment was the largest employer in Mason County in 2008
accounting for 5,450 jobs which was up 170 from 2007 and 1,710 more than the year
2000 total of 3,740.
WAGES AND INCOME 14
In 2007 Mason County averaged 14,720 jobs covered by unemployment insurance, with
a payroll of about $457.2 million. The annual average wage in 2007 was $28,703. The
median hourly wage in 2007 was $16.13, which was lower than the state average of
$18.65.
The personal income in Mason County was lower than both the state and national
averages. The county average was $27,807, the state average was $38,212, and the
national average was $36,714.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-14
EDUCATION 15
Seven School districts and two private schools educate 8,368 children, spending more
than $73 million annually. Mason County is also home to Olympic College Shelton,
which sits on a 27 acre campus. The community college provides education to
approximately 500 students per quarter.
As of the 2000 Census there were far more adults in the county, 25 and over, without
high school diplomas than the state average (16.3% versus 12.9%). However Mason
County rated less than the national average of 19.6%.
INDIAN TRIBES
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE 16
“What is now known as the Skokomish Tribe actually was primarily composed of
Twana Indians, a Salishan people whose aboriginal territory encompassed the Hood
Canal drainage basin in western Washington State. The tribe's first recorded direct
contact with European culture came in 1792 and resulted in a devastating smallpox
epidemic that took the lives of many. There were nine Twana communities, the largest
being known as the Skokomish, or "big river people." The Twana subsisted on hunting,
fishing and gathering activities, practicing a nomadic life-style during warmer weather
and resettling at permanent sites during the winter. Twana descendants live on the
Skokomish Reservation, and all have become known as the Skokomish Tribe.
Today, many tribal members continue to work within the region's fishing and logging
industries. In an attempt to diversify its economy, the Tribe has purchased property for
economic development and resource enhancement, as well as for housing. The Tribe
operates its own businesses including a tribal hatchery and a gas station/convenience
store. As for traditional culture, a number of ceremonies that had been dormant for 70
years or more were re-established during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Traditional
basketry, carving and dance projects represent other facets of the reemerging interest
in traditional arts of the Skokomish Reservation. “
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE 17
“The Squaxin Island Tribe consists of descendents of the original inhabitants of the
seven inlets of South Puget Sound which includes the Noo-Seh-Chatl of Henderson
Inlet, Steh Chass of Budd Inlet, Squi-Aitl of Eld Inlet, Sawamish/T'Peeksin of Totten
Inlet, Sa-Heh-Wa-Mish of Hammersley Inlet, Squawksin of Case Inlet and S'Hotle-MaMish of Carr Inlet. We also belong to the surrounding watersheds.
On Christmas Day, 1854 the Treaty of Medicine Creek was negotiated in Chinook
Jargon, a trade language inadequate to convey the complex issues of treaty making.
Tribal headquarters are now located in Kamilche, between Little Skookum and Totten
Inlets, where hundreds of acres of land have been purchased and a thriving
community has been established. The General Council of all members elects a sevenmember council that oversees all branches of Tribal government and enterprise.
Squaxin Island was one of the first 30 tribes in the nation to enter into the Self
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-15
Governance Demonstration Project with the federal government. Now the Tribe
establishes its own priorities and budgets for funds previously administered by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.”
RESOURCES
Mason County Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, November 2006
Mason County Comprehensive Plan-April 1996 (Revised 2005)
Office of Financial Management; http://www.ofm.wa.gov/
Workforce Explorer; http://www.workforceexplorer.com/
Washington State Employment Security Department; http://www.esd.wa.gov/
ENDNOTES
1
http://www.workforceexplorer.com/article.asp?ARTICLEID=2792
Mason County Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, November 2006, p. 8
3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan-April 1996 (Revised 2005), pp. IV-17 – IV-22
4
Ibid, pp. IV-31 – IV-50
5
Ibid, pp. IV-15 - IV-16
6
Office of Financial Management: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/default.asp
7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan-April 1996 (Revised 2005), pp. IV5-IV6
8
http://www.workforceexplorer.com/article.asp?articleId=9657&PAGEID=&SUBID=
9
Ibid
10
Mason County Comprehensive Plan-April 1996 (Revised 2005), pp. IV-11- IV-12
11
Ibid, pp. V-3.6-3.7
12
http://www.workforceexplorer.com/article.asp?articleId=9657&PAGEID=&SUBID=
13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
Ibid
16
www.skokomish.org
17
http://www.squaxinisland.org/info/index.html
2
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 1: MASON COUNTY PROFILE
PAGE 1-16
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
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.
CHANGES TO THE PLANNING PROCESS SECTION (CHAPTER 2 OF ORIGINAL PLAN)
The planning process chapter has expanded from the original plan to include summaries
of each meeting held during the development of the addendum to better detail the
process used to update the plan. The plan update was done through a collaborative
process as was used in the 2004 plan however the selected workgroup was made up of
different members than that of the original plan. Members of the new Hazard Mitigation
Planning Workgroup (HMPW) can be found in Appendix C. New processes were
included to assess risks, develop the plan, and draft an action plan. These processes
are discussed in more detail in each applicable section.
This plan update will not include the City of Shelton, Squaxin Island Tribe, Mason
County Fire Protection District #2, Mason County Fire Protection District #5, and Mason
County Public Hospital District #1 who were a part of the 2004 Plan. Although there has
been extensive outreach to these participants they have not adequately participated in
the Planning Process to date. After a meeting with these jurisdictions/SPD’s late in the
process, it has been decided that these jurisdictions/SPD’s will add on to the Plan at a
later date.
A new procedure was included in the update to add a community to the Mason County
Hazard Mitigation Plan at a later date.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-1
PLAN PROCESS
Mason County recognized the need and importance of a local hazard mitigation plan and
initiated its development.
The Mason County Planning Team (MCPT) established the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Workgroup (HMPW) who met throughout the year and who was tasked to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meet the requirements as established by federal regulations and following
FEMA’s planning guidance;
Support objectives under the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community
Rating System and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program;
Facilitate the entire planning process;
Identify the data requirements that HMPC participants could provide and
conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data,
Assist in facilitating the public input process;
Produce the draft and final plan documents; and
Provide the Plan to the Washington State Emergency Management Division
(EMD) and FEMA Region X for review.
A list of the participants who serve on the Mason County Planning Team (MCPT) and the
Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup (HMPW) can be found in Appendix B and
C. These participants guided the update of the plan, assisted in updating goals and
measures, and shared local expertise to create a more comprehensive plan. Although the
Departments/Agencies remained the same since the 2004 plan, the representatives on
the team may have changed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION
For Mason County, “participation” meant the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Providing facilities for meetings
Attending and participating in the planning meetings
Collecting and providing requested data
Managing administrative details
Making decisions on plan process and content
Identifying mitigation actions for the plan
Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts
Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the
planning process and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan
Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by the governing body.
The County met all of these participation requirements. A local planning workgroup team
was established to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation
strategies, and review and provide data on plan drafts.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-2
COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Early in the planning process, the DEM determined that data collection, mitigation
strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting other
agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in
hazard mitigation planning, their landowner status in the County, and/or their interest as
a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives from the following agencies were invited to
participate on the Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning Team/Workgroup:
·
City of Shelton
Squaxin Island Tribe
Mason County Commissioners*
Mason County Fire Districts*
Red Cross
Mason General Hospital
Mason County Public Health*
Mason County Public Works*
Mason County Sheriff’s Office*
Washington Corrections Center
MaceCom
LTM Area Agency on Aging
Mason County Fire Marshal
Exceptional Foresters
Mason Transit*
Mason County Community Development*
Mason County Division of Emergency Management*
Port of Shelton
*Participated on the Planning Workgroup
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING MEETINGS
Several meetings were held with the HMPT and HMPW beginning February 19, 2009.
The meetings provided an opportunity to discuss, review, and evaluate the Plan among
the participants. Table 2-1 documents these meetings. A list of the meeting minutes and
emails can be found in Appendix D and public notices can be found in Appendix E.
TABLE 2-1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM AND WORKGROUP MEETINGS
PUBLIC NOTICE-HMP UPDATE KICKOFF MEETING
February 2009
Emergency Management
Informational press release to inform the public of the purpose of the Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan update and the hazard mitigation planning process for the Mason County planning area.
HMPW MEETING #1 – MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
February 19, 2009
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-3
Initial meeting to discuss the 5-year update. Members agreed to meet twice monthly; subject to
change. Work plan deadlines were discussed. The introductory portion, including county
demographics and history is complete. The HIVA is done and ready for review. The next step is
to identify hazards to be included. The critical infrastructures in the County have been identified
and the list needs to be reviewed for possible changes/additions. A capability assessment needs
to be done. The groundwork is already complete. The public involvement was discussed and will
include newspaper articles, public meetings and tracking outreach through training. Members
were asked to review the HIVA and complete the Hazards Risk Assessment.
HMPW MEETING #2 – MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
March 4, 2009
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
HIVA corrections were made. The Hazard Risk Assessment was discussed. Goal is to identify 46 natural hazards. The team continued to work on plan deadlines. Public involvement ideas were
discussed such as a public survey, utilize public information avenues on TV, presentation at both
chapters of the Chamber of Commerce and holding public meetings. Workgroup projects were to
complete the HIVA assessment form, review public survey form, and bring public input ideas to
the next meeting.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
March 11, 2009
Planning Team
Hazard Mitigation Plan update:
A recent article was in the local paper that answered one of the requirements for public
involvement. The committee is working on a section of the Plan at each meeting.
HMPW MEETING #3– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
March 16, 2009
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Still collecting Hazard Risk forms from participants. Local Capability Assessment Surveys need
to be completed and returned. Public involvement ideas were discussed-website survey
approved by members. An article will be placed in the paper that refers the public to the survey.
Two public meetings will be scheduled during the planning process. Projects assigned were to
review the “Critical and Essential Facilities and Hazards list for accuracy. Review the first section
of the plan. Review proposed mitigation initiatives.
HMPW MEETING #4– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
April 2, 2009
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Marty Best, DEM Manager, discussed the process of Hazard Mitigation. The results of the
Hazard Risk Assessment were tabulated and the threats identified (#1Earthquake, #2 Severe
Storm(Severe Winter Storm-Windstorm-Extreme Cold/Ice/Snow), #3 Landslides, #4 FloodRiverine/Stormwater, and #5 Wildfire. The local Capability Assessment Survey was passed out
for review and comment. The 2005 Mitigation Actions were reviewed and discussed those
completed and those that can be carried over into the update. Mitigation strategies and priorities
were discussed. Workgroup projects were to review the Capabilities Assessment and begin
thinking about goals, objectives and actions.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
April 8, 2009
Planning Team
The workgroup is moving through the projects. The HIVA has been completed. The Capabilities
Assessment, Administrative/Technical Assessment, and Fiscal Capabilities have all been
completed. The Workgroup is reviewing the mitigation initiatives from the last Plan. Work on the
goals and objectives has begun.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-4
HMPW MEETING #5– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
May 7, 2009
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
The Capabilities Assessment has been completed. Group began identifying goals and
objectives. The goals identified were #1 Protect Life and Property, #2 Enhance Ability of Critical
Services to Recover, #3 Minimize Damage to Infrastructure, #4 Minimize Public and private
Losses Due to Natural Disasters, and #5 Protect the Environment. Members were tasked to
identify objectives based on the above goals.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
May 13, 2009
Planning Team
Sandi L. reported that it is becoming more difficult to keep people interested in attending the
meetings. The goals and objectives have been identified.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
August 12, 2009
Planning Team
The Hazards and Mitigation Initiatives sections have been completed. A copy of the Risk
Assessment and Mitigation Strategy was handed out for review. Tammi Wright who will assist
with the updating of the plan was introduced.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLAN INVOLVEMENT
September 6, 2009
Email Notice
Where email correspondence was sent out to encourage communities and agencies currently in
the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan to participate in the update process.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
September 9, 2009
Planning Team
The County was awarded the Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant. Work on identifying past history
of hazards is being done.
DRAFT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
September 9, 2009
Email Notice
Where an email was sent to the Planning Team requesting review of the mitigation goals,
objectives, and actions. This will be the focus of the October Planning Team Meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE
September 24, 2009
Press Release
A public notice was sent to the Shelton-Mason County Journal, KMAS radio station and posted
on the Mason County website soliciting public involvement of the update of the Mason County
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
October 6, 2009
Email Notice
Where an email was sent to the Planning Team recommending agency participation regarding
the mitigation Plan update, develoment of mitigation actions, and other actions necessary to
comlete the plan udpate for submittal to the state and FEMA
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
October 14, 2009
Planning Team
Bev O’Dea from the State presented suggestions for the Plan update. Goals and objectives were
reworded and consolidated to be less repetitive and more broadly applied. Objectives were also
reworked to be less repetitive. The revised goals were passed out at the meeting for review and
comment. Mitigation strategies now need to be developed based on the goals and objectives.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-5
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PROJECTS
October 21, 2009
Email Notice
Where an email was sent to provide documents discussed at the last Planning Team Meeting to
all Planning Team members. The documents include a worksheet to help identify hazard
mitigation projects/strategies for each jurisdiction/agency, a worksheet to help prioritize projects
and identify goals and objectives, and the instruction sheet for the proposed actions and
prioritization. Mitigation strategies were sent back from MCFD #2 and Mason County Public
Works Department.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING– MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
December 9, 2009
Planning Team
Tammi provided an update on the work being done. A large amount of time has gone to
gathering information that will provide the documentation required by FEMA. Since the 2004
Plan used a multi-jurisdictional approach it is necessary to know if the jurisdictions included want
to continue to be part of the Plan. A process will be added to the new Plan to allow jurisdictions
to step in at a later time.The process is now entering the “public involvement” phase. She and
Sandi K are scheduled to attend a program at Theler Center in Belfair (Community Disaster
Public Education and Preparedness) on January 16, 2010 to start that process; the Planning
Team involvement also meets that requirement.
PLANNING TEAM MEETING – MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
January 13, 2010
Planning Team
Tammi Wright talked about the hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks that have been identified.
Public outreach is on-going. An email was sent to the jurisdictions who participated in the
original plan to discuss their involvement in the update. There is a process to add jurisdictions at
any time. There must be a profile of each entity involved along with mitigation strategies, which
needs to include a rough idea of projects and costs.
PLAN PARTICIPANTS MEETING (MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL) – MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
February 2, 2010
DEM, Squaxin Tribe, City of Shelton
A meeting was held for all those jurisdictions that were a part of the original plan. Discussed the
requirements that need to be met in order to continue as a plan participant. Only the Squaxin
Tribe and City of Shelton representatives attended. Plan participants must create a profile;
document risks, where they differ from the general planning area; mitigation actions (actions
must be identified for each jurisdiction); participation in the planning process (examples of
participation include attending meetings, contributing research, data or other information,
commenting on drafts of the plan, etc.); and adoption (each jurisdiction must formally adopt the
plan). Those that have not participated in the planning process for this update will need to
develop their own plan with their own public process and add on at a later date.
RISK ANALYSIS TRAINING AT CAMP MURRAY
February 9, 2010
State Emergency Management, FEMA, USGS
Attended a Risk Analysis Training sponsored by WA State Emergency Management, FEMA, and
USGS. Worked with several different counties, cities, tribes, and ports. The training provided
assistance for updating the local plan. We discussed risk and hazard assessment, FEMA
expectations, Tribal requirements and emerging issues.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MEETING – MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
February 10, 2010
Harstene Water District
Tammi Wright held a one-on-one meeting with Larry Curles, Harstene Water District to discuss
the requirements for this SPD to add on to the County Plan. Plan participants must create a
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-6
profile; document risks, where they differ from the general planning area; mitigation actions
(actions must be identified for each jurisdiction); participation in the planning process (examples
of participation include attending meetings, contributing research, data or other information,
commenting on drafts of the plan, etc.); and adoption (each jurisdiction must formally adopt the
plan).
PUBLIC NOTICE
March 1, 2009
March 1, 2009
A public notice was sent to the Shelton-Mason County Journal, KMAS radio station and posted
on the Mason County website soliciting public comment on the final draft of the Mason County
Hazard Mitigation Plan update prior to sending to FEMA for approval.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Early discussions with the Mason County Division of Emergency Management (DEM)
established the initial plan for public involvement. Public outreach began during the plan
development process with an informational press release to inform the public of the
purpose of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the hazard mitigation planning
process for the Mason County planning area. No members of the public attended the
kickoff meeting. The DEM discussed additional options for public involvement and
agreed to an approach using established public information mechanisms and resources
within the community.
An online survey (Appendix E) was available through the Mason County Department of
Emergency Management website from March 2009 until present. The intent was to get
information about the community knowledge and perception of threats to the County.
Information about the survey and the website link was advertised in the local newspaper
and local radio station. No response to the survey was received.
In September 2009 a press release was posted on the County website, announced on
the KMAS Radio Station, and posted in the Shelton-Mason County Journal asking for
public input on the Plan update and to invite them to the Planning Team meetings. To
date comments/suggestions were received via email from two individuals. One
suggestion was for the County to implement a geotechnical review of drainage plans
near critical slopes. The other suggestion was to implement a proactive rather than
reactive approach to unauthorized construction work (especially in potential landslide
hazard areas), revise the Grading Regulations to place equal responsibility on the
contractors for unauthorized work, and to develop an “Unauthorized Construction
Hotline.” Discussions with the Building Department and Planning department indicate
that no changes to the ordinances will occur at this time; however these suggestions will
be considered in future updates. No members of the public attended the Planning Team
meetings.
In March 2010 a second press release was posted on the County website and
announced in the local media asking for public input on the final draft of the plan update.
The draft plan was also available at the March 10, 2010 Planning Team Meeting. No
comments were received. The final draft will be forwarded to Washington State
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-7
Emergency Management Division on April 1, 2010 for review and submission to FEMA
Region X. A Public Hearing will be held prior to final adoption.
Public involvement activities included press releases via the local newspaper and radio
station, website postings, public meetings, and the collection of public comments on the
draft plan. All press releases, website postings, and comments are on file with the
Mason County DEM and are located in Appendix D and E. The plan is available online
on the Mason County DEM website.
EXISTING POLICIES, TOOLS, AND ACTIONS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is also paramount to the success of
this Plan. Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and
actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. Mason County
uses a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as general plans and
ordinances, to guide growth and development. Integrating existing planning efforts and
mitigation policies and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and
comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The
development of this plan incorporated information from the following existing plans.
Mason County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (MCFDPO): The local MCFDPO
effective August 18, 2008 meets the National Flood Insurance Program regulation
requirements and the Community Rating System criteria. The MCFDPO was utilized to
help identify flood damage reduction measures that are necessary for public health,
safety, and welfare and allow property owners to protect their property.
National Flood Insurance Program: Mason County has been a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program since 1991, and all development in the County shall
comply with the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), effective in 1988 and two panels revised in 1998, are
used to identify Special Flood Hazard Areas, identify the location of a specific property
in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Areas, identify the magnitude of flood hazard in
a specific area, to locate regulatory floodways, and enforce floodplain regulations and
the local floodplain ordinance.
FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 17, 1988): The flood insurance study was done to
identify the existence and severity of the flood hazards within the unincorporated areas
of Mason County. This study was utilized to help document some the history and
extent of flooding in Mason County.
Mason County Comprehensive Plan (revised February 2003): The comprehensive
plan serves to guide public decision making in Mason County. It guides the land
development regulations, which will manage private growth and ensure that the
resource lands and the environment are protected. The land use element identifies the
proposed distribution of land uses and addressed other concerns such as the
protection of groundwater quality and quantity, drainage, flooding, and storm water
run-off and potential mitigation measures. The rural element addresses rural lands,
which are not designated for urban growth or natural resource use. Information in this
section was used for the Mason County profile section.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-8
Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO): GMA requires all counties to identify
critical areas including frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical
aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, streams, shorelines, and resource lands. Information
from the MCRO was used to identify potentially hazardous areas and environmentally
sensitive areas, specifically frequently flooded areas.
2006 International Building Codes: Building codes provide minimum safeguards for
people with regard to building safety and fire prevention. Codes protect health, safety
and welfare as they relate to the residential and commercial built environment.
Information utilized from the IBC includes wind zones, snow loads, and seismic areas
of the County.
Washington State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: Information from the State Mitigation
Plan was used to help identify and asses the hazards and risks for Mason County.
Information was also used to help the County align their goals with the State goals and
to reference State Capabilities available to the local jurisdictions.
Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1–3, 2007, in
Western Washington: Information from this report was utilized to identify the landslides
in Mason County that were a result of the December 2007 storm event.
ASSESS THE RISKS
During the update process the HMPW conducted a research effort to identify, document,
and profile the natural hazards that have, or could, impact the planning area. Data
collection worksheets were developed and used in this effort to aid in determining
hazards and vulnerabilities and where the risk varies across the planning area.
The HMPW also conducted a capability assessment to review and document the
planning area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk from and vulnerability to hazards. By
collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations,
ordinances, and emergency plans, the Workgroup could assess those activities and
measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and
vulnerabilities identified.
DEVELOP THE MITIGATION PLAN
As part of the update process the HMPW facilitated brainstorming and discussion
sessions that described the purpose and process of developing planning goals and
objectives, a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method of selecting
and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-9
DRAFT AN ACTION PLAN
Based on input from the Planning Team regarding the draft risk assessment and the
goals and activities, the Workgroup produced a complete first draft of the plan. This
complete draft was posted for review and comment on the DEM website
Other agencies were invited to comment on this draft as well. The Planning Team and
agency comments were integrated into the second public review draft, which was
advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. The Workgroup
integrated comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional
internal review comments and produced a final draft for the State EMD and FEMA
Region X to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by the governing boards
of each participating jurisdiction.
ADOPT THE PLAN
In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the governing boards of each
participating jurisdiction adopted the plan. Adoption of the Plan is discussed further in
Section 7.
IMPLEMENT, EVALUATE, AND REVISE THE PLAN
There are numerous organizations within the Mason County planning area whose goals
and interests interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning
efforts is paramount to the ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in Mason County.
A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public
involvement are addressed later in this Plan.
PROCEDURE TO ADD A COMMUNITY TO THE MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
These guidelines were developed in cooperation with the Washington State Military
Department, Emergency Management Division, Mitigation Section. This guideline has
been incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan update.
1. The community wishing to join the plan contacts the Mason County Department of
Emergency Management with the request to become a participant of the plan.
2. The Mason County Department of Emergency Management provides the community
with a copy of the approved plan, planning requirements and any other pertinent
data.
3. The community reviews the plan and develops the portions of the plan that are
specific to the community as directed by Mason County Department of Emergency
Management staff. This portion of the plan must meet the requirements of the current
FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance including a public process.
4. The new community submits its portions of the plan to the Mason County
Department of Emergency Management and the new community plan is forwarded to
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-10
the State Hazard Mitigation Program Manager for review and compliance with
current FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.
5. The State Hazard Mitigation Program Manager reviews the new community plan for
compliance with current Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance in
conjunction with the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan. If the new community
plan does not meet the required standard, the State Hazard Mitigation Program
Manager will work with the community to resolve issues until it does.
6. The State hazard Mitigation Program Manager forwards the new community plan to
FEMA Region X for review and approval.
7. Upon approval from FEMA Region X, the new community is considered part of the
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan and will comply with the update schedule of
the plan and the Mason County Planning Workgroup.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
PAGE 2-11
SECTION 3: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
CHANGES TO THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT SECTION
The original plan did not include a separate Capability Assessment section so this is new
to the plan. During the update process the Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
(HMPW) determined a Capability Assessment was needed to identify the County’s ability
to implement mitigation actions. Local Capability Assessment Surveys were provided to
the Workgroup. Throughout several meetings the surveys were completed, reviewed,
and accepted by the Workgroup. The capabilities at the state level were also included in
this section.
LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
A capability is defined as a resource or capacity (human, physical, technical,
informational, and/or financial) at all levels of government available for mitigation
initiatives and efforts. The ability of a community to develop an effective hazard
mitigation plan depends on its capability to implement policy and programs.
The Planning Team utilized the following tables to begin an assessment of the County’s
existing ability to implement mitigation activities. This gives the ability to identify how
local programs are being used to reduce the effects of potential hazards in the
community.
The Capability Assessment provided an opportunity to take an inventory of the
jurisdiction’s existing plans and policies and analyze the ability of the County to carry
them out. This process allowed the County to identify gaps and weaknesses that can
potentially be addressed through future mitigation planning goals, objectives, and
actions.
The survey results of the Planning and Regulatory Capability, Administrative and
Technical Capability, Political Capability, and Self-Assessment of Capability are listed in
the following tables.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 1
TABLE 3-1: LOCAL PLANNING AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
Planning/Regulatory
Tool
In
Place
Hazard Mitigation Plan
X
Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (or General, Master
or Growth Mgt. Plan)
Floodplain Management
Plan
Open Space Management
Plan
Storm Water Management
Plan/Ordinance
Natural Resource
Protection Plan
Flood Response Plan
Emergency Operations
Plan
Department/
Agency
Responsible
Emergency
Management
Effect on Loss Reduction
Strongly
Helps
Hinders
Supports
Facilitate
Planning
Department
X
X
Planning
Department
X
X
Public Works/
Planning
Department
X
X
X
X
Comments
X
X
Continuity of Operations
Plan
Evacuation Plan
Under
Development
X
Emergency
Management
X
Each
Department/
Agency
X
Each Facility
X
The storm water ordinance
is in place and the plan is
under development
No Catastrophic Disaster
Evacuation Plan
Disaster Recovery Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Economic Development
Plan
Historic Preservation Plan
X
Floodplain Ordinance
X
Zoning Ordinance
X
Subdivision Ordinance
X
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
X
X
X
X
Unified Development
Ordinance
Building Code
Building
Department
X
X
Post Disaster
Redevelopment/Reconstr
uction Ordinance
Fire Code
National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP)
NFIP Community Rating
System (CRS Program)
Other Plans (please
explain under comments)
Community
Development/
Fire Marshall
Planning
Department
X
X
Planning
Department
X
X
X
X
X
Critical Areas Ordinance
Shoreline Master Program
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 2
TABLE 3-2: ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Staff/Personnel Resources
Yes
No
Department/Agency
Planners with knowledge of land development
X
Planning Department
and land management practices
Engineers or professionals trained in
X
Building Department
construction practices related to buildings
and/or infrastructure
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
X
Planning Department
natural and/or human caused hazards
Emergency Manager
X
Public Works
Floodplain Manager
X
Land Surveyors
X
Scientist familiar with the hazards of the
X
community
Personnel skilled in Geographic Information
X
GIS Department
Systems (GIS) and/or FEMA HAZUS program
Resource development staff or grant writers
X
Comments
Lack of staffing
Political Capability can be generally measured by the degree to which local political
leadership is willing to enact policies and programs that reduce hazard vulnerabilities in
the community, even if met with some opposition.
TABLE 3-3: POLITICAL CAPABILITY
As mentioned in the NFIP section Mason County has adopted a flood ordinance that exceeds the Federal
guidelines. Specifically it has identified one floodplain area in the County as a floodway and has further restricted
all development in this area. The Mason County Resource Ordinance (critical areas) was also adopted to help
guide development in potentially hazardous areas (frequently flooded, landslide hazard, erosion hazard areas,
wetland, streams and shorelines).
Table 3-4 is intended to provide an approximate measure of the County’s capability to
effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities.
TABLE 3-4: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Limited
DEGREE OF CAPABILITY
Moderate
Planning and Regulatory Capability
X
Administrative and Technical Capability
X
Fiscal Capability
X
Political Capability
X
OVERALL CAPABILITY
X
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 3
High
The following table is excerpted from the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan,
November 2007 and identifies the most significant state funded or state administered
practices, policies, programs and regulations related to hazard mitigation or loss
reduction. 1 This provides other capabilities that Mason County can draw upon to support
the county’s ability to implement mitigation activities.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 4
TABLE 3-5: WASHINGTON STATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
(X)
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
Growth Management Services
Critical Areas Ordinance
(RCW 36.70A, WAC 365190-080)
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
Growth Management Services
Natural Hazard Reduction
Element of Local
Comprehensive Plan (RCW
36.70A, WAC 365-190-080)
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
State Building Code Council
State Building Code (RCW
19-27, WAC 51)
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
State Building Code Council
Earthquake Construction
Standards (RCW 70.86)
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
Local Government Division
Community Services Block
Grant loan and grant
programs
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
Yes, for developing
plans and
regulations
X
X
X
X
X
Yes
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 5
DESCRIPTION
Growth Management Act requires all
cities and counties in the state to
identify critical areas including
frequently flooded areas and
geologically hazardous areas, and to
establish regulations that limit
development in those areas.
Growth Management Act allows local
planning jurisdictions to add optional
elements to their comprehensive landuse plans, including an element
dealing with natural hazard reduction.
State Building Code Act adopted in
1974; set 1973 UBC codes as
statewide minimum. The Legislature
approved use of the IBC 2003 building
codes during the 2003 legislative
session. The State Building Code
Council adopted the codes, and made
amendments that took effect July 2004
and July 2007.
Approved in 1955. Requires newly
constructed schools, hospitals, and
places of public assembly to withstand
a lateral force of 5 percent of the
building weight. Law did not keep up
with the changes in code criteria;
outdated by time 1973 building codes
adopted. Remains on the books.
Several of the eight CSBG programs fund
projects in eligible communities that improve,
repair or rehabilitate housing or infrastructure
systems to meet urgent needs or to deal with an
imminent threat to public health and safety.
