Section 4. Risk Assessment Requirements REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EDITION PIERCE COUNTY ADDENDUM

Transcription

1 Section 4 Risk Assessment Requirements Identifying Hazards--- Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. o Does the new or updated plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? Profiling Hazards---Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [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. o Does the risk assessment identify (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard being addressed in the new or updated plan? o Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? o Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? o Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Assessing Vulnerability: Overview---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. o Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to each hazard? o Does the new or updated plan address the impacts of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii): [The risk assessment] must also address the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. o Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss properties located in the identified hazard areas? Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(a): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas o Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? o Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? PAGE 4-1

2 Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(b): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(a) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate o Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses for vulnerable structures? o Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends---Requirement 201.6(c)(2) (ii)(c): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. o Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and development trends? PAGE 4-2

3 SECTION 4 REGION 5 ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EDITION PIERCE COUNTY RISK ASSESSMENT SECTION Table of Contents RISK ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 3 SECTION OVERVIEW... 4 Table 4-1a Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary Geological... 6 Table 4-1b Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary Meteorological... 7 Map 4-1 Pierce County Landslide Hazard Map... 9 Map 4-2 Pierce County Liquefaction Potential Hazard Map Map 4-4 Pierce County Lahar Hazard Map Map 4-6a Pierce County Enumclaw East Wind Event Hazard Map Map 4-7b Pierce County South Wind Event Hazard Map Map 4-7 Pierce County Abandoned Mines Hazard Map Map 4-8 Pierce County Civil Disturbance Hazard Map Map 4-9a Pierce County High and Significant Risk Dams Hazard Map Map 4-9b Pierce County Dam Failure Flood Inundation Areas Hazard Map Map 4-9c Pierce County Dam Failure Flood Inundation Areas Hazard Map Map 4-10 Pierce County Energy Emergency Hazard Map Map 4-11 Pierce County Epidemic Hazard Map Map 4-12 Pierce County Hazardous Material Spill Hazard Map Map 4-13 Pierce County Pipelines Hazard Map Map 4-14 Pierce County Terrorism Hazard Map Map 4-15b Ferry Service Routes in Pierce County HAZARD MAP IDENTIFICATION REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES Table 4-2 Pierce County Repetitive Flood Loss Properties Table 4-3 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Pierce County Table 4-4 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-5 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Pierce County Table 4-6 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-7 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Pierce County Table 4-8 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-9a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological, Table 4-9b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological Table 4-9c Consequence Analysis Chart Technological ENDNOTES PAGE 4-3

4 Section Overview The Risk Assessment portrays the threats of natural and human-caused (technological) hazards, the vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction to the hazards, and the consequences of hazards impacting communities. Each hazard is addressed as a threat and is identified and profiled in the Hazard Identification. The vulnerabilities to and consequences of a given hazard are addressed in the Vulnerability Analysis. Vulnerability is analyzed in terms of exposure of both population and infrastructure to each hazard. Consequences are identified as anticipated, predicted, or documented impacts caused by a given hazard when considering the vulnerability analysis and the characteristics of the hazard as outlined in its identification. RISK Threat Vulnerability Consequence The Region 5 Hazard Identification was used for this plan. Pierce County s Vulnerability and Consequence Analysis are based on the Region 5 Hazard Identification. The Region 5 Hazard Identification can be found in the Base Plan. Each hazard is identified in subsections. The subsections are grouped by hazard-type (i.e., geological, meteorological, and technological hazards) and then alphabetically within each type. A summary table of the Region 5 Hazard Identification is included in this section as Table 4-1a, Table 4-1b, and Table 4.1c. The Vulnerability Analysis is displayed in five tables: o o o o o o o o o Table 4-3 General Exposure Table 4-4 General Exposure Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-5 General Population Exposure Table 4-6 Population Exposure Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-7 General Infrastructure Exposure Table 4-8 General Infrastructure Exposure Unincorporated Pierce County Table 4-9a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological Table 4-9b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological Table 4-9c Consequence analysis Chart Technological/Man-Made The Consequence Identification is organized by Threat. Each threat page summarizes the hazard, graphically illustrates exposures from the Vulnerability Analysis, and lists corresponding Consequences. Pierce County s Consequence Identification is included in this section: Avalanche, Earthquake, Landslide, Tsunami, Volcanic, Drought, Flood, Severe Weather, Wildland/Urban Interface Fire, Abandoned Mines, Epidemic, Civil Disturbance, Dam Failure, Energy Emergency, Hazardous Materials, Pipeline Emergency, Terrorism, and Transportation PAGE 4-4