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
(X)
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
Department of Community Trade
and Economic Development,
Public Works Board
Public Works Trust Fund –
Construction Loans,
Emergency Loans (RCW
43.155, WAC 399-30)
Department of Ecology
Flood Control Assistance
Account Program (RCW
86.26, WAC 173-145)
X
Department of Ecology
Floodplain Management Act
(RCW 86.16, WAC 173158)
X
Department of Ecology
Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58, wac 173-18
and -20)
X
Yes
Department of Ecology
Coastal Zone Management
Act (PL 104-150). Section
306/306A supports
Shoreline Management Act
X
Yes
Department of Ecology
Water Resources Program
– Drought Response (RCW
43.83B.400 to -430, WAC
173-166)
X
Yes
Department of Ecology
Emergency Agricultural
Water Supply Funds (RCW
43.83B.415, WAC 173-166
X
Yes
Department of Natural
Resources
Forest Practices Act (RCW
76.09, WAC 222)
X
Yes
Yes
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 6
DESCRIPTION
Trust fund construction loans allow for
rehabilitation and reconstruction of
eligible public works systems.
Provides financial assistance to local
agencies to prepare comprehensive
flood control management plans and
flood control maintenance projects.
Requires development to avoid the
floodway and minimize harm to
floodplains and wetlands.
Citizens passed the Shoreline
Management Act in 1971 to restrict
development in shoreline areas to
“reasonable and appropriate uses” and
to protect shoreline resources and
aquatic life.
Grant funds are available to eligible
local governments for planning,
environmental inventories, land-use
designation mapping, and policy
development related to shorelines.
Provides emergency water permits,
financial assistance and temporary
transfer of water rights during a statedeclared drought emergency.
Provides grants and loans for
emergency water supply projects in
declared drought areas to help irrigated
crops and fisheries survive.
Among other things, the act requires
owners of forestlands to prevent
landslides caused by logging or other
uses.
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
(X)
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
Department of Natural
Resources
Division of Geology and
Earth Resources (State
Geological Survey)
Department of Natural
Resources
Firewise Program
X
Department of Natural
Resources
Forest Stewardship
Program
X
Yes
Department of Natural
Resources
Forestland Enhancement
Program
X
Yes
University of Washington, and
various partner organizations
Pacific Northwest
Seismograph Network
Governor’s Office
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
X
X
Evaluation of Flood Hazard
in Locating State Facilities,
and Reviewing and
X
Approving Sewage and
Water Facilities and
Subdivisions, Executive
Order 77-11
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 7
DESCRIPTION
Evaluates geologic hazards, develops
hazard maps, conducts damage
assessment following disasters, and
provides advice on mitigation
measures.
Helps landowners in eligible
communities remove trees and brush
that pose a fire hazard to homes that
border forestlands. Property owners
who pay fees to the department for fire
protection are eligible to participate.
Helps family forestland owners with
hazard reduction training and funding
to assist with thinning and other actions
to reduce wildfire hazard.
Provides education, on-site advice and
cost-share assistance to help nonindustrial private forest landowners
develop Forest Stewardship Plans,
complementary to FSP.
Operates a network of seismographs
whose data help scientists understand
Pacific Northwest earthquake hazards
and predict volcanic eruptions at Mount
St. Helens. Network scientists are
active in public outreach and education
for these hazards.
Requires state agencies to avoid locating and
building state facilities, roads, and
campgrounds in floodplains, requires
agencies to flood proof existing facilities, and
to consider reduction of potential flood
damage when reviewing plans for water and
wastewater facilities and residential
subdivisions and trailer parks
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
(X)
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
Governor’s Office
State Agency Risk
Management, Executive
Order 01-05
X
Governor’s Office
Sustainable Practices by
State Agencies, Executive
Order 02-03
X
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Public Assistance Program
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grant Program
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
X
Yes
X
Yes
X
Yes
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 8
DESCRIPTION
Requires state executive agencies to
reduce and minimize loss from tort
claims against the state; it includes
language that could apply to reducing
threats posed by natural hazards
through mitigation.
Requires state executive agencies to
establish sustainability objectives
regarding facility construction,
operation and maintenance; it includes
language that could apply to reducing
threats posed by natural hazards
though mitigation.
This program, available after a
Presidential disaster declaration, funds
hazard mitigation plans and costeffective projects that reduce or
eliminate the effects of hazards and/or
vulnerability to future disaster damage.
Typically, the state provides a portion
of the required non-federal match.
This program, available after a
Presidential disaster declaration,
allows mitigation measures to be
designed into projects to repair or
restore public facilities damaged by the
disaster event.
This annual, nationally competitive
program funds hazard mitigation plans
and cost-effective projects that reduce
or eliminate the effects of hazards
and/or vulnerability to future disaster
damage.
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
(X)
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program
X
Yes
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Repetitive Flood Claims
Program
X
Yes
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Severe Repetitive Loss
X
Yes
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
National Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Program
X
Yes
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Earthquake Program
X
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
HAZUS (Hazards United
States)
X
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 9
DESCRIPTION
This program funds flood mitigation
plans, provides technical assistance,
and funds construction projects that
reduce flood risk to insured, repetitive
loss properties.
This program provides funding to
reduce or eliminate the long-term risk
of flood damage to structures insured
under the NFIP that have had one or
more claim payments for flood
damages.
This program provides funding to
reduce or eliminate the long-term risk
of flood damage to structures that are
insured under NFIP and meet the
definition of severe repetitive loss.
This program provides tsunami
modeling for preparedness planning,
mitigation initiatives, and public
education; provides warning guidance
to local jurisdictions; and facilitates
installation of all-hazard alert systems
in coastal areas.
Provides coordination and oversight of
seismic safety programs, supports
public education and mitigation
planning, and provides tools to support
seismic hazard reduction.
The division provides training and
facilitates local and state use of
HAZUS to support mitigation planning
and development of mitigation
strategies for areas at risk to
earthquake.
AGENCY
PROGRAMS, PLANS,
POLICIES, REGULATIONS,
FUNDING OR PRACTICES
EFFECTS ON LOSS REDUCTION
(X)
SUPPORT FACILITATE HINDER
Military Department (Emergency
Management Division)
Volcano Program
X
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Hydraulic Code (RCW
77.55, WAC 220-110)
X
Department of Transportation
PROVIDES FUNDING
FOR MITIGATION
INITIATIVES
The division coordinates the efforts of
workgroups for each of the state’s five
volcanoes, and helps in the
development of response,
preparedness and mitigation initiatives.
This law requires development in
shorelines of marine and fresh waters
of the state to include mitigation
measures that protect aquatic habitat
and fish. Work also mush comply with
the State Environmental Policy Act.
Highway Bridge
Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program
X
Yes
Emergency Relief Program
X
Yes
Transportation Improvement
Board
Six grant programs for local
transportation projects
(RCW 47.26, WAC 479)
X
Yes
County Road Administration
Board
Rural Arterial Program
(RCW 46.68, WAC 136163)
X
Yes
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
DESCRIPTION
PAGE 3- 10
Funds repairs and rehabilitation of
eligible locally owed bridges, damaged
by natural disaster. Also funds
“betterments” that provide a
reasonable assurance of preventing
future disaster.
Funds temporary and permanent
repairs to federal-aid roads and bridges
damaged by natural disaster. Also
funds “betterments” that provide a
reasonable assurance of preventing
future disaster damage.
Grant funds can reimburse local
jurisdictions for mitigation items that do
not exceed state or federal
requirements.
Under Emergency and Emergent
Provisions, the program provides
funding for temporary or permanent
restoration work on rural roads and
bridges to pre-disaster condition; it may
include reconstruction to current design
standards
ENDNOTES:
1
Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Nov. 2007, pp. Tab 6-Page 8 thru Tab 6-Page 15
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 3: CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
PAGE 3- 11
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk Assessment – Requirements §201.6(c)(2):
The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk
assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and
prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Identifying Hazards – Requirements §201.6(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural hazards that
can affect the jurisdiction.
Profiling Hazards – Requirements §201.6(c)(2)(i):
[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.
Assessing Vulnerability – Requirements §201.6(c)(2)(ii):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of 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.
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.
CHANGES TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT SECTION (CHAPTER 3 OF ORIGINAL PLAN)
The Mason County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) was updated in
January 2009 to include new information on the identified hazards and is on file with the
Mason County Emergency Management Department and on the Mason County website.
The risk assessment in the 2004 plan included earthquakes, flooding, landslides, winter
storms, wildland fires, hazardous materials release, and terrorism/civil disturbance. The
update includes new information about earthquakes, floods, landslides, storms, and
wildland fires. The HMPW reviewed the Hazardous Materials Release and Terrorism/Civil
Disturbance sections of the original plan and determined that the information remains
current, therefore no changes have been made except to include an Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory list that identifies those facilities that handle hazardous
waste within the County. The HMPW will continue to update these hazards after approval
of the plan.
The Workgroup made a decision to utilize the methodology as described in the FEMA
publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses
(FEMA 386-2, 2002) for the update process.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-1
The Risk Assessment was done analyzing specific factors (Historical Occurrence,
Probability, Vulnerability, Maximum Threat, Severity of Impact, and Speed of Onset)
A point score was then given and then a rating scale was used to assess the hazard risk.
Based on the results of the Hazard Risk Assessment and a Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
(posted on website) it was determined the hazards to be included in the Risk Assessment
were earthquakes, flooding, landslides, severe storms, and wildland fires.
The vulnerability analysis section includes new information on the general vulnerability of
land, infrastructure, and population in Mason County. The information utilized Census
population data and GIS analysis.
Hazard profiles were enhanced to include additional historical data and new data
demonstrating the impacts of recent disasters on the community. Utilizing new GIS
capabilities maps were created to define the hazard areas. New information was included
on vulnerability of exposed land, infrastructure, population, and critical facilities to each
identified hazard.
DEFINING RISK
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), risk is a combination
of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. “It is the impact that a hazard would have on
people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a
hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage.”
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the
exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The process allows for a
better understanding of a jurisdiction’s potential risk to natural hazards and provides a
framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future
hazard events and creates partnerships to coordinate and use resources more effectively.
This risk assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication
Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2,
2002), which breaks the assessment down to a four-step process:
•
•
•
•
Identify Hazards;
Profile Hazard Events;
Inventory Assets; and
Estimate Losses.
Data collected through this process has been incorporated into the following sections of
this section:
·
• Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards identifies the natural hazards that threaten
the planning area and describes why some hazards have been omitted from
further consideration.
• Hazard Profiles discusses the threat to the planning area and describes previous
occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-2
•
•
Vulnerability Assessment assesses the Planning Areas’ exposure to natural
hazards; considering assets at risk, critical facilities, and future development
trends.
Capability Assessment inventories existing mitigation activities and policies,
regulations, and plans that pertain to mitigation and can affect net vulnerability.
IDENTIFYING HAZARDS
Before a community can assess ongoing mitigation activities, evaluate mitigation
measures that should be undertaken or outline a strategy for implementing mitigation
projects, it must be aware of those hazards which, if they occur, could harm the
community.
The hazard analysis identifies potential hazards that could affect Mason County for the
purposes of mitigation planning. It is important to note that the focus of mitigation is on
reducing long-term risks of damage or threats to public health and safety caused by
hazards and their effects. In some cases the hazards identified for mitigation will not
include all of or the same hazards identified for preparedness, response or recovery.
The Workgroup has identified the following natural hazards as the most likely to occur and
cause the most significant damage:
o
o
o
o
o
Earthquakes
Flood-Riverine / Storm Water
Landslides
Severe Storms (to include Severe Winter Storm-Windstorm-Extreme
Cold/Ice/Snow)
Wildfires
Utilizing the analysis conducted in Mason County’s 2009 Hazard Identification and
Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) the Workgroup chose to exclude the hazards listed below
from further consideration in this risk assessment because they either occur rarely or not
at all in Mason County, and when they do occur they are very limited in magnitude—or no
or very limited damage is sustained. These hazards will be evaluated again for inclusion
during the next update cycle.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Flood
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Extreme Heat
Hailstorm
Land subsidence
Seiche
Soil Hazards: Subsidence
Hurricane
Tornado
Tsunami (Ocean)
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-3
o
Volcano
The risk assessment identifies how people, properties, and structures will be damaged by
the event. If the hazard can harm people or damage their homes and other structures,
they are vulnerable. Finding the weak points in the system, for example, identifying
building types that are vulnerable to damage and anticipating the loss in high risk areas,
will help the community decide what mitigation measures should be undertaken and how
to implement the activities they select.
In making their hazard analysis and risk assessment choices, the Hazard Mitigation
Planning Workgroup considered the following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Historical Occurrence
Probability
Vulnerability
Maximum Threat
Severity of Impact
Speed of Onset
The following table was used to determine Hazard Risk.
TABLE 4-1: HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT FORM
VULNERABILITY
SPEED OF
ONSET
SEVERITY OF
TOTAL
3
7
9
8
8
9
44
9
9
3
3
4
1
29
9
7
4
3
5
7
35
8
7
7
8
4
1
35
4
9
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
6
1
34
32
IMPACT
MAXIMUM
THREAT
PROBABILITY
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion (4)
Coastal Storm
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood-Riverine / Storm Water (1) (4)
Flood-Coastal (2) (4)
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Landslide
Land Subsidence
Seiche
*Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
*Windstorm
HISTORICAL
HAZARD
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-4
(1) Riverine and storm water flooding may include overflow from a river channel, flash
floods, alluvial fan floods, mudflows and debris flows, ice jam floods, flooding due
to dam failure, local drainage or high groundwater levels, and fluctuating lake
levels.
(2) Coastal flooding includes storm surge, tidal flooding, and wave action
(3) Extreme cold may include ice and snowstorms
(4) Tropical and extra tropical storms (such as hurricanes, northeasters and winter
storms) are typically associated with multiple hazards, such as winds, tornadoes,
coastal flooding, coastal erosion, and/or extreme cold
• Expansive or swelling soils, as their name implies, are soils that swell when
subjected to moisture. These swelling soils typically contain clay minerals that
attract and absorb water.
• Subsidence is the motion of a surface (usually, the Earth’s surface) as it shifts
downward relative to a datum such as sea-level. The opposite of subsidence is
uplift which results in an increase in elevation.
*In order to be more concise and less repetitive Windstorms and Severe Winter Storms
were combined under the category of Severe Storms and include Severe Winter StormWindstorm-Extreme Cold/Ice/Snow events. The average risk score of the two from the
table above is 33.5 (35 + 32 / 2 = 33.5). The following table identifies the level of risk
based on the score.
TABLE 4-2: RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE
SCORE
RISK RATING
6-21
Low Risk
22-37
Moderate Risk
38-54
High Risk
The higher the score on the Hazard Risk Assessment form the higher the risk to the
community. Based on the score earthquakes are rated as high risk and flooding,
landslides, wildland fires, and severe storms are rated moderate risk.
The following tables define each factor and the rating scale the Workgroup used to assess
the hazards risk to the community.
TABLE 4-3: HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE – Number of times that a hazard has occurred in the
community in the past.
RATING
NUMBER OF HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
1-3
• Less than 4 occurrences
3-5
• 4-7 occurrences
5-7
• 8-12 occurrences
7-9
• More than 12 occurrences
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-5
TABLE 4-4: PROBABILITY – Likelihood of the hazard occurrence, sometimes without regard
to hazard history.
RATING
LIKELIHOOD
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
1-3
Unlikely
• Less than 1% probability in the next 100 years
3-5
Possible
• Between 1% and 10% probability in the next year, or
at least one chance in the next 100 years
5-7
Likely
• Between 10% and 100% probability in next year, or
at least one chance in the next 10 years
7-9
Highly Likely
• Near 100% chance in the next year
TABLE 4-5: VULNERABILITY – Measure of the percentage of people and property that would
be affected by the hazard event.
RATING
MAGNITUDE
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AFFECTED
1-3
Negligible
• Less than 10%
3-5
Limited
• 10% to 25%
5-7
Critical
• 25% to 50%
7-9
Catastrophic
• More than 50%
TABLE 4-6: MAXIMUM THREAT – Spatial extent of the community that might be impacted
RATING
MAGNITUDE
PERCENTAGE OF JURISDICTION AFFECTED
1-3
Negligible
• Less than 10%
3-5
Limited
• 10% to 25%
5-7
Critical
• 25% to 50%
7-9
Catastrophic
• More than 50%
TABLE 4-7: SEVERITY OF IMPACT – Assessment of the severity in terms of fatalities,
injuries, property losses, and economic losses.
RATING LIKELIHOOD
CHARACTERISTICS
1-3
Negligible
• Few if any injuries or illness
• Minor quality of life lost with little or not property damage
• Brief interruption of essential facilities and services for less
than four hours
3-5
Limited
• Minor injuries and illness
• Minor or short term property damage that does not threaten
structural stability
• Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 4 to 24 hours
5-7
•
•
Critical
•
7-9
Catastrophic
•
•
•
Serious injury and illness
Major or long term property damage, that threatens structural
stability
Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 24 to 72
hours
Multiple deaths
Property destroyed or damaged beyond repair
Complete shutdown of essential facilities and services for 3
days or more.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-6
TABLE 4-8: SPEED OF ONSET – Potential amount of warning time available before the
hazard occurs.
RATING
PROBABLE AMOUNT OF WARNING TIME
1-3
More than 24 hours warning time
3-5
12-24 hours warning time
5-7
5-12 hours warning time
7-9
Minimal or no warning time
One method the HMPC used to identify hazards was the researching of past events that
triggered federal and/or state emergency or disaster declarations in the planning area.
Federal and/or state disaster declarations may be granted when the severity and
magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and
recover. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster
declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the
disaster be so severe that both the local and state governments’ capacities are exceeded;
a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of
federal assistance. Another method used to identify hazards was extensive research of
office records and old newspaper stories.
The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA).
FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and without
the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and
types of damage are the determining factors.
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
Vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of people, communities or regions to natural or
technological hazards. As a starting point for analyzing the planning area’s vulnerability to
identified hazards, the Workgroup used a variety of data to define a baseline against
which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in
the planning area, this section describes significant assets at risk in the planning area.
Data used in this baseline assessment included:
•
•
•
Total values at risk;
Critical facility inventory;
Future development trends.
Below are tables that identify the general vulnerability to Mason County from the hazards
that were identified in the risk assessment. The analysis includes exposed land, exposed
population, and exposed infrastructure. Please note that Wildfire areas have not yet been
designated and mapping and data collection will be addressed during later updates of the
plan.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-7
TABLE 4-9: GENERAL EXPOSURE
AREA: SQUARE MILES
THREAT
TOTAL
% BASE
Base
940.82
100%
Earthquake
47.58
5.06%
Flood
23.15
2.46%
Landslide
140.69
14.95%
Severe Storm
940.82
100%
*Wildland Fire
*
*
PARCELS
TOTAL
60,254
2,260
3,064
499
60,254
*
% BASE
100%
3.75%
5.06%
0.83%
100%
*
*Wildfire areas have not yet been designated. Mapping and data collection for wildland fires has been
identified as a potential mitigation action and will be addressed in later updates of this plan.
TABLE 4-10: POPULATION EXPOSURE
POPULATION
THREAT
TOTAL
% BASE
Base
Earthquake
Flood
Landslide
Severe Storm
*Wildland Fire
49,405
6,759
7,530
6,610
49,405
*
100%
14%
15%
13%
100%
*
DENSITY
(POP/SQ MI)
53
142
325
47
53
*
SPECIAL POPULATIONS
65+ YEARS
< 18 YEARS
#
%
#
%
8,149 16% 11,619 24%
1,376 20%
1,549
23%
1,457 19%
1,679
22%
1,503 23%
1,279
19%
8,149 16% 11,619 24%
*
*
*
*
*Wildfire areas have not yet been designated. Mapping and data collection for wildland fires has been
identified as a potential mitigation action and will be addressed in later updates of this plan.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-8
TABLE 4-11: GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSURE
LAND VALUE
THREAT
%
AVG. VALUE
TOTAL ($)
BASE
($)
IMPROVED VALUE
%
AVG.
TOTAL ($)
BASE VALUE ($)
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE
%
AVG. VALUE
TOTAL ($)
BASE
($)
BASE
$5,387,989,640
100%
$89,421
$4,864,488,058
100%
$80,733
$10,252,277,698
100%
$170,154
Earthquake
$122,080,830
2.27%
$54,018
$119,679,390
2.46%
$52,955
$241,760,220
$106,974
Flood
$234,524,150
4.35%
$76,542
$171,811,459
3.53%
$56,074
$406,335,609
Landslide
$27,028,420
0.50%
$54,165
$27,187,135
0.56%
$54,483
$54,215,555
Severe
Storm
*Wildland
Fire
$5,387,989,640
100%
$89,421
$4,864,488,058
100%
$80,733
$10,252,277,698
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.36
%
3.96
%
0.53
%
100
%
*
*Wildfire areas have not yet been designated. Mapping and data collection for wildland fires has been identified as a potential
mitigation action and will be addressed in later updates of this plan.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-9
$132,616
$108,648
$170,154
*
CRITICAL FACILITY INVENTORY
Of significant concern with respect to any disaster event is the location of critical facilities in the
planning area. Critical facilities are often defined as those essential services and facilities in a
major emergency which, if damaged, would result in severe consequences to public health and
safety or a facility which, if unusable or unreachable because of a major emergency, would
seriously and adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. A critical facility is
defined as, “those services and facilities necessary during a major emergency.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Primary and alternate Emergency Operations Centers (EOC’s),
Law Enforcement
Emergency Services Communication Infrastructure
Primary and Alternate Computer Information Systems Infrastructure
Hospitals
Major transportation corridors
Fire Stations
Airports
Schools
Water treatment plants
Power generation infrastructure
Fuel pipelines
Fiber-optic lines
Sewage infrastructure
Park Facilities
Water Systems
A list of the critical facilities is located in Section 6: Critical Facilities.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-10
REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES
The table below identifies the repetitive flood loss properties for Mason County. All properties
identified are residential properties.
TABLE 4-12: MASON COUNTY REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES
Building
Average
Location
Value
Losses
Total Paid
Pay
W SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$
60,035
4
$ 62,329
$ 15,582
HAVEN DR
$
53,300
3
$ 44,565
$ 14,855
BOURGAULT RD
$
67,760
4
$ 49,425
$ 12,356
BOURGAULT RD
$ 159,000
5
$109,353
$ 21,871
BOURGAULT RD
$
36,600
3
$ 12,513
$ 4,171
W SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$
68,000
3
$ 21,025
$ 7,008
N U S HIGHWAY 101
$
74,000
2
$ 19,153
$ 9,576
EELLS HILL RD
$
58,072
2
$ 13,806
$ 6,903
SKOKMISH VALLEY RD
$ 131,880
2
$ 30,732
$ 15,366
W SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$ 223,587
3
$ 46,966
$ 15,655
W SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$
87,286
2
$ 13,480
$ 6,740
W SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$
41,000
2
$ 6,128
$ 3,064
NE NORTH SHORE RD
$
75,635
2
$ 8,741
$ 4,371
SKOKOMISH VALLEY RD
$ 102,060
2
$ 7,870
$ 3,935
Totals
$ 1,238,135
39
$ 446,086
$ 11,438
% Dam
vs Value
103.8%
83.6%
72.9%
68.8%
34.2%
30.9%
25.9%
23.8%
23.3%
21.0%
15.4%
14.9%
11.6%
7.7%
36%
Additionally, as a result of the December 2007 flooding, four other properties have been
identified by FEMA as having two losses within 10 years. However, no claims data has been
provided as of yet. There were two additional properties in the Skokomish Valley and two
additional properties in the Tahuya area. This brings the number of identified repetitive flood
properties in Mason County to 18. Maps of the repetitive loss properties are located in Appendix
F.
One clarifying comment, while there are 18 properties in Mason County that meet the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) definition of repetitive flood loss, the areas these properties
are located in could be considered repetitive flood loss “areas” for the purposes of developing
mitigation initiatives.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-11
PROFILING HAZARDS (NOT IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER)
EARTHQUAKE
DEFINITION
An earthquake is a shaking of the earth’s crust, which can be mild or violent depending on the
intensity of the quake. Some areas of the United States are more susceptible to earthquakes
than other areas. An earthquake can be felt in an area ranging from several hundred square
miles to several thousand square miles. If damage occurs, it may be limited to dishes falling
from shelves and breaking or it may topple major buildings, overpasses, bridges and other vital
structures. The Richter Scale is used to measure the magnitude of an earthquake. The Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale is used to describe earthquake effects.
RICHTER AND MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALES
RICHTER SCALE
M=1 to 3: Recorded on local seismographs, but generally not felt.
M=3 to 4: Often felt, no damage.
M=5: Felt widely, slight damage near epicenter.
M=6: Damage to poorly constructed building and other structures within
ten kilometers.
M=7: “Major” earthquake, causes serious damage up to one hundred
kilometers.
M=8: “Great” earthquake, great destruction, loss of life over several
hundred kilometers
M=9: Rare great earthquake, major damage over a large region over one
thousand kilometers.
MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE
I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.
II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately
suspended objects may swing.
III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings,
but many people don not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may
rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck.
IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened.
Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls made cracking sound. Sensations like
heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few
instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees,
poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few
instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and
construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in
poorly build or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by
persons driving motor cars.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-12
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial
buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out
of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls.
Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in
well water. Disturbed persons driving motor cars.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed frame
structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.
Building shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes
broken.
X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides
considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water
splashed (slopped) over banks.
XI. Few, if any masonry, structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures
in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land
slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.
XII. DAMAGE TOTAL. Waves seen on ground surfaces. Lines of sight and level
distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air.
TYPES OF EARTHQUAKES 1
There is a possibility of three different types of earthquake threats to Mason County.
Deep Earthquakes: The three most recent damaging earthquakes in Washington, in 2001
(magnitude 6.8, near Olympia), 1965 (magnitude 6.5, located between Seattle and Tacoma),
and in 1949 (magnitude 7.1, near Olympia), were roughly 40 miles deep and were in the
oceanic plate where it lies beneath the continent. Each earthquake caused serious damage,
and was felt as far away as Montana. No aftershocks were felt following the 1965 and 1949
earthquakes, and only 2 small aftershocks were felt after the 2001 quake. Other sizable
events which were probably deep occurred in 1882, 1909, and 1939.
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes: The largest historic earthquake in Washington or Oregon
occurred in 1872 in the North Cascades. This earthquake had an estimated magnitude of 7.4
and was followed by many aftershocks. It was probably at a depth of 10 miles or less within
the continental crust. Many other crustal sources in Washington and Oregon could also
produce damaging earthquakes. Recent studies have found geologic evidence for large
shallow earthquakes 1,100 years ago within the central Puget Basin. Massive block landslides
into Lake Washington, marsh subsidence and tsunami deposits at West Point in Seattle,
tsunami deposits at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island, and large rock avalanches on the
southeastern Olympic Peninsula have all been dated to approximately 1,100 years ago.
Subduction Zone Earthquakes: Although no large earthquakes have happened along the
offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone since our historic records began in 1790, similar
subduction zones worldwide do produce "great" earthquakes - magnitude 8 or larger. These
occur because the oceanic crust "sticks" as it is being pushed beneath the continent, rather
than sliding smoothly. Over hundreds of years, large stresses build which are released
suddenly in great earthquakes. Such earthquakes typically have a minute or more of strong
ground shaking, and are quickly followed by damaging tsunamis and numerous large
aftershocks. The Alaskan earthquake of 1964 was a great subduction zone earthquake.
Geologic evidence shows that the Cascadia Subduction Zone has also generated great
earthquakes, and that the most recent one was about 300 years ago.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-13
LOCATION AND EXTENT
FIGURE 4-1: M AJOR FAULT ZONES IN PUGET SOUND
2
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW .PNSN.ORG/INFO_GENERAL/FIG.PUG_FLTS.GIF
In Western Washington, the primary tectonic
plates of interest are the Juan de Fuca and
North American plates. The Juan de Fuca
plate moves northeastward with respect to
the North American plate at a rate of about 4
cm per year. The boundary where these two
plates converge, the Cascadia Subduction
Zone, lies approximately 50 miles offshore
and extends from the middle of Vancouver
Island in British Columbia to northern
California. As it collides with North America,
the Juan de Fuca plate slides (or subducts)
beneath the continent and sinks into the
earth’s mantle. Mason County is vulnerable
to the results of this continual movement of
the earth’s tectonic plates.
To better understand the earthquake risk in
the County and region, Figure 4-1 shows the
major faults in the Puget Sound and Map 4-1
shows the seismic hazard areas throughout
Mason County as defined by liquefiable soils.
All areas of Mason County are susceptible to
the effects of earthquakes. However some
areas are more vulnerable than others
depending on the severity and location of the
earthquake. Map 4-1shows the earthquake
faults that lie specifically within Mason
County and the areas of liquefaction
susceptibility. The liquefaction susceptibility
is a measure of the physical characteristics of a soil deposit, such as grain texture, compaction,
and depth of groundwater, that determine the propensity of the soil to liquefy during earthquake
shaking.
The Saddle Mountain East Fault, Frigid Creek Fault, and Canyon Creek Fault are located north
and west of Hoodsport near the Olympic National Forest. The Saddle Mountain fault was first
recognized in the early 1970’s. Drowned trees and trench excavations demonstrate that the fault
produced a MW 6.5-7.0 earthquake 1,000-1,300 years ago, likely occurring with the MW 7.5
Seattle fault earthquake 1,100 years ago.
The Hood Canal fault zone is a continuous 75 km-long fault line beginning near Potlatch and
following Hood Canal north.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-14
MAP 4-1: MASON COUNTY EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-15
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
The Puget Sound region is entirely within Seismic Risk Zone 3, requiring that buildings be
designed to withstand major earthquakes measuring 7.5 in magnitude. It is anticipated,
however, that earthquakes caused from subduction plate stress can reach a magnitude greater
than 8.0.
The part of Washington State east of the Cascades has historically been subject to shallow,
though infrequent, smaller earthquakes up to magnitude of 6.0. Washington State has
experienced the following magnitude 5 earthquakes. Mason County has been impacted by
those incidents in bold print.
TABLE 4-13: WA STATE EARTHQUAKE HISTORY
WASHINGTON STATE SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKES
Time
(PST)
Latitude/
Longitude
December 12, 1880
2040
47.30' 122.30'
April 30, 1882
2248
47.00' 123.00'
November 29, 1891
1521
48.00' 123.30'
March 6, 1893
1703
45.54' 119.24'
January 3, 1896
2215
March 16, 1904
Date
Depth
(Km)
Mag
Location
5.5
Puget Sound
6.0
Olympia area
5.0
Puget Sound
4.9
SE Washington
48.30' 122.48'
5.7
Puget Sound
2020
47.48' 123.00'
5.3
Olympics eastside
January 11, 1909
1549
48.42' 122.48'
6.0
Puget Sound
August 18, 1915
0605
48.30' 121.24'
5.6
North Cascades
January 23, 1920
2309
48.36' 123.00'
5.5
Puget Sound
July 17, 1932
2201
47.45' 121.50'
shallow
5.2
Central Cascades
deep
shallow
deep
July 15, 1936
2308
46.00’ 118.18'
shallow
5.7
SE Washington
November 12, 1939
2346
47.24' 122.36'
deep
5.7
Puget Sound
April 29, 1945
1216
47.24' 121.42'
5.5
Central Cascades
*February 14, 1946
1914
47.18' 122.54'
40
6.3
Puget Sound
April 13, 1949
1155
47.06'1 22.42'
54
7.1
Puget Sound
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-16
WASHINGTON STATE SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKES
Time
(PST)
Date
Latitude/
Longitude
Depth
(Km)
Mag
Location
August 5, 1959
1944
47.48' 120.00'
35
NW Cascades
*April 29, 1965
0728
47.24' 122.24’
63
6.5
Puget Sound
February 13, 1981
2209
46.21' 122.14'
7
5.5
South Cascades
April 13, 1990
2133
48.51' 122.36'
5
5.0
Deming
January 28, 1995
1911
47.23' 122.21'
16
5.0
May 2, 1996
2104
47.46' 121.57'
7
5.3
June 23, 1997
1113
47.36' 122.34'
7.4
4.9
*July 2, 1999
1743
47.05' 123.28'
41
5.1
17.6 km NNE of
Tacoma
10.2 km ENE of
Duvall
5.5 km NE of
Bremerton
8.2 km N of Satsop
*February 28, 2001
1054
47. 09’ 122.52’.
52.4
6.8
17.6 km NE of
Olympia
Washington ranks second in the nation after California among states vulnerable to earthquake
damage according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency study. The study predicts
Washington is vulnerable to an average annual loss of $228 million. 3
A shock, which reached a maximum intensity of VII at a number of places in the Puget Sound
area was felt over about 182,000 square km, occurred on February 14, 1946. A few deaths
were attributed indirectly to the shock; damage was estimated at $250,000, mostly in Seattle.
Most of the reported damage was limited to cracked plaster and slight chimney failure, but there
were a few cases of spectacular building damage in Seattle. The magnitude 5 3/4 tremor was
also felt in southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Oregon.
One of the strongest earthquakes on record for the Puget Sound area followed a few months
later. A magnitude 7.3 shock in the Strait of Georgia on June 23, 1946, caused the bottom of
Deep Bay to sink between 2.7 and 25.6 meters. These measurements were reported by the
Canadian Hydrographic Department. Also, a 3 meter ground shift occurred on Read Island. One
person was drowned when a small boat was overturned by waves created by a nearby
landslide. Waves were reported sweeping in from the sea, flooding fields and highways. Heavy
damage occurred in the epicentral region. South of the Washington State boundary, some
chimneys fell at Eastsound and on Orcas Island and a concrete mill was damaged at Port
Angeles. Some damage occurred on upper floors of tall buildings in Seattle. The shock was
strongly felt at Bellingham, Olympia, Raymond, and Tacoma. The total affected area in Canada
and the United States was about 260,000 square km.
Property damage estimated at upwards of $25 million resulted from a magnitude 7.0 earthquake
near Olympia on April 13, 1949. Eight deaths were caused either directly or indirectly, and many
were injured. At Olympia, nearly all large buildings were damaged, and water and gas mains
were broken. Heavy property damage was caused by falling parapet walls, toppled chimneys,
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-17
and cracked walls (MM VIII). Electric and telegraphic services were interrupted. Railroad service
into Olympia was suspended for several days; railroad bridges south of Tacoma were thrown
out of line, delaying traffic for several hours. A large portion of a sandy spit jutting into Puget
Sound north of Olympia disappeared during the earthquake. Near Tacoma, a tremendous
rockslide involving a 0.8 km section of a 90 meter cliff toppled into Puget Sound. The felt area
extended eastward to western Montana and southward to Cape Blanco, Oregon, covering about
400,000 square km in the United States. A large portion of western Canada also experienced
the shock.
On November 5, 1962, a moderately strong earthquake caused minor damage in the
Vancouver, Washington - Portland, Oregon, area. Numerous chimneys were cracked or shaken
down (MM VII) in Portland. Several buildings had tile ceilings fall, and other damage such as
cracked plaster and broken windows were reported. Slight damage was reported from several
towns in Washington. The tremor was felt over an area of approximately 52,000 square km of
Washington and Oregon. The magnitude was measured at 4 3/4.
A magnitude 6.5 shock on April 29, 1965, which was centered very close to the epicenter of the
1949 earthquake, caused about $12.5 million damage. Three persons were killed by falling
debris, and the deaths of four elderly women from heart failure were attributed to the
earthquake. There were numerous injuries, but most were minor. The shock was characterized
by a relatively large intensity VII area and small pockets of intensity VIII damage in Seattle and
Issaquah. Extensive damage to chimneys was noted in West Seattle. In 188 city blocks, it was
found that 1712 of 5005 chimneys were damaged. Two schools in West Seattle and two brick
school buildings in Issaquah were damaged considerably. In general, damage patterns
repeated those experienced during the 1949 shock. Buildings that apparently had been
damaged in 1949 often sustained additional damage in 1965. The tremor was felt over 340,000
square km of Washington, Oregon, northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, and part of British
Columbia.
A magnitude 5.3 earthquake hit Seattle on May 2, 1996. Information about this earthquake is
available from the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network. Another earthquake struck Western
Washington on July 2, 1999. Information about this earthquake is available from EQE, a
consulting company. * The most recent major earthquake, the Nisqually quake, was a
magnitude 6.8 quake and struck near Olympia, WA on February 28, 2001. 4
VULNERABILITY
The effects of earthquakes are highly variable depending on magnitude, proximity to the
population centers, depth, types of soil on which structures are located, local building codes,
age and type of structures, time of day, and a multitude of other factors.
People, buildings, emergency services, hospitals, transportation, dams, and electric, natural
gas, water and sewer utilities are susceptible to an earthquake. Effects of a major earthquake
in the Puget Sound basin are catastrophic, providing the worst-case disaster short of war.
Thousands of people could be killed and many tens of thousands injured or left homeless. An
earthquake in the Puget Sound basin would directly affect Mason County either through mutual
aid needs or through refugee migration into the county. Earthquake activity in eastern
Washington would produce much less dramatic effects.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-18
Washington State, especially the Puget Sound basin, has a history of frequent earthquakes.
More than 1,000 earthquakes are recorded in the state annually. Large earthquakes in 1949,
1965 and 2001 caused over $1 billion in damages throughout Puget Sound. The most recent
earthquake, the “Nisqually Quake” on February 28, 2001, was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake
located 17.6 kilometers northeast of Olympia. 5
Effects of a major earthquake in the Puget Sound basin area could be catastrophic, providing
the worst-case disaster short of drought-induced wild fire sweeping through a suburban area.
Hundreds of residents could be killed and a multitude of others left homeless.
Although recorded damage sustained to date in Mason County has been relatively minor and
has been restricted to some incidence of cracked foundations, walls and chimneys, and damage
to private wells, depending on the time of day and time of year, a catastrophic earthquake could
cause hundreds of injuries, deaths and hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage.
There are two critical facilities located near or within an earthquake hazard area. The new
Public Works facility / EOC is located within 500' of a fault line and Fire District #1 Station 1 is
within a liquefaction zone as shown on Map 4-2.
Vulnerability to earthquake hazards can be reduced through engineering approaches that
render a structure relatively resistant to hazards, such as building codes, parapet ordinances,
seismic retrofits, bulkheads and retaining walls, or by positioning a structure on a less
hazardous part of a property. Development in seismic hazard areas is guided by building code
and the critical area ordinance to prevent the acceleration of manmade and natural geological
hazards, and to neutralize the risk to the property owner or adjacent properties from
development activities.
Map 4-3 shows development within the county from January 2005 to the present. These permits
have been overlayed onto the earthquake hazard areas to show the development trends in the
earthquake hazard zones. The total number of permits issued in earthquake-liquefaction hazard
areas is 218 or 3% of the total permits issued (7,366). There are approximately 48 sq. miles
(2,260 parcels) of land in earthquake-liquefaction hazard areas in Mason County. The total
assessed value in this hazard zone is $241,760,220 (land value of $122,080,830 + improved
value of $119,679,390). Please note that the building permits issued include all types of permits
(remodel, reroof, additons, etc.), not just new structures. Currently there are not enough
resources in either personnel or time to separate which permits were issued for new
construction and which were issued for other types of construction.
The occurrence frequency probability for earthquakes was something that was developed
following the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001. Based upon recent events, Western Washington
can reasonably expect a damaging earthquake in the 6+ range about every 35 years based
upon the 1949, 1965, and the 2001 events. While not an exact science it does plan a
reasonable probability for planning purposes.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-19
MAP 4-2: CRITICAL FACILITIES IN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD AREAS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-20
MAP 4-3: EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS W/ BUILDING PERMIT OVERLAY
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-21
RESOURCES
United States Geological Survey; http://www.usgs.gov/
University of Washington Geophysics Program; http://www.ess.washington.edu/
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Washington State Department of Transportation; http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/
Washington State Emergency Management; http://www.emd.wa.gov/
The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network; http://www.pnsn.org/
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-22
FLOODING
DEFINITION
A flood is an inundation of normally dry land resulting from the rising and overflowing of a
body of water. It is a natural, geologic process that shapes the landscape, but can be
exacerbated by development and other human activities. Floodplain locations are most at
risk to riverine or stream flooding.
TYPES OF FLOODING
River Flooding: These floods typically occur with the melting of winter snow coupled with
heavy spring rainfall, resulting in overfilled river basins. Heavy rainfalls from tropical storm
systems may also produce river flooding.
Coastal Flooding: These floods are the result of ocean waters being driven inland, most
commonly by tropical storms, or less commonly as a result of tidal waves driven by
earthquakes.
Urban Flooding: These increasingly common floods are the result of urban/suburban
sprawl, where developed land areas lose their ability to absorb rainfall. Development may
increase runoff up to six times over what would occur naturally in its absence.
Flash Flooding: These floods commonly result from rainfall of exceptional intensity and
duration, and may occur within minutes or a few hours of such rainfall. Other causes may
be the failure of dams or levees, or the releases of ice jams.
Tidal changes from Hood Canal combined with increased runoff from the Olympics have
produced a history of frequent flooding in Mason County.
Most flooding in Mason County is due to river and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is
seen on all main rivers and tributaries in the rural portions of the county. Urban flooding
generally occurs within the boundaries of the Shelton, Belfair, and Allyn urban growth
areas.
LOCATION AND EXTENT
Flooding is the most common hazard occurring in Mason County. Heavy, prolonged rain
in the fall, winter or spring months often results in saturated ground and high stream flows.
Due to ground saturation, Mason County businesses and homes located in low-lying
areas tend to flood during prolonged periods of rain.
Mason County is subject to flooding by several of its rivers. Those include the Satsop, the
Tahuya, the Union, and the Skokomish Rivers. Flooding in the first three rivers can
effectively cut off pockets of residents due to mudslides and water over the roadways.
Close monitoring of the rivers in addition to emergency notification systems keep citizens
aware when heavy rain is forecast.
The primary flood concern in Mason County is the Skokomish River. The National
Weather Service (NWS) refers to the Skokomish River as the “flashiest river in
Washington, where a teaspoon of rain can result in flooding”. What used to be the
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-23
“normal” flood season of October through March in western Washington no longer applies
to the Skokomish River as indicated by the issuance of a Flood Warning in July of 2007 by
the NWS.
Flooding on the Skokomish River causes closure of U. S. Highway 101, the main northsouth route through the County, at least once annually. Threat to citizens and damage to
homes located in the Skokomish Valley has been mitigated to some degree by past
acquisition and elevation projects funded through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP). A list and maps of both mitigated and repetitive flood loss properties is provided
in Appendix E.
FIGURE 4-2: U.S. HIGHWAY 101 NORTH OF SHELTON FLOODED OVER BY NEARLY FOUR FEET OF
FLOODWATERS. PHOTO TAKEN DECEMBER 3, 2007 AT THE HEIGHT OF THE EVENT
Although most significant flood events occur on the Skokomish, Tahuya, Union, and
Satsop Rivers, there are several other areas that can be affected by flooding. Map 4-4
below identifies the location of the FEMA A flood zones within Mason County. There is
approximately 23 sq. miles of land within flood hazard areas. The A zone or 100-yr flood is
a flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year; also
know as the base flood. A structure located within this special flood hazard area has a 26
percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-24
MAP 4-4: FEMA FLOOD ZONES
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-25
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
Mason County is subject to flooding by several of its rivers. Those include the Satsop, the
Tahuya, the Union, and the Skokomish Rivers. Flooding in the first three rivers can
effectively cut off pockets of residents due to mudslides and water over the roadways.
Close monitoring of the rivers in addition to emergency notification systems keep citizens
aware when heavy rain is forecast.
To get a better understanding of the extent of flooding and the impacts to the County an
extensive search of office records and the local newspaper (Shelton-Mason County
Journal) was done to provide a complete history of flooding in Mason County has outlined
in Table 4-14 below.
TABLE 4-14: HISTORICAL HAZARD EVENTS FROM LOCAL JOURNAL REPORTS/OFFICE RECORDS
DATE
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
2/1949
Ice & Snow Storm/
Flooding
2/1951
Rain Storm/Flooding
1/1954
Flooding/Snow Storm
Slide on East Bay near city docks pulled down a strip of blacktop about
2 feet wide. Mud was deposited on an unoccupied cabin. A slide was
reported in Purdy Canyon. Run off water along the south banks of
Hammersley tideflats broke off a part of a tank at the Emhoff sewage
disposal plant. County roads suffered about 10% damage due to
freeze-thaw cycles (125 miles of oil roads and 400 miles of gravel
roads). Deep snow closed the road from Robinson’s Resort at Cushman
to Big Creek. The worst road damage occurred to Cloquallum, Matlock,
and Arcadia roads where water was oozing through the blacktop. Mill
Creek washed out the old Berger Road four miles southwest of Shelton.
Army amphibious units were deployed to rescue Skokomish Valley
residents. One person drowned when his vehicle was swept off the road
by rushing water.
A total of 6.11 inches of rain fell in 24 hours. Goldsborough Creek
overflowed its banks and caused damage to a wooden bridge. Cars
were rerouted. Skokomish Valley had water depths ranging from a few
inches to depths over a man’s head in places. No evacuations were
done. County road damage was estimated at about $25,000 (minor
washouts of small fills and culverts and loss of trestle bents on wooden
bridges).
Flooding of Finch Creek sent logs and debris into the fish hatchery
grounds and flooded the fishponds. However, few fish were lost. Bridge
approach to MacLean Cove Bridge was washed out. Heavy snow
isolated many families in the Dayton, Matlock, Hoodsport, and other
outlying communities. Numerous barn and chicken house roofs caved in
under heavy snow. Electric and telephone service was out periodically
in many communities. The business district of Hoodsport received 36
inches of snow bringing business and transportation to a standstill.
Damage was mostly confined to TV antennas and gutters/downspouts.
The Lower Skokomish Community Hall collapsed.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-26
DATE
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
2/1954
Heavy Rains/Flooding
11/1955
Snow/Rains/
Flooding
1/1961
Rain Storm/Flooding
12/1964
Snow/Rain Storm
Flooding
1/1968
Rain/Flooding
Rain totaling 19.4 inches fell during the 11 days prior to 2/11, with 3.73
inches in a single 24-hour period on 2/16. A slide of earth and trees
blocked the road for several hours between The Treasure Chest and
The Grove.
Ten families were evacuated from the Skokomish Valley in Army
Amphibious vehicles. High water threatened the Vance Creek Bridge
and Highway 101 was closed. Logging operations above the valley
were temporarily closed. A culvert washed out on Highway 14-A and a
detour was set up and a temporary bridge was installed. A slide pushed
a house onto the South Shore Road near Alderbrook. Washout of a pier
closed the Dry Creek Bridge west of Mary M. Knight School. A bridge
was closed on Dewatto Creek and a Bear Creek Road culvert washed
out. In the Union area slides brought down telephone and utility lines.
There was a washout on Hwy 101 across from Tillicum Beach (near
Hoodsport) and a garage was damaged. Flooding on the Satsop River
damaged the road into the former Schafer Camp. Considerable damage
to US Forest Service Roads in the Shelton district was also reported.
Damage to county roads estimated at $45,000. The Weaver Creek
bridge (removed from foundation) and Dewatto Creek bridge were
damaged. Several smaller bridges in the Baldpoint-Tahuya area were
also damaged. County roads in the Skokomish Valley, Tahuya Valley,
and Dewatto Valley were impassable. A few privately owned bulkheads
on the canal collapsed and several basements were flooded.
Snow and heavy rains caused slides and water run-off causing damage
to 2 houses along Hwy 21 above Alderbrook. The slide knocked the
houses about 12 feet off the foundations and covered half the highway.
One house was unoccupied. The other residents were not injured.
Slides and running water closed the Purdy Cut-Off Road. Snow
accumulation amounted to 20 inches in Union and Hoodsport areas, 19
inches at Lilliwaup, 16 inches at Dayton, 20 inches in the Matlock area,
and 36 inches at the upper end of Lake Cushman. Shelton, Kamilche
and Mary M. Knight schools were closed for 1 day. Falling branches
and the weight of the snow caused numerous power outages.
Numerous reports were received of roofs of barns, sheds, carports, and
garages collapsing under the weight of the snow. Snow (4 ½ feet deep)
closed logging operations at Camps Grisdale and Govey. Dairymen in
the Skokomish Valley couldn’t operate milking machines or water cattle
due to power outages. At the height of the storm only 150 of the 1600
PUD customers had electricity. Cost of the storm damage was
estimated between $25,000 and $30,000.
Minor washouts to county roads. Repairs estimated at $10,000. Some
minor flooding in the Skokomish Valley was reported. Heavy rains
caused a debris slide that covered Highway 101 just north of Ayock
Beach. No injuries.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-27
DATE
1/1972
11/1973
1/1974
12/1975
12/1979
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
Snow/Rain/Wind
Storm/Flooding
Flooding/Landslide
Flooding/Landslides
High winds caused the top of a fir tree to break off and damaged a
South Shore home. High winds also uprooted another fir tree that
caused extensive damage to a home at Camp Robbinswold (near
Lilliwaup). No injuries. During a two week period Mason County
residents were hit by gale force winds, soaked with 8 inches of rain, and
buried under a foot or more of snow. Approximately 200 phones were
out of service and there were sporadic power outages. Extensive
flooding in the Skokomish Valley caused the closure of the bridge over
the Skokomish on Highway 101. Damage to the rest of the county was
confined to mud slides, which blocked a few roads.
Heavy rains combined with high tides put water over the roads in
several places in the Skokomish Valley. There was a slide over the
Skokomish Valley road near the Govey intersection. A slide on the
Cushman Road reduced traffic to one lane. A slide on Harstine Island
near the intersection of Wingert Road also reduced traffic to one lane.
One lane of Highway 302 was washed out near Victor.
Water over the roadways closed the Skokomish Valley Road and W.
Bourgault Road. A slide closed the Govey Road and the upper end of
Skokomish Valley. National Guardsmen with high wheeled rigs were on
duty to help residents get out of the valley. In other areas of the County
there were small problems with trees and slides across roadways.
Flooding/Landslides
Damage to county roads totaled $135,000 to $185,000. Footings on the
Goldsborough Creek Bridge were impacted by flood water and the pier
dropped about 6 inches. The estimated repair cost was $75,000. A
large section of the Shelton Valley Road slid into the field below.
Estimated cost of repair was $20,000. Flooding in the Skokomish Valley
resulted in substantial damage to a number of levees along the river.
Numerous residences had water damage. Several persons were
evacuated from their homes by boat. The total estimate of damages to
private and farm land was $300,000.
Flooding/Landslides
Heavy rains along with snowmelt created numerous flood, mudslide, and road
washout problems. Highway 101 from just north of Hoodsport to Jefferson
County was closed on two occasions due to slides. Highway 106 was blocked
for a short time due to water over the roadway. Highway 302 in the Allyn-Victor
area also experienced slides blocking one lane of traffic. Nine county roads
were closed and another five had one-way traffic. Fifteen local National Guard
members were called to assist with evacuation of 28 Skokomish Valley
residents. A Tahuya woman was evacuated by boat due to the closure of
Burma Road. Damage to county roads estimated at $375,000 to $515,000 and
damage to other property at $160,000. National Guard was called to help open
the Tahuya River Valley Tracts Road that threatened to isolate residents. A
plugged culvert under Caty Creek sent water over the road and flowed through
some yards causing flood damage to one residence and three flooded
basements. As the floodwater flowed to the canal one bulkhead was washed
out. Flooding of the Tahuya River caused damage to a 15-foot trailer and
destroyed a storage shed and all the tools inside, including a tractor. One
family was forced from their home and lost sheetrock and electrical tools that
were in their attached garage.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-28
DATE
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
1/1981
Flooding
11/1990
Wind Storm/Flooding/
Landslides
11/1995
Wind Storm/Flooding
3/1997
Heavy rains and warm temps brought flooding to the Skokomish Valley
and closed the road for several hours. Only one family asked for
evacuation from the Skokomish Valley. Highway 101 was closed at
Purdy Creek Bridge and blocked ½ mile north of Hoodsport. Highway
106 at the Skokomish River Bridge was closed. A slide occurred on
Highway 302 closing the road between Allyn and Victor. Mud slides on
the North Shore Road and Purdy Cutoff Road were the most serious
problems encountered-blocking both lanes. There were eight plugged
culverts on the North Shore Road and two on the Old Belfair Highway.
Damage to county roads was estimated at $16,000. Several homes on
the Tahuya riverbank incurred damage, ranging from bank washouts to
silt damage and shifting of a mobile home by several inches.
Between 8 and 15 inches of rain fell in a four-day period. County road
damage, including replacement costs for a bridge over Mission Creek
totaled $260,000. Several homes were extensively damaged in the
Skokomish Valley and two homes were uninhabitable. Twenty five
people were evacuated from the Valley. WSDOT had Highways 101,
106 and 3 closed at various times for two days due to water over the
roadway and localized erosion. The cost for State road damage was
$34,000. Other roads damaged included Harstine Island South Road,
Agate Road near Libby Road, Mason Lake Road West, Chapman,
Purdy Cutoff Road and Cloquallum Creek and Kamilche Point Road.
PUD 3 expended $50,000 to restore power. Washington State
Department of Ecology said the rainfall was over the 200-yr. storm
event for the state and for Mason County the downpour appeared to be
in the 50-yr-flood frequency.
Heavy rains caused flooding in the Skokomish Valley closing the
Skokomish Valley Road and W. Bourgault Road for a day and E.
Bourgault Road for several days. There were minor slides on North
Shore Road and Sunnyside Road. A slide damaged the BP station at
Hoodsport. Part of the roof and the back of the building caved in. High
winds of about 70-80 mph hit the area. Several trees came down along
State Route 119 (Cushman Road) and power was out in several areas.
The PUD #1 estimated $45,000 in damages and two families had
damages in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Emergency Services
received reports that 6 homes were hit by trees with numerous other
residences, outbuildings, and vehicles damaged. The roof of a mobile
home at Fawn Lake was torn off by winds. One death resulted from the
inability of emergency crews to get through downed trees and power
lines. Damage to PUD #3 property was estimated at $900,000.
Week of torrential rain created flooding and landslides. Highway 101 was blocked in
several places and the Tahuya Peninsula was cut off when Highway 300 was closed.
Simpson Timber Company’s Sawmill 5 was flooded and Goldsborough Creek was
starting to spill over to Sawmill 3. Old Belfair Highway was washed out at the Union
River Bridge. Several other roads (13 total) throughout the county were also closed.
Slides closed the North Shore Road and 5 homes were posted for evacuation due to
risk of further sliding.
Flooding
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-29
DATE
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
11/1999
Flooding/Landslides
10/2003
Flooding
11/2006
Rain-Flooding/Wind
Storm
11/2007
Flooding
Between 11/12/99 and 3/3/00 a series of warm, wet weather systems
entered the area that resulted in heavy and prolonged rainfall that was
exacerbated by rapid snow melt. Damage assessments identified
eleven damaged homes (three of which were destroyed). Slides closed
Highway 101 in three places (north of Lilliwaup, the two others located
south of Eldon-South Jorsted slide and Jorsted Creek Log Dump slide.
The cost of permanent repairs was estimated at $8-$10 million for the
Lilliwaup slide and in the range of $25 million for the Eldon vicinity
slides. County road damage was estimated at $46,000. A slide behind
the Cushman No. 2 Powerhouse resulted in the switchyard and the
powerhouse floor being covered with 14,000 cubic yards of mud and
debris. Electric generation at both of the Cushman Project powerhouses
was shut down. Eight homes were red tagged (Do Not Occupy) and 6
homes were yellow tagged (watch list) in the Lilliwaup/Carroll Point area
due to slides and water runoff. The estimated total private loss/damage
of primary residences was $1,208,000.
Roads closed due to washouts and slides included Tahuya River Rd.,
Bearcreek-Dewatto Rd, Tahuya River Dr., Webb Hill, Carmen Road N.,
Agate Loop, Eells Hill, Creekside Dr., Northshore Rd. (MP 4) Trails
Road to Hwy 106, Skokomish Valley Rd., Bourgault Rd., SatsopCloquallum Rd, and Purdy Cutoff Rd. The basement of the local
hospital flooded. Approximately 100 PUD customers were out of power.
Damage of approximately $940,000 was reported to county roads.
Tahuya River Road had $150,000 in damages, Bear Creek-Dewatto Rd.
had $350,000 in damages, Tahuya River Dr. had $300,000 in damages,
Webb Hill, Carmen Rd. N. and Agate Loop Rd. N had $10,000 in
damages each, and Creek Side Dr. had $25,000 in damages. There
were 326 parcels cut off due to a culvert washout at Tahuya River Dr.,
which closed the road for 4 days. The private sector reported about
$585,000 in losses.
A series of storms over a period of 1 week dropped 13.84 inches of rain.
A mudslide closed Hwy. 101 in both directions as Sunnyside Rd. The
slide was 6 feet deep and contained trees. A mudslide between Hwy.
101 and McReavy Rd. closed State Rte. 106 in both directions. High
winds knocked out power to approximately 4,000 PUD customers
countywide. Normally docile Gosnell Creek overflowed its banks and
spilled over Bolling Rd. stranding residents on the south side of the
valley. Flooding on the Skokomish Valley Rd. swamped 2 vans carrying
brush pickers. A truck from Fire District 9 transported all seventeen to
safety. Skokomish Valley Rd. and Satsop-Cloquallum Rd. near Plug Mill
Rd. were closed due to water over the roadway.
Impacts caused over $11 million dollars in damages to local public
infrastructure and the initial impact to residents was reported to be over
$12 million dollars. Eighteen County roads were closed and two bridges
washed out (Finch Creek and Mission Creek). Over 12,000 PUD #3
customers were without power. Residents in the Tahuya River Valley
were evacuated by helicopter.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-30
DATE
EVENT(S)
IMPACTS
12/2007
Wind/Rain
Storm/Flooding
11/2008
12/2008
Flooding
Winter Storms/Snow
1/2009
Flooding
Several inches of rain and high winds gusting to 48 mph wreaked havoc
throughout the county and killed one man. Slides closed several roads.
Hwy. 101 was closed between Bourgault Rd. and Eagle Creek Rd.
Route 106 was closed at MP 17 and Lake Cushman Rd. (Hwy 119) was
closed at MP 9.3 because of the condition of a bridge. Skokomish River
surged to 18.1 feet, more than 2 feet above its 16-foot flood level. A
mudslide buried a man in a house a few miles north of Hoodsport on
Hwy. 101. Two bridges washed away (Tahuya River and Finch Creek).