5 Emergency. The information (impact/recurrence) from these tables is utilized to prioritize mitigation direction and projects. Specific information and analysis of the County s owned infrastructure is addressed in the Infrastructure Section of its Plan. PAGE 4-5

6 Table 4-1a Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary Geological THREAT DECLARATION # DATE/PLACE PROBABILITY/ RECURRENCE AVALANCHE Not Applicable Yearly in the mountainous areas of the County including Mt. Rainier National Park and the Cascades. EARTHQUAKE LANDSLIDE N/A--7/22/2001 Nisqually Delta N/A--6/10/2001 Satsop DR-1361-WA--2/2001 Nisqually N/A--7/2/1999 Satsop DR-196-WA--4/29/1965 Maury Island, South Puget Sound N/A--4/13/1949 South Puget Sound N/A--2/14/1946 Maury Island DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 DR-852-WA--1/1990 DR-545-WA--12/1977 Magnitude 4.3 Magnitude 5.0 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 5.8 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 6.5 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude 7.0 Intraplate Earthquake Magnitude years or less occurrence Historical Record About every 23 years for intraplate earthquakes Slides with minor impact (damage to 5 or less developed properties or $1,000,000 or less damage) 10 years or less. Slides with significant impact (damage to 6 or more developed properties or $1,000,000 or greater damage) 100 years or less. MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES Slab Avalanche Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche Pierce County Avalanches of Record Types of Earthquakes Major Faults in the Puget Sound Basin Seattle and Tacoma Fault Segments Pierce County Seismic Hazard Major Pacific Northwest Earthquakes Notable Earthquakes Felt in Pierce County Salmon Beach, Tacoma Washington following Feb 2001 Earthquake Liquefaction Niigata Japan-1964 Lateral Spreading March 2001 Northeast Tacoma Landslide January 2007 Pierce County Landslide and Soil Erosion Hazard Pierce County Shoreline Slope Stability Areas Notable Landslides in Pierce County Ski Park Road Landslide January 2003 SR-165 Bridge Along Carbon River Landslide February 1996 Aldercrest Drive - Landslide Geological TSUNAMI N/A Puyallup River Delta N/A Puyallup River Delta (did not induce tsunami) N/A Tacoma Narrows Due to the limited historic record, until further research can provide a better estimate a recurrence rate of 100 years plus or minus will be used. Hawaii 1957 Residents Explore Ocean Floor Before Tsunami Hawaii 1949 Wave Overtakes a Seawall Puget Sound Fault Zone Locations, Vertical Deformation and Peak Ground Acceleration Seattle and Tacoma Faults Tsunami Inundation and Current Based on Earthquake Scenario Puget Sound Landslide Areas and Corresponding Tsunamis Puget Sound River Deltas, Tsunami Evidence and Peak Ground Acceleration Salmon Beach, Pierce County 1949 Tsunamigenic Subaerial Landslide Puyallup River Delta Submarine Landslides Puyallup River Delta Submarine Landslides and Scarp Damage in Tacoma from 1894 Tsunami VOLCANIC DR-623-WA--5/1980 The recurrence rate for either a major lahar (Case I or Case II) or a major tephra eruption is 500 to 1000 years. Volcano Hazards Debris Flow at Tahoma Creek July 1988 Douglas Fir Stump Electron Lahar Deposit in Orting Landslide from Little Tahoma Peak Covering Emmons Glacier Tephra Types and Sizes Lahars, Lava Flows and Pyroclastic Hazards of Mt. Rainier Estimated Lahar Travel Times for Lahars 10 7 to 10 8 Cubic Meters in Volume Ashfall Probability from Mt. Rainier Annual Probability of 10 Centimeters or more of Tephra Accumulation in the Pacific NW Cascade Eruptions Mt. Rainier Identified Tephra, last 10,000 years Pierce County River Valley Debris Flow History PAGE 4-6