Two bridges on Mission Creek were damaged. Approximately 13,500
PUD customers were without power. A dike failed in the Skokomish
Valley. Several people were cut off in the Tahuya River Valley without
power and water waited to be evacuated by helicopter. There were
several landslides along Hwy. 101. An unstable hillside caused
evacuation of several residents of the Riverside Manor Mobile Home
Park across Goldsborough Creek. The storm caused approximately $25
million in damages to public facilities and private homes. Damage to
public facilities included $11 million in Mason County, $1.3 million to the
two PUD’s and $100,000 to Skokomish Nation. Damage to private
homes and property was estimated at $12 million. Repair of the
Skokomish dike cost $100,000.
Damages exceeded $300,000 for flooding. Minor damage for Mason
County: primarily County road damage (mud slides/culverts). Roads
closed due to flooding included Skokomish Valley Rd., SatsopCloquallum Rd., Eells Hill Rd., Schafer Park Rd., Shelton Matlock Rd.,
Kamilche Lane, and Agate Rd. Beginning December 11, 2008 a series
of winter storms brought heavy amounts of snow, ice, strong winds, and
rain. Road crews began 12 hour shifts on the 16th and continued
through the end of the month to remove snow and maintain road access
to impacted areas of the county. Schools were closed for the week and
government offices were on reduced work schedules or closed due to
accessibility and safety issues. A relatively small number of homes (1220) were either cut off due to road washouts or experienced significant
detours. Winter storms/snow damages were estimated at almost
$1,000,000.
Approximately a dozen county roads were impacted by flooding. Five
residents impacted by the Snowy Owl Drive washout had no direct
access to their property. Residents of the Agate Rd., Cloquallum Rd.
and Matlock areas experienced lengthy detours due to road washouts
of both County and private roads. Costs for damages due to flooding
were estimated at $750,000. Due to the widespread nature of the
flooding there were no specific areas of “high” concentrations of
damages. It was reported that 3 homes were destroyed, 2 had major
damage, 3 had minor damage, and 12 homes were affected.
Below are the United States Geological Survey (USGS) charts of the Skokomish River.
The first two charts show the flood elevation data and the flood flow data for December
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-31
2007. The third chart shows the typical flood pattern of the Skokomish River and the
fourth chart shows the flood pattern for December 2007.
CHART 4-1: USGS DEC. 07 FLOOD ELEVATION DATA
CHART 4-2: USGS DEC. 07 FLOOD FLOW DATA
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-32
CHART 4-3: TYPICAL FLOOD PATTERN (JAN. 3-5, 2008)
CHART 4-4: FEMA-1734 FLOOD PATTERNS (DEC. 2007)
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-33
While flooding on the Skokomish River is well documented, other rivers in the County,
such as the Tahuya River in North Mason, have also experienced flooding. However,
since there are no USGS river gauges outside the Skokomish watershed this significantly
impacts the County’s ability to monitor and develop effective mitigations actions.
FIGURE 4-3: BELFAIR-TAHUYA BRIDGE, TAHUYA RIVER
The picture in Figure 4-3 shows the Belfair-Tahuya bridge on the Tahuya River that was
destroyed during the December 2007 flood event (FEMA-1734-DR-WA).
Other areas of the Tahuya Peninsula have been severely impacted by flooding from both
the Tahuya and Union Rivers, but also the majority of the smaller creeks. One of the
County’s action items in the County’s After Action Report (AAR- March 2008) is to work
with the USGS and other agencies to install river gauges or other technology on rivers
other than the Skokomish. We are aware of two (2) repetitive flood loss properties within
the Tahuya River watershed (maps 4-17 & 4-18: Appendix F [not for public disclosure due
to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended]), but without accurate frequency determinations it
is extremely difficult to develop cost-effective mitigation solutions.
The December 2007 storm event impacted several small creeks along US Highway 101
between Hoodsport and Lilliwaup that have not had a significant documented history of
flooding. These creeks include Finch, Clark, Miller, and Sund Creeks (see Map 4-5
below). During the storm event a large quantity of alluvial material was deposited in the
lower stream reaches. These streams now exhibit significant aggradation, which has
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-34
elevated the streambeds and consequently will likely continue to cause flooding. Finch
Creek experienced severe bank erosion. At least six (6) property owners required bank
armoring in order to protect homes and septic systems. Several homes in the Holiday
Beach area (Miller Creek) experienced flooding. Since there is no historical flood
information available on these streams they can now be placed on a future flood watch for
continued monitoring. This also indicates that more areas are becoming prone to flooding.
M AP 4-5: FINCH, CLARK, MILLER, AND SUND CREEKS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-35
VULNERABILITY
Floods make an enormous impact on the environment and society. Floods destroy
drainage systems in towns/cities, causing raw sewage to spill out into bodies of water.
Also, in cases of severe floods, buildings can be significantly damaged and even
destroyed. This can lead to catastrophic effects on the environment as many toxic
materials such as paint, pesticide and gasoline can be released into the rivers, lakes,
bays, and ocean, killing maritime life. Floods may also cause millions of dollars worth of
damage to communities, both evicting people from their homes and ruining businesses.
Floods cause significant amounts of erosion to coasts, leading to more frequent flooding if
not repaired.
Effects associated with flooding in Mason County include loss of life, damage to
structures, and loss or damage to roads and utilities. Flood damages in the county have
exceeded damages by all other natural hazards occurring in the state (County HIVA).
Secondary hazards associated with flooding include electrocution, structural collapse,
hazardous materials incidents, and fire.
When looking at the past history of flooding in Mason County it is easy to conclude that
flooding will continue to have significant impacts on infrastructure and people in the
community. There are a total of 941 sq. miles of land (60,254 parcels) in Mason County.
Of that total 23 sq. miles (3,064 parcels) are in the Flood Zones A and x500. A total of
2.46% of the land in Mason County is in a flood hazard area. According to assessor
records the general infrastructure value (land and improvements) located within the flood
hazard area is $406,335,609.
As noted in Map 4-6 there are two (2) critical facilities located within a flood hazard area.
These include City of Shelton Fire Station and Fire District #1 Station #1.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-36
MAP 4-6: CRITICAL FACILITIES IN FLOOD ZONES
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-37
MAP 4-7: FEMA FLOOD ZONES W/ BUILDING PERMIT OVERLAY (JANUARY 2005 TO PRESENT)
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-38
Development within the floodplains of Mason County has been relatively minor when
compared to development countywide. For example the total number of building permits
issued since January 2005 was 7,366. The number of those permits issued in flood
hazard areas was 255, a total of 3.46%. Please note that the building permits issued
include all types of permits (remodel, reroof, additons, etc.), not just new structures.
Currently there are not enough resources in either personnel or time to separate which
permits were issued for new construction and which were issued for other types of
construction. Most of the permits issued within the Skokomish Valley flood hazard area
were mainly for maintenance and repair due to special development prohibitions in this
area as identified in the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Since 1964 Mason County has experienced 13 Federal Disaster Declarations for flooding.
Besides the Federal Declarations, Mason County experiences some flooding every year,
which indicates a very high probability of continued flooding throughout the county. The
increased frequency of flooding, the potential for the major rivers to flood simultaneously,
plus the county’s record for property damage put it at a level of high risk. Due to the
number of declared flood disasters in the past 45 years and because of the proximity of
the watersheds between the Skokomish, Union, and Tahuya river systems we can
assume that damaging flood events will occur approximately every 3 years.
TABLE 4-15: MASON COUNTY FLOOD DECLARATIONS
Declaration #
Date
Event
FEMA - 185
Dec-64
Heavy Rains, Flooding
FEMA - 414
Jan-74
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 492
Dec-75
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 612
Dec-79
Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 883
Nov-90
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1079
Jan-96
Winter Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1159
Jan-97
Winter Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1172
Mar-97
Floods
FEMA-1499
Oct-03
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA 1641
Jan-06
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA 1682
Dec-06
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1734
Dec-07
Flood/Severe Winter Storms
FEMA-1817
Jan-09
Flood/Severe Winter Storms
RESOURCES
Federal Emergency Management Agency; http://www.fema.gov/
National Weather Service; http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division;
http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/home.asp
Washington State Emergency Management Division; http://www.emd.wa.gov/
Western Regional Climate Center; http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-39
LAND SHIFT - SLIDES AND EROSION
DEFINITION
The term landslide refers to the down-slope movement of masses of rock and soil. Slides
range in size from thin masses of soil a few yards wide to deep-seated bedrock slides.
Slides are commonly categorized by the form of initial failure, but they may travel in a
variety of forms along their paths. This travel rate may range in velocity from a few inches
per month to many feet per second, depending largely on slope, material and water
content. The recognition of ancient, dormant slide masses is important as they can be
reactivated by earthquakes or unusually wet winters. Also, because they consist of broken
materials and disrupted ground water, they are more susceptible to construction-triggered
sliding than adjacent undisturbed material.
Erosion refers to the gradual removal of soil through wind or water action. Erosion may be
induced or increased by failure to use ground covers to protect soil from wind or drainage
systems that allow good dispersal of storm water. Slopes on waterfront can also be
severely undercut by normal wave action or large waves produced by storms.
TYPES OF LANDSLIDES
There are 3 broad categories of landslides that commonly occur in Mason County:
Debris flows are the most hazardous to life. They are fast moving, water-saturated
masses of soil, rock, and debris (tree trunks, limbs, etc.) that move down steep slopes
and channels. Debris flows are typically triggered by intense rainfall, and can run long
distances when confined to a channel.
Shallow landslides occur within the sliding surface is located within the soil mantle or
weathered bedrock. They usually include debris slides, debris flow, and failures of road
cut-slopes. Landslides occurring as single large blocks of rock moving slowly down
slope are sometimes called block glides.
Deep-seated landslides are slides in which the sliding surface is mostly deeply located
below the maximum rooting depth of trees. Deep-seated landslides usually involve loose
dust, soil, broken/weathered rock, and/or bedrock and include large slope failure
associated with translational, rotational, or complex movement.
LOCATION AND EXTENT
Slope saturation by water is a primary cause of landslides. This effect can occur in the
form of intense rainfall, snowmelt, changes in ground-water levels, and water-level
changes along coastlines, earth dams, and the banks of lakes, reservoirs, canals, and
rivers.
Landsliding and flooding are closely allied because both are related to precipitation,
runoff, and the saturation of ground by water. In addition, debris flows and mudflows
usually occur in small, steep stream channels and often are mistaken for floods; in fact,
these two events often occur simultaneously in the same area. 6
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-40
Many mountainous areas that are vulnerable to landslides have also experienced at least
moderate rates of earthquake occurrence in recorded times. The occurrence of
earthquakes in steep landslide-prone areas greatly increases the likelihood that landslides
will occur, due to ground shaking alone or shaking-caused dilation of soil materials, which
allows rapid infiltration of water.
The photo below (April 9, 2009) shows a fresh head scarp of a landslide with about 4 feet
of vertical movement and 2 feet of horizontal movement in sandy glacial till at Lake
Kokanee. The head scarp is approximately 60 feet above the lake level. The crevasse
formed by the scarp is approximately 3 feet deep and based on the lack of forest debris
and recent ravel, it was estimated that the formation was recent (within the past few
weeks of when the photo was taken).
FIGURE 4-4: LAKE KOKANEE LANDSLIDE, SOUTH OF LAKE CUSHMAN, M ASON COUNTY. PHOTO TAKEN
APRIL 9, 2009 BY DIVISION OF GEOLOGY & EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGISTS
Map 4-8 shows the areas in Mason County susceptible to landslides. Landslides are a
continuing problem along the hillsides and shorelines of Mason County.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-41
MAP 4-8: LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS IN MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-42
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
The most common types of landslides in Mason County are those caused by prolonged or highintensity rain events. This type of landslide occurred as a result of the December 3, 2007 storm.
Earthquakes can also trigger landslides. Landslides can also be the result of loss of rooting
strength (harvest and forest fires), rain-on-snow events, and human influences.
To get a better understanding of the extent of landslides and the impacts to the County an
extensive search of office records and the local newspaper was done to provide a fairly
complete history of landslides in Mason County as outlined in the Table 4-14 (flood section).
The recorded landslide history to state highways in Mason County dates as far back as 1925.
The information listed in Table 4-16 was provided by Washington State Department of
Transportation.
ROUTE
US 101
US 101
SR 3
US 101
US 101
SR 3
US 101
US 101
US 101
US 101
US 101
US 101
US 101
SR 108
TABLE 4-16: MASON COUNTY (STATE HIGHWAYS) SLIDE REPAIR COSTS**
DATE
PROJECT
COST
1925 Hoodsport/Duckabush Slides
$
10,594.00
8/31/1965 Lilliwaup Slope Stabilization
$
45,353.00
5/13/1970 Belfair Vicinity Slide
$
106,153.00
1/27/1975 Jorstad Creek Slide
$
95,391.00
7/19/1999 Hoodsport Slide
$
296,203.00
11/29/2001 Allyn Vicinity Slide
$
2,746,402.00
7/27/2000 Lilliwaup Vicinity Slide
$
733,831.00
8/1/2000 MP 322.3 Slide
$
576,067.00
2/5/2001 Mp 321 and 322 vicinity slides
$
3,371,919.00
1/28/2008 Lilliwaup Vicinity Slide
$
940,916.00
8/1/2008 Sunnyside Slope
$
420,659.00
2008 Holiday Hills
$
463,095.00
2009 Hoodsport Vicinity Slope
$
179,973.00
2009 Slide Repair .8 miles West of Eich Road
$
150,000.00
TOTAL
$
10,136,556.00
**THESE ARE CONTRACT COSTS FROM WSDOT FILES. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT WOULD BE IN ADDITION.
COSTS ARE IN ORIGINAL DOLLARS NOT INFLATED TO TODAY’S COSTS. THE LAST THREE CONTRACTS HAVE NOT BEEN
FINALIZED. STATE FORCE WORK IS NOT INCLUDED.
Mason County's most recent landslide history, the winter storm of December 3, 2007, caused
both Highways 101 and 106 to close several times in the vicinity of Lilliwaup, Eldon and Union.
The Tahuya Peninsula was severely impacted by landslides. Landslides and erosion during this
storm caused millions of dollars in damage.
Following the winter storm of 2007 the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources of
the Washington Department of Natural Resources did a landslide reconnaissance. The purpose
of the study was to understand where and why slope failures and flooding occur in order to
mitigate losses during future catastrophic landslide events. The study focused on the areas hit
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-43
hardest by the storm. Mason, Lewis and Thurston Counties were the main targets for the
reconnaissance as they had the highest concentration of landslides.
In Mason and Jefferson County there were 214 landslides recorded. Of these slides there were
80 shallow undifferentiated landslides, 23 debris flows, 108 debris slides, 1 deep-seated
landslide, and 2 hyperconcentrated flows. At least 12 houses were damaged during the storm
and one death was reported from a landslide crashing into a house (death occurred in Mason
County). U.S. Highway 101 was damaged or blocked by 16 slides, State Route 106 was
damaged or blocked by 2 slides, and 5 slides blocked or damaged various other roads. 7
In the aftermath of the December 2007 storm (including severe storms, flooding, landslides and
mudslides), 581 people applied for Individual and Household Assistance with FEMA. The
amount approved for Mason County was $1,128,094.
VULNERABILITY
Washington is one of seven states listed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
being especially vulnerable to severe land stability problems. Topographic and geologic factors
cause certain areas of Mason County to be highly susceptible to landsliding. Ground saturation
and variability in rainfall patterns are also important factors affecting slope stability in area
susceptible to landsliding. Strong earthquake shaking can cause landslides on slopes that are
otherwise stable.
Typical effects include, but are not limited to damage to or destruction of portions of roads and
railroads, sewer and water lines, and homes and public buildings. Disruption of shipping and
travel routes result in losses to commerce. Blocked roads also hamper relief efforts. Many of the
losses due to landslides may go unrecorded because claims are not made with insurance
companies, lack of coverage by the press, or the fact that landslides affecting transportation
may be recorded as “maintenance”.
Although landslides have caused widespread damage across the United States (including
Washington State), they are often underrepresented and understudied compared to other
potential geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Some landslide
areas and their causes of sliding have been recognized for decades, but that information has
not always been widely known or used outside the geologic community. Landslides are
complex, often moving in numerous different ways, from small shallow slumps and rock topples
to deep-seated landslides. 8
With population increasing and demanding “view” property and tree removal to be able to “see
the view” there is increasing risk of landslides in residential areas. Those buildings on or below
steep slopes and bluffs are at risk in seasons of heavy rains or prolonged wet spells. The
increasing pressure to develop in landslide-prone areas makes it especially important to have
knowledge about these hazard areas.
The critical facilities list was provided to the GIS department to determine what facilities were
within a landslide hazard area. Based on the results of the mapping there were no critical
facilities identified as being in a landslide hazard area.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-44
MAP 4-9: BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-45
As with earthquakes vulnerability to landslide hazards can be reduced through engineering
approaches that render a structure relatively resistant to hazards, such as building codes,
seismic retrofits, bulkheads and retaining walls, or by positioning a structure on a less
hazardous part of a property. Development in landslide hazard areas is guided by building code
and the critical area ordinance to prevent the acceleration of manmade and natural geological
hazards, and to neutralize the risk to the property owner or adjacent properties from
development activities. The Mason County Resource Ordinance requires a at a minimum a
geological assessment for development with 300 feet of slopes between 15% and 40% and a
geotechnical report for slopes over 40%. The ordinance also requires a 50-foot vegetated
buffer at the top or toe of a slope.
There are a total of 602,128.8 land acres (60,254 parcels) in Mason County. Of that total there
are 90,040 land acres (499 parcels) in the mapped landslide hazard areas (a majority of the
area being National Forest). A total of 2.46% of the land in Mason County is in a landslide
hazard area. According to assessor records the general infrastructure value (land and
improvements) located within the landslide hazard area is $406,335,609.
Development within the landslide hazard areas of Mason County has been minimal when
compared to development countywide. For example the total number of building permits issued
since January 2005 was 7,366. The number of those permits issued in landslide hazard areas
was 35, a total of 0.4%. Please note that the building permits issued include all types of permits
(remodel, reroof, additons, etc.), not just new structures. Currently there are not enough
resources in either personnel or time to separate which permits were issued for new
construction and which were issued for other types of construction. This is an issue that will be
addressed in future updates of the plan.
Mason County is subject to landslide or soil erosion due to wind, water and flooding at all times
of the year. However, since flooding and landslides are closely allied it can be assumed that
Mason County will experience damaging landslide events every three years as with flooding.
RESOURCES
Federal Emergency Management Agency; http://www.fema.gov/
National Weather Service; http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division;
http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/home.asp
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Washington State Department of Ecology; http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
Washington State Department of Transportation; http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-46
SEVERE STORMS (SEVERE WINTER STORM-COLD/ICE/SNOW EVENTS-WINDSTORM)
DEFINITION
Severe storms are atmospheric disturbances usually characterized by strong winds, frequently
combined with rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, and thunder and lightning. Secondary hazards that
can result from severe storms are flooding and landslides.
Hail storms occur when freezing water in thunderstorm type clouds accumulates in layers
around an icy core. Hail causes damage by battering crops, structures, automobiles, and
transportation systems. When hailstones are large and especially when combined with high
winds the damage can be extensive.
An ice storm occurs when rain falls out of the warm, moist, upper layer of atmosphere into a
below freezing, drier layer near the ground. The rain freezes on contact with the cold ground
and other surfaces. It accumulates on exposed surfaces such as trees, roads, houses, power
lines, etc. The accumulated weight of this ice, especially when accompanied by wind, can cause
damage to trees and utility wires. Ice storms are usually of short duration from several minutes
to a few hours. However, the danger left behind will last until a rising temperature allows for
thawing.
FIGURE 4-5: MASON COUNTY SNOW LOAD CODE
SOURCE: 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
Snow storms or blizzards, which are snowstorms
accompanied by high wind and/or poor visibility, occur
occasionally in the County. A snowstorm including
warmer moist air from the Pacific Ocean overrunning
existing cold subfreezing air could continue to drop
snow for several days.
Localized geographic conditions can exacerbate the
problem, causing an increase in wind intensity. Mason
County can expect some wind-related problems on an
annual basis, although the majority of those do not
cause extensive damage.
LOCATION AND EXTENT
Mason County experiences some form of severe
weather activity annually based upon seasonal
meteorological patterns and local topographical
conditions. The county is susceptible to a range of weather conditions including heavy rains,
high winds, fog, hail, snow, and periodic temperature extremes. All areas of the county are
susceptible to sever weather conditions, however local topographical conditions, such as
elevation and land contours, do play a significant part in how weather impacts a particular area.
Depending on the prevailing conditions at the time of the storm event one part of the county
may experience severe damage while another, located nearby, has minimal impact.
All of Mason County is in an 85-mph wind zone. Within this zone there are four (4) zones of
exposure, three (3) of which are identified in Mason County, that guide development (2006
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-47
International Building Code). These exposure zones further identify areas that are at higher risk
from impacts of high winds. The closer development is to open waters and on top of steep cliffs,
the higher the design criteria that is required through building code. Based on the 2006
International Building Code, the zones are broken down into surface roughness categories and
are defined as follows:
Surface Roughness B. Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas or other terrain with
numerous closely spaced obstructions having the size of single-family dwellings or larger.
Surface Roughness C. Open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights generally
less than 30 feet (9144 mm). This category includes flat open country, grasslands, and all
water surfaces in hurricane-prone regions.
Surface Roughness D. Flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces outside hurricane-prone
regions. This category includes smooth mud flats, salt flats and unbroken ice.
There are no maps for these exposure zones as the exposure is determined by site specific
analysis based on the definitions provided.
The Residential Design Criteria for snow load in Mason County is show in Figure 4-5. The area
in the northwestern portion of the County, the more mountainous areas, generally tends to get
more accumulation of snow and would therefore be more vulnerable to snow storms and the
lower elevations, around Shelton would be less vulnerable.
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
Windstorms have occurred in Mason County, occasionally causing extensive damage. The
strongest windstorm was the 1962 Columbus Day Storm, which was the strongest nontropical
windstorm to hit the lower 48 states. It traveled about 40 mph from Northern California to the
Canadian border and east as far as Montana. The storm killed 46 people, destroyed more than
50,000 homes, left another 469,000 without power, caused $235 million in property damage and
flattened 15 billion board feet of timber worth an estimated $750 million. 9
High winds have caused extensive damage through the county in past years. The most noted
storm was the "Columbus Day” (hurricane type) storm of 1962. Severe winds also occurred
during the Inauguration Day storm of 1993. Other severe storms that have severely impacted
Mason County have occurred in 1971, 1973, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986, 2006 and 2007.
The most severe snowstorms that have occurred in Mason County were 1949, 1950, 1951,
1961, 1969, 1971, 1985, 1990, 1996, and 2008. Historically, the most severe storms occur
during the autumn and winter months from October through February. In December of 1996
through February 1997 a series of winter storms delivered snow, freezing rain, warm rain and
wind to the West Coast producing floods, snow and ice damage and several landslides.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-48
FIGURE 4-6: PEAK GUSTS-JANUARY 20, 1993
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.CLIMATE.WASHINGTON.EDU/STORMKING/JANUARY1993.HTML
Table 4-17 below lists the Federal Disaster Declarations for severe storms in Mason County.
For a list of historical severe storm events in Mason County and their impacts please refer to
Table 4-14 in the flood section.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-49
TABLE 4-17: MASON COUNTY SEVERE STORM DECLARATIONS
Declaration #
Date
Event
Columbus Day Windstorm
FEMA -137
Oct-62
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 414
Jan-74
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 492
Dec-75
Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 612
Dec-79
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA - 883
Nov-90
Inaugural Day Windstorm
FEMA - 981
Jan-93
Winter Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1079
Jan-96
Winter Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1159
Jan-97
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA-1499
Oct-03
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA 1641
Jan-06
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA 1682
Dec-06
Flood/Severe Winter Storms
FEMA-1734
Dec-07
Flood/Severe Winter Storms
FEMA-1817
Jan-09
VULNERABILITY
Severe storms can cause injury to people due to exposure to objects and debris propelled by
high winds, exposure to lightning strikes, exposure to extreme temperatures, and risks
associated with localized inundation.
High wind velocities, heavy rains, snow storms, and temperature extremes cause damage to
structures and property. Buildings that are properly constructed generally withstand the effects
of severe storms, while structures of lesser integrity are often damaged or destroyed.
Severe storm activity poses a significant threat to unprotected or exposed lifeline systems.
Power outages are common as a result of these storms. Other utilities including underground
pipelines may be impacted if not protected from exposure.
Road travel is often treacherous due to snow, ice, and fallen trees. As a result, schools are often
closed and local businesses are impacted. Emergency response may be delayed due to a lack
of available emergency resources, disrupted emergency communications, access to impacted
areas blocked by debris or flooding and other impediments to effective public safety operations.
Since 1962 Mason County has experienced 13 Federal Disaster Declarations for some type of
severe storm. Based on the past history of storm events it can be assumed that Mason County
can experience a damaging storm event every 3.6 years.
RESOURCES
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; http://www.noaa.gov/
Department of Commerce; http://www.commerce.gov/
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; http://www.oar.noaa.gov/
Mason County Building Department; www.co.mason.wa.us
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-50
WILDLAND FIRES
DEFINITION
A wildland fire hazard is an uncontrolled fire that spreads though areas in which development is
typically limited. These areas may include infrastructures such as roads, railroads, power lines
and other facilities, but population densities are typically low.
Many ecologists, forester, and other natural resource land managers view wildland fires as a
natural process necessary to sustain the health of forest, woodland or grass ecosystems.
However, when a wildfire threatens managed natural resources, property, homes and human
life, the natural process transforms into a hazard.
Wildland/urban interface (WUI) communities is that geographic area in which structures and
other human development meets or intermingles with wildlands such as forests, wood lands, or
grasslands. These communities and the adjacent wildlands are at risk because the fire hazard
may spread bi-directionally. Fires in homes/structures may spread into the wildlands, and vice
versa, fires that may originate in the wildland area may spread into the homes and structures.
Many people are understandably attracted to less developed areas and want to build homes in
or near undisturbed natural settings. The tall, large native trees and shrubs that are prolific on
properties throughout Mason County can sustain a wildfire if not properly thinned, pruned or
maintained as a defensible, Firewise space away from homes/structures. With public education
and federal, state and county support the WUI areas of Mason County can be a safe place to
live, recreate and work.
According to Charley Burns, South Puget Sound Region, DNR, wildland fire suppression
operations successfully control approximately ninety-five percent of all wildfires at the initial
attack. So when normal fire protection capabilities can limit the residential fire spread disasters
do not occur. If homes do not ignite and burn during wildfires then the WUI fire problem does
not exist. 10
LOCATION AND EXTENT
As communities expand farther and farther into forested lands, and the desire to maintain the
wilderness ambiance, interface fires are becoming a significant hazard, having the potential for
loss of life and destruction of property.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-51
In 2000, The Washington State Department of Natural Resources and its federal and local
partners evaluated the WUI areas of the entire state for fire behavior potential, fire protection
capability, and risk to social, cultural and community resources. Risk factors included area fire
history, type and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions, topography, number
and density of structures and their distance from fuels, location of municipal watershed and
likely losses housing or business. Using the NFPA 299 form, Standard for Protection of Life and
Property from Wildfire, they determined 181 communities were at a higher risk for destructive
wildfires. In Mason County, the following communities were identified: Allyn, Belfair, Dayton,
Grapeview, Hoodsport, Lilliwaup, Matlock, Olalla, Shelton, Tahuya, and Union. 11
MAP 4-10: WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITIES AT RISK FOR WILDFIRES (DNR DATA)
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.DNR.WA.GOV/PUBLICATIONS/RP_FIRE_NATIONALFIREPLAN.PDF
The above map shows in red (by zip code area) the Washington communities considered at risk
of wildfire as assessed in 2000 by DNR and its local and federal partners.
While Mason County has not yet designated or mapped wildfire/WUI areas, Map 4-11 does
show the extent of National Forest and Long-Term Commercial Forest lands in Mason County.
These areas are at a higher risk for wildland fires than other areas of the county. The lack of
mapped wildfire/WUI areas indicates a need to develop this information in order to properly
address the risks and mitigation opportunities.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-52
MAP 4-11: FOREST AREAS IN MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-53
HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES
Wildfires are a common ecological disturbance in Mason County and fires of varying
severity have occurred here both historically and in recent times. Mason County’s active
wildfire history should serve as a reminder of the threat of future fires in forests and WUI
areas.
Wildfires have been common in Puget Sound region for thousands of years. Evidence
found in charcoal layers, fire-scarred trees, and tree-stand age classes show that major
fires occur historically in this area every 200-300 years. The year 1902 was designated
the “Year of Wildfire in Washington State”. Shelton and many other Western Washington
towns were threatened or partially destroyed, and nearly all of Mason County was burned.
Whereas, relatively smaller, less intense fires occur more frequently, there has not been a
decade when a fire of any size or severity has not occurred. The Bear Gulch 2 Fire is a
prime example of reoccurring fires in high-use recreation areas.
FIGURE 4-7: BEAR GULCH FIRE, LAKE CUSHMAN
Research of the local newspaper uncovered a few of the larger historical wildland fires in
Mason County. See Table 4-18.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-54
TABLE 4-18: HISTORICAL HAZARD EVENTS FROM LOCAL JOURNAL REPORTS/OFFICE RECORDS
DATE
EVENT(S)
8/1985
Wildfire
9/1995
Wildfire
5/1997
Wildfire
7/2006
Wildfire
IMPACTS
One of the largest fires in the history of the area occurred in August 1985.
An illegal campfire caused the Beaver Fire just north of Staircase.
Approximately 400 firefighters and 3 water-dumping helicopters fought
the blaze. Smoke from the fire drifted at least 140 miles and over the
Cascade Mountains creating a haze as far away as Wenatchee in
Eastern Washington. Twenty backcountry hikers were evacuated from the
Flapjacks Lakes area and another forty people in the area were taken out
by park rangers supported by packhorses. The blaze charred over 1,000
acres and thousands of trees – some 200 to 300 years old – were
destroyed. Only three minor injuries were reported among firefighters.
The cost to fight the fire was over $500,000.
A blaze consumed 25 acres of logged land on Harstene Island and
involved almost 150 firefighters and suppression support personnel
costing $135,000 to fight. Cause of fire was from a hunter’s cigarette. The
following day 36 acres of reforested land burned at Morrow Lake, an area
south of Lake Nahwatzel. East winds pushed flames in the opposite
direction from homes along the shore. The cost of fighting the fire was
$65,000. A total of 200 firefighters were involved in the two battles.
The Lake Limerick fire, pushed by strong southwest winds, burned 594
acres, including 100 acres of wetlands, between Lake Limerick and
Emerald Lake. The fire burned Christmas trees, slash, young replanted
trees, wetland areas, and second growth Douglas fir trees. The cost of
fighting the fire was approximately $94,000. Firefighters from districts in
Mason, Kitsap and Pierce counties assisted in the effort along with 70
Cedar Creek Correctional Center inmates. About 112 people from DNR
and Cedar Creek completed the firelines. At the same time a second
blaze consumed about 8 acres off Eagle Point Road.
A wildfire burned for several weeks, blackening a total of 1,085 acres on
steep terrain in the Bear Gulch area. Cost of fighting the fire was
approximately $1.8 million. US Forest Service Rd. was closed for about 1
year to prevent injuries from rock and debris slides. This road is the major
access to the popular Staircase area and several summer homes located
on the west side of Lake Cushman.
According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fire data, from
1970 to present (see Maps 4-12 and 4-13), Mason County local fire protection districts
and the DNR have combined efforts to suppress and extinguish 1793 wildfires on state
protected and private lands. Fortunately, only about 75 of these 1,793 fires escaped the
firefighter’s initial attack efforts and become the larger, more destructive wildfires. In 1997,
the Lake Limerick Community was spared from a wind-driven 250-acre wildfire. In 2006,
Mason County’s Bear Gulch 2 Fire burned from July into December and threatened the
Lake Cushman community. The Dewatto 2 fire forced evacuations of local residents and
the Hohobas Boy Scout Camp. In last 5 years, there have been 220 wildfires on DNR-
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-55
protected lands, which have threatened Mason County’s WUI communities, its
infrastructures, and forests. The following lists fires that were greater than five (5) acres: 12
TABLE 4-19: FIRES GREATER THAN 5 ACRES
Island Shore Fire on 7/7/2004, 10.4 acres
Shelton Valley Rd. Fire on 7/12/2007, 13 acres
Razor Fire on 4/25/2006, 5.6 acres
Martin Road Fire on 7/1/2007, 15 acres
Elk Fire on 5/15/2006, 6.1 acres
East Cushman on 9/7/2008, 10 acres
South Loop Fire on 8/29/2006, 15 acres
Eels Hill Road on 8/2/2009, 13.2 acres
Dewatto 2 Fire on 9/2/2006, 61 acres
Vance Creek on 8/25/2009, 13.2 acres
Pipeline 2 Fire on 9/7/2006, 5 acres
MAP 4-12: DNR WILDFIRES 1970 TO2007
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-56
MAP 4-13: DNR WILDFIRES 2008 TO PRESENT
VULNERABILITY
With much of the County in various stages of forestation, nearly all areas are vulnerable to
fire. Many individual homes and developments border forestland. Drought conditions often
increase the fire danger in early fall. Recent history of fires in the County indicates that
most were human-caused and extinguished before major damage occurred.
In Mason County, an understanding of fire-friendly weather can help residents better
understand observed weather as an indicator of potential wildfire behavior and prepare for
inclement fire conditions. For the Puget Sound Region, any combination of two of the
following factors can create more intense and potentially destructive extreme fire
behavior:
• 20 foot winds speed greater than 7 mph
• Sustained wind from the east (more common in late August to early October
• Relative humidity less than 40%
• Temperature greater than 72 degrees F
• 1,000 hours fuel moisture less than 17% (sticks from 1 to 3 inches in diameter)
• 14 days without rain
Extreme fire behavior is significantly more difficult to control and suppress, and would
drastically increase the threat to the existence of homes and communities in WUI areas.
Some communities in Mason County are particularly prone to damage during extreme
events because of their close proximity to large areas of forest as well as the higher
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-57
likelihood of fire-friendly weather. Many of these communities have little or no firebreak
between their homes and the forest’s fuels, therefore making the jump from tree to home
very easy for a wildfire. A 30 foot firebreak between homes and forest, plus other firewise
measures, can help alleviate – and sometimes even prevent – wildfire damage.
Understanding the relationship between observed weather, potential fire activity, and our
unique geographical features of the Puget Sound and Mason County, will provide us with
the ability to better prepare for the very realistic possibility of wildfires. This knowledge,
when combined with emergency planning and appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.
community firebreaks), creates a safer environment for homeowners and firefighter alike.
FIGURE 4-8: HOMES IN WUI AREAS
(SOURCE: HTTP://WWW .HEADWATERSECONOMICS.ORG/WILDFIRE/)
According to research by
Headwaters Economics (Figure
4-8), of the eleven western
states, Washington has the
fourth largest area of
undeveloped, forested private
land bordering fire-prone public
lands and ranks second among
western states in the amount of
forested land where homes
have already been built next to
public lands.
Headwaters Economics ranks
Mason County as 46th among
top 50 counties for the highest
existing risk of catastrophic losses in the event of a major wildfire. Their research
determined that there are 23.2 sq. miles of developed land where homes have already
been built next to public lands and 26.0 sq. miles of undeveloped land bordering fire-prone
public lands. Mason County has 5,431 residences in its wildland urban interface, of which
33 percent are seasonal homes or cabins. 13
The impacts of a wildland fire vary depending upon the size and location of the fire. The
heat from intense wind driven flames can destroy virtually any combustible material in its
path. Firefighters and residents caught off guard by a rapidly spreading fire could suffer
burn injuries or other injuries trying to escape a wildfire, or possibly be killed. People
recreating in forest lands are especially at risk. The loss of a firefighter, a loved one or a
home or a business is a traumatic experience and fire victims are likely to suffer post
traumatic stress disorder following a fire related loss.
Physical damages include loss of valuable timber, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and
recreational areas such as trails, parks, and campground facilities. Smaller rural
communities can suffer economic losses from smoke/road closures and destroyed natural
resources lands because their economies are dependent on the timber industry jobs or
tourism. Buildings and their contents, utility lines, and vehicles are also destroyed. Power
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-58
and communications disruptions can occur, even in areas unaffected by fires, if major
transmission lines are damaged or destroyed. The loss of vegetation on steep slopes
increases the risk for mudslides or landslides during the fall, winter, and spring months.
Streams and creek channels could fill with sediment and debris increasing flood risks. It
could take years for fish habitat to recover. For example: The Lake Cushman/Staircase
road and Lake Cushman Reservoir/Hydro Electric Dam was severely impacted by rocks,
logs and debris flows after the Bear Gulch 2 Fire and required a FEMA grant for clean-up
and disposal.
Fighting a wildland fire can consume significant local, state and federal resources. Even a
small wildland fire in Mason County requires rapid containment or suppression in order to
protect lives and property. Local fire protection districts rely on DNR assets such as
helicopters to reach remote areas or provide rapid response. Should multiple wildland
fires occur simultaneously in different areas during an extreme warm and dry season,
local capabilities could quickly become overwhelmed.
Firefighting is strenuous work and extended firefights can result in fatigue and equipment
wear. Fire chiefs and Incident Commanders strive to protect the safety of their crews.
However, even small wildland fires sometimes result in the injury or death of firefighters.
Temporary disruptions to transportation networks can occur during the suppression and
recovery stages. Mason County residents may need to seek detour and alternate
evacuation routes. Local residents may not be able to reach their homes until local
authorities indicate it is safe to reopen restricted areas. Residents, pets and livestock may
have to go to a community shelter until it is safe to go home.
As communities expand farther and farther into forested lands, and the desire to maintain
the wilderness ambiance, interface fires are becoming a significant hazard, having the
potential for loss of life and destruction of property.
The documented record of wildland fire in Mason County by the Washington Department
of Natural Resources suggest that almost 5 % of all DNR fires since 1970 were greater
than 5 acres. Therefore, if we use the current Washington State Patrol-Office of the Fire
Marshal NFIRS data suggesting an average of 200 reported fires, by all agencies, each
year, in Mason County, it would appear that we could expect 10 wildland fires, greater
than 5 acres in size, in Mason County, each year, for the foreseeable future, under the
current conditions (weather, population density, etc.) and available firefighting resources.
The area could expect at least one wildfire exceeding 100 acres over the next 10 years. A
warmer and drier future climate combined with a larger population, (living, burning and
recreating), in Mason County may create suitable conditions for more frequent ignitions
and or larger fires. Nevertheless, despite the projections for numerous small fires, the
current frequency indicates that wildland fire have a high probability of occurrence. 14
RESOURCES
National Weather Service; http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
USDA Forest Service; http://www.fs.fed.us/
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspx
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-59
Washington State Patrol, Fire Protection Bureau;
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/firemars.htm
Headwaters Economics; http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/
Firewise; http://www.firewise.org/
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-60
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE
Mason County has one of the highest probabilities in Washington State for being the
scene of a significant hazardous materials release. Hazardous materials are transported
over or near numerous bodies of waters, wetlands, environmentally-sensitive areas, and
through numerous population centers. This is directly related to the high level of diverse
industrial facilities and transportation routes in the County (Mason County HIVA).
A hazardous materials release may occur at a fixed site or during transport of a product.
Mason County has a high volume of hazardous materials traveling through the County
limits. The Washington State Department of Transportation reported that several
transportation incidents resulting in the accidental release of hazardous materials
occurred between 1987 and 1989 (Mason County HIVA). Mason County has not had any
significant railroad incidents in recent years.
Additionally, a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a flood may cause hazardous
materials releases, and during a natural disaster the numbers of hazardous materials
releases can be expected to increase in number.
In addition to known hazardous materials, there are also unknowns that may have an
impact on County/City/Tribal/SPDs operations. Illegal drug labs and dumping create
another item of concern for the County/City/Tribes/SPDs. An Emergency and Hazardous
Chemical Inventory is listed in Table 4-20.
A hazardous materials incident may occur slowly or without warning, but require
immediate response from County/City/Tribal/SPDs first responders. While most spills are
minor and can be handled by County personnel, there is potential within the County for a
more significant event requiring assistance from outside jurisdictions, especially in
evacuation of downwind residents or the creation of a sheltering place.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-61
TABLE 4-20: 2008 TIER TWO EMERGENCY AND HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL INVENTORY
Facility
Belfair CO PE (QUEST)
Address
23650 St HWY 3
Belfair, 98528
Bingham Creek Hatchery
W 3914 Fish Hatchery Rd.
Elma, 98541
430 Belfair Log Yard Rd.
Belfair, 98528
100 Public Works Drive
Shelton, WA 98584
Bowman Propane
Central Shop
Courthouse
th
419 North 4 Street
Shelton, 98584
Cushman #1 Powerhouse
N. 391 Standstill Drive S
Hoodsport, 98450
Cushman #2 Powerhouse
North 21451 Highway 101
Shelton, 98584
Del’s Farm Supply
EELLS Springs Hatchery
SE 1043 St Rte 3
Shelton, 98584
7572 EElls Hill Road
Shelton, 98584
Chemical
Lead
Quantity
Maximum Avg.Daily
4
4
Sulfuric Acid
Paraside S
(Formalin)
Propane
3
1803
3
900
108,120
64,872
Diesel Fuel #2
15,900
12,000
Gasoline
Geomelt C
Used Lube Oil
Diesel Fuel #2
15,900
45,000
3,600
13,200
12,000
18,000
1,600
12,000
Gasoline
Lube Oil
20,100
10,200
12,000
10,200
Diesel Fuel #2
15,686
10,250
Lube Oil
Gasoline
Propane
18,675
12,320
4500
18,675
9,420
2900
Formaldehyde
2,340
1,170
Propane
9,00
4,500
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-62
Emergency Contact
UNICALL
Emergency (866) 864-2255
Randy Aho, Complex Manager
Emergency (360) 580-7223
Michael Dew, District Manager
Emergency (253) 779-0907
Tim Burford, Equipment Supervisor
Emergency (360) 427-7761
Tim Burford, Equipment Supervisor
Emergency (360) 427-7761
Dennis Koehn, Hydro Project
Manager
Emergency (253) 502-8402
Dennis Koehn, Hydro Project
Manager
Emergency (253) 502-8402
Steve Anderson, Store Manager
Emergency (360) 427-5026
Rahmi Aiken, Hatchery Specialist
Emergency (360) 427-2188
Facility
FerrellGas
George Adams Hatchery
Address
19920 N. Hwy 101
Shelton, 98584
40 W. Skokomish Valley Rd
Shelton, 98584
Green Diamond Resource Co.
41 Hanks Lake Rd.
Shelton, 98584
Hoodsport CDO (QUEST)
121 Schoolhouse Hill Rd.
Hoodsport, 98548
Jarrell’s Cove Marina
Mason County Belfair Shop
Mason County Central Shop
Mason General Hospital
Olympic Air, Inc.
220 E. Wilson Rd.
Shelton, 98584
600 NE Beck Rd.
Belfair, 98528
100 W. Public Works Drive
Shelton, 98584
901 Mt. View Drive
Shelton, 98584
11771 US Hwy 101
Shelton 98584
Chemical
Liquid Petroleum Gas
Methanol
Paint
Diesel Fuel #2
Quantity
Maximum Avg.Daily
112,000
70,000
100
100
21,000
50
50
15,750
Parasite S
(Formaldehyde)
Gasoline
957
574
62,500
31,250
Diesel
Lead
245,000
4
122,500
4
Sulfuric Acid
Propane
Parasite S
(Formaldehyde)
Gasoline
3
2,250
2,340
3
1,125 l
1,170
39,932
28,656
Diesel Fuel #2
Propane
22,560
1,400
16,572
1,220
Geomelt C
45,000
18,000
Geomelt C
45,000
18,000
Liquid Oxygen
14,292
14,292
Diesel Fuel #2
Jet A Fuel
36,500
65,000
36,500
345,000
100LL Fuel
65,000
45,000
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-63
Emergency Contact
Patrick Huffman, Plant Supervisor
Emergency (360) 620-1265
Ed Jouper, Hatchery Specialist
Emergency (360) 432-0754
Roy Meier, Maintenance Supervisor
Emergency (360) 490-1215
UNICALL
Emergency (866) 864-2255
Gary Hink, Owner
Emergency (360) 427-2728
Tim Burford, Equipment Supervisor
Emergency (360) 427-7761
Tim Burford, Equipment Supervisor
Emergency (360) 427-7761
Keith Geary, Plant Operations
Emergency (360) 427-9571
Curtis Cousins
Emergency (360) 426-1477
Facility
Olympic Panel Products LLC
Petrosol Kamilche Terminal
Shelton Bulk Plant
Shelton City Shop
Shelton CO (QUEST)
Address
204 East Railroad
Shelton, 98584
1033 W. SR 108
Shelton, 98584
W 150 Sanderson Way
Shelton, 98584
1000 W. Pine St.
Shelton, 98584
522 W Railroad
Shelton, 98584
Shelton LiteWave 2030 (QUEST)
2321 W. Dayton-Airport Rd
Shelton, 98584
Simpson Lumber Co LLC
100 N. Front St.
Shelton, 98584
Quantity
Maximum Avg.Daily
10,000
10,000
Chemical
Lube Oil
Pane Release Oil
Phenolic Paper
Plywood Glue Resin
Propane
Propane
50,000
500,000
100,000
100,000
252,000
50,000
500,000
100,000
100,000
189,000 l
Diesel Fuel #2, Clear
134,900
67,450
Diesel Fuel #2, Dyed
Gasoline
134,900
115,900
69,540
79,800
108,000
15,000
67,450
57,950
34,770
39,900
54,000
7,500
Lead
4
4
Sulfuric Acid
Lead
3
4
3
4
Sulfuric Acid
Diesel Fuel #1
3
25,000
3
5,000
Liquid Caustic Soda
Lube Oil
Optimeen Amine
Methoxypoplmine
Polimic
Propane
Sodium Sulfate
Boiler Treatment
1,000
22,575
1,500
600
9,600
250
1,200
500
1,000
10,000
300
200
400
10,000
Kerosene
Lube Oil
Diesel Fuel #2
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-64
Emergency Contact
Gary Weza, Maintenance
Emergency (360 427)- 0825
PERS
Emergency (800) 633-8253
Steve Small, President
Emergency (253) 833-5656
Steve Goins, Public Works Director
Emergency (253) 514-2836
UNICALL
Emergency (866) 864-2255
UNICALL
Emergency (866) 864-2255
Dwight McKay, Plant Manager
Emergency (360) 280-4538
Chemical - 6658
Diesel Fuel #1
Hydraulic Fluid
Lube Oil
Mycostat & Dimulse
Sapstain Solution
Diesel Fuel #1
Diesel Fuel #1
Gasoline
Kerosene
Lube Oil
Hydraulic Fluid
Facility
Taylor Shellfish Co. INC
WA DOC Mission Creek
WA DOC Shelton
WS DOT Shelton
WSP Shelton
Verizon Wireless Kamilche
Address
130 SE Lynch Rd
Shelton, 98584
3420 NE Sandhill Rd
Belfair, 98528
W 465 Dayton Airport Rd
Shelton, 98584
W 633 Dayton Airport Rd
Shelton, 98584
W 631 Dayton Airport Rd
Shelton, 98584
4.42 mi. SW of Shelton
Shelton, 98584
100,000
30,000
48,000
11,600
Chemical
Liquid Nitrogen
180
150
300
200
100
50
55
25
22,200
19,600
21, 000
19,600
Quantity
Maximum Avg.Daily
58,888
31,736
Diesel Fuel #2
83,000
74,700
Propane
Diesel Fuel #2
12,000
101,260
9,000
75,945
Gasoline
Propane
Sodium Hydorxide
Diesel Fuel #2
37,000
120,000
30,630
32,000
27,750
92,000
17,357
32,000
Gasoline
96,000
96,000
Sulfuric Acid
742
742
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
100,000
30,000
48,000
11,600
PAGE 4-65
Emergency Contact
Austin Docter, Plant Manager
Emergency (360) 490-5100
Leo Gleason, Plant Manager
Emergency (360) 277-2400
Shift Lieutenant
Emergency (360) 426-4433
Duke Stryker, Superintendent
Emergency (800) 695-7623
Duke Stryker, Superintendent
Emergency (800) 695-7623
Richard Craig, Compliance Director
(800)488-7900
TERRORISM/CIVIL DISTURBANCE
Terrorism has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "The unlawful use
of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government; the
civilian population; or any segment of it, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The devastation which occurred at the World Trade Center in New York and the Alfred P.
Murrah building in Oklahoma City points to the need to plan for potential threats within our
own communities (Mason County HIVA).
Washington State, and therefore Mason County, is vulnerable to terrorist activity.
Terrorism can be state-sponsored or the outgrowth of a frustrated, extremist fringe of
polarized and/or minority groups of people, for example:
• Ethnic, separatists, and political refugees
• Left wing radical organizations
• Right wing racists, anti-authority survivalist groups
• Extremist issue-oriented groups such as animal rights, environmental, religious,
antiabortionists (Washington State Emergency Management Division).
Communities are vulnerable to terrorist incidents and many have highly visible and
vulnerable targets. These critical facilities, sites, systems, and special events in the
community are usually located near routes with easy transportation access. Potential
vulnerable sites in Mason County include: government institutions, water supply sources,
power distribution systems, communications terminals, and financial institutions.
Sanderson Field is the location of the local airport and lies just north of the Shelton city
limits off U S Highway 101, a major north-south route through the county.
The Washington State Emergency Management Division suggests that while the
likelihood of an attack against United States interests is high, Washington State is at a
relatively moderate risk to terrorism. Recent reports, corroborated through multiple
intelligence sources, suggest an increased likelihood that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network
may attempt to attack Americans in the United States or abroad. After major combat
activity is concluded in Iraq, a terrorist attack is likely to demonstrate that they are still a
capable force and their struggle continues. Additionally, press reports indicate Al-Qaeda
may be close to producing a biological weapon (Washington State Emergency
Management Division). 15
ENDNOTES:
1
http://www.pnsn.org/INFO_GENERAL/eqhazards.html
http://www.pnsn.org/INFO_GENERAL/fig.pug_flts.gif
3
Washington State 2001 Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis
4
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/washington/history.php
5
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_7.1.3_Earthquake_final.pdf
6
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/fs-2004-3072.html
2
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-66
7
Landslide Reconnaissance Following the Storm Event of December 1-3, 2007, in Western
Washington, by I. Y. Sarikhan, K. D. Stanton, T. A. Contreras, Michael Polenz, Jack Powell, T. J.
Walsh, and R. L. Logan. 16 p.
8
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologicHazardsMapping/Pages/landslides.aspx
9
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-10-12-columbus-day-storm_x.htm
10
Interview with Charley Burns, Department of Natural Resources, January 27, 2010
11
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_fire_nationalfireplan.pdf
12
Interview with Charley Burns, Department of Natural Resources, January 27, 2010
13
http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/
14
Interview with Charley Burns, Department of Natural Resources, January 27, 2010
15
http://emd.wa.gov/3-map/a-p/hiva/update-analysis/update-analysis.htm
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 4: RISK ASSESSMENT
PAGE 4-67
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
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.
Identification & 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.
Implementation of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)– 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.
Implementation of Mitigation Action – 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.
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions – Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv):
For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the
jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.
CHANGES TO THE MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION (CHAPTER 4 IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN)
The goals and objectives were revised somewhat from the original plan. Some remained
the same however the wording was changed slightly to make the goals a bit broader and
less repetitive. The new goals and objectives were identified through the process of
organizing resources, assessing hazards and risks, and identifying mitigation capabilities
which are described below. These goals and objectives have been summarized in table
format.
Identification and analysis, implementation and priority ranking of mitigation measures
have been changed from the original plan. A new process was developed for a costbenefit analysis using the following factors: cost (including management costs),
feasibility (politically, socially, and environmentally), population benefit, property benefit,
and community priorities. The overall cost-benefit was then calculated by adding the
total score for each project. The projects were then given a priority ranking of High,
Medium, or Low to aid in the implementation process. The new process is described
throughout this section.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
PAGE 5-1
Mitigation actions have now been listed in tables and are linked to specific goals. The
status of the previous actions has been identified.
A new section has been added that addresses the County’s participation and continued
compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
OVERVIEW
The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the
identification of mitigation actions, and the hard work of the Planning Workgroup led to
the Mitigation Action Plan. Taking all of the above into consideration, the Workgroup
developed the following overall mitigation strategy:
•
•
•
•
Communicate the hazard information collected and analyzed through this
planning process as well as success stories so that the community better
understands what can happen where and what they themselves can do to be
better prepared.
Implement the action plan recommendations of this plan.
Use existing rules, regulations, policies, and procedures already in existence.
Monitor multi-objective management opportunities so that funding opportunities
may be shared and packaged and broader constituent support may be garnered.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Workgroup has organized resources, assessed hazards and risks, and documented
mitigation capabilities. The resulting goals, objectives, and mitigation actions were
developed based on these tasks. The Workgroup held a series of meetings designed to
achieve a collaborative mitigation strategy.
During the initial goal-setting meeting, the Workgroup reviewed the results of the hazard
identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. This analysis of the
risk assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the
framework for the Workgroup to formulate planning goals and objectives and to develop
the mitigation strategy for the Mason County planning area.
Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost schedule, and
means are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish
them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements
form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used as means to achieve the
goals. Objectives define strategies to attain the goals and are more specific and
measurable.
Workgroup members were provided with the list of goals from the 2004 plan as well as a
list of other sample goals to consider. They were told that they could use, combine, or
revise the statements provided or develop new ones, keeping the risk assessment in
mind. Each member was given three index cards and asked to write a goal statement on
each. Goal statements were collected and grouped into similar themes and displayed on
the wall of the meeting room.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
PAGE 5-2
The goal statements were then grouped into similar topics. New goals from the
Workgroup were discussed until the team came to consensus. Some of the statements
were determined to be better suited as objectives or actual mitigation actions and were
set aside for later use. Next, the Workgroup developed objectives that summarized
strategies to achieve each goal.
Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the Workgroup identified
the following goals and objectives, which provide the direction for reducing future
hazard-related losses within the Mason County planning area.
TABLE 5-1: MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1: PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY
Objective (Obj.) 1.1 Implement measures to protect or minimize damage to vulnerable
structures, infrastructure and utilities.
Obj. 1.2 Reduce the impact of natural disasters on commercial property and
businesses.
Obj. 1.3 Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public
awareness of the risks associated with natural hazards.
GOAL 2: PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
Obj. 2.1 Implement measures to protect critical resources and habitat.
Obj. 2.2 Provide a means of regulating specific land uses within known hazard areas.
Obj. 2.3 Improve storm water management throughout the County.
GOAL 3: REDUCE IMPACTS AND LOSSES FROM NATURAL DISASTERS
Obj. 3.1 Minimize exposure of new and existing development to hazard impact.
Obj. 3.2 Reduce hazards created by failure of the structural environment (i.e. buildings,
bridges, utility lines.
Obj. 3.3 Reduce impacts of disasters upon fragile environments/facilities.
Obj. 3.4 Ensure continued operation of critical facilities.
Obj. 3.5 Reduce repetitive losses, especially those from flooding.
GOAL 4: DEVELOP REAL TIME HAZARD DATA COLLECTION CAPABILITIES
Obj. 4.1 Increase the ease of access to and usability of geo-spatial hazard data.
Obj. 4.2 Increase capabilities for gathering, organizing, and displaying critical
information.
Obj. 4.3 Address training and staffing needs.
To ensure that community goals and other factors are taken into account when
prioritizing projects, a cost benefit matrix that uses the following factors has been
developed: cost (including management costs), feasibility (politically, socially, and
environmentally), population benefit, property benefit, and community priorities.
Each of the factors was ranked low, moderate, or high for each of the projects. The
methods used to assign a category and the associated score can be defined as follows:
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
PAGE 5-3
TABLE 5-2: COST-BENEFIT MATRIX
FACTORS
COST:
(represents cost of project including
management costs)
SCORE
3
2
1
CATEGORY
Low < $10,000
Moderate $10,000-$50,000
High >$50,000
FEASIBILITY:
(represents the capability of being done based
on political, social, and environmental issues)
1
2
3
Low
Moderate
High
POPULATION BENEFIT:
(represents the % population to benefit based
on the countywide population)
1
PROPERTY BENEFIT:
(represents the % of property to benefit based
on the total amount of property countywide)
3
1
2
3
Low <25% of population to benefit
Moderate 25%-75% of population to
benefit
High >75% of population to benefit
Low <25% of property to benefit
Moderate 25%-75% of property to benefit
High >75% of property to benefit
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:
(represents number of hazards each strategy
has the potential to impact)
1
2
3
Low – Priority 1-3 Hazards
Moderate – Priority 4-10 Hazards
High – Priority 11-18 Hazards
2
The overall cost-benefit was then calculated by adding the total score for each project.
The projects were then given a priority ranking of High, Medium, or Low based on the
following table:
TABLE 5-3: PRIORITY RANKING
SCORE
5-7
8-11
12-15
RANKING
Low
Moderate
High
A summary of the scores for each of the proposed projects can be found in the following
table:
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY
PAGE 5-4
TABLE 5-4: PROPOSED ACTIONS AND PRIORITIZATION
PROJECT
GOAL/
OBJECTIVE
COST
FEASIBILITY
POP.
BENEFIT
PROPERTY
BENEFIT
COMMUNITY
PRIORITIES
SCORE
MASON COUNTY
Sponsor public outreach activities to promote
flood/disaster awareness and provide NFIP information
along with disaster preparedness materials to citizens
GIS Data Gap Analysis
1
3
Low
3
High
3
High
3
High
2
Moderate
14
High
4.1, 4.2
3
Low
3
High
3
High
3
High
2
Moderate
14
High
1.1, 1.2,
2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 3.1,
3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5
3
Low
3
High
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
12
High
1.2, 3.1
3.2, 3.3
1.2, 3.1
3.2, 3.3
2
Moderate
1
High
3
High
3
High
2
Moderate
3
High
2
Moderate
3
High
2
Moderate
1
High
11
Moderate
11
Moderate
2
3
Low
3
High
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
1
Low
11
Moderate
1, 3
3
Low
3
High
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
1
Low
11
Moderate
3
Low
3
Low
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
3
High
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
1
Low
1
Low
1
Low
10
Moderate
10
Moderate
10
High
1
High
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
1
Low
8
Moderate
Update, implement and enforce existing building code,
floodplain, critical areas and shoreline ordinances.