7 Table 4-1b Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary Meteorological Meteorological HAZARD CLIMATE CHANGE FEMA DECLARATION # DATE/PLACE PROBABILITY/ RECURRENCE MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES Not Applicable Not Applicable Global Temperature Change: 1850 to 2006 Recent and Projected Temperatures for the Pacific Northwest Comparison of the South Cascade Glacier: 1928 to 2003 Lower Nisqually Glacier Retreat: 1912 to 2001 DROUGHT Many dry seasons but no declarations 50 years or less occurrence Sequence of Drought Impacts Palmer Drought Severity Index Pierce County Watersheds %Area of Basin in Drought Conditions Since 1895 %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: %Time in Severe to Extreme Drought: Notable Droughts Affecting Pierce County Columbia River Basin USDA Climate Zones Washington State FLOOD DR-WA /2009 NA-11/2008 Since Repetitive Loss Areas have produced 83 Claims totaling Nearly $1.78 Million Dollars. SEVERE WEATHER DR-1734-WA--12/2007 DR-1671-WA--11/2006 DR-1499-WA--10/2003 DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/97 DR-1100-WA--1-2/1996 DR-1079-WA /1995 DR-896-WA--12/1990 DR-883-WA--11/1990 DR-4056-WA 01/2012 DR WA 12/ /2009 DR-1682-WA--12/2006 DR-1159-WA--12/96-2/1997 DR-1152-WA--11/19/1996 DR-852-WA--1/1990 DR-784-WA--11/1986 DR-545-WA--12/1977 DR-492-WA--12/1975 DR-328-WA--2/1972 DR-185-WA--12/1964 DR-981-WA--1/1993 DR-137-WA--10/ years or less occurrence Best Available Science--The frequency of the repetitive loss claims indicates there is approximately a 33 percent chance of flooding occurring each year. The recurrence rate for all types of severe storms is 5 years or less. WUI FIRE Not Applicable Based on information from WA DNR the probability of recurrence for WUI fire hazard to Pierce County is 5 years or less. Pierce County Watersheds Pierce County Flood Hazard Pierce County Repetitive Loss Areas Clear Creek Basin Repetitive Flood Loss Aerial Photo Flood Hazard Declared Disasters Feb 8, 1996 Flooding Del Rio Mobile Homes Along Puyallup River Nov 2006 Flooding River Park Estates Along Puyallup River Nov 2006 Flooding State Route 410 Along Puyallup River Nov 2006 Flooding Rainier Manor Along Puyallup River Fujita Tornado Damage Scale Windstorm Tracks Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard South Wind Event Pierce County Severe Weather Wind Hazard East Wind Event Notable Severe Weather in Pierce County Snowstorm January 2004 Downtown Tacoma Satellite Image Hanukkah Eve Windstorm Before/After Tornado Damage Greensburg KS May 2007 Public Works Responds 2005 Snowstorm Downed Power Pole February 2006 Windstorm County Road December 2006 Windstorm Tacoma Narrows Bridge November 1940 Windstorm Washington State Fire Hazard Map Pierce County Forest Canopy Industrial Fire Precaution Level Shutdown Zones Carbon Copy Fire August 2006 Washington State DNR Wildland Fire Statistics: DNR Wildland Response South Puget Sound Region: Pierce County DNR Fires PAGE 4-7