GIS Hazard Mapping
Earthquake – Bridge Assessment
Work with other stakeholders, such as the Skokomish
Watershed Action Team (SWAT) to develop watershed
restoration projects that will enhance/restore stream
and wetland buffers and increase the flood storage
capacity.
Develop and implement a drainage system
maintenance plan, such as sediment and debris
clearance, to ensure unobstructed flow of floodwaters.
GIS Risk Analysis mapping for wildland/WUI fires.
4
Prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
1, 3
Obtain and install river gauges on the Tahuya River.
Acquire and/or elevate flood-damaged structures, with
special attention to repetitive loss properties. (low to
medium cost/high benefit)
1, 3, 4
1, 3
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-5
Landslide – Purdy Cutoff
Landslide – Northshore Road
Flood – Skokomish Valley Road (Dips)
Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS)
Flood – Satsop Cloquallum Road
COST
FEASIBILITY
POP.
BENEFIT
PROPERTY
BENEFIT
COMMUNITY
PRIORITIES
SCORE
1.1, 2.1,
3.1, 3.2,
3.3
1.1, 2.1,
3.1, 3.2,
3.3
1
High
3
High
1
Low
1
Low
1
Low
7
Low
1
High
3
High
1
Low
1
Low
1
Low
7
Low
1.1, 2.1,
3.1, 3.2,
3.3
1
High
3
High
1
Low
1
Low
1
Low
1.1, 2.1,
3.1, 3.2,
3.3
1.1, 2.1,
3.1, 3.2,
3.3
1
High
1
Low
2
Moderate
2
Moderate
1
Low
7
Low
1
High
2
Moderate
1
Low
1
Low
1
Low
6
Low
GOAL/
OBJECTIVE
PROJECT
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-6
7
Low
IMPLEMENTATION
After formal adoption of this plan by the Workgroup, the Mason County Planning Team, Mason
County and other agencies and organizations, Washington State Emergency Management
Division and FEMA, the County and all participating organizations will be eligible for State and
Federal pre-disaster mitigation grant funding. All projects will be approved by the local DEM
Manager before implementation. The local Planning Team has the capacity to apply for,
oversee, and evaluate these grants, and should be an active player in the mitigation process.
The action that received the highest scores in the above table will be given the highest priority.
As the funding becomes available, the higher priority activities can be further prioritized. Those
strategies that have the same score can also be further prioritized by bringing the HMPW
together when needed to review and evaluate those strategies to determine which ones should
be funded first.
The table lists the mitigation strategy, goals, priority score, hazard, responsible agency, timeline,
funding source, and the status of the mitigation strategy. Monthly meetings will be held by the
Planning Team to update all involved of progress being made. The Planning Team will be
encouraged to assist in implementing the Plan, engaging the community and locating monies
that might be put to use in County mitigation projects.
Table 5-5 lists the completed mitigation actions from the 2004 Plan and identifies the status of
those projects. The completed mitigation actions from the Flood Mitigation Plan have also been
included in this table.
The mitigation actions developed as a result of this plan update are listed in Table 5-6. The
table lists those actions by Mason County since there are no other jurisdictions that are
participating at this time. There is no priority score listed for those mitigation strategies from the
2004 plan since they were prioritized in a different way than the update.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-7
TABLE 5-5: COMPLETED MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR 2004
MITIGATION STRATEGY
MASON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5
FIREComm – This operation will soon be consolidated
with ShelComm, and the existing physical location will
serve as a backup communications facility to provide
redundancy.
MASON COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #1
Mason General Hospital – Improve drainage system
to reduce the risk of flooding and retrofit for earthquake
hazard.
MASON COUNTY
Division of Emergency Management - Construct a
new Emergency Operations Center.
LEAD AGENCY
MCFPD #5,
City of Shelton
Commissioners,
Mason Co.
Commissioners
Mason County
Public Hospital
Dist. 1
Commissioners
HAZARD
TIME LINE
Earthquake
Windstorm
Ice Storm
Earthquake
Flood
1-2 years
2-5 years
Mason County
Sheriff
Earthquake
Windstorm
5-10 years
Mason County
Commissioners
Earthquake
2-5 years
Mason County Shop – Relocation of the facility.
Update and implement a countywide phone flood
warning/notification system.
Mason County
Department of
Emergency
Management
CITY OF SHELTON
Sewage Pump Station/Force Main – Elevate or bury
the force main. The force main currently runs under
Goldsborough Creek.
City of Shelton
Commissioners
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budgets, E-911 Taxes
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budget, Local Taxing
Authority
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budget, Local Taxing
Authority
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budget, Local Taxing
Authority
Flood
Mason County, EMPG,
Homeland Security
Funds
Earthquake
Flood
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budget, Regional
Planning Authority,
Local Taxing Authority
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
FUNDING SOURCE
PAGE 5-8
1-2 years
2004
FMA
C
C
C
C
C
C
MITIGATION STRATEGY
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE
Kamilche Water System – The existing system is
inadequate to provide necessary water flow. Purchase
land and construct a new system
LEAD AGENCY
HAZARD
Squaxin Island
Tribal Council
TIME LINE
Earthquake
Fire
FUNDING SOURCE
2-5 years
2004
Federal & State
Grants, Operating
Budget
C
TABLE 5-6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR 2010
MITIGATION STRATEGY
GOAL/
OBJ.
PRIORITY
SCORE
HAZARD
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
FMA
STATUS
TIMELINE
FUNDING
SOURCE
2004
P
2010
MASON COUNTY
E
Mason County
Commissioner
5-10 years
Federal & State
Grants,
Operating
Budget, Local
Taxing
Authority
1.3
14
High
E,F,L,SS,
WF
Emergency
Management,
Community
Development
Ongoing
Homeland
Security Funds
4.1, 4.2
14
High
E, F, L, SS,
WF, HMR,
T/CD
Mason County
Public Works
Finished w/I 6
mo. of funding
availability
Grants
Mason County Courthouse – Create a redundant
computer system for all county records.
Sponsor public outreach activities to promote
flood/disaster awareness and provide NFIP
information along with disaster preparedness
materials to citizens. (Continued compliance with
NFIP)
GIS Data Gap Analysis: Look at GIS data
needed to map and analyze hazards affecting
Mason County. Identify which data layers or
attributes are missing or incorrect, and develop a
strategy to improve, create or obtain data. This
data can then be used to improve results from
the HAAZUS model and other GIS analyses for
mitigation, as well as improve the effectiveness
of response and recovery activities.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-9
N
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Work with Community Development to continue
to update, implement, and enforce existing
building and development codes, critical area,
stormwater, and shoreline ordinances that
pertain to new and existing development.
Work with other stakeholders, such as the
Skokomish Watershed Action Team (SWAT) to
develop watershed restoration projects that will
enhance/restore stream and wetland buffers and
increase the flood storage capacity.
Develop and implement a drainage system
maintenance plan, such as sediment and debris
clearance, to ensure unobstructed flow of
floodwaters.
Develop GIS Map for Mason County that
identifies road system areas affected by floods,
landslides, freezing, and winter storms. Apply the
Hazus Analysis Program to assist in analysis
modeling of the risks and impacts. Tools can be
used to plan work to prepare for forecast events
and reduce response and recovery time in the
event of road damage created by these hazards.
Earthquake Bridge Assessment – Analyze
existing bridges and large culverts used in the
County roads system and propose upgrades
needed to improve capability to withstand
seismic events of a magnitude expected for our
seismic zone. Once the bridges susceptible to
damage are identified then upgrade plans can be
developed.
GOAL/
OBJ.
PRIORITY
SCORE
HAZARD
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
TIMELINE
FUNDING
SOURCE
1.1, 1.2,
2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 3.1,
3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5
12
High
F, L, SS, E,
WF
Community
Development
Ongoing
Grants and
operating
budget
N
2.1
11
Moderate
F
Emergency
Management,
Public Works
Ongoing
Federal Grants
and Earmarks
N
2.3
11
Moderate
F
Public Works
2-5 years
Storm Water
Funds,
Department of
Ecology Grants
N
1.1
2.1
3.1
4.1
11
Moderate
F, L, SS
Public Works
Complete w/i 6
mo. of funding
availability
Grants
N
1.1
3.1
3.3
11
Moderate
E
Public Works
Complete w/i 1
yr. of funding
availability
Grants
N
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-10
2004
2010
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Obtain and install river gauges on the Tahuya
River. This record then serves as an assessment
of the volume of water that passes by the stream
gauge and is useful for many tasks associated
with hydrology. Measurements from these
stations are useful for a wide variety flood
prediction, water management, recreation and
navigation purposes.
GIS Risk Analysis mapping for wildland/WUI
fires. This will provide more detailed information
regarding the area at risk during a wildland fire
and help determine where to focus mitigation
strategies.
Prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
This will enable the County to plan how to reduce
the risk of wildfire and to establish a localized
definition and boundary for the wildand-urban
interface.
Acquire and/or elevate flood-damaged
structures, with special attention to repetitive loss
properties. (Continued compliance with NFIP)
Landslide – Purdy Cutoff Road between MP 0.5
and 1.1. Take protective actions to stabilize the
slope and divert slide debris from covering the
road to reduce road closures. This will maintain a
higher reliability for transportation over a key
road in the Skokomish River Valley and benefits
residential, commercial and emergency service
users of the road. There are approximately 650
average daily trips that are impacted and
emergency services are limited due to the
lengthy detour (6.2 miles). There are approx. 2
road closures per year ranging from 1-2 days.
GOAL/
OBJ.
PRIORITY
SCORE
HAZARD
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
TIMELINE
FUNDING
SOURCE
1.1
3.1
3.3
3.5
10
Moderate
F
Emergency
Management,
USGS
5-10 years
USGS
1.1
2.1
3.1
4.1
10
Moderate
WF
Emergency
Management,
GIS
2-5 years
N
1.1
3.1
3.3
4.1
10
Moderate
WF
Emergency
Management,
DNR
2-5 years
N
1.1, 3.1
3.2, 3.3
3.4
9
Moderate
F
Community
Development
5-10 years
FEMA-through
HMGP funds
N
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
7
Low
L
Public Works
Complete w/i 2
yrs. of funding
availability
Grants
N
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-11
2004
2010
N
MITIGATION STRATEGY
GOAL/
OBJ.
PRIORITY
SCORE
HAZARD
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
TIMELINE
FUNDING
SOURCE
Landslide – Northshore Road between MP 3.6 and 21.
Take protective actions to stabilize the slope and divert
slide debris from covering the road to reduce road
closures. This will maintain a higher reliability for
transportation over a key road for the Tahuya
Peninsula and benefits residential, commercial and
emergency service users of the road. There are
approx. 700 average daily trips that are impacted and
emergency services are limited due to the lengthy
detour (23.6 miles) when the road is closed. There are
approx. 4 closures per year ranging from 1-2 days.
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
7
Low
L
Public Works
Complete w/i 2
yrs. of funding
availability
Grants
N
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
7
Low
F
Public Works
Complete w/i 3
yrs. of funding
availability
Grants
N
1.1
1.3
2.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
7
Low
F
Planning
Department
5-10 years
Grants,
Operating
Budget
N
Flood – Skokomish Valley Road (Dips) at MP 4.
Improve road reliability by raising the road to
eliminate road closures due to flooding. This will
maintain a higher reliability for transportation
over a key access road through the Skokomish
River Valley and benefits residential, commercial
and emergency service users of the road. There
are approx. 102 average daily trips that are
impacted and emergency services are limited
due to the lengthy detour (23 miles) when the
road is closed. There are approximately 5
closures per year ranging from 1 day to 1 week.
Participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Community Rating System
(CRS) to help reduce flood losses, facilitate
accurate insurance rating, and promote
awareness of flood insurance. Incorporate these
activities into the existing Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance. (Continued compliance
with NFIP)
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-12
2004
2010
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Flood – Satsop Cloquallum Road between MP
7.1 and 7.7. Improve road reliability by raising the
road to eliminate road closures due to flooding.
This will maintain a higher reliability for
transportation over a key east-west road link and
benefits residential, commercial and emergency
service users of the road. There are approx. 140
average daily trips that are impacted and
emergency services are limited due to the
lengthy detour (31 miles) when the road is
closed. There are approximately 5 closures per
year ranging from 1 day to 1 week.
GOAL/
OBJ.
PRIORITY
SCORE
HAZARD
RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
TIMELINE
FUNDING
SOURCE
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
6
Low
F
Public Works
Complete w/i 2
yrs. of funding
availability
Grants
2-5 years
Federal & State
Grants,
Operating
Budget, Local
Taxing
Authority
2004
N
CITY OF SHELTON
Shelton Fire Department—Construct new fire
department building. Current building is unsafe to
occupy due to health and safety concerns.
E, F
HAZARD LEGEND
E = EARTHQUAKE
F = FLOOD
L = LANDSLIDE
SS = SEVERE STORM
WF = WILDLAND FIRE
HMR = HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE
T/CD = TERRORISM/CIVIL DISTURBANCE
City of Shelton
STATUS LEGEND
N = NEW
P = PENDING
C = COMPLETED
T=TABLED
O = ONGOING
IP = IN PROCESS
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-13
2010
IP
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)
Mason County joined the NFIP in May of 1991 in an effort to move development away
from flood hazard areas, transfer the costs of private property flood losses from the
taxpayers to the floodplain property owners, and to require new and substantially
improved buildings be constructed in ways that minimize or prevent damage during
flooding. Currently there are 451 NFIP policies in Mason County with a total coverage of
$99,091,600. Since 1978 there have been 203 claims with a total of $3,499,630 paid out
for flood related damages.
The County has prepared and adopted the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance (MCFDPO) to implement comprehensive flood damage reduction measures
that are necessary for public health, safety and welfare and that allow property owners to
protect their property. Additional information about the Skokomish River valley has been
developed through recent studies, and such data is relevant to the ordinance. Further
studies in the Skokomish River floodplain are currently being undertaken under the
authority of the Army Corps of Engineers.
A Special Flood Risk Zone was established for the Zones A and A2 floodplain of the
Skokomish River, Vance Creek and tributaries, and is illustrated on FIRM map
Community Panels #530115-0175D and #530115-0180D, (both revised December
8,1998). The effective date of all other FIRM’s is May 17, 1988. It is unknown at this time
when the flood maps for Mason County will be updated.
All development within the designated floodplains/floodways requires a development
permit. Information required as part of the permit process includes elevation in relation to
mean sea level of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially
improved structures, elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has
been floodproofed, certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet those criteria, and
description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of
the proposed development. The County maintains the elevation and floodproofing
certificates along with all records pertaining to the ordinance in the parcel file for public
inspection.
The MCFDPO exceeds the NFIP minimum requirements outlined in 44 CFR §60.3(d).
Mason County has also incorporated the Washington State Floodplain Management
requirements in RCW 86.16.041. In addition the ordinance includes requirements to
elevate one to foot or more above base flood elevation, critical facilities to be elevated to
3 feet or more above BFE, and stem walls to be no more than 4 feet in height for
enclosures below BFE.
In the past year the County has enhanced floodplain services by posting the floodplain
permit applications and the flood damage prevention ordinance on the website. The GIS
Department added flood overlays to the Map Mason Map Viewer, which allows citizens
to identify floodplain areas, and more specifically those parcels that are within mapped
floodplains. Other assistance is provided to citizens, engineers, consultants, developers,
realtors and insurance agents with questions on flood insurance rate maps, floodproofing techniques, construction methods and interpreting ordinances.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-14
The Community Assistance Visit (CAV) is part of the NFIP’s Community Assistance
Program (CAP). The purpose of the CAV is to provide technical assistance to the
community and assure that the community is adequately enforcing its floodplain
management regulations. The last CAV was done on September 15, 2006. Mason
County is currently in good standing with the NFIP program with no outstanding
compliance issues. The next CAV will be in 2011.
Reduced staffing levels have made it difficult for the County to participate in the CRS
program at this time. If the opportunity does arise, the County is currently pursuing CRS
activities that would qualify for credit points. Some of these include maintaining elevation
certificates, providing map information to the community, adopting higher regulatory
standards, flood data maintenance, and ongoing floodplain management planning.
As existing, ongoing mitigation Mason County implements and updates the Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance to make sure that all requests for building permits in the
Special Flood Hazard Areas are reviewed to ensure minimal impacts from flooding for all
new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Additional information about the
Skokomish River Valley was developed through additional studies. Through these
studies a Special Flood Risk Zone was established for Zones A and A2 floodplain of the
Skokomish Valley. The Special Flood Risk Zone was designated as a floodway and the
entire floodway was designated an avulsion risk area. Construction of a new structure or
an expansion of the square foot area of an existing structure is prohibited in this
floodway. Given the flood hazard in the planning area, emphasis will be placed on
continued compliance with the NFIP.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JANUARY 2010
SECTION 5: MITIGATION STRATEGY SECTION
PAGE 5-15
SECTION 6: CRITICAL FACILITIES
CHANGES TO THE CRITICAL FACILITIES SECTION (CHAPTER 1; SECTION 6 OF ORIGINAL
PLAN)
The HMPW reviewed the critical facilities identified in the original plan. The group
determined that all the facilities are still current and shall remain in the updated plan. The
critical facilities for the City of Shelton and the Squaxin Tribe have been removed since
they are not participating in the plan at this time. The selection process below is the
process the group used to identify the critical facilities in the original plan.
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL FACILITIES
In reviewing the facilities in unincorporated Mason County (to be identified throughout
the Plan as “County”), the Task Force first looked at the types of facilities that could be
considered “critical” to the citizens. These included a broad spectrum including:
• Assisted living facilities, rehabilitation centers, group homes and special
population living centers
• Communication centers including towers
• Large employers
• Critical community suppliers; i.e., grocery stores (including “Mom and Pop” stores
serving a relatively small population of the county), and pharmacies
• Emergency Operations Centers or pre-designated command centers
• Fire, rescue, and police stations
• Energy facilities including power station, switchyards, transmission lines, gas
lines, and fuel storage areas
• Government offices
• Facilities identified as having hazardous materials present
• Major roads and waterways designated as transportation routes, evacuation
routes, and primary access/egress routes
• Physicians’ offices, clinics, mental health and counseling centers
• Museums, cultural centers, and historical sites
• Public works facilities including equipment storage yards
• Religious facilities
• Schools and libraries
• Airports, marine ports, and bus and train stations
• Waste water facilities including sewer lines, lift stations, and treatment plants, as
well as intakes and pipelines
It was determined the best approach was to divide these facilities into those considered
“critical” to day-to-day living, those “essential” but not absolutely necessary, and
“hazards”. State and federal highways as well as the Washington Correction Center
were removed from the list since they are overseen by outside agencies. Some facilities
are sensitive in nature and so are designated “confidential”.
Essential facilities included those where certain activities are housed, i.e., fire and law
enforcement sub-stations where emergency vehicles may be housed but those vehicles
could continue to function from any location. For example Mason County is protected in
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 6: CRITICAL FACILITIES
PAGE 6-1
rural areas by unmanned fire stations containing one or more response apparatus, but
the station itself is not critical to the response.
Following are the facilities as identified. They are listed by jurisdiction and for simplicity
they are listed in alphabetical order, not to be misconstrued as order of importance.
CRITICAL FACILITIES
Alderbrook Water System
Belfair Water District
Harstene Retreat Water System
Hood Canal Water System
Hoodsport Water System
Lake Arrowhead Water System
Mason County Fire District 1 – one station
Mason County Fire District 2 – three stations
Mason County Fire District 3 – one station
Mason County Fire District 4 – one station
Mason County Fire District 5 – two stations
Mason County Fire District 6 – one station
Mason County Fire District 12 – one station
Mason County Fire District 13 – one station
Mason County Fire District 18 – one station
Mason County Shop
North Mason Medical Center
Pirates Cove Water System
PUD #1 Operations Center
PUD #3 Operations Center
Tiger Lake Terrace Tracts Water System
Union Water System
View Ridge Heights Water System
CONFIDENTIAL CRITICAL FACILITIES
Benson Radio Tower
Bloomfield Tower
Division of Emergency Management Emergency Operations Center
FireComm
Kamilche Peak Transmitter
PUD #3 Warehouse – Belfair
Union Heights Tower
Union Heights Tower/Transmission Site
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES
AT&T Cellular Towers
Belfair Assembly of God Church
Belfair Baptist Church
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 6: CRITICAL FACILITIES
PAGE 6-2
Cingular Wireless Cellular Phone Tower
Fair Harbor Marina
Gospel Lighthouse
Grapeview School District
Hood Canal Community Church
Hood Canal School District
Hoodsport Timberland Library
LDS Church
Mary M. Knight School District
Mason County Christian School
Mason County Fire District 2, Station 2-6
Mason County Fire District 8
Mason County Fire District 11
Mason County Fire District 16
Mason County Fire District 17
Mason County Garbage
North Mason School District
North Mason Timberland Library
Pioneer School District
Port of Allyn Administration Building
Port of Allyn Dock
Port of Allyn Dock North Shore Dock
Prince of Peace Catholic Church
Qwest Telecommunications
Seventh Day Adventist School
Southside School District
Sprint Cellular Phone Tower
St. Hugh Episcopal Church
Taylor Shellfish
United Methodist Church
HAZARDS
Anderson Dam
Bennettsen Lake Dam
Buck Lake Dam
Christine Lake Dam
Cranberry Lake Stormwater Detention Dam
Cushman Dam #1
Cushman Dam #1 – Spillway Headworks
Cushman Dam #2
Fawn Lake Dam
Haven Lake Dam
Lake Limerick Dam
Lakeland Village Pond #1
Leprechaun Lake Dam
Little Twin Lakes Dam
Melbourne Lake Dam
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 6: CRITICAL FACILITIES
PAGE 6-3
Natural Gas Line
Rosand Dam
Timberlake Dam
Trask Lake Dam
Uddenberg Lake Dam
West Lake Dam
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 6: CRITICAL FACILITIES
PAGE 6-4
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Adoption by the Local Governing Body – Requirement §201.6(c)(5):
[The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the
plan (e.g. City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
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.
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.
CHANGES TO THE PLAN MAINTENANCE SECTION (CHAPTER 5 OF ORIGINAL PLAN)
The Plan Adoption process has been moved to this section.
A maintenance evaluation process has been added to this section. A description of the
Planning Team role in implementation and maintenance has been added.
The Implementation through Existing Programs section includes more specific
information on the programs that can be utilized to implement the mitigation strategies
and the process for doing that.
Public involvement has changed slightly to include solicitation through the local
newspaper, radio station and website postings.
PLAN ADOPTION
The Mason County Commission is responsible for adopting the Mason County Hazard
Mitigation Plan after the Pre-Adoption review by the Washington State Emergency
Management Division (EMD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Region X. The Plan will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for initial
review and coordination. The State will then send the plan to FEMA Region X Office for
formal review and approval. The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after
receipt from the State.
If during the Pre-Adoption review there are revisions requested by the Washington State
EMD and/or FEMA Region X, Mason County DEM will call a Planning Team Meeting to
address any revisions needed and resubmit the changes.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-1
Once the Plan is adopted, the Emergency Management Manager of the Mason County
DEM will be responsible for submitting it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer. When
FEMA Region X approves the Plan Mason County will then be eligible to participate in
the Hazard Mitigation and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Programs.
Approval dates of the Plan by the Washington State EMD and FEMA Region X will be
listed in Appendix A along with a copy of the resolution signed by the County
Commissioners. The Plan will then be rerouted to the State and FEMA for final approval
and will include the resolution signed by the County Commissioners. Appendix A will be
used to track changes and/or updates to the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard
mitigation planning. This section provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan
implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring,
updating, and evaluating the plan. The section also discusses incorporating the plan into
existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement.
IMPLEMENTATION
While this plan contains many worthwhile actions, the participating jurisdictions will need
to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that
decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding
availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful
plan implementation.
An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is
incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying
principles into other plans. The County and participating jurisdictions already implement
policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan
builds upon previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and
recommends implementing actions, where possible, through these other programs.
Mason County has some regulatory mechanisms that can be used to help achieve the
mitigation strategy. These are listed in the Capability Section of the plan. Mason County
DEM will work together with those departments identified in the Capability and Mitigation
Strategy Sections to launch the strategy outlined in the Mitigation Strategy Section.
Facility-related measures will be implemented through the Capital Facilities Plan as part
of the normal budget process. Those strategies that are of a regulatory and/or land use
nature will be implemented through the process of updating of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and/or land use ordinances.
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and
priorities of government and development. This effort is achieved through the routine
actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable
community. Additional mitigation strategies could include consistent and ongoing
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-2
enforcement of existing policies and review of programs for coordination and multiobjective opportunities.
It is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be
leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include
creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation
requirements. When funding does become available, the participating jurisdictions will be
in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored
include special pre- and post-disaster funds, special district budgeted funds, state and
federal earmarked funds, and other grant programs.
PLANNING TEAM ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
With adoption of this plan, the participating jurisdictions will be tasked with plan
implementation and maintenance. The participating jurisdictions, led by Emergency
Management, agree to:
• Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;
• Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;
• Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions;
• Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of community decision making by
identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and
activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability to
disasters;
• Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help
the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current
funding exists;
• Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan; and
• Inform and solicit input from the public.
The primary duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering
stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate
entities, and posting relevant information on the County website (as appropriate).
MAINTENANCE
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation
and to update the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are
recognized.
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Mason County Emergency Management is responsible for initiating plan reviews and
consulting with the other participating jurisdictions. In order to monitor progress and
update the mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, Emergency Management
will review this plan annually, after a hazard event, and during grant cycles. In
conjunction with the other participating jurisdictions, they will submit a five year update to
the State and FEMA Region X, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing
regulations) require a change to this schedule.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-3
MAINTENANCE EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities
identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by.
•
•
•
Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions;
Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions; and/or
Increased vulnerability as a result of new development.
Updates to this plan will:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation;
Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective;
Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective;
Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked;
Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks;
Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities;
Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories; and
Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
In order to best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation,
the participating jurisdictions should follow the following process:
•
A representative from the responsible department/agency identified in each
mitigation measure will be responsible for tracking and reporting on an annual
basis to the jurisdictional lead on action status and provide input on whether the
action as implemented meets the defined objectives and is likely to be successful
in reducing vulnerabilities.
•
If the action does not meet identified objectives, the jurisdictional lead will
determine what additional measures may be implemented, and an assigned
individual will be responsible for defining action scope, implementing the action,
monitoring success of the action, and making any required modifications to the
plan.
Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that have failed or are not
considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, time
frame, community priorities, and/or funding resources. Actions that were not ranked high
but were identified as potential mitigation activities will be reviewed as well during the
monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation.
Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as Mason County
Emergency Management considers appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the
Mason County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the other
participating jurisdictions. In keeping with the process of adopting the plan, a public
involvement process to receive public comment on plan maintenance and updating will
be held during the five-year update, and the final product will be adopted by the
governing boards.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-4
INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANS
Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is
incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying
principles into other County plans and programs. Where possible, plan participants will
use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation actions. Mitigation is
most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of
government and development. The County and participating jurisdictions already
implement policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards.
This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning
efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible,
through these other programs.
The Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan includes a range of action items that, when
implemented, will reduce loss from hazard events in the County. Mason County relies on
comprehensive land use planning, capital improvements planning, and building codes to
guide and control development. For example current building codes regulate hazard
area construction and require hazard specific engineering to better withstand impacts to
certain hazards such as elevation in floodplains and stormwater management in
landslide hazard areas. Land use regulations require buffers/setbacks that have been
established for streams, wetlands, and shorelines to minimize impacts to critical areas
and retain functionality of floodplain/wetlands to store floodwaters.
Many land-use, comprehensive, and strategic plans get updated regularly, and can
adapt easily to changing conditions and needs. After adoption of the plan the County
will address hazards in their comprehensive plans and land use regulations including the
Flood Ordinance, Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and Watershed
Plan during the update process. Working in conjunction with State, Federal, and NFIP
representatives, the 2008 update of the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance identified the Skokomish Valley floodplain as a special flood hazard area
(floodway and avulsion risk area). We did this to address the legal ramifications of prior
NFIP directed ordinances. New construction and substantial improvements are now
prohibited in this area. In keeping with the purpose of mitigation and intent of the Mason
County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, this has substantially eliminated the potential
future flood damages, especially to new development, in the Skokomish Valley
floodplain.
In addition to plans, programs, and regulations, the entities may also incorporate the
mitigation measures into their Capital Facilities Plans (CFP’s). The County’s CFP
identifies major infrastructure developments which have been identified in a 6 and 20
year time frame. When the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan is updated it
should include relevant parts of this plan, if appropriate, or be linked back to this
document by reference. As new projects are funded under the CFP, the mitigation plan
will be reviewed to: 1) determine if there are any existing mitigation measures which can
be included within the project; and 2) review the hazard profiles to make certain new
facilities are not being constructed within a hazard zone, and if they are, determine what
mitigation efforts can be included to diminish potential impacts from the hazard.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-5
Local jurisdictions often adopt special purpose or “functional plans” separately from their
comprehensive plans. These plans deal with a specific function or service such as
stormwater, sewage, or in this case, hazard mitigation plan. These plans are officially
adopted by the entity and provide a level of detail that is not found in the comprehensive
plan.