8 TABLE 4-1C Region 5 Hazard Identification Summary Technological Technological HAZARD ABANDONED MINES CIVIL DISTURBANCE FEMA DECLARATION # DATE/PLACE Not Applicable Not Applicable PROBABILITY/RECURRENCE Based on Information from WA DNR The Pierce County Sheriff s Department reports that they have had very few incidents of citizens entering the abandoned mines in eastern Pierce County. 1 Isolated issues of minor subsidence have occurred, typically following flood events in 2009/2010 Looking at the historical record, major civil unrest is a rare occurrence. 2 Movement of military supplies from Port of Tacoma to Joint Base Lewis McChord 3 DAM FAILURE Not Applicable No occurrences in Pierce County 50+ years recurrence 4 ENERGEY EMERGENCY Not Applicable January 2009 Loss of electricity to Anderson Island (underground [water] cable) Power Outage is the most frequent energy incident, via natural hazards (storms, ice) 5 Recurrence Rate 5 years (storms) Recurrence Rate 50+ years (major) EPIDEMIC Not Applicable Pandemics Swine Flu Recurrence Rate 20 years 6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PIPELINE FAILURE Not Applicable Dalco Passage oil spill of October 13, 2004 Chlorine Spill Port of Tacoma February 12, 2007 Large Incidents 5 year recurrence 7 Small Incidents 1 week recurrence Not Applicable Northwest Pipeline Corporation natural gas incident May 1 st 2003, in Sumner 10 years recurrence TERRORISM Not Applicable Minor PC Incident Recurrence 1-year Major Incident Recurrence 100 years 9 TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY Not Applicable Minor Incidents occur daily Major Incidents rare Recurrence Rate 10 years 10 MAPS, FIGURES AND TABLES Pierce County Mine Hazard Areas Map Based on WA DNR Information ( Schasse, Koler, Eberle, and Christie, The Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection: A Catalog, Index, and User s Guide, Open File Report 94-7, June 1984 Pierce County 2015 HIRA Pierce County Abandoned Mines Map D-1 Pierce County Civil Disturbance Map Pierce County 2015 HIRA Table D-1 PC Dams that Pose a High or Significant Risk, Pierce County 2015 HIRA Table D-2 Dam Failures in WA State Pierce County 2015 HIRA Pierce County 2015 HIRA Tacoma Pierce County Health Department Pandemic Flu Plan Pierce County 2015 HIRA2015 HIRA Table HM-1 Reported Releases (in lbs.)of all chemicals, for Pierce Co. in 2015, all industries Map P-1 Pierce County Pipelines 8 Pierce County 2015 HIRA Pierce County 2015 HIRA Pierce County 2015 HIRA PAGE 4-8

9 Map 4-1 Pierce County Landslide Hazard Map PAGE 4-9

10 Map 4-2 Pierce County Liquefaction Potential Hazard Map PAGE 4-10

11 Map 4-3a Pierce County Tsunami Tacoma Fault Hazard Map PAGE 4-11

12 Map 4-4b Pierce County Tsunami Rosedale Dominant Fault Hazard Map PAGE 4-12

13 Map 4-5c Pierce County Tsunami Rosedale Seattle Fault Hazard Map PAGE 4-13

14 Map 4-4 Pierce County Lahar Hazard Map PAGE 4-14

15 Map 4-5 Pierce County Flood Hazard Map PAGE 4-15

16 Map 4-6a Pierce County Enumclaw East Wind Event Hazard Map PAGE 4-16

17 Map 4-7b Pierce County South Wind Event Hazard Map PAGE 4-17

18 Map 4-7 Pierce County Abandoned Mines Hazard Map PAGE 4-18

19 Map 4-8 Pierce County Civil Disturbance Hazard Map PAGE 4-19

20 Map 4-9a Pierce County High and Significant Risk Dams Hazard Map PAGE 4-20

21 Map 4-9b Pierce County Dam Failure Flood Inundation Areas Hazard Map PAGE 4-21

22 Map 4-9c Pierce County Dam Failure Flood Inundation Areas Hazard Map PAGE 4-22

23 Map 4-10 Pierce County Energy Emergency Hazard Map PAGE 4-23

24 Map 4-11 Pierce County Epidemic Hazard Map PAGE 4-24

25 Map 4-12 Pierce County Hazardous Material Spill Hazard Map PAGE 4-25

26 Map 4-13 Pierce County Pipelines Hazard Map PAGE 4-26

27 Map 4-14 Pierce County Terrorism Hazard Map PAGE 4-27

28 Map 4-15a Pierce County Transportation Accidents Hazard Map PAGE 4-28

29 Map 4-15b Ferry Service Routes in Pierce County PAGE 4-29

30 Hazard Map Identification The hazard maps provide a visual identification for the 19 hazards currently identified in the Region 5 All Hazards Mitigation Base Plan. Hazard maps were developed for each jurisdiction based on the hazard that was identified within their geographical boundaries. A few of the hazards are difficult to map and to what extent the hazards exists. For these hazards the planning team decided to include the entire jurisdictions boundaries indicating that the hazard could occur anywhere within their boundaries. Specifically the technological/man-made hazards are; civil disturbance, epidemic/pandemic, hazardous materials spills, and terrorism. Each of these hazards potentially could begin as an isolated incident and cascade into a larger event affecting a much greater area. Similarly, the natural hazards; avalanche, climate change and drought fall into this category too. Avalanche although isolated to the slopes of Mt. Rainier can occur anywhere within the National Park, National Forest and Wilderness Areas. Climate change and drought can have a spiraling effect on eco-systems, the economy and demographics throughout the Region 5 (Pierce County) area with a multitude of variability s making these hazards difficult to map as well. Lastly, the Wild Urban Interface (WUI) hazard areas within Pierce County are currently going through an update to identify areas not addressed. Specific areas of concern exist on the Key Peninsula and Gig Harbor Peninsula and additional areas within the eastern part of the county. The WUI hazards maps will be distributed to jurisdictions when this update is compete. Repetitive Flood Loss Properties The information for the Repetitive Flood Loss Properties Table is based on an inventory of existing and proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located within identified flood hazard areas. The inventory was developed by the Pierce County Department of Public Works; Surface Water Management Division. The repetitive loss properties for Pierce County at this time are residential only. Table 4-2 Pierce County Repetitive Flood Loss Properties Properties - Claims Water Basin 2 Properties - 10 Claims Nisqually 4 Properties - 11 Claims Clear / Clark 1 Property - 2 Claims Carbon/Puyallup 2 Properties - 4 Claims Clover Creek 1 Property - 2 Claims Gig Harbor PAGE 4-30

31 Table 4-3 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Pierce County AREA (SQ MI) PARCELS THREAT Total % Base Total % Base BASE 1, % 319, % Avalanche 11 NA NA NA NA Earthquake % 35, % Geological Meteorological Technological Landslide % 36, % Tsunami 13 (Tacoma) Tsunami 14 (Rosedale) Tsunami 15 (Seattle) % 2,578.8% % 1,217.4% % 3,349 1% Volcanic % 29, % Drought 17 1, % 319, % Flood % 36, % Severe Weather 1, % 319, % WUI Fire 18 1, % 319, % Abandoned 19 Mines Epidemic/ Biological 20 Epi Emergency Civil Disturbance % 1,593.5% 1, % 319, % % 162, % Dam Failure % 18, % Energy Emergency 23 Hazardous Materials 24 Pipeline Emergency 25 1, % 319, % 1, % 319, % % 12, % Terrorism 26 1, % 319, % Transportation Emergency 27 1, % 319, % PAGE 4-31

32 Table 4-4 Vulnerability Analysis: General Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County AREA (SQ MI) PARCELS THREAT Total % Base Total % Base BASE % 155, % Avalanche NA NA NA NA Earthquake (Liquefaction) % 9, % Geological Meteorological Technological Landslide % 23, % Tsunami (Tacoma) Tsunami (Rosedale) Tsunami (Seattle).45.05% %.24.03% %.54.06% % Volcanic % 8, % Drought % 155, % Flood % 7,903 Severe Weather 5.08% % 155, % WUI Fire % 155, % Abandoned Mines Biological/ Epi Emergency Civil Disturbance Dam Failure (Lake Tapps) Energy Emergency Hazardous Materials Pipeline Emergency % % % 155, % % 155, % % 2, % % 155, % % 155, % % 9, % Terrorism % 155, % Transportation Emergency % 155, % PAGE 4-32

33 Table 4-5 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Pierce County THREAT Total POPULATION % Base Density (pop/sq mi) SPECIAL POPULATIONS (OF TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION) 65+ yrs 20- yrs # % # % BASE 795, % , % 220, % Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Earthquake 165, % , % 42, % Geological Meteorological Landslide 229, % , % 62, % Tsunami (Tacoma) Tsunami (Rosedale) Tsunami (Seattle) 3,839.48% % % 1,816.23% % 92.04% 6,895.87% % 1,501.68% Volcanic 85, % , % 22, % Drought 795, % , % 220, % Flood 318,460 40% , % 86, % Severe Weather 795, % , % 220, % WUI Fire 795, % , % 220, % Technological Abandoned Mines Biological/ Epi Emergency Civil Disturbance Dam Failure (Lake Tapps) Energy Emergency Hazardous Materials Pipeline Emergency 2,350.3% % 728.3% 795, % , % 220, % 795, % , % 220, % 65, % 1,979 7, % 16, % 795, % , % 220, % 795, % , % 220, % 33, % 1,571 3, % 9, % Terrorism 795, % , % 220, % Transportation Emergency 795, % , % 220, % PAGE 4-33

34 Table 4-6 Vulnerability Analysis: Population Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County SPECIAL POPULATIONS POPULATION (OF TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION) THREAT Total % Base Density (pop/sq mi) 65+ yrs 20- yrs # % # % BASE 367, % , % 107, % Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Earthquake 20, % 226 2, % 5, % Geological Landslide 144, % , % 40, % Tsunami (Tacoma) Tsunami (Rosedale) Tsunami (Seattle) % % % % 8 0 0% 0 0% % % 21.02% Volcanic 13, % 147 2, % 3, % Meteorological Drought 367, % , % 107, % Flood 25, % 338 3, % 7, % Severe Weather 367, % , % 107, % WUI Fire 367, % , % 107, % Technological Abandoned Mines Biological/ Epi Emergency Civil Disturbance Dam Failure (Lake Tapps) Energy Emergency Hazardous Materials Pipeline Emergency 1, % % 293.3% 367, % , % 107, % 367, % , % 107, % % % % 367, % , % 107, % 367, % , % 107, % 24, % 1,509 2, % 7, % Terrorism 367, % , % 107, % Transportation Emergency 367, % , % 107, % PAGE 4-34

35 Table 4-7 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Pierce County THREAT Total ($) LAND VALUE IMPROVED VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) BASE $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Earthquake $6,277,081, % $174,786 $7,218,291, % $201,005 $13,495,372,855 17% $375,780 Geological Landslide $4,403,068,467 15% $121,531 $3,122,082, % $168, $10,252,151, % $290,509 Tsunami (Tacoma) Tsunami (Rosedale) Tsunami (Seattle) $1,222,967, % $474,386 $1,040,544, % $403,625 $2,263,511, % $878,011 $414,129, % $340,287 $466,365,800.9% $383,209 $880,495, % $723,497 $2,033,370, % $607,157 $1,614,189, % $481,991 $3,647,559, % $1,089,149 Volcanic $5,343,277,600 18% $181,53 $6,277,774, % $213,283 $11,621,051, % $394,817 Meteorological Drought $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 Flood $7,862,036, % $213,503 $8,284,832, % $224,991 $16,146,869, % $438,488 Severe Weather $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 WUI Fire $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 Technological Abandoned Mines Biological/ Epi Emergency Civil Disturbance $117,780,200.4% $73,936 $101,639,200.2% $63,804 $219,419,400. 3% $137,740 $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 PAGE 4-35

36 Dam Failure $4,297,354,300 Energy Emergency Hazardous Materials Pipeline Emergency % $233,755 $4,864,172, % $264,602 $9,161,527, % $498,342 $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 $1,524,808, % $120,997 $1,334,055, % $136,826 $2,858,863, % $226,858 Terrorism $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 Transportation Emergency $29,742,651, % $93,189 $49,650,950, % $155,577 $79,393,601, % $248,766 PAGE 4-36

37 Table 4-8 Vulnerability Analysis: General Infrastructure Exposure-Unincorporated Pierce County THREAT Total ($) LAND VALUE IMPROVED VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) Total ($) % Base Avg. Value ($) BASE $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 Avalanche NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Earthquake $935,442, % $95,783 $1,001,578, % $102,233 $1,937,021, % $197,716 Geological Meteorological Landslide $2,930,218, % $126,042 $3,354,698, % $144,301 $6,284,916, % $270,342 Tsunami (Tacoma) Tsunami (Rosedale) Tsunami (Seattle) $74,631,700.6% $305,868 $38,712,100.2% $158,656 $113,343,800.4% $464,524 $59,825,800.5% $494,428 $29,505,900.2% $243,850 $89,331,700.3% $738,279 $97,135,600.8% $328,161 $50,988,700.3% $172,259 $148,124,300.5% $500,420 Volcanic $793,700, % $89,593 $746,657, % $84,282 $1,540,357, % $173,875 Drought $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 Flood $879,370, % $111,270 $738,633, % $93,462 $1,618,003,830 10% $204,733 Severe Weather $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 WUI Fire $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 Technol ogical Abandoned Mines Biological/ Epi Emergency $86,039,900.56% $99,010 $53,319,800.3% $61,358 $139,359,700.4% $160,368 $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 PAGE 4-37

38 Civil Disturbance Dam Failure (Lake Tapps) Energy Emergency Hazardous Materials Pipeline Emergency $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 $293,508, % $102,986 $283,785, % $99,574 $577,294, % $202,560 $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 $789,278, % $80,952 $1,334,055, % $136,826 $2,123,333, % $217,778 Terrorism $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 Transportation Emergency $12,809,440, % $82,359 $19,347,644, % $124,400 $32,157,085, % $206,755 PAGE 4-38

39 Table 4-9a Consequence Analysis Chart Geological 28,29 THREAT CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO Geological Avalanche Earthquake Landslide Tsunami Volcanic 30 Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction PAGE 4-39

40 Table 4-9b Consequence Analysis Chart Meteorological THREAT CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO Meteorological Drought Flood Severe Weather WUI Fire Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction PAGE 4-40

41 Table 4-9c Consequence Analysis Chart Technological 31 THREAT CONSEQUENCE YES OR NO Technological Abandoned Mines Civil Disturbance Dam Failure Energy Emergency Epidemic Hazardous Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders PAGE 4-41

42 Materials Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Pipeline Hazards Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Terrorism Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Transportation Accident Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction Impact to the Public Impact to the Responders Impact to COG and/or COOP in the Jurisdiction Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure Impact to the Environment Impact to the Jurisdiction Economic Condition Impact to Reputation or Confidence in Jurisdiction PAGE 4-42

43 Endnotes Pierce County HIRA Abandoned Mines Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Civil Disturbance Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Civil Disturbance Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Dam Failure Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Energy Emergencies Recurrence Pierce County HIRA Epidemic Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Hazardous Materials Recurrence Rate Pierce County HIRA Pipeline Hazards Pierce County HIRA Terrorism Hazards Pierce County HIRA Transportation Hazards 11 Jurisdiction is not vulnerable to this hazard, therefore it is marked NA or non-applicable. 12 It should be noted here that although all residents of Region 5 are vulnerable to earthquake shaking, not all are subject to the affects of liquefaction and liquefiable soils. 13 The raster grid (map 4.3a) represents maximum wave run-up due to a modeled tsunami generated by a Tacomadominant Tacoma Fault earthquake scenario. 14 The raster grid (map 4.3b) represents maximum wave run-up due to a modeled tsunami generated by a Rosedaledominant Tacoma Fault earthquake scenario. 15 The raster grid (map 4.3c) represents maximum wave run-up due to a modeled tsunami generated by a Seattledominant Tacoma Fault earthquake scenario. 16 The threat of volcanic ash fall affects the entire Region; however some jurisdictions are specifically threatened by lahar flows directly from Mt. Rainier which is an active volcano. 17 The entire jurisdiction is vulnerable to drought. There are three things that must be understood about the affect of drought on the jurisdiction: 1) Drought is a Region wide event. When it does affect Pierce County, it will affect every jurisdiction, 2) Drought will gradually develop over time. It is a gradually escalating emergency that may take from months to years to affect the jurisdiction. Initially lack of water may not even be noticed by the citizens. However, as the drought continues, its effects will be noticed by a continually expanding portion of the community until it is felt by all, and 3) Jurisdictions will be affected differently at different times as a drought develops. This will vary depending on the needs of the each local jurisdiction. Some examples are: jurisdictions that have industry that requires a continuous supply of a large quantity of water; others have agriculture that requires water, but only require it at certain times of the year; and, some jurisdictions have a backup source of water while others do not. 18 Wildfire areas have not been designated at this time. Wildfire mapping and data collection will be addressed in later updates of this plan. 19 The definition of Abandoned Mines comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: Abandoned mines are any excavation under the surface of the earth, formerly used to extract metallic ores, coal, or other minerals, and that are no longer in production. 20 The definition of epidemic comes from the TPCHD Flu Plan of 2005: A Pandemic is an epidemic occurring over a very wide area and usually affecting a large proportion of the population. Pandemics occur when a wholly new subtype of influenza A virus emerges. A novel virus can develop when a virulent flu strain that normally infects birds or animals infects a human who has influenza; the two viruses can exchange genetic material, creating a new, virulent flu virus that can be spread easily from person-to-person. Unlike the flu we see yearly, no one would be immune to this new flu virus, which would spread quickly, resulting in widespread epidemic disease a pandemic. (DOH plan & U.S. Dept. of HHS). 21 The definition of Civil Disturbance comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: Civil Disturbance (unrest) is the result of groups or individuals within the population feeling, rightly or wrongly, that their needs or rights are not being met, either by the society at large, a segment thereof, or the current overriding political system. When this results in community disruption of a nature where intervention is required to maintain public safety it has become a civil disturbance. Additionally, the Region 5 Strategic Plan includes Operational Objectives 3 & 4: Intelligence Gathering, Indicators, Warnings, etc; and Intelligence and Information Sharing. PAGE 4-43

44 22 The definition of Dam Failure comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: A dam is any barrier built across a watercourse for impounding water. 22 Dam failures are catastrophic events characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water. 23 The definition of an Energy Emergency comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: Energy emergency refers to an out-of-the-ordinary disruption, or shortage, of an energy resource for a lengthy period of time. Additionally the Region 5 Strategic Plan addresses Energy Emergencies in its Operational Objective 32, Restoration of Lifelines which addresses the restoration of critical services such as oil, gas, natural gas, electric, etc. 24 The definition of Hazardous Materials comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: Hazardous materials are materials, which because of their chemical, physical or biological properties, pose a potential risk to life, health, the environment, or property when not properly contained. A hazardous materials release then is the release of the material from its container into the local environment. A general rule of thumb for safety from exposure to hazardous material releases is 1000ft; the Emergency Response Guidebook 2008, established by the US Dept of Transportation, contains advice per specific materials. 25 The definition of Pipeline Emergency comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: While there are many different substances transported through pipelines including sewage, water and even beer, pipelines, for the purpose of this chapter, are transportation arteries carrying liquid and gaseous fuels. They may be buried or above ground. 26 The definition of Terrorism comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: 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 thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. These acts can vary considerably in their scope, from cross burnings and the spray painting of hate messages to the destruction of civilian targets. In some cases, violence in the schools has also been labeled as a form of terrorism. 27 The definition of Transportation Emergency comes from the 2010 Pierce County HIRA: Transportation accidents as used in this assessment include accidents involving a method of transportation on the road, rail, air, and maritime systems within the confines of Pierce County. 28 In the Impact to Property, Facilities and Infrastructure, both Tables 4-5a and 4-5b, look at the impact to all property, facilities and infrastructure existing in the jurisdiction, not just to that owned by the jurisdiction. 29 The consideration for each of these hazards, in both Tables 4-5a and 4-5b, as to whether an individual hazard s consequences exist, or not, is based on a possible worst case scenario. It must also be understood that a yes means that there is a good possibility that the consequence it refers to could happen as a result of the hazard, not that it will. Conversely No means that it is highly unlikely that that consequence will have a major impact, not that there will be no impact at all. 30 While the major volcanic hazard from Mt. Rainier is from a lahar descending the main river valleys surrounding the mountain, it is not the only problem. Most jurisdictions could receive tephra in greater or lesser amounts, sometimes with damaging results. Consequence analyses in this section take into account the possibility of tephra deposition in addition to a lahar. 31 The Technological Consequences are added herein to acknowledge the role of human-caused hazards in the health and safety of unincorporated Pierce County. The consequences noted are under the same criteria as natural hazards given their impacts to the departmental assets. PAGE 4-44