The County is currently working to link flood mitigation with the TIP-CAP 6-yr planning
process regarding culverts and bridges. Mason County is just now in the process of
developing a Stormwater Management Plan and this new process will be coming to the
Planning Team.
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Continued public involvement is also imperative to the overall success of the plan’s
implementation. The update process provides an opportunity to publicize success stories
from the plan implementation and seek additional public comment. Public hearings to
receive public comment on plan maintenance and updating will be held during the
update period. Solicitation for public comment will be done through the local SheltonMason County Journal, KMAS radio station, and postings on the website.
When the Planning Team meets to address the Plan update, they will coordinate with all
stakeholders participating in the planning process—including those that joined the
committee since the planning process began—to update and revise the plan. The plan
maintenance and update process will include continued public and stakeholder
involvement and input through attendance at designated Planning Team meetings, web
postings, press releases to local media, and through public meetings.
Mason County DEM will retain copies of the Plan and post it on the website where
comments can be made. Any proposed changes to the Plan will also be posted on the
website along with any comments and updates to the Plan. This process will allow for
the public to provide ongoing comments regarding the Mitigation Plan.
MASON COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
JULY 2010
SECTION 7: PLAN MAINTENANCE
PAGE 7-6
APPENDIX A
SIGNED RESOLUTIONS
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
APPENDIX B
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
AGENCY
American Red Cross
NAME
Steve Finley
Community Development
County Commissioner
Department/Agency
Emergency Management
Exceptional Foresters
Fire District #4
Fire District #18
Fire Marshal
Lewis, Thurston, Mason Area
Agency on Aging
MACECOM
Mason General Hospital
Mason Transit
Public Health
Public Works
Sheriff’s Office
Squaxin Police
Wa Correctional Center
Mike Molyneux
Larry Waters
Tammi Wright
Ross Gallagher
Name
Martin Best,
Sandi Kvarnstrom
Sandi Loertscher
Jake Holt
Patti Jo Larson
Barry Mihailov
Bob Burbridge
Jim Mitchell
Mike Mott
Frank Phillips
Ken Weaver
Craig Haugen
Tracy Gunter
Jill Evander
Andrew Bales
Terry Mihailov
J. Rosapepe
Vicki Kirkpatrick
Jess Mosley
Charles Butros
Dean Byrd
Mike Evans
Garnett Curtis
TITLE
Emergency Services
Director
Building Inspector
Planner
Commissioner
Title
Manager
Training/Exercise Coord.
Administrative Coord.
Fire Chief
Fire Commissioner
Fire Chief
Fire Commissioner
Fire Commissioner
Fire Marshal
Health Director
Environmental Health
Director
Chief Deputy
Police Chief
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
APPENDIX C
MASON COUNTY MITIGATION PLANNING WORKGROUP MEMBERS
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY
Commissioner
Community Development
Emergency Management
Fire District #4
Mason Transit
Public Health
PUD #3
Public Works
Sheriff’s Office
NAME
Ross Gallagher
Larry Waters
Sandi Loertscher
Bob Burbridge
Terry Mihailov
Jess Mosley
Bill Smith
Allan Eaton
Dean Byrd
TITLE
Commissioner
Building Inspector
Administrative Coordinator
Fire Chief
Transit Driver
Health Inspector
Operations Manager
Road Supervisor
Chief Deputy
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
APPENDIX D
MEETING DOCUMENTATION
PLANNING WORKGROUP NOTES
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Meeting #1 – February 19, 2009
M.C. Public Works Building
In attendance: Bob Burbridge, FD#4; Dean Byrd, MC Sherriff’s Office; Alan Eaton, MC
Public Works; Ross Gallagher, MC Commissioner; Sandi Loertscher, DEM; Terry
Mihailov, Mason Transit; Jess Mosley, Public Health; John Taylor, Squaxin Island Tribe;
Larry Waters, Community Development.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 8:35 am and introductions were made.
Purpose: Hazard Mitigation Plans must be reviewed and updated every 5 years. There
must be a Plan in place in order to receive federal funding for mitigation projects. The
plan needs to include current, ongoing projects as well as targeting new projects.
Meeting Calendar: Members agreed to initially meet twice a month. Schedule may
change as plan progresses.
Work Plan Deadlines:
Develop Mitigation Action Plan
Draft Plan to Planning Team for Review
Draft Plan to State for Review (30 days +-)
Draft Plan to FEMA for Review (45 days +-)
Adoption of Plan by County Commissioners
Plan Deadline
____TBD______
___ TBD_ _____
__Dec. 12, 2009_
__Jan. 15, 2010_
__April 15, 2010_
__May 1, 2010___
Discuss Planning Process: The last plan was aided by a computer program from FEMA
that led developers through the format – basically a ‘fill-in the blanks’ process. This time
Sandi will be developing the plan from scratch. This group will be doing the research
and laying the foundation for the plan. The focus will be on natural disasters.
The introductory portion, including county demographics and history, is complete.
The HIVA is done and ready for review. A choice must be made of what hazards to
focus on.
The critical infrastructures in the County have been identified; this list needs to be
reviewed for possible changes/additions.
The Plan will need to have a capabilities assessment. The groundwork for this is
already completed based on the rules, regulations and ordinances already in place.
FEMA has provided a checklist detailing what is needed i.e. Growth Management Plan,
wetlands protection, etc.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
The public also needs to be involved in the planning. This requirement will be met by
regular newspaper articles, scheduling public meetings and tracking outreach made by
Sandi Kvarnstrom as she conducts training.
Sandi L. noted that representation from PUD 1 and 3 and the City of Shelton should also
be included in the Planning process.
Workgroup Project: Due by next meeting on Wednesday March 4. Members were
asked to review the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) and complete
the Hazards Risk Assessment per guidelines pages 12 and 13 at end of section. If you
cannot attend the next meeting please email your results of the Assessment to Sandi L.
prior to the March 4th date.
Several members also requested copies of the last Hazard Mitigation Plan for review
and these will be made available.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 4th at 8:30 am at MC Public Works Building.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Meeting #2 – March 4, 2009
M.C. Public Works Building
In Attendance: Bob Burbridge, FD#4; Alan Eaton, MC Public Works; Sandi Loertscher,
DEM; Terry Mihailov, Mason Transit; Jess Mosley, Public Health; Dave Salzer, City of
Shelton; Bob Smith, PUD 3; Larry Waters, Community Development.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 8:31 am and introductions were made.
Welcome to Bob Smith from PUD 3 and Dave Salzer representing the City of Shelton.
HIVA Review:
1) Correction on page 42, first paragraph last line: change …”experienced drivers”
to …”operators”. Line to read …..”due to a lack of snow clearing equipment and
operators.”
2) The Hazard Risk Assessment was discussed. When input is complete and
tabulated, there should be four to six natural hazards to focus on for the
mitigation plan. A few of the members had completed their assessments and
shared their findings. While not always in agreement with how to rank the
hazards, they did agree on the most likely events that would impact the area.
(PLEASE complete your assessment by the next meeting. You only need to rank
the top 4 to 6 natural hazards that you see as having the greatest impact on the
county. When you decide on a rating for a given section, enter only one number
i.e. “Unlikely – enter a 1 or a 2 or a 3; Highly Likely – enter a 7 or an 8 or a 9.)
3) Once this group approves the HIVA it will be presented to the Planning Team for
their approval and it will then be put in place as the latest update.
Developing Work Plan Deadlines:
1) The group agreed that rather than set deadlines for each project, each task will
be dated when accomplished.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
2) Members also agreed that The Community Asset Inventory section can be
completed towards the end of the project.
Public Involvement Ideas:
1) Sandi shared a copy of the proposed public survey. Please review and offer you
comments at the next meeting.
2) Members received a copy of the article appearing in the Journal.
3) Discussed ways to encourage public input. Ideas were to utilize public
information avenues on TV, presentation at both chapters of the Chamber and
holding a couple of public meetings. Bring your ideas!
Workgroup Projects (aka homework):
1) Complete HIVA assessment form if not already done
2) Review public survey form and bring your comments
3) Bring your ideas for generating public input
Next Meeting: Monday, March 16 at 2:30 pm at Mason County Public Works Building
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Meeting #3 – March 16, 2009
M.C. Public Works Building
In Attendance: Bob Burbridge, FD#4; Alan Eaton, MC Public Works; Russ Gallagher,
MC Commissioner; Sandi Loertscher, DEM; Terry Mihailov, Mason Transit; Dave Salzer,
City of Shelton; Bob Smith, PUD 3; Larry Waters, Community Development.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 2:30 pm; introductions were waived.
Hazard Assessment Forms: Thanks to those who have completed the “Hazard
Assessment” forms; if you haven’t completed yours PLEASE get them done and back to
Sandi ASAP.
Capabilities Assessment: Sandi reminded everyone to complete the “Local Capability
Assessment Survey” (forms passed out at last meeting)
Public Involvement Ideas:
o Review of Hazard Mitigation Survey for Website: Sandi asked for input on the
proposed website survey. Members agreed it looked fine. She will have another
article in the paper about the Planning process that will refer the public to the
survey
o Other Ideas: There will be at least two public meeting scheduled sometime
during the planning process. It was suggested that someone could do an
interview at KMAS regarding the Mitigation Planning (Marty?). Also, do an
announcement at Mason County Commissioner’s meeting (Charlie or Marty).
Workgroup Projects:
o In your copy of the November 2004 Mitigation Plan, please review pages 22
thru 25 for a list of identified “critical and essential facilities and hazards”.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
o
o
Review this list and decide if we need to add to or delete from it. Is there any
kind of mitigation that needs to be done to “harden” any of the facilities?
On pages 26 thru 29 are the Proposed Mitigation Initiatives. Please review for
those completed and for any not yet completed but needing to be added to the
new plan.
Review of “First Section of Plan”: Sandi provided copies of “Section One” for
review – place this packet in front of divider titled “Hazard Identification” and
behind sheets titled “Prerequisite(s)” and “Planning Process”. Compare to the
guidelines on the “Planning Process” to make sure all bullets have been
addressed. If you didn’t get your copy of “Section One – Introduction” please
contact Sandi L.
Next Meeting: Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm at Mason County Public Works
Building.
Adjourn at 3:05 pm
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Meeting #4 – April 2, 2009
M.C. Public Works Building
In Attendance: Bob Burbridge, FD#4; Russ Gallagher, MC Commissioner; Sandi
Loertscher, DEM; Terry Mihailov, Mason Transit; Jess Mosley, Public Health Dept.; Bob
Smith, PUD 3 and guest Martin Best, Director of Emergency Management of Mason
County.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 2:30 pm; introductions were waived.
Guest Speaker: Marty was introduced and offered insights into the processes of hazard
mitigation.
The key to hazard mitigation is to identify projects or actions that will substantially reduce
or eliminate the impact of the next major disaster event.
There are two aspects to mitigation. If grant money from the Feds is being sought for
the project then the Plan must document, through a benefit cost analysis, how the
action/project will save money during a disaster. Examples of such projects include
seismic retrofit at schools or a buyout of homes repeatedly impacted by flooding.
However, actions that can be enacted without federal funding, such as changing building
codes to mitigate damage from hazards (cannot build on regularly flooded land), do not
need to meet benefit cost analysis requirement.
Any junior taxing authority can become a part of the Mitigation Plan. Keep in mind that
they can only mitigate those things that they own or have control over. It is not
necessary to have had damage in the past, only to be able to show a potential for
damage.
In answer to questions, Marty noted that while FEMA would not fund a new addition to a
building, the seismic retrofitting of the old portion plus cost of installing seismic fit in new
portion would be considered. This, in turn, could help reduce overall costs of project.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Hazard Assessment Results: The results of the Hazards Risk Assessments have been
tabulated and the following threats are listed in order determined by the workgroup: #1Earthquake; #2-Severe Storm (Severe Winter Storm - Windstorm – Extreme Cold/ Ice/
Snow); #3-Landslides; #4-Flood-Riverine/Storm Water; and #5-Wildfire. These threats
will be the focus of our mitigation planning.
Capabilities Assessment Results: Sandi passed out copies of the “Local Capability
Assessment Survey” and asked members to review the results. Do you feel this is
complete? Was anything left out? Any other additions or changes? Reply to Sandi
ASAP.
2005 Mitigation Initiatives Review: Sandi reviewed the 2005 Initiatives and pointed out
that some of those activities not completed could be added to the new Plan if the
sponsoring entity so desired. Those listed as incomplete include: Mason County
Courthouse – computer system redundancy; Relocation of Station 5-3 and seismic
retrofitting of Station 2-1; Mason General Hospital-ventilation system, retrofit/renovate
building and fix drainage problem and Shelton Fire Department – new station. Projects
completed include a new DEM facility, relocation of MC shop, a new pump station/force
main under Goldsborough Creek, Kamilche water system and consolidation of FireCom
and ShelCom.
Mitigation Strategies and Priorities: Now that Hazards have been identified then the
group needs to go through and set goals, objectives and proposed actions. In order to
get the creative juices going and encourage ideas, Sandi shared a sheet with some
suggestions of goals such as 1) Prevention, 2) Property Protection, 3) Public Education,
and so on. Under each of the goals were suggestions for objectives or actions.
Workgroup Projects:
o Review the “Capabilities Assessment” to make sure everything is covered and
correct.
o Using the sheets “Mitigation Strategies and Priorities” and “Mitigation ideas”
start thinking about goals, objectives and actions that can be applied to the five
(5) hazards identified.
Next Meeting: Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm at Mason County Public Works
Building.
Adjourn at 3:35 pm
Hazard Mitigation Planning Workgroup
Meeting #5 – May 7, 2009
M.C. Public Works Building
In Attendance: Bob Burbridge, FD#4; Russ Gallagher, MC Commissioner; Sandi
Loertscher, DEM; Terry Mihailov, Mason Transit; Jess Mosley, Public Health Dept.; Larry
Waters, Community Development.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 2:30 pm; introductions were waived.
Capabilities Assessment: Completed !
2005 Mitigation Review: Goals were reviewed and those that met criteria and not met yet
formed the core of the goals developed below.
Mitigation Strategies: Given that the following are the identified hazards: 1) Earthquake
2) Flood 3) Landslide 4) Severe Storm 5) Wildfire, the group began work on the following
goals:
Goal 1: Protect life and property
Objective: Protect human life and health
Objective: Public education and awareness
Objective: Reach non-English speaking population
Goal 2: Enhance ability of critical services to recover
Objective:
Goal 3: Minimize damage to infrastructure
Objective:
Goal 4: Minimize public and private losses due to natural disasters
Objective: Develop a sanitation plan/provide to public
Goal 5: Protect the environment
Objective: Protect aquifers, wetlands, critical habitats
Members are encouraged to review the above and to email their ideas for objectives to
Sandi as soon as possible. Hopefully, there will be a final list ready for action at the next
meeting. As you review the goals and identify objectives, keep in mind that mitigation
actions can be grouped into six broad categories: 1) Prevention – Examples: planning
and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation
and storm water management regulations. 2) Property Protection – Examples:
acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters and shatter-resistant
glass. 3) Public Education and Awareness – Examples: outreach projects, real estate
disclosure, hazard information centers and school-age and adult education programs. 4)
Natural Resource Protection – Examples: sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management and wetland
restoration and preservation. 5) Emergency Services – Examples: warning systems,
emergency response services and protection of critical facilities. 6) Structural Projects –
Examples: dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls and safe rooms.
Please come prepared to complete this phase of the Plan.
Next Meeting: Thursday, July 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm at Mason County Public Works
Building.
Adjourn at 4:00 pm
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
March 11, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Introductions followed. Present: Bob Burbridge, Charlie Butros, Garnett, Curtis, Jill
Evander, Ross Gallagher, Tracy Gunter, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Sandi Loertscher, Tim
McKern, Barry Mihailov, Terry Mihailov, Mike Molyneux, Jess Mosely, Mike Mott, john
Taylor, Larry Waters. Guest: Lt Col Ben Maltz, Washington National Guard.
The minutes of the February 11 meeting were approved as presented.
Marty turned the floor over to Lt Col Ben Maltz for his presentation, “10th Civil Support
Team Capabilities Brief”
 Originally ten Civil Support Teams, now 57 in the process of standing up. 32
currently fully operational.
 Can come into an area and assist the Incident Commander in support of the
event. The local IC maintains leadership.
 Their goals are to prevent save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate
property damage.
 Members are full-time Army/Air National Guard personnel based at Camp
Murray; they must be available for one-hour recall to Camp Murray unless
traveling on assignment, deployed, or on leave.
 Requests for deployment for the Civil Support Team go through the local EOC;
they can respond to Camp Murray and deploy immediate response for a nonotice or credible incident and a more deliberate response for one that is preplanned.
 They can load up their entire complement of equipment on a C-17 or for local
deployments they travel with limited equipment on two Chinook helicopters.
 They look for local opportunities (drills or exercises ) for training.
 They are a state asset, federally funded, so can deploy at no cost to assist local
entities.
BREAK
Old Business:
Winter storm update – Marty reported on the progress of the FEMA support.
Grants
 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program available following the January ’09 and
December ’08 Presidential disaster declarations. Only jurisdictions currently in
the County plan can apply for project grants; others can apply for a HM plan
grant. Must submit a letter of intent (LOI) to the State by May 1st deadline.
 Communication Engineering Study – Jill reported that AdComm is nearly finished
with local site visits; waiting for “Spring” to go up to some of the remote sites.
 ’07 SHSP Grant – last of the larger equipment purchases are complete and all
funds are expended.
 ’08 SHSP Grant – have received the contract; will be working with MACECOM to
develop RFP.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix


Flood Mitigation Addendum – still waiting for meeting with FEMA/State EMD to
discuss review.
Radios for North Mason School District – the DHS requirement for P25
compliance in radios increased the estimate from $4,000.00 to $12,000.00 so the
District is not going to pursue the purchase as originally discussed but will be
looking for portable UHF radios.
All Hazard Mitigation Plan update
 Sandi L reported on a recent article in the paper which answers one of the
requirements for public involvement.
 The committee is working on a section of the Plan at each meeting.
 The next meeting is Monday, March 16 at 8:30am, at DEM.
New Business: none
Training:
 Transportation Planning for Catastrophic Events with Bill Lokey, Wednesday,
April 1, 9:00am, at DEM.
 Garnett reported on the WCC exercise completed recently.
 Garnett also stated that they would be reactivating the fence alarm system.
 There will be a Disaster Readiness Seminar “Death in Disasters” on Tuesday,
April 21. If interested in attending contact Joy Fulling at Public Health.
 “Partners in Emergency Preparedness” conference is April 14-15 at the Tacoma
Convention Center. There are some excellent topics covered. Contact Sandi K
for more information.
Good of the Order:
 Next meeting – Wednesday, April 8, 8:30am, at DEM.
 Mike from Red Cross has provided some American Red Cross Mt Rainier
Chapter “Disaster Services Guides”; if you have questions, please see Mike.
Adjourned at 9:50am.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
April 8, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Present: Marty Best, Bob Burbridge, Dean Byrd, Ross Gallagher, Tracy Gunter, Craig
Haugen, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Patti Jo Larson, Sandi Loertscher, Tim McKern, Barry
Mihailov, Terry Mihailov, Jess, Mosley, Larry Waters
Guest: Jay Rosapepe.
The minutes of the March 11 meeting were approved as presented.
Old Business:
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Hazard Mitigation Plan – Sandi L reported that the Workgroup is moving ahead through
the projects.
♦
The HIVA has been completed. This addresses earthquakes,
winter storms, landslides, flooding and wildfires.
♦
Capabilities assessment, administrative/technical assessment,
and fiscal capabilities have all been completed.
♦
Section 1 is finished.
♦
The Workgroup is reviewing the mitigation initiatives from the
last Plan.
♦
Beginning work on goals and objectives. Marty will sit in on this
portion of the planning
♦
Marty thanked the Workgroup for their efforts to date.
♦
Engineering Study
♦
The site visits have been completed.
♦
A survey was sent out and they have received the responses.
♦
FEMA
♦
Closing out the .07 SHSP grant.
♦
The contract for the ’08 SHSP grant is signed and back.
Marty will begin working with Jill and Mike to develop the
Request for Proposal (RFP) for the RoIP system.
o LETPP funding is now rolled up into the SHSP grants so at least 25%
of the funding must go for law enforcement enhancement. This
criteria will be easily met since 60% of MACECOM’s calls are law
enforcement related.
Future grants
♦
Terry asked about possible funding for generators for both of the MTA
facilities. The one downtown is designated as a shelter. Marty asked her
to provide a written request with details as to size, cost, etc.
♦
We need to continue to develop a “wish list” so we are prepared as future
grant opportunities arise.
Sheltering
♦
American Red Cross is still in the CEMP as the lead for sheltering. More
community shelters are now being utilized.
Hood Canal Bridge
♦
Closure begins May 1. There will be some drills and exercises conducted
prior to the closure. Sandi will email the dates as they become available.
“White Train”
♦
Interest in having someone come and speak to the Planning Team
Grant writing
♦
Jess Mosley asked about training on grant writing.
Emergency Preparedness Month
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
♦
Suggest agencies hold some kind of short exercise to reawaken
awareness.
Public Health has moved!
♦
They are now located all in one building – Building 8. Extensions and
emails remain the same.
New Business:
‘03 grant items
♦
Several agencies – fire, hospital, law enforcement, public health, Mason
General Hospital, etc. – received items through Thurston County that
have a shelf life. Several expired in 2008. Please check those items.
They can be used for training, but not in a real event. If unusable for
training, they can be disposed of according to your agency and
environmental guidelines. (In the future we will discuss how to dispose of
damaged or obsolete equipment.)
Future speakers
♦
If you know of a speaker or topic you feel would be of interest to the
Planning Team, please contact Sandi K with name and telephone number
so we can make contact.
Full Scale Exercise
♦
Planned for the fall. More information coming
Damages from the December storm
♦
Please get your damage report to Marty as soon as possible. Items such
as overtime, damaged equipment may be eligible for reimbursement.
Training:
“Death in Disasters” – April 21. Contact Joy Fulling, Public Health, for
more information.
“Partners in Emergency preparedness” – April 14-15 in Tacoma
“WMD radiological/Nuclear Responder Operations” course. October 16 – 18, sponsored
by Districts 6, 9, 4 and WSP.
ICS 300 – April 28 – 29. Thurston County Sheriff’s Office
ICS 400 – coming in May, probably to Mason County
Good of the Order
Terry introduced J Rosapepe, the new Operations Manager for Mason Transit. J came
from Pierce County.
Next meeting – Wednesday, May 13, 8:30am, Public Works Training Room A.
The meeting was adjourned.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM MEETING
MINUTES
May 13, 2009
Chair Marty Best called the meeting to order.
Present: Marty Best, Bob Burbridge, Charles Butros, Dean Byrd, Garnett Curtis, Ross
Gallagher, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Patti Jo Larson, Sandi Loertscher, Barry Mihailov, Jess
Mosley, Larry Waters.
Guests: Greg Seals (Fire District #4), Vera Keller (EFI).
The minutes of the April 8 meeting were approved as presented.
Old Business:
Hazard Mitigation Plan update – Sandi Loertscher
 She reports that it has been something of a challenge to keep people interested
in attending the meetings.
 They have decided on goals, objectives, and the actions to achieve both.
 There will not be a meeting in June; they will continue their progress in July.
Pre-Mitigation Planning Grant – Marty
 We did not get this grant; Marty is now applying for Hazard Mitigation Grant
funds which may allow for a consultant to assist with updating the Plan.
Engineering Study
 The study was funded by 2006 LETPP grant monies.
 The study should be completed by the end of June, showing possible gaps in the
County’s communications and recommendations to bridge those gaps.
 2008 SHSP Grant will fund upgrades of the existing communications equipment
to begin closing those gaps.
“White train”
 Sandi Kvarnstrom has been attempting to get a hold of someone to come and
speak.
 Commissioner Gallagher mentioned that the military might not be using rail
transportation as much now; more shipping via the highways.
April Preparedness Month
 Charlie Butros and Sandi K collaborated on a short exercise, evacuating the new
Public Works facility
 People who work in the far south end of Bldg 1 have been designated to ‘sweep”
the offices and restrooms as they proceed to the evacuation door on the west
side of the building.
 It was determined in discussions following the exercise the need for first aid kits,
dust masks, particularly for those making the “sweeps” and additional AEDs.
Currently the only AED is in the DEM logistics office.

Hood Canal Bridge closure
There has been the expected increase in traffic in Belfair, but no major impact in
the County to date.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
New Business:












H1N1 influenza – Jess Mosley
Started in Mexico in April
State DOH and the CDC activated aggressively
To date, 176 confirmed cases. 19 possible and one dead.
19 – 33 age bracket has been hit the hardest
Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) has pushed 25% of its stockpile down to the
states and then to the counties. The Mason County stockpile is stored at Mason
General Hospital and at a total of four pharmacies in the County – two in the
north end of the County and two South. All have drive-through capabilities so if
pharmaceuticals have to be dispensed, it can be done without infected
individuals walking into the pharmacy.
Squaxin and Skokomish have also ordered stockpile supplies
In an attempted to put this in perspective, Jess noted that 200,000 have been
reported ill and 35,000 died from the regular influenza.
This is as close to a “real” exercise as we can get.
The H1N1 strain can now be identified at the State lab.
DEM is constantly reassessing the need to activate to a higher level.
For local information please call Ext 599
Future speakers
Sandi K asked if anyone has a speaker in mind, to contact Marty or her.
Good of the Order
 Sandi K asked everyone, members and guests, to please sign in.
 The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 10, 8:30am, Public Works Training
Room A.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35am.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
June 10, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Present:
Marty Best, Bob Burbridge, Charles Butros, Perry Carrington, Garnett,
Curtis, Jason Dean, Jill Evander, Ross Gallagher, Jake Holt, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Barry
Mihailov, Jim Mitchell, Jess Mosley, Mike Mott, Frank Phillips,
Guests: Hans Cregg, Chuck Greninger (both from Mason County Public Works), Brian
Edsinger, and Tracey Murdock.
The minutes of the May 13 meeting were approved as written.
Marty welcomed our speakers – Brian Edsinger, Emergency Management Officer for
Naval Base Kitsap and Tracey Murdock, Regional Emergency Management Program
Director, Navy Region Northwest.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
The request to have Brian and Tracey here was based partially on the recent Navy train
vs truck collision at Katchemak Lane near Belfair in early April and general interest in
what is coming through Mason County by rail and who is contacted and who has
jurisdiction to investigate incidents like the April situation.
Brian said the lead agency on incidents involving rail and decisions to allow
continued operation is Washington State Patrol; they would be relieved by Washington
State DOT or US DOT as appropriate. The Defense Transportation Tracking System
(DTTS) would also come into play.
Who “owns” the track? Either the State or Northcom (Northern Command
Colorado).
The immediate response would be as outlined for other motor vehicle accidents
(MVAs) – save lives, prevent human suffering, mitigate property damage. Written
authorization would be required asap from Defense Support Civil authority (DISCA).
The military would not compete with private enterprise so for spills the fire department
and law enforcement would review recommendations in the U S DOT Emergency
Response Guides (ERGs) and information provided by placards on the rail cars.
Brian directed us to contact Naval Facilities for information on responsibility to
upgrade rail bed and rail crossings.
The question was raised about what is being transported. Several can
remember the “white trains” of the Viet Nam era, but Brian assured this is mostly regular
ordnance, no bombs. Radiological cargo would be placarded as such.
Marty thanked them for coming and following a brief break, we continued with the
regular meeting.
Old Business:
Grants
 Jill reported on the engineering study. The site visits have been completed, and
a follow-up meeting to review the user information will be next week. She
expects the study will be completed by mid-July.
 Information came today on four grants – Hazard mitigation Grant program, PreDisaster Mitigation Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, Repetitive
Flood Claims Program and Severe Repetitive Loss Program. The information
was forwarded to Planning Team members this morning.
 The ’09 grant cycle starts next month. Time to start thinking about how we want
to spend our portion.
 Sandi K has some information on a Transit Security Grant program and a Fire
Station Construction Grant Program
H1N1 report
 WHO has not yet raised the status to 6 (global pandemic status). The “swine flu”
is now rampant in the southern hemisphere.
 There should be a vaccine ready by this fall, either separate or part of the annual
flu vaccine.
 Medicine Shoppe here in Shelton and Rite Aid and QFC in Belfair will supply
anti-virus medication when prescribed; they all have drive-through windows so
other shoppers will not have to be exposed.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Washington State has tested positive for having mosquitoes sporting the West Nile virus.
Jess reminded everyone to swipe mosquitoes off, not squishing them.
And…if you’re sick, stay home.
New Business:
 None
Training
 ICS 400 class – July 27, 28, Thurston County Sheriff’s office Training Center.
 JIC/JIS training – July 28, Camp Murray. Pilot of a new FEMA course.
Applications due by June 30.
 “Staff, This is a Lockdown!” June 29, Bates Technical College.
 Event Secuity planning for Public Safety Personnel. June 18-19, Tacoma.
 Surveillance Detection Training, July 15-17. Bellingham.
 EOC Operations and Management. September 15-17. Spokane.
Good of the Order
 Sandi brought up that she has not gotten the Inventory Certification letters back
from some agencies. If you think you’re one of them, please contact her.
 Next meeting – Wednesday, July 8, 8:30am, Public Works Building 1, Training
Room A.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30am.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Present: Andrew Bales, Charlie Butros, Perry Carrington, Garnett Curtis, Steve Finley,
Ross Gallagher, Tracy Gunter, Craig Haugen, Jake Holt, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Sandi
Loertscher, Jim Mitchell, Jess Mosley, Mike Mott, Ken Weaver
Guests: Mike Akin, Tammi Wright
The minutes of the June meeting were approved ass presented.
Old Business
• Engineering Study
Mike Akin (for Jill Evander)
o AdComm from Bellevue did the study basically
dissecting the existing system. All physical sites were visited
and examined. They found that some sites needed proper
grounding.
o Sites also need strategic planning for transmitter site
security upgrades.
o AdComm came up with near-term, mid-term, and long-term
planning solutions.
o Planning for narrow-band will require a huge effort County-wide.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
o
AdComm recommends not moving into Radio over Internet
Protocol (ROIP) at this time. That is what the grant funds
were directed. Making changes will require reactivation
of the Equipment Sub-Committee.
•
Grants update
Marty Best
o 2008 grant – we are still working on it
o 2009 grant – should be received sometime “soon”; will be
approximately $100,000.00 - $110,000.00
o Hazard Plan grant – will likely be approved
o 2010 grant – we should be hearing sometime “soon”.
•
Pre-disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
Sandi Loertscher
o The Hazards and the Mitigation Initiatives
Sections have been completed.
o Sandi distributed copies of the Risk Assessment and Mitigation
Strategy for review.
o Marty introduced Tammi Wright who will assist with updating
the Mitigation Plan.
o Strategic planning is utilized to reduce future costs. For
every dollar spent, there must be a minimum of one
dollar in damage reduction.
•
H1N1 update
Jess Mosley
o Clinical trials of vaccines are in progress.
o There will be two injections for H1N1, one for
the ‘regular” flu, and one, if needed, for pneumonia.
o The Health Department is currently conducting strategic
planning meetings
o Best common sense strategies:
 Cover Coughs
 Wash hands
 Social distancing
 Have trash cans convenient for disposal of
tissues
o School will be starting up again soon and contamination
can be spread easily.
•
Rail Car Incident Response Training
Sandi Kvarnstrom
o Class was held July 30. Instructor was
from the University of Findlay (Ohio) as part
of the Rural Domestic Preparedness
Consortium.
o The class was very well received.
New Business
• Upcoming Training
Sandi Kvarnstrom
o Disaster Recovery Seminar – will be conducted
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
o

•
•
by representatives from the State Emergency
Management Division – Chuck Hagerhjelm, Mark Stuart,
Gary Urbas, John Vollmer who will be retiring soon and
Toney Raines who will be replacing John.
 September 23, 8:30am – 5:00pm
 Public Works facility, Training Room A/B
Disaster Management for Water/Wastewater (MGT342)
 Instructor will be Karen Tuttle.
 October 8. 8:00am-Noon.
 Public Works facility, Training Room A.
 Class size is limited.
 Class announcement will be sent out last week of
August.
2010 Exercises – need suggestions for topics Sandi Kvarnstrom
o April – tabletop
o November – functional
September is Preparedness month – asked for department
heads and agency leads to think about how to incorporate
that into their departmental meetings.
Tracy asked about cooling stations. Marty reported that Belfair
had two open, one was open here at the Public Works facility,
two in Fire District 4 and one at the Civic Center. They were advertised
and people were taking advantage of them.
Good of the Order
• Next meeting will be Wednesday, September 9 at 8:30am,
Public Works Training Room A.
The meeting was adjourned.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
September 9, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Introductions followed.
Present: Marty Best, Charles Butros, Jill Evander, Mike Evans, Steve Finley, Ross
Gallagher, Craig Haugen, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Sandi Loertscher, Jess Mosley, Mott Mike,
Tammi Wright.
Guests: Gary Rhoades, Tracy Hunter.
Old Business
‘08 Interoperable Communications Grant
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Mike Evans
There is approximately $115,000.00 to be used for this Grant. The original plan was to
use those dollars to fund VOIP or ROIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol or Radio over
Internet Protocol). Then the Adcomm study came out critical of ROIP going into
MACECOM.
Tracy Bogart, Squaxin Police Department, and Mike have investigated two systems
which could be used to link Mason EOC and Squaxin EOC. Once digitized, can tie in
radio to phone. The “Black Box” can be used in the Mobile Incident Command Post, a
motor home currently being converted.
Grants
Marty Best
’08 SHSP Grant – nothing new to report.
’09 Grant – approximately $100,000.00 to complete the current phase of the
interoperable communications system.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant – the County was awarded this grant. It will be used to
fund Tammi Wright from the DCD to work with Sandi Loertscher to update the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Tammi has the draft of the Plan and some updating has been done.
She is looking for more information on slides that have affected State highways and
information from various fire districts.
’10 Grant – not yet applied for; this will be discussed at the HSR3 meeting this afternoon.
$425,000.00 has been requested to fund WAJAC, training and operations and
$500,000.00 for Region-wide use of VTAC and UTAC. The frequencies are already in
existence; the new infrastructure will link all five counties in the Region
H1N1 update
Jess Mosley
Washington State University – students had an influenza-type illness. If absenteeism
exceeds 10% at local schools, Dr. Yu must be notified.
Immunization will be done in the school.
DNA/RNA is staying much the same, and hospitalization and deaths are due to
underlying medical problems.
Conference calls are starting up again but so far since school started it is looking very
similar to last spring. DOH guidelines as to what to do to mitigate illness remain the
same:
Stay home it your ill.
Cover your cough.
Have plenty of trash containers to dispose of used tissues.
New Business
Oyster Fest is October 3 and 4. Venders meeting is tonight (September 9).
Training
EOC orientation is being held September 6 at 10:00am and 2:00pm for those who might
be called to work in the EOC.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
There will be a Disaster Recovery Seminar conducted by State EMD representatives –
Chuck Hagerhjelm, Mark Stuart, Gary Urbas, and John Vollmer on September 23. Note:
Seminar had to be cancelled due to lack of registrants.
Disaster Management for Water/Wastewater Systems – scheduled fort October 8. Note:
Class was cancelled due to lack of registrants.
Weather Spotter class – October 6, 6:00pm – 8:30pm. Six were current Spotters looking
to update their training, and fourteen were new Spotters. (Would have had a few more,
but there was a search mission going on at the same time.)
September is Preparedness Month so a good time to review emergency procedures with
your department or agency.
Good of the Order
Next meeting is Wednesday, October 14 at 8:30am.
Adjourned – 9:40am
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sandi Kvarnstrom
Planning Team
9/9/2009 11:36 AM
Draft Mitigation Strategies
2010 DRAFT Mitigation Strategies.doc
Good morningMarty asked that I send out the attached document for your review. He is asking that
you review and provide mitigation project ideas for the goals, objectives and actions.
This will be a focus topic of the October Planning Team meeting. If you have any
questions, please contact Sandi Loertscher.
Thanks,
Sandi
From:
To:
...
Date:
Subject:
Martin Best
[email protected]; Bales, Andrew; [email protected]; Evans', 'Mike;
10/6/2009 6:27 AM
County Natural Hazards Plan update - Next Planning Team Meeting
CC:
Butros, Charles; Kvarnstrom, Sandi; Loertscher, Sandi; Wright, Tammi
As communities and agencies currently in the Mason County Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan (2005) I would like to strongly recommend that someone from your
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
agency participate in the next planning team meeting here at Building 1 at 0830 on
October 14th. The focus of this meeting will be on the Mitigation Plan update,
development of mitigation actions, and other actions necessary to complete the plan
update for submittal to the state and FEMA
As you may recall, one of the requirements for continued inclusion in the plan is your
communities/agencies on-going participation in the planning process and simply
stated, without your support to develop mitigation actions for your
communities/agencies we would not be able to continue your inclusion in the revised
plan.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Marty Best
Martin E. Best , Ph.D.
Manager
Mason County Division of Emergency Management
(360) 427-9670 ext 806
(360) 427-7756 (fax)
Confidentiality note: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
October 14, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Introductions followed.
Present: Beau Bakken, Andrew Bales, Martin Best, Charlie Butros, Dean Byrd, Terry
Davenport, S andi Kvarnstrom, Sandi Loertscher, Jim Mitchell, Dave Salzer, Tammi
Wright.
Guests: Matt Stull, Jennifer Radcliff, Denny Hamilton, Jayson Lelli (Tacoma Power),
Bev O’Dea and Kim Michelle (Washington State EMD), and John Hanson and Mike
Osweiler (Department of Ecology).
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
New Business:
Jayson Lelli has taken the position with Tacoma Power formerly held by Sarah Hahn;
that position was split and Sarah now handles the FERC activities. Jayson presented an
overview of the new Emergency Action Plan for Cushman Hydroelectric Project. They
will be conducting a tabletop in April or May 2010 and a functional exercise in late
summer or early fall 2010.
Old Business:
Bev O’Dea presented some suggestions for our Hazard Mitigation Plan update, and
what she looks for when she reviews these plans. Initiatives must significantly reduce or
eliminate danger. She presented the plan for Mount Vernon School District as an
example. Sandi Loertscher said the goals and objectives have been identified; we now
need to identify hazards and potential mitigation strategies.
Each agency needs to prioritize the hazards which they physically control. Prioritize
“high”, “medium” and “low” for both cost and benefit. The majority of mitigation
measures are structural, but life-safety issues also can be included.
Public education needs to continue and pre-identification of evacuation plans. Some
people in the Skok Valley raised their homes and some homes were bought out.
Sandi reported that the body of the update is completed and Tammi Wright is working on
cultural information from the Tribes to include. Now the mitigation strategies need to be
developed. Actions for Fire Districts 2 and 5, as identified in the previous Plan, have not
been completed. All strategies will move forward in the updated Plan as pending or
completed. Private for-profit organizations can be “critical facilities”.
Sandi handed out papers showing Goals and suggested Objectives. Various agencies
will have a different focus. Critical facilities are what need to come back on line first.
The names, addresses and location of the critical facilities will not be included in the
Plan.
Public meetings must be held; discussions can be held in conjunction with Fire District
Commission meetings. Sandi will need copies of the minutes with “discussion of
mitigation measures included”.
Training:
On October 27-29 there will be a training entitled “Public Works: Responding to All
Hazards Incident” . We must have a minimum of 24 registered; currently have two. We
have until the end of the week to submit a roster or the class will be cancelled.
Good of the Order:
The next meeting will be Wednesday, November 18 due to the holiday on November 11.
The meeting was adjourned.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
December 9, 2009
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marty Best.
Introductions followed.
Present: Marty Best, Perry Carrington, Garnett, Curtis, Steve Finley, Tracy Gunter,
Sandi Kvarnstrom, Jess Mosley, Tammi Wright.
The minutes of the October 14 meeting were approved as written.
Training opportunities:
Several ICS 300 and 400 classes will be coming up in early 2010
ICS 300, Feb 4 and 5 at Montesano City Hall
ICS 400, Feb 17 and 18, South Bend Fire Dept
IC 300, March 30 and 31, Mason County Fire District 6, Union
Mason County DEM will sponsor an ICS 400, tentatively scheduled for May. Definite
dates will be published as soon as we have them finalized
For more information contact Sandi Kvarnstrom
Jayson Lelli was here a few months ago representing Tacoma Power to present the
September 2009 Emergency Action Plan rewrite for the Cushman Hydroelectric Project,
He said someone asked if there was a way to get the monitored flow below the dams.
He did not have the answer at that meeting but has since researched it and sent me the
answer. He did not write down the name of the person who asked the question, so here
is the answer, whoever you are. Per Jayson there are four gauges on the Skokomish
River; they are tracked in real time but only transmitted to Tacoma Power every four
hours. The link is
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=skokomsh&group_key=NONE&search_
site_no_station_nm+skokomish. I tried it and it does bring up the data. Please note the
“i” is omitted the first time Skokomish is spelled out and where there are spaces are
actually _, which don’t show very well with the underline.
Old Business:
Marty reported on the ’08 SHSP grant which was supposed to be used by MASECOM
for interoperability improvements. Mike Evans and Tracy Bogart from Squaxin have now
taken the lead on that project. Neither of them could be here today to report.
New Business:
Steve Finley reported on plans for American Red Cross activities in Mason County. He
provided a shelter/supply location map and an organizational chart Shelters will be more
of the ‘warming station” type rather than actual sleep shelters, but sleep shelters can
also be provided if needed. He will send a shelter list at a later date; these are not
shelters for homeless subjects such as the one downtown run by St Davids.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Red Cross will provide shelter training for community groups who will be in charge of the
shelters.
Mason Transit has offered to provide office space for Red Cross, 9:00am – 5:00pm,
Monday through Friday. Steve also provided a phone number list for the Mount Rainier
Chapter.
When the County EOC is activated there can be a Red Cross liaison here. Steve
promised that would be someone who is familiar with the County.
Perry Carrington stated he would like to work with Steve to set up a shelter on the
Skokomish Reservation. Sandi said that Pastor Jenkins would probably be interested in
setting up a shelter at the Skokomish Community Church on Skok Valley Road.
There needs to be some method to keep track of where people go when they leave their
homes or leave a shelter.
Tracy Gunter asked if Red Cross would communicate with 211; Steve said they can and
will but that communication needs to be improved. Tracy offered to provide contact
information to Steve.
Continued work:
Tammi brought the Planning Team up to speed on what she has been doing to work with
Sandi L on the revision of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. A large amount of Tammi’s
time has gone into gathering the information that will provide the documentation now
required by FEMA.
The 2004 Plan used a multi-jurisdictional approach. Tammi needs to know if the
jurisdictions included then want to continue to be part of the Plan. If so, there is some
work that needs to be completed by those jurisdictions. Tammi is including wording that
will allow jurisdictions to step in at a later time.
Tammi is now entering the “public involvement” phase. She and Sandi K are scheduled
to attend a program at Theler Center in Belfair to start that process; the Planning Team
involvement also meets that requirement.
Good of the Order:
Jess Mosley reported that there was a community H1N1 clinic held on December 3 at
the Civic Center. They were prepared for 500 people and actually provided vaccinations
for 130.
As they can provide vaccinations for a wide range of people, they will have more clinics.
Those are planned for Red Apple in Shelton and the IGA in Hoodsport. No dates have
yet been set for those.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35am.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
From:
Tammi Wright
To:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; jtarra...
Date:
1/12/2010 10:33 AM
Subject:
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
CC:
Martin Best; Sandi Kvarnstrom; Sandi Loertscher
Good Morning:
I am sending this email to those jurisdictions that participated in and were included in the
development of the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2004. As required
by FEMA, in order to remain eligible for hazard mitigation assistance programs, we are
currently updating this plan and will soon be ready to send to FEMA for review and
approval. In order to submit a complete plan I will need to know if you wish to continue to
be included in the plan.
Please respond by January 22, 2010 if you still want to be a part of the plan. I will be
scheduling a meeting to meet with those who wish participate in the plan to review the
requirements that need to be met. Once I know who the participants are I plan on getting
the meeting scheduled by the first part of February. I will focus on the elements of the
plan that each jurisdiction will need to address as listed below.
There are certain elements of the plan that are common to all participating jurisdictions
(e.g. planning process, hazards, goals, and maintenance), there are also some elements
that are unique to each participating jurisdiction, including: risks, where they differ from
the general planning area; mitigation actions (actions must be identified for each
jurisdiction); participation in the planning process (examples of participation include
attending meetings, contributing research, data or other information, commenting on
drafts of the plan, etc.); and adoption (each jurisdiction must formally adopt the plan).
I look forward to hearing from you soon. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Tammi Wright
Senior Planner - Water Resources
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th Street
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: (360) 427-9670 x295
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: [email protected]
From:
To:
Wate...
Date:
Subject:
Tammi Wright
Bob Burbridge; Bob Smith; HMP Participants; Jess Mosley; Larry
1/19/2010 12:18 PM
GRANT FUNDING ISSUES: Critical Facilities
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
CC:
Martin Best
Good Afternoon:
I am sending this email to those who were a part of the Hazard Mitigation Workgroup
and those who were in the original Mitigation Plan. I am currently working on the Critical
Facilities component of the plan and I need for you to review the attached list of critical
facilities identified in the original plan. Let me know if there have been any changes to
this list (buildings no longer exist, new facilities to be added, etc.).
Please respond by January 29, 2010. If no comments are received I will assume that
there are no changes.
Tammi Wright
Senior Planner - Water Resources
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th Street
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: (360) 427-9670 x295
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: [email protected]
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Tammi Wright
HMP Participants; Larry Curles
Martin Best; Sandi Loertscher
1/26/2010 12:14 PM
IMPORTANT: HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT FUNDING
Good Afternoon,
As promised I have scheduled a meeting to discuss the requirements for participating in
the Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
PLACE: Public Works Department (100 Public Works Drive) Room 129
DATE: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
TIME: 9:00 am - 11:00 am (or whenever we are done)
If this does not work for you please let me know and we can schedule one-on-one time
to accommodate your schedule.
Tammi Wright
Senior Planner - Water Resources
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th Street
PO Box 279
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: (360) 427-9670 x295
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: [email protected]
MASON COUNTY PLANNING TEAM
MINUTES
January 13, 2010
Marty called the meeting to order at 0830.
Introductions followed.
Present: Marty Best, Bob Burbridge, Charlie Butros, Dean Byrd, Jill Evander, Tracy
Bogart, Ross Gallagher, Tracy Gunter, Sandi Kvarnstrom, Sandi Loertscher, Tim
McKern, Jess Mosley,and Tammi Wright.
The minutes of the December 2009 were approved as written.
Training Opportunities:
♦
ICS 300 class – March 30-31, 2010, 8:30am – 5:00pm at the Fire District
6 fire hall.
Sandi passed around a roster to be updated.
The legislative session started Monday. There are some bills, which may impact the
local government.
The motor home will be ready to respond this summer.
Old Business;
♦
♦
♦
’08 grant – Mike Evans/Tracy Bogart. The funding for the ’08 grant was
approved for interoperable communication. The list of hardware is ready
to send to the State for approval. They are still working on the software
information.
Four repeaters are planned for Squaxin. Three have been installed –
water tower, emergency management/public works, and gaming. They
expect to have good coverage of Squaxin Valley.
Equipment sub-committee. Jill said they had not met.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
♦
♦
♦
♦
The Planning Team needs a “wish list” of needs so we are ready to move
forward quickly on grant opportunities such as the designated
interoperable channels for PSAPs.
’09 grant – The State is working on the funding. It appears we will get
approximately $109,000.00.
Hazard Mitigation Plan – Tammi Wright. The hazards, vulnerabilities, and
risks have been identified. Public outreach is on-going. Tammi has sent
an email to the jurisdictions who participated before. There is a process
to add jurisdictions at any time. There must be a profile of each entity
involved along with mitigation strategies, which needs to include a rough
idea of projects and costs.
H1N1 – Jess Mosley. There is currently a media blitz to get people to get
the vaccine. There is a possibility the H1N1 vaccine will be combined
with the one for seasonal flu next year.
New Business:
♦
None
Good of the Order:
♦
WSU Extension office has moved into the old Health Department offices
and will be doing food handler classes at Memorial Hall.
♦
MCSO has moved into their new quarters. Dean Byrd commented,
“Much better place than where they were.”
♦
Communications continues to be a challenge in the County.
♦
Squaxin Island now has the capability to program their own radios which
will save a significant amount of money.
♦
Legislative concerns upcoming for AAA.
♦
District 5 and Shelton Fire are into the construction phase for their new
downtown fire station.
♦
Charlie was thanked for the exceptional care the roads have received this
winter.
♦
Charlie stated that they are catching up on road damage repairs. BelfairTahuya Road should be reopening in the next week or two. The road
crews will be catching up on routine road work next.
♦
Marty is assisting with evacuation issues for the schools.
The meeting was adjourned.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
APPENDIX E
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Survey posted to the Emergency Management website
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/dem/index.php:
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SURVEY
Public involvement is a valued part of this planning process and responses to this
Survey will be a helpful tool in development of an effective Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
1:
Do you live in Mason County? ___ Yes ___No --OR-Do you live in the City of Shelton? ___ Yes ___ No
2:
In which Fire District do you live? ________________________________
3.
How concerned are you about the following hazards?
4. Have any of the natural hazards in this list directly affected you while living
in Mason County? If yes, which one? __________________________
5. Do you have flood insurance? ___ Yes ___ No
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Not Concerned
Earthquake
Flood
Landslide
Severe Wind Storm
Volcanic Ash Fall
Wildfire
Winter Storm
Dam Failure
Extended Power Outage
Fire, Structural
Hazardous Materials Accident
Infrastructure Failure
Transportation Accident
Civil Disturbance
Terrorism,
WMD, Biological, Chemical, Nuclear
Not Very Concerned
No Opinion
Somewhat Concerned
Very Concerned
HAZARD
6. How far do you live from the nearest town? ______________________
7. How prepared do you feel you and your family are for the probable impacts of
natural hazard events? Rank on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing most
prepared. _______________
8. Have you ever received information on how to make your family and home
disaster safe? ___ Yes ___ No
9. Did you consider the possible occurrence of a disaster when you moved to your
current location? ___ Yes ___ No
10. Have you developed a family emergency plan? _____ Have you practiced it? ___
11. What is your age? _____________
12. How long have your lived in Mason County? ____________
Natural Hazard Mitigation
The term mitigation means any action taken to eliminate or significantly reduce the
impacts (costs) of future disasters. Mitigation activities are those types of actions you
can take to protect your home and property from natural hazard events such as floods,
severe weather, wildfire, etc. The County is beginning the process to update the current
County Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as, develop and document additional mitigation
strategies that will aid our community in protecting life and property from the impacts of
future natural disasters.
Do you have suggestions for possible hazard mitigation actions / strategies?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Please complete this survey and return to: Mason County Emergency Management
W. 100 Public Works Drive
Shelton, WA 98584
Attn: Sandi Loertscher
Or: [email protected]
Or: Fax: (360) 427-7756
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
100 W PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE, BUILDING 1
SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584
Phone (360) 427-7535
Fax (360) 427-7756
September 24, 2009
PRESS RELEASE
As part of its ongoing efforts to reduce the impacts of natural disasters upon the
residents of Mason County, the County is currently updating the existing County Natural Hazard
Mitigation Plan (Jan 2005). Anyone interested in reviewing and/or commenting on this update can
contact Tammi Wright at (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 or by email at [email protected] You
are also invited to attend the Mason County Planning Team meetings held every 2nd Wednesday
of the month at 8:30 a.m. at the Mason County Public Works Department, 100 W. Public Works
Drive.
Posted to the Mason County Government Website:
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/news_releases/2009/HM_Plan.pdf

Sent to KMAS Radio Station

Published in the Shelton-Mason County Journal
Email Response to Public Comment on 10/7/2009 9:53 AM
Dear Tommy,
Thank you for your email regarding your Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update
suggestions. You are welcome to attend the Mason County Planning Team meetings
held every 2nd Wednesday of the month at 8:30 am at the Mason County Public Works
Department. The next meeting is October 14th and we will be discussing the HMP
update.
I have spoken with Mark Core, Permit Center Manager, regarding your questions about
unauthorized work and contractor liability for unauthorized work. Unfortunately there is a
problem with unauthorized work occurring within the County. We do rely heavily on the
residents to go on the record and inform Mason County of these actions. Many
complaints are received by the County via phone calls and though the web site. Once
complaints are received a code enforcement planner/building inspector goes to the site
to determine if the complaint is valid. If that is the case the property owner is informed of
the violation and is responsible for correcting the violation either through restoration
and/or an after-the-fact permits. In cases of violations in critical areas, such as slopes,
additional reports/evaluations are also required.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
At this time I can find no record of a violation near 9000 NE North Shore Road, but I can
certainly fill out a complaint form for you. Please get back to me so I can gather more
information regarding the nature of the unauthorized activity. If it is determined there is a
violation the property owner will be notified and the County will take the necessary steps
to resolve the violation with the property owner.
During my discussion with Mark he indicated to me that the responsibility for damages
are the responsibility of the property owner. If a property owner hires a contractor that
does unauthorized work it would be the property owner’s responsibility to correct the
violation with the County and the property owner could then file a civil suit with the
contractor to recoup those costs. It is my understanding that the County has no plans to
change this policy.
The County currently has designated personnel to answer phone calls (questions, take
complaints, etc.) each day. We currently do receive and respond to complaints on a daily
basis. There is also the ability to file complaints on the web site. A “Hot Line” after hours
would not put an investigator on the site any quicker than they already respond.
Although the call would be received after hours, the investigators would not be able to
respond until the following business day.
If you would like to discuss these issues further you are welcome to contact Mark Core
at (360) 427-9670 ext. 357 or [email protected] Again, thank you for your
suggestions.
Tammi Wright
Senior Planner - Water Resources
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th Street
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: (360) 427-9670 x295
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: [email protected]
>>> Tommy Thombs <[email protected]> 10/2/2009 11:22 AM >>>
Dear Tammi,
Emergency responders appreciate actions taken to mitigate the
impacts of disasters. I have noted over the years that unauthorized
construction work contributes significantly to the adverse impact of
natural disasters. A proactive, rather than reactive approach is
better, and more cost effective. I would be glad to assist the DEM
with your efforts.
Examples of unauthorized construction work can be seen at the two
slide (debris flow) areas that closed the NE North Shore Rd in Belfair
in 2008-09. These two ares have recently been repaired at considerable
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
government expense. These slides greatly impacted area residents and
emergency responders while both had to take alternate routes. The SAME
contractor did unauthorized work at BOTH of these sites. I believe
that unauthorized work caused the debris flows that ultimately
undermined this roadway. The SAME contractor continues to do
unauthorized work at other areas along this road (see new road
construction on unstable upslope area at about 9000 NE North Shore
Rd). It is unknown if the financial burden of this unauthorized work
was, or will be placed on the responsible party(s). Will you find out
for me (and my constituents) please?
The current county Grading Regulations place the responsibility for
damages solely on the property owner. I believe that the county should
consider revision of the Grading Regulations to place EQUAL
responsibility on the CONTRACTOR for doing work that causes damages. I
suggest that this would reduce unauthorized work and damage, as the
contractor would not want to share equal responsibility. Has the
county has EVER successfully collected damages for the results of
unauthorized construction work?
I also suggest the development and publication of an "Unauthorized
Construction Hotline" (maybe on the county web site?!?) to the
Department of Community Development (Building Department). This would
get rapid notification to county building inspectors from residents
that observe unauthorized work is occurring. This could get inspectors
into the field faster to take the appropriate action(s). Lots of
unauthorized work occurs after "business hours", so this system should
be implemented to also do "after hours" reporting.
Again, your proactive approach to disaster mitigation is
appreciated. I would like to have answers to the above questions, if
possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
-Tommy Thombs, Commissioner/ Safety Officer
MCFD 8
PO Box 8
Tahuya, WA 98588-0008
360-275-5597 (Home)
360-917-5861 (Mobile)
[email protected] (E-mail)
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
9/29/2009 12:33 PM
hazard mitigation plan
Tammi,
Not sure if this falls within the subject, but the County needs to
implement a geotechnical review of drainage plans near critical slopes.
Kitsap and other counties have this type of review.
A prime example is the largest recent landslide along State Route 106
(Mrs. Paynes property in Olympic View Estates). The drainage design called
for an infiltration pit at the top of the steep slope which may or may not
have triggered the slide. However, a geotechnical engineer would not have
allowed that.
Thank You,
Michael Staten
Envirotech Engineering
360-275-9374
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Tammi Wright
Barbara Adkins
10/7/2009 10:13 AM
Fwd: hazard mitigation plan
Barbara,
I received this email from Michael Staten, Envirotech Engineering, as a response to
ways to mitigation disasters. He feels that the County needs to do a geotechnical review
of drainage plans near critical slopes. Do you have any input on this? Is this something
(if we had the money) we would consider?
~Tammi
>>> <[email protected]> 9/29/2009 12:33 PM >>>
Tammi,
Not sure if this falls within the subject, but the County needs to implement a geotechnical
review of drainage plans near critical slopes. Kitsap and other counties have this type of
review.
A prime example is the largest recent landslide along State Route 106 (Mrs. Paynes
property in Olympic View Estates). The drainage design called for an infiltration pit at the
top of the steep slope which may or may not have triggered the slide. However, a
geotechnical engineer would not have allowed that.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Thank You,
Michael Staten
Envirotech Engineering
360-275-9374
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
100 W PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE, BUILDING 1
SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584
Phone (360) 427-7535
Fax (360) 427-7756
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
100 W PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE, BUILDING 1
SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584
Phone (360) 427-7535
Fax (360) 427-7756
February 26, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
As part of its ongoing efforts to reduce the impacts of natural disasters upon the
residents of Mason County, the County is currently updating the existing County Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan (November 2004). The final draft has been completed and will be
available for review on March 10, 2010. The Plan will be submitted to the Washington
State Emergency Management Division and FEMA Region X for their review and
approval process on March 31, 2010. Anyone interested in reviewing and/or commenting
on this update can contact Tammi Wright at (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 or by email at
[email protected]
You are also invited to attend the Mason County Planning Team meeting on
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. at the Mason County Public Works
Department, 100 W. Public Works Drive. A copy of the draft plan will be available. The
draft will also be available on the County website at www.co.mason.wa.us and follow the
link to Emergency Management.
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Mason County Hazard Mitigation Plan
July 2010
Appendix
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement