DRAFT Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan

Transcription

1 2014 DRAFT Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan School Facilities and Organization Superintendent of Public Instructions (OSPI)

2 Prepared by: Ken Goettel, Goettle and Associates, Inc. Robert Dengel, School Facilties and Organization School Facilties and Organization Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Gordon Beck, Director OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. The following employee has been designated to handle questions and complaints of alleged discrimination: Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator: Equity and Civil Rights Director P.O. Box Olympia, WA (360)

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 9 Chapter One: Introduction What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan? Why is Hazard Mitigation Planning Important for Washington State, OSPI and School Districts? Mitigation Planning: Key Concepts and Definitions The Mitigation Process The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Hazard Mitigation Planning Synopsis of Natural Hazards Affecting K 12 Facilities in Washington State Chapter Two: Community Profile, OSPI, and Washington State School Districts Overview OSPI s Mission and Responsibilities Washington State K 12 School Districts Washington State K 12 Students Chapter Three: Mitigation Planning Process Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan: Overview Mitigation Planning Process Documentation Participants in the Planning Process Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team Meetings Survey Questionnaire Concerns about Consequences of Natural Hazard Events Goals for Addressing Risks for Schools Level of Threat from Different Hazards Concerns about Hazards of Differing Frequency and Severity Strategies for Addressing Risks for Schools Other Risk Reduction Strategies Chapter Four: Mission Statement Goals, Objectives and Action Items Overview... 40

4 4.2 Mission Statement Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives Mitigation Planning and Implementation Priorities Washington State 2012 K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Items Chapter Five: Mitigation Plan Implementation and Updating Overview Coordinating Body Implementation and Integration into Ongoing Programs, Policies and Practices Periodic Evaluation and Updating Chapter Six: Natural Hazards Risk Overview Hazard Exposure Risk Natural Hazards Overview Natural Hazards Risk Assessment, a Three-Step Process Evaluating Acceptable Risk Establishing Mitigation Priorities Implementing Mitigation Measures Chapter Seven: Earthquakes Introduction Washington Earthquakes Earthquake Concepts for Risk Assessments Earthquake Magnitudes Intensity of Ground Shaking Earthquake Hazard Maps Site Class: Soil and Rock Types Ground Failures and Other Aspects of Seismic Hazards Surface Rupture Subsidence or Uplift Liquefaction, Settlement and Lateral Spreading... 87

5 Landslides Dam, Levee and Reservoir Failures Tsunamis and Seiches Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimates for K 12 Facilities in Washington Scenario Earthquakes Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessments at the District, Campus and Building-Levels District, Campus or Building-Level Seismic Risk Assessments: Main Steps Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Measures for K 12 Facilities Typical Seismic Mitigation Measures Seismic Retrofit Costs for K 12 Facilities Chapter Eight: Tsunamis :1 Overview Tsunami Sources Historical Tsunamis Affecting Washington State Local Tsunamis Distant Tsunamis Effect of Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Tsunami Hazard Analysis and Mapping Tsunami Hazard and Risk Assessment for K 12 Facilities Tsunami Loss Estimates Distant Tsunami Events Local Tsunami Events: Puget Sound Earthquakes M9.0 Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone Tsunami Mitigation Measures Evacuation Planning Vertical Evacuation Other Tsunami Mitigation Measures Chapter Nine: Volcanic Hazards Overview Volcanic Hazard Types Proximal Volcanic Hazards (Effects near Volcanic Source Only)

6 Distal Volcanic Hazards (Effects at Considerable Distances from Volcanic Source) Volcanic Event Warning Times Volcanic Hazards for K 12 Facilities Volcanic Hazard Maps Ash Falls Volcanic Hazards Risk Assessment Mitigation of Volcanic Hazards Volcano Monitoring and Volcano Activity Alerts Know how to respond to a lahar warning Volcanic Hazard Mitigation Measures Chapter Ten: Floods Introduction Washington State Floods Overview FEMA-Mapped Floodplains Campuses within FEMA-Mapped Floodplains Flood Hazard Data Flood Hazards and Flood Risk Outside of Mapped Floodplains Dam, Reservoir and Levee Failures Dams Reservoirs Levees Risk Assessments for Dam, Reservoir and Levee Failures Flood Scenario Loss Estimates Methods Statewide 100-Year Flood Scenario Results Flood Risk Assessments at the District, Campus, and Building Levels Flood Mitigation Projects Chapter Eleven: Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Overview Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Historical Fire Data for Washington State

7 11.4 Wildland and Wildland/Urban Fire Hazard Mapping and Hazard Assessment Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Hazard and Risk Wildland/Urban Fires: Potential Loss Estimates for K 12 Facilities Mitigation Strategies for Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Chapter Twelve: Landslides Landslide Overview and Definitions Landslide Hazard Mapping and Hazard Assessment Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments for K 12 Facilities Mitigation of Landslide Risk Chapter Thirteen: Other Natural Hazards Avalanches Drought Severe Weather High Winds Snow and Ice Storms Thunderstorms and Hail Storms Tornados Extreme Temperatures Mitigation Measures for Severe Weather Climate Change Subsidence Appendix

8 List of Tables Table 1.1 Common Mitigation Projects for K-12 Facilities Table 2.1 Washington State K 12 Student Enrollment 2013 School Year Table 2.2 English Proficiency Table 2.3 Students from Economically Disadvantaged Homes Table 2.4 Districts and Other K 12 Related Institutions by Student Enrollment Table School Year Student Enrollment by District and Other K 12 Related Institutions Table 3.1 Main Steps in Mitigation Planning and Implementation Process Table 3.2 Planning Team Members Table 3.3 Survey Responses by County Table 6.1 Screening Criteria to Exclude Hazards from Detailed Consideration Table 6.1 Probabilistic Risk Table Table 7.1 Largest Recorded Earthquakes 1, Table 7.2 USGS Mapped Faults in the Puget Sound Area 6, Table 7.3 USGS Mapped Faults in the Walla Walla Area Table 7.4 Earthquake Ground Motions with a Two Percent Chance of Being Exceeded in 50 Years Table 7.5 International Building Code Site Class Technical Definitions Table 7.6 Scenario Earthquakes Table 7.7 Summary of HAZUS Scenario Earthquake Results: K 12 Facilities Statewide Table 7.8 Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface M9.0 Scenario Figure 7.12 Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface M9.0 Scenario Table 7.9 Expected Average Annual Earthquake Losses Table 8.1 Tsunami Risk Categories

9 Table 8.2 Schools within Mapped Tsunami Inundation Zones Table 8.3 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Below 30 Feet Table 8.4 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 30 and 50 Feet Table 8.5 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 50 and 100 Feet Table 8.6 Tsunami Damage and Death Estimates for Tsunamis with Schools in Session Table 9.1 Active Volcanoes in Washington Table 9.2 USGS Volcano Threat Potential Table 9.3 Volcano Websites Table 9.4 USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones Table 9.5 Volcanic Hazard Levels Table 9.6 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Very High Hazard) Table 9.7 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (High Hazard) Table 9.8 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Moderate Hazard) Table 9.9 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Moderate Hazard) Table 9.10 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Very Low Hazard) Table 9.11 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Baker or Glacier Peak Table 9.12 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Table 9.13 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Adams Figure 10.2 Frequency of Presidential Disaster Declarations for Flooding Table 10.1 High Risk Areas Table 10.2 High Risk Coastal Areas

10 Table 10.3 Moderate to Low Risk Areas Table 10.4 Undetermined Risk Areas Table 10.5 Campuses within FEMA Mapped Flood Plains Table 10.6 Flood Hazard Data Example Chehalis River at Confluence with Skookumchuck River Table 10.7 Aggregated Values for 169 Campuses Table 10.8 FEMA Flood Depth-Damage Functions for Schools Table 10.8 Scenario Loss Estimates: Hypothetical Statewide 100-Year Flood for the 169 Campuses within FEMA-Mapped Floodplains Table Washington Wildland Fire Data Federal and State Agencies Only Table 11.2 Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR Table 11.3 USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Table 11.3 USGS Landfire Return Periods Less than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Table 11.4 Potential Losses for Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Affecting K-12 Campuses Table 12.1 Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment

11 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk Figure 1.2 Mitigation Projects Reduce Risk Figure 1.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Flowchart Figure 2.1 Washington State School Districts Figure 3.1 Main Steps in the Mitigation Planning and Implementation Process Figure 3.2 Survey Responses by County Figure 3.3 Concerns about Natural Hazard Events Figure 3.4 Risk Reduction Goals Figure 3.5 Perceived Threat by Hazard Type Figure 3.6 Concerns about Hazard Frequency and Damage Figure 3.7 Risk Reduction Strategies Figure 6.1 Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk Figure 6.2 The Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Flowchart Figure 7.1 Epicenters of Historic Earthquakes in Washington with Magnitudes of 3.0 or Higher Figure 7.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Figure 7.3 Time History of Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Figure 7.4 USGS Mapped Crustal Faults in the Puget Sound Area6, Figure 7.5 USGS Mapped Faults in the Walla Walla Area Figure 7.6 Faults and Seismogenic Folds in Washington Known or Suspected to be Active Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Washington State PGA value (percent g) with a Two Percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Washington State PGA value (percent g) with a Ten percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years... 81

12 Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Puget Sound Area PGA value (percent g) with a Two percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Puget Sound Area PGA value (percent g) with a Ten percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Figure 7.11 Seismic Hazard Curve Example Figure 8.1 Earthquake-Generated Tsunamis Figure 8.2 Tsunami Surges in Hilo, Hawaii from M Chile Earthquake Figure 8.3 Complete Destruction: March 2011 Tohoku Tsunami, Japan Figure 8.4 Tsunami Travel Times: M Prince William Sound Alaska Earthquake. 4 (Travel Time Contours are Hours) Figure 8.5 Example Tsunami Evacuation Map/Brochure: Aberdeen Hoquiam Figure 8.6 Tsunami Inundation Map: Overall Figure 8.7 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ferndale School District Figure 8.8 Tsunami Inundation Map: Burlington Edison School District Figure 8.9 Tsunami Inundation Map: La Conner School District Figure 8.10 Tsunami Inundation Map: Seattle School District Figure 8.11 Tsunami Inundation Map: North Beach School District Figure 8.12 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ocosta School District Figure 8.13 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ocean Beach School District Figure 8.14 Tsunami Inundation Map: Fife School District Figure 8.15 Tsunami Inundation Map: Cape Flattery School District Figure 8.16 Tsunami Inundation Map: Taholah School District Figure 8.17 Tsunami Inundation Map: Hoquiam Aberdeen School Districts Figure 8.18 Tsunami Inundation Map: Raymond South Bend School Districts Figure 9.1 Washington Volcanoes and Mount Hood Figure 9.2 Volcanic Hazard Map: Overall Figure 9.3 Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map Map 4,

13 Figure 9.3A Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: Northwest Area Close-Up 4, Figure 9.3B Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: West Area Close-Up 4, Figure 9.3C Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: Southwest Area Close-Up 4, Figure 9.4 Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Lahar Map 3, 6, Figure 9.4A Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Lateral Blast Zone Map 3, 6, Figure 9.5 Mount Adams Volcanic Hazards Map 3, Figure 9.6 Mount St. Helens Lahar Map3, Figure 9.7 Mount Hood Volcanic Hazards Map 10, Figure 9.8 USGS Ash Fall Probabilistic Maps Figure 9.9 Volcanic Alert Levels for People on the Ground Figure 10.1 Chehalis River Flood in Centralia, Washington December Figure 10.2 Storm Surge Effects Figure Year, 24-Hour Precipitation Figure 10.4 FEMA-Mapped Floodplains in Washington State Figure 10.5 FEMA Firmette for A.J. West Elementary School in Aberdeen Figure 10.7 Dams in the Columbia River Watershed Figure 11.1 Washington State Wildland Fire Statistics Federal and State Agencies Only Figure 11.2 Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by Washington Department of Natural Resources Figure 11.3 Washington Wildland/Urban Interface High Risk Communities and Statewide Assessment High and Moderate Risk Areas Figure 12.1 Landslide Nomenclature Figure 12.2 Major Types of Landslides Figure 12.3 Rolling Bay, Bainbridge Island Figure 12.4 Road 170 Near Basin City Figure 12.5 Highway 410 Near Town of Nile

14 Figure 12.6 DNR Mapped Landslides Figure 12.7 Landslide Incidence and Potential Figure 12.8 Department of Natural Resources Landslide Potential Map Figure 13.1 Elevations Above 2,000 Feet in Washington Figure 13.2 Drought Susceptibility for Washington State Figure 13.3 Counties Most Vulnerable to High Winds Figure 13-4 Washington State Tornadoes Since

15 Executive Summary The location and geographic diversity of Washington state come with a price: natural disasters. The state is vulnerable to nine different disasters, each with the power to cause death and destruction. Understanding which schools are vulnerable to which disasters will help us prepare. That will save us lives and money. Until now, that information hasn t been readily available at the state level. In 2012, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant is the first in the nation to specifically address natural disaster risks. The grant has three components: 1. Hazard mitigation plan. As the foundational piece of the grant, the Washington State K-12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the six natural disasters that pose the greatest threats to Washington s school buildings: earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, wildfires, volcanic events and landslides. It also identifies which school buildings are most vulnerable to each disaster, and it estimates losses (in terms of people and property) for each disaster. The mitigation plan also addresses (in lesser detail) natural hazards which pose lower risk to school buildings or risks to only a small number of buildings including avalanches, drought and severe weather. 2. District-level support. OSPI has developed a toolkit and temple that districts can use when developing their own, more detailed, risk-assessment plans. The toolkit identifies local data necessary to refine statewide risk assessments so districts can make meaningful risk assessments and develop mitigation plans with minimum effort. This will help identify buildings in which the risk from one or more natural hazards is high enough to warrant mitigation projects. In addition, OSPI has created a pilot program to help 28 districts create their own mitigation plans. Based on a clear understanding of existing natural hazards risks in Washington, OSPI will help school districts allocate resources efficiently by identifying which buildings will benefit most from pro-active mitigation measures that reduce casualties, damages and economic losses in future disasters. 3. FEMA grants. Federal grants exist that will help fund specific district-level projects, such as retrofitting buildings to withstand natural disasters. OSPI is creating additional toolkit materials to Page 9

16 help districts complete FEMA grants. It includes guidance and templates for benefit-cost analyses, which are a pre-requisite for most FEMA mitigation grants. It is not possible to eliminate the risk to schools from future natural disasters. But it is possible to substantially reduce the negative impacts of future disasters to K 12 schools. Having a clear understanding of risks posed by natural hazards will help OSPI and districts effectively lessen the risk posed by natural hazards to school building. The Washington State K-12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a clear way to evaluate and assist school districts to address these risks to save the most lives and avoid the most damage in future disasters. As of May 1, 2014, the plan is still in draft form. OSPI will be accepting comments on the draft until July 25, Comments can be made at The plan is expected to be released in its final form in late fall Page 10

17 Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan? Washington State is subject to many natural hazards that pose significant risks to people and to the environment of buildings and infrastructure. Natural hazard disasters result in damages, economic losses, and potential deaths and injuries. The natural hazards which pose the most risk to Washington State include earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, wildland/urban interface fires, volcanic events, and landslides. There are also other natural hazards that pose less severe or more localized risks such as avalanches, severe weather, drought etc. It is widely recognized that many K 12 facilities in Washington State are at risk from one or more natural hazards. However, detailed information about which campuses are subject to risk specific natural hazards and which campuses face the most severe risks is not readily available. Without that information, it is impossible to prioritize measures to reduce risk in an effective manner. The overall purpose of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the impacts of future natural hazard disasters on K 12 schools in Washington State. It is the first mitigation plan in the nation to focus specifically on K 12 facilities statewide. The mission statement for this plan is: Proactively facilitate and support statewide resources and programs that assist school districts in making K 12 schools in Washington State more disaster resistant and disaster resilient. Completely eliminating risk to K 12 schools in Washington State from future natural disasters is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible. However, substantially reducing the negative impacts of future disasters is achievable with ongoing implementation of risk reduction measures. The main elements of hazard mitigation plans for natural hazards include: Providing a rigorous and understandable summary of the natural hazards that pose significant risks to the built environment including: o Identifying which locations are subject to which hazards. o Estimating the probabilities that hazard events will occur and how severe the damages, economic losses and casualties will be. o Developing cost-effective, carefully-prioritized measures to reduce risk to facilities that have an unacceptably high level of risk from one or more natural hazards. That is, a hazard mitigation plan provides a road-map to guide actions that will reduce the risks from natural hazard disasters to the greatest extent practicable. Page 11

18 OSPI s hazard mitigation planning effort has three main phases: First, completing the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan that provides a statewide overview and lays a foundation for the second phase below. Second, supporting the development of hazard mitigation plans for individual school districts. This includes more detailed risk assessments than are possible in the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. This second phase of the planning effort includes: o Developing a toolkit, templates and guidance to facilitate school districts to create district-specific hazard mitigation plans with minimum effort and resources expended. o Conducting workshops to provide technical support for the 28 school district planning partners which are creating district-specific hazard mitigation plans under OSPI s mitigation planning effort. Third, maximizing the potential for school districts to obtain mitigation grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This phase includes raising district awareness of FEMA grant programs and their requirements; providing much of the hazard, vulnerability and risk assessments necessary to support successful FEMA grant applications; and completing at least ten benefit-cost analyses of high-priority mitigation projects created by districts. The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan builds upon and is consistent with the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan was updated in 2013, and it reviews each of the natural hazards that pose significant risk to people and built environments of Washington. The state mitigation plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions that will prevent or reduce damages, deaths and injuries in future disaster events that affect Washington. The perspective of the state mitigation plan is necessarily broad and covers the entire state; although, the emphasis is on state-owned facilities. The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses more narrowly on K 12 schools. It has a much greater level of detail than is possible in the broader Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Similarly, district-specific mitigation plans draw on both the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. District specific plans have more detailed hazard and vulnerability analyses for school facilities in each district including district specific priorities for mitigation goals, objectives, and action items. 1.2 Why is Hazard Mitigation Planning Important for Washington State, OSPI and School Districts? Natural hazard disaster events will continue to occur in Washington State and affect communities and schools. It is not possible to prevent natural hazard events such as an earthquake, a tsunami, a volcanic eruption or a flood from occurring, but the negative Page 12

19 impacts of event damages, other economic losses, deaths and injuries can be avoided or substantially reduced by implementation of pragmatic, effective mitigation measures. Mitigation simply means actions that reduce the potential for negative impacts from future disasters. That is, mitigation actions reduce future damages, losses and casualties. Hazard mitigation planning will help OSPI and school districts deal with natural hazards realistically and rationally. Mitigation planning by OSPI and school districts will identify specific schools where the level of risk from one or more hazards may be unacceptably high and help to find cost effective ways to reduce such risk. Effective mitigation planning strikes a pragmatic middle ground between unwisely ignoring the potential for major hazard events on one hand and unnecessarily overreacting to the potential for disasters on the other hand. That is, an effective mitigation plan identifies high risk facilities with an unacceptable level of risk and guides efforts to reduce risk. In this way, a robust hazard mitigation plan helps to ensure that the limited resources available for risk reduction are directed effectively to achieve the maximum possible reductions in risk. This minimizes the potential for future damages, economic losses and casualties. Mitigation grants from FEMA may be an important source of funding for school districts to implement high-priority mitigation measures for natural hazards. Appendix one has a summary of FEMA mitigation grant programs with links to websites for additional information. A local government entity applying for a FEMA mitigation grant must have a FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan. A school district can meet this FEMA requirement in two ways: 1) having a FEMA-approved district mitigation plan or 2) participating in the development of a local mitigation plan by a city or county. There are several advantages for a school district to have its own FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan: A mitigation planning process that assesses hazards that pose risk to district facilities and identifies the campuses or buildings with the highest risk. This helps a district to focus on mitigation measures that will reduce future damages, losses and casualties to the greatest extent. That is, it will prioritize mitigation measures in the most effective manner. More detailed, district-specific hazard and risk information that will be able to support a district s FEMA grant application much more effectively than the broader, less-focused information in a city or county hazard mitigation plan. The ability for a district with its own FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan to apply directly to FEMA for funding, rather than having to compete with other possible mitigation projects in a city or county. The opportunity for a district with its own FEMA-approved plan to receive grant management funds that are included with many FEMA grants. Page 13

20 The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan and the other materials developed in the OSPI mitigation planning process (toolkits, templates, and guidance to school districts) are specifically designed to support district efforts to obtain FEMA mitigation grants. The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan has helped OSPI gather the data necessary for school districts to compete successfully for future FEMA funding of mitigation projects. FEMA requires that all FEMA-funded hazard mitigation projects are cost-effective (i.e., the benefits of a project must exceed the costs). Therefore, benefit-cost analysis is an important component of hazard mitigation planning, not only to meet FEMA requirements, but also to help evaluate and prioritize potential hazard mitigation projects. This is true regardless if funding is from FEMA, state or local government, or from private sources. 1.4 Mitigation Planning: Key Concepts and Definitions The central concept of hazard mitigation planning is that mitigation reduces risks from natural hazards. The essence of hazard mitigation planning is to identify high risk locations and to evaluate ways to mitigate (reduce) the impacts of future disasters on these high risk locations/situations. There are four key concepts that govern hazard mitigation planning: hazard, exposure, risk and mitigation. Each of these key concepts is addressed in turn. Hazard refers to natural or human-caused events that may cause damages, losses or casualties, for example earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods. Hazards are characterized by their frequency and severity and by the geographic area affected. Each hazard is characterized by appropriate parameters for the specific hazard. For example, floods are characterized by the frequency, flood depth and flood velocity. Earthquakes are characterized by the frequency of occurrence and the intensity of earthquake ground motions. A hazard event does not necessarily result in negative impacts on a community. For example, a flood-prone parcel may experience several shallow floods per year with several feet of water expected in a 50-year flood event. However, if the parcel is natural wetlands with no buildings or infrastructure, there is no risk. That is, there is no threat to people or the built environment, and the frequent flooding of this parcel does not have any negative impacts on the community. In fact in this case, the frequent flooding (that is, the high hazard) may be beneficial environmentally by providing wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Hazards alone do not produce risk to people and property. Risk occurs only when there are vulnerable populations and properties exposed to the hazard. For school districts, a given hazard is important only when it poses significant threats to school facilities, students and staff. Analysis of hazards is inherently probabilistic. It is not possible to predict when most hazard events will occur, but it is possible to estimate the probability of a hazard event occurring in any given year or over any given time period, such as the next 30 years. For example, a 100-year flood does not mean that such floods happen at one-hundred year intervals. It means rather than the annual probability of such a flood occurring, there is a one percent probability per year and an average of once per 100 years. However, a given location may experience several 100-year flood events within a few years or go much longer than 100 years without experiencing a single such flood. Page 14

21 Exposure is the quantity, value and vulnerability of the built environment (inventory of people, buildings and infrastructure) in a particular location subject to one or more hazards. Inventory is described by the number, size, type, use, and occupancy of buildings and by the infrastructure present. Infrastructure includes roads and other transportation systems, utilities (potable water, wastewater, natural gas, and electric power), telecommunications systems and so on. Inventory varies markedly in its importance to a community and thus varies markedly in its importance for hazard mitigation planning. Some types of facilities, critical facilities, are especially important to a community particularly during disaster situations. Examples of critical facilities include police and fire stations, hospitals, schools, emergency shelters, 911 centers etc. Critical facilities may also include important utility and transportation infrastructure. For hazard mitigation planning, inventory must be characterized not only by the quantity and value of buildings or infrastructure present but also by its vulnerability to each hazard under evaluation. For example, a given facility may or may not be particularly vulnerable to flood damages or earthquake damages depending on the details of its design and construction. Depending on the hazard, different measures of the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure are often used. For school districts, exposure is the quantity and value of school facilities exposed to a given natural hazard. Buildings with higher occupancy, higher value, higher importance to the functioning of the district or buildings with a higher vulnerability to a given hazard have more exposure than buildings with lesser occupancy, value, importance or vulnerability. Risk is defined as the threat to people and the built environment posed by the hazards being considered. Risk is the potential for damages, losses and casualties arising from the impact of hazards on the built environment. The level of risk at a given location, building or facility depends on the combination of hazard and exposure as shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk Another way to consider risk is that it is the product of the frequency of hazard events and the severity of the consequences if the hazard event does occur. Risk is best expressed quantitatively in dollars (estimates of potential damages and other economic losses) and in terms of casualties (numbers of deaths and injuries). A disaster event happens when a hazard event is combined with vulnerable inventory (that is when a hazard event strikes vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard). The highest risk in a Page 15

22 school district occurs in high hazard areas (frequent and/or severe hazard events) with a large inventory of important, vulnerable buildings. However, high risk can also occur in only moderate or even low hazard areas if there is a large inventory of highly vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard. For example, an extremely vulnerable unreinforced masonry school building with a high occupancy may be very high risk, even in moderate to low seismic hazard locations in Washington. Conversely, a high hazard area can have relatively low risk if the inventory is resistant to damages (e.g. elevated to protect against flooding or strengthened to minimize earthquake damages). For mitigation planning, it is very important to understand that infrequent hazard events, such as a major earthquake that occurs on average once every 100 or 200 years or a tsunami that occurs only once every several hundred years, may pose very high risk for facilities at risk if the consequences are extreme. For example, consider the tsunami risk for a school where tsunamis are expected to occur once every 500 years which corresponds to about a ten percent chance of a tsunami over the next 50 years. The tsunami risk is extremely high if there is no natural high ground or other safe area that is reachable in the short time available (from the end of earthquake ground shaking, that generates the tsunami, and the arrival of the tsunami at the school) and the expected death toll is many hundreds of people. In this situation, tsunami mitigation is likely the highest priority mitigation measure for the district, despite the relatively low probability of occurrence, because of the high level of life safety risk. On the other hand some hazard events such as minor flooding or minor winter storms may occur many times per year with negligible or very minor consequences. In such cases, the level of risk from very frequent hazard events may be very low. A common mistake in hazard mitigation planning is to over-emphasize mitigation for hazard events that occur frequently but with only minor consequences and to under-emphasize mitigation for less frequent hazard events that have much larger, even catastrophic consequences. Further important technical details about the concepts involved in the quantitative evaluation of risks from natural hazards are provided in Chapter Six of this Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mitigation means actions taken to reduce the risk due to hazards. Mitigation actions reduce the potential for damages, losses, and casualties in future disaster events. Repair of buildings or infrastructure damaged in a disaster is not mitigation because repair simply restores a facility to its pre-disaster condition and does not reduce the potential for future damages, losses, or casualties. Hazard mitigation projects may be initiated proactively before a disaster or after a disaster has already occurred. In either case, the objectives of mitigation are always to reduce future damages, losses or casualties. Most mitigation projects are physical projects to reduce damages, economic losses and casualties. However, in some cases, the negative impacts of disasters can be reduced by enhancing emergency response and recovery operations. A few of the common types of mitigation projects are shown below in Table 1.1. Page 16

23 Hazard Table 1.1 Common Mitigation Projects for K-12 Facilities Example Mitigation Projects All Natural Replace buildings at high risk with new current code buildings Hazards Build new or replacement buildings outside of high hazard zones Construct vertical evacuation structures Tsunamis Enhance and practice evacuation procedures Structural retrofits for buildings Earthquakes Nonstructural retrofits for building elements and contents Elevate flood-prone buildings Construct flood walls or berms Floods Flood-proof existing buildings Improve storm water drainage systems, levees or channels Remodel buildings with fire-safe construction details Wildland/Urban Implement defensible space and fuel reduction measures Interface Fires Enhance and practice evacuation procedures Implement or improve lahar warning systems Volcanic Events Enhance and practice evacuation procedures Landslides General Stabilize at risk slopes near buildings Public education programs to improve understanding of hazards Enhance emergency planning and recovery planning Obtain flood or earthquake insurance Install generators in schools designated as shelters The mitigation project list above is representative of common mitigation projects. It is not comprehensive since mitigation projects can encompass a broad range of other actions to reduce future damages, losses, and casualties. In evaluating possible mitigation projects for an at-risk campus or building, districts are encouraged to consider the following principles: Avoid building schools in or near hazard zones such as tsunami inundation zones, flood zones, lahar zones and landslide zones; and replace existing buildings in such hazard zones with new buildings outside of these high-risk locations. Whenever possible, these are most effective mitigation measures. Replace buildings that are in poor overall condition, that may be functionally obsolete, and that have problems with electrical, mechanical, plumbing, HVAC systems, and energy efficiency with a new building. Retrofitting buildings with major seismic Page 17

24 vulnerabilities is often expensive and generally does not provide the same level of seismic safety as a new current-code building. Implement seismic and other hazard mitigation measures with other building upgrades (such as a new roof) which is often less expensive than doing them separately. Mitigation for seismic and other hazards should always be considered when buildings are undergoing remodel or modernization. 1.5 The Mitigation Process The key element for all hazard mitigation projects is that they reduce risk. The benefits of a mitigation project are the reduction in risk (i.e. avoided damages, losses, and casualties attributable to the mitigation project). In other words, benefits are simply the difference in expected damages, losses, and casualties before mitigation (as-is condition) and after mitigation. These important concepts are illustrated below in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 Mitigation Projects Reduce Risk RISK BEFORE MITIGATION BENEFITS OF MITIGATION RISK AFTER MITIGATION REDUCTION IN RISK Quantifying the benefits of a proposed mitigation project is an essential step in hazard mitigation planning and implementation. Only by quantifying benefits is it possible to compare the benefits and costs of mitigation to determine whether or not a particular project is worth doing (i.e. is economically feasible). Real world hazard mitigation planning almost always involves choosing between a range of possible alternatives that reduce risk, often with varying costs and varying effectiveness. Quantitative risk assessment is centrally important to hazard mitigation planning. When the level of risk is high, the expected levels of damages and losses are likely to be unacceptable and mitigation actions have a high priority. Simply stated, the greater the risk, the greater the urgency of undertaking mitigation. Conversely, when risk is moderate both the urgency and the benefits of undertaking mitigation are reduced. It is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible to eliminate risk Page 18

25 completely. When levels of risk are low and/or the cost of mitigation is high relative to the level of risk, the risk may be deemed acceptable (or at least tolerable). Furthermore, proposed mitigation projects that address low levels of risk, or where the cost of the mitigation project is large relative to the level of risk, are generally poor candidates for implementation. Figure 1.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Flowchart Risk Assessment Quantify the Threat to the Built Environment Is the Level of Risk Acceptable? YES: Risk is Acceptable, -Mitigation Not Necessary NO: Risk is Not Acceptable -Mitigation Desired -Identify Mitigation Alternatives -Find Solutions to Risk -Prioritize Mitigation Alternatives -Use Benefit Cost Analysis and Related Tools -Obtain Funding -Implement Mitigation Measures -Reduce Risk Figure 1.3, above outlines the major steps in the OSPI hazard mitigation planning and implementation process applicable for K 12 facilities in Washington. The first step is quantitative evaluation (frequency and severity) of the hazards impacting school districts. The first step also includes evaluation of the inventory (people, buildings, infrastructure) exposed to these hazards. Together these hazard and exposure data determine the level of risk for specific locations, buildings or facilities. The next key step is to determine whether or not the level of risk posed by each of the hazards at a given location is acceptable or tolerable. If the level of risk is deemed acceptable or at least tolerable, then mitigation actions are not necessary or at least not a high priority. On the other hand, if the level of risk is deemed not acceptable or tolerable, then mitigation actions are desired. In this case, the hazard mitigation planning process progresses to a more detailed evaluation of specific mitigation alternatives, prioritization, funding and implementation Page 19

26 of mitigation measures. As with the determination of whether or not the level of risk posed by each hazard is acceptable or not, decisions about which mitigation projects to undertake can be made only by a school district and the residents within a school district. 1.6 The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Hazard Mitigation Planning Benefit-cost analysis is powerful and can help communities provide solid, defensible answers to difficult socio-political-economic-engineering questions. Benefit-cost analysis is required for all FEMA-funded mitigation projects, under both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation programs. Thus, communities seeking FEMA funding must understand benefit-cost analysis. However, regardless of whether or not FEMA funding is involved, benefit-cost analysis provides a sound basis for evaluating and prioritizing possible mitigation projects for any natural hazard. School districts considering whether or not to undertake mitigation projects must answer questions that don t always have obvious answers, such as: What is the nature of the hazard problem? How frequent and severe are the hazard events? Do we want to undertake mitigation measures? What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate and affordable? How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects? Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding? Detailed information about FEMA s mitigation grant programs is available online. See FEMA s benefit-cost analysis software, detailed guidance on benefit-cost analysis, reference publications, and training courses are available online at: The following FEMA publications are recommended as general references for benefit-cost analysis: What is a Benefit? Guidance for Benefit-Cost Analysis. BCA Reference Guide. Supplement to the Benefit-Cost Reference Guide. These publications include guidance on categories of benefits for mitigation projects including various types of buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure. The publications also provide simple, FEMA-standard methods to quantity the full range of benefits for most types of mitigation projects. The FEMA standard values in the BCA Reference Guide and the Supplement are the most current values in 2013 and should be used for benefit-cost analyses. For reference, appendices one and two contain summaries of FEMA mitigation grant programs and benefit-cost analysis. Page 20

27 1.7 Synopsis of Natural Hazards Affecting K 12 Facilities in Washington State Six natural hazards that pose the most risk to K 12 facilities in Washington State are considered in detail in this mitigation plan. They are: earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, wildland/urban interface fires, volcanic events, and landslides. There are also other natural hazards that pose less severe or more localized risk. They are considered in less detail and include avalanches, severe weather, and drought etc. Disaster events for any of these natural hazards will result in damages and other economic losses and may also result in deaths and injuries. However, the hazards with the greatest potential to result in deaths and injuries are tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic lahars. Every K 12 facility in Washington State has a non-negligible level of earthquake hazard; although, the level of hazard varies markedly with location. Locations east of the Cascades have the lowest level of earthquake hazard, while locations on the Pacific Coast and the Puget Sound have the highest levels of earthquake hazard. Tsunamis, floods, lahars and landslide hazards vary markedly with location and each of these hazards affects a relatively small fraction of the state, thus a relatively small fraction of K 12 facilities. However, for campuses at risk from these hazards, the level of risk may be high or very high. Most of Washington State is outside of fully urbanized areas, and thus many K 12 facilities are subject to wildland or wildland/urban interface fire hazards. The level of such fire hazards and risk varies markedly and depends on many factors including climate, topography, fuel loads, and the availability of fire suppression resources. The lesser natural hazards generally pose much less risk to K 12 facilities than the six major hazards discussed above. However, there may be a few locations with high risk from avalanches or other lesser hazards. Every K 12 facility in Washington is subject to severe weather including wind, snow and ice storms. Wind, snow and ice storms most commonly affect above ground utility lines with disruption of electric power but may also result in some damage to buildings especially from tree falls. For school districts, the primary impact of wind, snow and ice storms are disruption of transportation and power outages which may result in school closures. Most storms do not result in severe damage to buildings, but severe storms may cause significant damage to some buildings. The remaining chapters of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan include the following: Chapter two provides a brief summary of OSPI and the K 12 districts and facilities. Chapter three documents the planning process for the development of this hazard mitigation plan. Page 21

28 Chapter four outlines OSPI s hazard mitigation goals, objectives and mitigation action items. Chapter five documents OSPI s process for implementing and periodically updating this hazard mitigation plan. Chapter six summarizes the principles of risk assessments for natural hazards. Chapters seven through twelve cover each of the major hazards addressed in this hazard mitigation plan, including: o Chapter Seven, Earthquakes. o Chapter Eight, Tsunamis. o Chapter Nine, Volcanic Hazards. o Chapter Ten, Floods. o Chapter Eleven, Wildland and Wildland/Urban Interface Fires. o Chapter Twelve, Landslides. Chapter thirteen addresses other natural hazards which pose lesser risks to K 12 facilities or for which the risk is limited to only a few locations. The Appendices include: Appendix One. Summary of FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs. Appendix Two. Summary of benefit-cost analysis of mitigation projects. Benefit-cost analysis is required for almost all FEMA hazard mitigation grants and is also a powerful tool for evaluating and prioritizing mitigation projects regardless of the funding source. Appendix Three. Supplemental documentation of the planning process during development of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan does not address human-caused hazards such as hazardous materials incidents such as vehicle, rail or aircraft accidents; terrorism or other deliberate malevolent acts. These hazards are simply outside the domain of natural hazard mitigation and are better addressed via emergency planning and emergency response agencies. Page 22

29 Chapter Two: Community Profile, OSPI, and Washington State School Districts 2.1 Overview The community affected by the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is only to a small extent the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). Rather, the community is predominantly the 295 K 12 school districts in Washington, including the students, teachers, other district staff, volunteers in schools and the parents of students enrolled in schools. In a broader sense, the community is the entire state of Washington and all of the state s residents because K 12 schools are largely funded by state and local taxes, and education is profoundly important and affects the well-being of everyone in Washington. 2.2 OSPI s Mission and Responsibilities In collaboration with educators, students, families, local communities, business, labor and government partners, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction leads, supports, and oversees K 12 education, ensuring success of all learners. There are three major functions of OSPI which, include: funding schools, collecting and managing school data, and assessing students. Within OSPI, School Facilities & Organization administers the K 12 Capital Budget and the School Construction Assistance Program. This program assists local school districts with their school facilities and provides funding assistance for facility planning, new construction, and modernizations. OSPI has provided over $5.2 billion to school districts for school construction since 1986, equating to 79 million square feet of school space being newly built or modernized. The amount of funding school districts receive for construction varies depending on their wealth and ability to generate revenue. OSPI has developed processes to ensure that best practices and state requirements are met when K 12 facilities are being built using state funding. For the Biennium, OSPI oversees a $17 billion operating budget and $961 million capital budget. Most of the operating and capital budgets funds go to the school districts. 2.3 Washington State K 12 School Districts There are 295 K 12 school districts and nine other K 12 related institutions in Washington as shown in Figure 2.1 on the following page. The 295 districts have approximately 100,000 staff and have over 2,400 campuses with over 10,000 buildings. In addition to their educational functions, many schools have pre-school and after-school programs and many also serve as community centers, especially in smaller communities. Page 23

30 Figure 2.1 Washington State School Districts 2.4 Washington State K 12 Students Washington State has a large and diverse body of K 12 students located throughout the state. The total student enrollment for the 2013 school year, including Pre-K, Full-K, Half-K and Grades 1 12 is 1,054,061, with approximately 80,000 students per grade in grades 1 12 and approximately 93,400 students in Pre-K and K. Enrollment by grade is shown in Table 2.1. Page 24

31 Table 2.1 Washington State K 12 Student Enrollment 2013 School Year Grade Enrollment Pre K 12,478 Full K 39,879 Half K 41, , , , , , , , , , , , ,151 Total 1,053,061 English proficiency affects several aspects of mitigation planning, including communications with students and parents, as well as evacuation planning. As shown below in Table 2.2, about 9.3 percent (98,420) of the students are less than fluent in English. Students whose English proficiency is below Level Four, about eight percent (86,358) of students, are identified as having limited English proficiency. Table 2.2 English Proficiency English Proficiency Level Number of Students Level 4 (Transitional) 12,062 Level 3 (Advanced English) 52,922 Level 2 (Intermediate English) 28,524 Level 1 (Beginning English) 3,532 No Score* 1,380 Total 98,420 The percentage of students from economically-disadvantaged homes is shown below in Table 2.3, based on the United States Department of Agriculture criteria for free or reduced cost school lunches. As shown, about 45 percent of students meet the requirements to receive free or reduced school lunches. Page 25

32 Table 2.3 Students from Economically Disadvantaged Homes Data Free Reduced Annual Income Limit for Households of 4 Persons Enrolled students in Washington State $29,055 $41, ,039 74,255 Percent of Students 38.18% 7.05% Table 2.4 Districts and Other K 12 Related Institutions by Student Enrollment Student Enrollment Number of Districts < to to ,000-2, ,500-4, ,000-9, ,000-49, >50,000 1 Page 26

33 Table School Year Student Enrollment by District and Other K 12 Related Institutions District Name P-12 K-12 District Name P-12 K-12 Aberdeen School District 3,271 3,227 Creston School District Adna School District Curlew School District Almira School District Cusick School District Anacortes School District 2,709 2,675 Damman School District Arlington School District 5,506 5,459 Darrington School District Asotin-Anatone School District Davenport School District Auburn School District 14,775 14,571 Dayton School District Bainbridge Island School District 3,887 3,835 Deer Park School District 2,580 2,554 Bates Technical College Dieringer School District 1,508 1,497 Battle Ground School District 13,213 13,120 Dixie School District Bellevue School District 19,008 18,795 East Valley School District (Spokane) 4,566 4,514 Bellingham School District 11,152 11,076 East Valley School District (Yakima) 3,057 3,026 Benge School District 9 9 Eastmont School District 5,667 5,601 Bethel School District 18,027 17,814 Easton School District Bickleton School District Eatonville School District 1,808 1,802 Blaine School District 2,192 2,154 Edmonds School District 20,729 20,380 Boistfort School District Educational Service District Bremerton School District 4,885 4,738 Educational Service District Brewster School District Ellensburg School District 2,997 2,949 Bridgeport School District Elma School District 1,510 1,487 Brinnon School District Endicott School District Burlington-Edison School District 3,844 3,808 Entiat School District Camas School District 6,343 6,298 Enumclaw School District 4,524 4,485 Cape Flattery School District Ephrata School District 2,346 2,322 Carbonado School District Evaline School District Cascade School District 1,315 1,292 Everett School District 18,927 18,749 Cashmere School District 1,491 1,476 Evergreen School District (Clark) 26,500 26,333 Castle Rock School District 1,320 1,299 Evergreen School District (Stevens) Centerville School District Federal Way School District 22,232 21,967 Central Kitsap School District 11,423 11,300 Ferndale School District 5,237 5,164 Central Valley School District 12,957 12,846 Fife School District 3,579 3,542 Centralia School District 3,596 3,524 Finley School District Chehalis School District 2,968 2,948 Franklin Pierce School District 7,522 7,442 Cheney School District 4,185 4,120 Freeman School District Chewelah School District Garfield School District Chimacum School District 1,071 1,054 Glenwood School District Clarkston School District 2,713 2,674 Goldendale School District 1, Cle Elum-Roslyn School District Grand Coulee Dam School District Clover Park School District 12,644 12,330 Grandview School District 3,549 3,507 Colfax School District Granger School District 1,528 1,507 College Place School District Granite Falls School District 2,091 2,064 Colton School District Grapeview School District Columbia (Stevens) School District Great Northern School District Columbia (Walla Walla) School District Green Mountain School District Colville School District 1,875 1,855 Griffin School District Concrete School District Harrington School District Conway School District Highland School District 1,244 1,234 Cosmopolis School District Highline School District 18,373 18,149 Coulee-Hartline School District Hockinson School District 1,896 1,884 Coupeville School District Hood Canal School District Crescent School District Hoquiam School District 1,662 1,640 Page 27

34 Table 2.5 Continued 2013 School Year Student Enrollment by District and Other K 12 Related Institutions District Name P-12 K-12 District Name P-12 K-12 Inchelium School District Mount Vernon School District 6,421 6,330 Index School District Mukilteo School District 14,906 14,766 Issaquah School District 18,455 18,244 Naches Valley School District 1,407 1,397 Kahlotus School District Napavine School District Kalama School District Naselle-Grays River Valley School District Keller School District Nespelem School District Kelso School District 5,033 5,008 Newport School District 1,093 1,079 Kennewick School District 16,580 16,387 Nine Mile Falls School District 1,555 1,535 Kent School District 27,506 27,218 Nooksack Valley School District 1,616 1,583 Kettle Falls School District North Beach School District Kiona-Benton City School District 1,482 1,464 North Franklin School District 2,103 2,067 Kittitas School District North Kitsap School District 6,466 6,335 Klickitat School District North Mason School District 2,157 2,110 La Center School District 1,594 1,583 North River School District La Conner School District North Thurston Public Schools 14,560 14,335 LaCrosse School District Northport School District Lake Chelan School District 1,423 1,410 Northshore School District 20,328 20,075 Lake Quinault School District Northwest Educational Service District Lake Stevens School District 8,192 8,123 Oak Harbor School District 5,617 5,496 Lake Washington Institute of Technology Oakesdale School District Lake Washington School District 25,523 25,316 Oakville School District Lakewood School District 2,355 2,332 Ocean Beach School District Lamont School District Ocosta School District Liberty School District Odessa School District Lind School District Office of the Governor (Sch for Blind) Longview School District 6,726 6,589 Okanogan School District 1,073 1,060 Loon Lake School District Olympia School District 9,440 9,288 Lopez School District Olympic Educational Service District Lyle School District Omak School District 4,701 4,648 Lynden School District 2,848 2,800 Onalaska School District Mabton School District Onion Creek School District Mansfield School District Orcas Island School District Manson School District Orchard Prairie School District Mary M Knight School District Orient School District Mary Walker School District Orondo School District Marysville School District 11,570 11,362 Oroville School District McCleary School District Orting School District 2,393 2,364 Mead School District 9,471 9,408 Othello School District 3,893 3,849 Medical Lake School District 1,922 1,893 Palisades School District Mercer Island School District 4,338 4,310 Palouse School District Meridian School District 2,407 2,373 Pasco School District 16,067 15,970 Methow Valley School District Pateros School District Mill A School District Paterson School District Monroe School District 7,023 6,939 Pe Ell School District Montesano School District 1,286 1,273 Peninsula School District 9,187 9,086 Morton School District Pioneer School District Moses Lake School District 8,064 7,944 Pomeroy School District Mossyrock School District Port Angeles School District 3,784 3,737 Mount Adams School District Port Townsend School District 1,313 1,292 Mount Baker School District 1,917 1,885 Prescott School District Mount Pleasant School District Prosser School District 2,865 2,836 Page 28

35 Table 2.5 Continued 2013 School Year Student Enrollment by District and Other K 12 Related Institutions District Name P-12 K-12 District Name P-12 K-12 Pullman School District 2,567 2,511 Sumner School District 8,528 8,426 Puyallup School District 20,627 20,414 Sunnyside School District 6,531 6,465 Queets-Clearwater School District Tacoma School District 28,950 28,734 Quilcene School District Taholah School District Quillayute Valley School District 3,178 3,161 Tahoma School District 7,762 7,684 Quincy School District 2,723 2,686 Tekoa School District Rainier School District Tenino School District 1,215 1,192 Raymond School District Thorp School District Reardan-Edwall School District Toledo School District Renton School District 14,978 14,705 Tonasket School District 1,111 1,091 Republic School District Toppenish School District 3,733 3,683 Richland School District 11,898 11,743 Touchet School District Ridgefield School District 2,166 2,151 Toutle Lake School District Ritzville School District Trout Lake School District Riverside School District 1,503 1,489 Tukwila School District 2,959 2,939 Riverview School District 3,313 3,276 Tumwater School District 6,297 6,227 Rochester School District 2,247 2,206 Union Gap School District Roosevelt School District University Place School District 5,670 5,607 Rosalia School District Valley School District 1, Royal School District 1,582 1,563 Vancouver School District 22,917 22,714 San Juan Island School District Vashon Island School District 1,527 1,511 Satsop School District WA State Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss Seattle Public Schools 50,656 49,942 Wahkiakum School District Sedro-Woolley School District 4,312 4,258 Wahluke School District 2,194 2,176 Selah School District 3,430 3,399 Waitsburg School District Selkirk School District Walla Walla Public Schools 6,368 6,293 Sequim School District 2,919 2,881 Wapato School District 3,451 3,399 Shaw Island School District Warden School District Shelton School District 4,189 4,092 Washington Military Department Shoreline School District 8,859 8,759 Washougal School District 3,081 3,063 Skamania School District Washtucna School District Skykomish School District Waterville School District Snohomish School District 10,023 9,925 Wellpinit School District Snoqualmie Valley School District 6,375 6,269 Wenatchee School District 7,830 7,724 Soap Lake School District West Valley School District (Spokane) 3,839 3,792 South Bend School District West Valley School District (Yakima) 4,954 4,906 South Kitsap School District 9,634 9,556 White Pass School District South Whidbey School District 1,529 1,508 White River School District 3,755 3,724 Southside School District White Salmon Valley School District 1,285 1,266 Spokane School District 29,033 28,696 Wilbur School District Sprague School District Willapa Valley School District St. John School District Wilson Creek School District Stanwood-Camano School District 4,705 4,648 Winlock School District Star School District 9 9 Wishkah Valley School District Starbuck School District Wishram School District Stehekin School District Woodland School District 2,252 2,227 Steilacoom Hist. School District 3,123 3,057 Yakima School District 15,390 15,149 Steptoe School District Yelm School District 5,571 5,504 Stevenson-Carson School District 1,045 1,017 Zillah School District 1,312 1,297 Sultan School District 2,061 2,031 Summit Valley School District Page 29

36 Chapter Three: Mitigation Planning Process 3.1 Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan: Overview The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is the first mitigation planning effort in the nation to specifically address the risks from natural hazards to K 12 school facilities on a statewide basis. The mitigation plan focuses on six natural hazards that pose the greatest threats to K 12 facilities in Washington They are earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, wildland/urban interface fires, volcanic events and landslides. The mission statement for the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is: Proactively facilitate and support statewide resources and programs that assist school districts in making K 12 schools in Washington State more disaster resistant and disaster resilient. This mitigation plan improves the understanding of risks to K 12 facilities from natural hazards and identifies which campuses are subject to significant risk from one or more natural hazards. The plan facilitates the development of hazard mitigation plans by individual school districts and provides a basis for prioritizing mitigation measures to reduce risks for campuses at high risk. Main steps in the mitigation planning and implementation process are shown below. Figure 3.1 Main Steps in the Mitigation Planning and Implementation Process Implementation of Mitigation Measures School District Hazard Mitigation Plans OSPI K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 30

37 Further details of main steps in mitigation planning and implementation process are shown below. Table 3.1 Main Steps in Mitigation Planning and Implementation Process Implement Mitigation Measures to Improve Life Safety and Reduce Damages for K 12 Facilities The OSPI mitigation planning effort includes detailed analysis of at least ten specific mitigation projects. This addresses high risk facilities including completion of benefit-cost analyses that are necessary for FEMA mitigation grant funding eligibility. The risks to K-12 facilities in Washington from natural hazards will be reduced as mitigation projects to provide life safety and reduce damages are implemented as funding becomes available. Hazard Mitigation Plans for Schools Districts Figure The OSPI 3.1 mitigation planning effort includes workshops, toolkits and templates to facilitate development of mitigation plans for individual school districts. School district mitigation plans include more detailed risk assessments for campuses and buildings to develop priorities for mitigation measures that reduce risk and are feasible and cost-effective. The OSPI mitigation planning effort includes support for development of district-specific mitigation plans for districts that are planning partners for the OSPI planning effort. The tools developed by OSPI will be available on an ongoing basis to support future development of additional districtspecific mitigation plans. Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Statewide assessment of natural hazards that pose risks to K 12 facilities. Identification of campuses that have significant risks from one or more natural hazards. Provides the foundation of knowledge to deal with natural hazards that pose significant risk to school facilities pragmatically and cost-effectively by focusing attention on campuses with higher risks. Page 31

38 3.2 Mitigation Planning Process Documentation Participants in the Planning Process The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation plan was developed by OSPI staff with technical support by a consulting team led by Kenneth A. Goettel of Goettel & Associates Inc. and Sandra Davis of ECO Resource Group. The 2013 Washington K 12 Facilities Mitigation Planning Process began in June 2012 with a kick-off meeting between the consulting team and OSPI. Stakeholder involvement has been an important part of creating the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan was developed in close coordination with a planning team that provided perspective, guidance and review of draft materials throughout the mitigation planning process. The members of the planning team are key stakeholders that possess knowledge and understanding of K 12 facilities in the state of Washington. The planning team included representatives from school districts, educational associations, Educational Service Districts, and facility experts with experience working with school districts throughout the state. The members of the planning team are shown in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2 Planning Team Members Organization Washington State School Directors' Association (WSSDA) Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA) Washington State Risk Management Pool (WSRMP) Washington Association of School Business Officials (WASBO) BLRB Arch., OSPI Citizens Advisory Panel member (CAP) Ocosta School District and planning partner Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) Meng Analysis ESD 101 Participant Chuck Namit (North Thurston School District) and John Mortenson (Rochester School District) Rob Van Slyke (Bethel School District) Mary Sue Linville Marina Tanay Tom Bates Paula Akerlund (Superintendent) Bruce Kuennen Eric Meng Eric Dickson Page 32

39 The major roles and responsibilities of the planning team, with technical support from the consultants and oversight from OSPI, included: Preparing for, attending and actively participating in planning team meetings throughout the course of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Planning Project. Reviewing materials provided by OSPI and the consultants in a timely manner and providing thoughtful and constructive comments. Participating in public meetings or technical assistance workshops. Focusing on the overall good of Washington State s schools and the needs of their multiple stakeholders (e.g. teachers, students, parents, etc.). Other planning participants included subject matter experts from other agencies, including Washington Emergency Management, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Ecology, the United States Geological Survey and others who provide technical expertise about natural hazards and reviews of draft materials. The planning process also included outreach to stakeholders for feedback on the mitigation plan through a broadly distributed electronic survey posted on OSPI s website. This survey gave teachers, educational staff, parents and other interested parties the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions. The results of this survey are summarized in Section 3.3. A draft of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan will also be posted on OSPI s website for review and comment by the public before it is finalized. Outreach and engagement of stakeholders will also be an essential part of the planning process for school districts developing their own hazard mitigation plan. Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team Meetings The convening of a planning team began in the fall of 2012 and was coordinated by the lead consultants and OSPI. Members of the planning team, along with OSPI staff and consulting staff, met on the following dates: November 28, February 28, May 30, November 5, Future meetings will be determined as necessary. Planning team agendas and summary notes are included in Appendix Three. The following sections of this chapter provide a synopsis of the stakeholder survey. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix Three, along with documentation of the four planning team meetings. Page 33

40 Survey Questionnaire The OSPI Survey Regarding Increasing Life Safety Before Disaster Strikes was provided statewide to school districts, educators, parents, students and the public from December 17, 2012 until July 17, During this period, 242 people responded to the survey of which 83 percent were school district personnel, nine percent parents, five percent interested citizens, and three percent other agency (not school district) personnel. The majority of respondents (70 percent) reside in five counties (Mason, Thurston, Cowlitz, Clark and Island) (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.2). Table 3.3 Survey Responses by County Benton 1 Grays Harbor 1 Mason 82 Spokane 8 Chelan 3 Island 10 Okanogan 7 Stevens 4 Clallam 1 King 3 Pend Oreille 1 Thurston 38 Clark 11 Kitsap 2 Pierce 7 Cowlitz 26 Kittitas 4 Skagit 1 United States 2 Walla Walla 1 Douglas 4 Klickitat 3 Skamania 1 Whatcom 2 Ferry 3 Lewis 2 Snohomish 3 Whitman 1 Grant 3 Lincoln 1 Kitsap 1 Yakima Respondents, 31 Counties (out of 39) Page 34

41 Figure 3.2 Survey Responses by County Counties in gray had no respondents Concerns about Consequences of Natural Hazard Events The survey results show that if natural disasters were to occur in the respondents communities, most (78 percent) were concerned about deaths and injuries in schools, with less concern (15 percent) where school operations were simply disrupted (closures or relocation), or (8 percent) where there were economic losses or loss of school days. Figure 3.3 Concerns about Natural Hazard Events Page 35

42 Goals for Addressing Risks for Schools Continuing a pattern of higher concern for events that would cause deaths or injuries, respondents rated the goal of reducing death or injury higher than other goals, including reducing disruption of classes, disruption of pre- or after-school programs, or property damage (60 percent rated the goal as Very Important). Figure 3.4 Risk Reduction Goals Level of Threat from Different Hazards Respondents were asked to rate the threats of various hazards that might occur and affect schools. There are some differences between counties and regional differences between the east and west sides of Washington, as expected, because of the geographic variability in the historical occurrence of disaster events. However, earthquakes, floods, severe weather and wildland/urban interface fires were ranked the highest threats and had the greatest number of Very High and High responses for the rankings. Page 36

43 Figure 3.5 Perceived Threat by Hazard Type What do you believe is the level of threat to K-12 schools, facilities and people in Washington State from the following hazards? Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 0 Avalanches Drought Earthquakes Floods Landslides Severe Weather Tsunamis Volcanic Events Fires Concerns about Hazards of Differing Frequency and Severity In a similar pattern, more respondents had Very High concern about natural hazard events that would be less frequent but of greater magnitude, where loss of life was a greater issue. There is a clear distinction in numbers between Low and High Concern for frequent events, and a general trend toward More Concern about less frequent events up to the 100 year cycle. There is an almost even spread of concern about the very infrequent event (1,000 year return period 0.1 percent chance very year), showing a large diversity of perspectives even though there are more Very High concerns. Page 37

44 Figure 3.6 Concerns about Hazard Frequency and Damage What level of concern do you have regarding the following types of natural hazard disaster situations that could affect schools, facilities and people? Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 0 Very frequent events, disrupt transportation, school closures, minor damage. Relatively frequent events, few years, $500,000 damages, no deaths or injuries. Relatively infrequent events, 10 years, $5,000,000 damages, no deaths or injuries. Relatively infrequent events, 50 years, one death. Relatively infrequent events, 100 years, 10 deaths. Very infrequent events, 1,000 years, 200 deaths. Strategies for Addressing Risks for Schools Respondents also provided input on risk reduction strategies. More people strongly agree that the best strategy is to avoid building new schools in areas that are at high risk from natural hazards. In addition, most respondents agree that more resources should be available to school districts to implement risk reduction measures, and the state should be more proactive in helping to identify schools that are at high risk. Page 38

45 Figure 3.7 Risk Reduction Strategies Please tell us about your level of support regarding the following strategies related to reducing risks to schools from natural disasters: More resources should be available to help school districts implement risk reduction measures for schools that are at high risk from natural hazards. Washington State should be more proactive in helping districts identify schools that are at high risk from natural hazards. New schools should not be built in areas that are at high risk from natural hazards. Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Strongly Other Risk Reduction Strategies Respondents suggested a number of other strategies to reduce risk from natural disasters related to communications including evacuation routes, funding, hazard identification, building safety, planning, practice drills and training. In addition to commenting on natural disasters, some respondents suggested risk reduction strategies for human-caused disasters in schools. The complete list of the other risk reduction strategies suggested by survey respondents is included in Appendix Three. Page 39

46 Chapter Four: Mission Statement Goals, Objectives and Action Items 4.1 Overview The overarching purpose of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the impact of future natural disasters on schools in Washington State. That is, to make K 12 schools more disaster resistant and disaster resilient by reducing their vulnerability to disasters and by enhancing the capability of school districts to respond effectively to, and recover quickly from, future natural disaster events. The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan provides the foundation for mitigation plans for individual school districts Individual mitigation plans address natural hazards posing risk to district facilities in more detail than is possible in the statewide plan. Completely eliminating risk to K 12 schools in Washington State from future natural disasters is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible. However, substantially reducing negative impacts of future disasters on schools is achievable with adoption of pragmatic hazard mitigation plans and with ongoing implementation of risk reduction strategies and action items. School Districts that consider risk reduction strategies and action items, when implementing OSPI s existing programs, will help facilitate districts moving schools toward a safer and more disaster resistant future in a cost-effective manner. This Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan provides the framework and guidance for both short and long-term proactive steps that can be taken to: Protect life safety. Reduce property damage. Minimize economic losses and disruption. Shorten the recovery period from future disasters. The OSPI and school districts hazard mitigation plans will meet FEMA s (Federal Emergency Management Agency) mitigation planning requirements so that participating school districts will be eligible to apply for pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant funding from FEMA. The K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a four-step framework to focus attention and action on effective mitigation strategies to reduce risks from natural hazards to schools in Washington State. That framework is 1) Mission Statement, 2) Goals, 3) Objectives and 4) Action Items. Mission Statement. The Mission Statement states the purpose and defines the primary function of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Mission Statement is an action-oriented summary that answers the question Why develop a hazard mitigation plan? Page 40

47 Goals. Goals identify priorities and specify how OSPI intends to work toward reducing the risks from natural and human-caused hazards. The Goals represent the guiding principles toward which mitigation efforts are directed. Goals provide focus for the more specific issues, recommendations and actions addressed in Objectives and Action Items. Objectives. Each Goal has Objectives which specify the directions, methods, processes, or steps necessary to accomplish the plan s Goals. Objectives then lead directly to specific Action Items. Action Items. Action items are specific well-defined strategies, activities or projects that work to reduce risk. That is, the Action Items represent the implemental steps necessary to achieve the Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives. 4.2 Mission Statement The Mission of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is: Proactively facilitate and support statewide resources and programs that assist school districts in making K 12 schools in Washington State more disaster resistant and disaster resilient. The K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan documents OSPI s commitment to promote sound public policies designed to help minimize the negative impacts of future natural disaster events on K 12 schools in Washington State. This is accomplished through mitigation actions at the state level and by encouraging and facilitating mitigation planning efforts in school districts throughout the state. 4.3 Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives Mitigation plan Goals and Objectives guide the direction of future policies and activities aimed at reducing risk and preventing loss from disaster events. The Goals and Objectives listed here serve as guideposts and checklists as OSPI and the school districts begin the ongoing, long-term process of implementing mitigation Action Items to reduce the risks to K 12 school facilities from natural disasters. Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan s Goals and Objectives are based broadly on, and consistent with, the goals established by the Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. However, the specific priorities, emphasis and language in this mitigation plan are OSPI s. These goals were developed with extensive input and priority setting by the OSPI Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDMG) Planning Team, other stakeholders, and school districts. Page 41

48 Goal One: Protect Life Safety Objectives: Enhance life safety by supporting school districts efforts to improve existing schools, and build new schools that minimize the potential for deaths and injuries from future disaster events. Enhance life safety by improving public awareness of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic events and other natural hazards that pose a substantial life safety risk to students and staff in Washington State schools. Goal Two: Protect K 12 School Facilities Objectives: Identify school facilities that are at high risk from one or more natural hazards. Assist school districts in conducting risk assessments for school facilities that are at high risk to determine cost effective mitigation actions and eliminate or minimize risk. Assist school districts in implementing mitigation measures for school facilities that have been evaluated and found to have an unacceptable level of risk. Provide school districts information to help ensure that new school facilities are adequately designed and properly located to minimize life safety risk and damages in future natural disaster events. Goal Three: Enhance Emergency Planning, Disaster Response and Post-Disaster Recovery Objectives: Encourage and facilitate development of effective emergency evacuation plans for school districts that have facilities at risk from natural disasters that may result in deaths or injuries unless effective evacuation is planned. This includes schools located in tsunami inundation zones and schools at risk from volcanic lahars, wildland fires and floods. Provide tools and guidance that enhance emergency planning to facilitate effective response and recovery from future natural disaster events. Increase collaboration and coordination between OSPI, school districts, local governments, utilities, businesses and citizens to prepare for and recover from future natural disaster events. Develop and implement education and outreach efforts to increase awareness of natural hazards throughout the school community including districts, teachers, parents and students. Page 42

49 Goal Four: Encourage and Facilitate Development of Hazard Mitigation Plans for School Districts Objectives: Encourage school districts to develop hazard mitigation plans, with district-specific mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Action Items. These hazard mitigation plans will have more detailed risk assessments than possible with the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan. Provide guidance, risk assessment data and templates, and a mitigation planning toolkit to facilitate development of robust mitigation plans by school districts, while minimizing the effort necessary to do so. Provide information on resources, tools, partnership opportunities and funding resources to assist school districts to implement mitigation activities. 4.4 Mitigation Planning and Implementation Priorities Nearly all school facilities are necessary and important for providing educational services. Nevertheless, for mitigation planning, school buildings are often given a higher priority than administrative or support buildings. Because life safety is generally the paramount concern for schools, high occupancy buildings are often given a higher priority than low occupancy buildings. Schools that are designated as emergency shelters are often identified as critical facilities in local hazard mitigation plans. Therefore, if the risk assessment identifies substantial vulnerabilities and high risk to one or more natural hazards, critical facilities are given a higher priority for risk assessments and implementing mitigation measures. Mitigation Goals, Objectives and Action Items may vary significantly from district to district depending on each district s exposure to natural hazards, district-specific conditions, facilities, and district-specific priorities. 4.5 Washington State 2012 K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Items The Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan (as outlined above) are achieved via implementation of specific mitigation Action Items. Action Items may include refinement of policies, data collection to better characterize hazards or risk, education, outreach or partnership-building activities, as well as specific engineering or construction measures to reduce risk from one or more hazards to specific buildings, facilities, or infrastructure within K 12 facilities in Washington State. Action Items identified and prioritized during the development of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan are summarized in the table on the following page. Page 43

50 Chapter Five: Mitigation Plan Implementation and Updating 5.1 Overview For the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan to be effective, it has to be implemented gradually over time as resources become available and are continually evaluated and periodically updated. OSPI does not have direct responsibility for its own facilities (which are managed and maintained by the Washington Department of Enterprise Services) nor school facilities (which are managed and maintained by individual school districts. Rather, OSPI s role is primarily encouraging and helping to facilitate implementation of mitigation projects by school districts. OSPI s role in implementing and updating the mitigation plan has two main elements: Continue to support and facilitate implementation of mitigation measures through maintenance and enhancement of the ICOS Pre-Disaster Mitigation Database and through providing guidance and technical assistance to school districts. Periodic evaluation and update of the mitigation programs for K 12 facilities in Washington. This effort will include compiling and updating the ICOS Pre-Disaster Mitigation Database with the latest facility and hazard information. This also includes identifying elements that are working effectively and those that may not be, with revisions and improvements in mitigation goals, objectives, and action items, as necessary. 5.2 Coordinating Body OSPI will have an Internal Implementation Team which will consist of staff from the School Facilities and Organization Section (SF&O), School Safety Center, and other OSPI sections as are deemed necessary. The internal implementation team will meet on a periodic basis, as is needed to ensure successful implementation of the mitigation planning effort by OSPI and participating school districts. 5.3 Implementation and Integration into Ongoing Programs, Policies and Practices The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is an educational and guidance document, not a regulatory document. Thus implementation of the objectives, goals and action items can be accomplished most effectively by fully integrating the mitigation plan and other materials developed during the planning process guidance into existing OSPI programs, policies and practices. OSPI will work with school districts that are participating in various school facility grant funding programs administered by OSPI, to promote hazard mitigation planning efforts by the school districts. Any action by a school district to undertake hazard mitigation planning will be Page 44

51 voluntary. The role of OSPI is to provide technical assistance and guidance. This includes, but is not limited to, the following activities and programs: Site Planning. OSPI SFO will inform school districts that are in the processing of siting a new school facility to use the PDM tools in the ICOS Database to determine whether a site is more exposed to natural hazards. OSPI SFO will provide technical support to assist school districts to access and use the ICOS Database. Study and Survey. OSPI SFO will promote school districts undertaking Study and Survey efforts to gather facility level information regarding exposure to natural hazards, in order to better understand the risk to natural hazards that their district s face. Additional funding in a study and survey grant will be provided for school districts to collect facility information related to natural hazards. School districts, that volunteer to collect additional facility information related to natural hazards, will be encouraged to use the mitigation planning toolkit in the ICOS Database to develop a mitigation plan. OSPI SFO will provide technical support to assist school districts to access and use the ICOS Database, including the mitigation planning toolkit. School Construction Assistance Program. OSPI SFO will promote school districts seeking a modernization project to consider incorporating mitigation elements (e.g. seismic retrofits) as part of the project. Modernization and new-in-lieu projects for schools which do not meet seismic code requirements will be given priority for funding consistent with WAC School Mapping. OSPI SFO will promote school districts, who are currently undertaking school mapping, to consider developing evacuation routes for any applicable natural hazards (e.g. tsunami, volcanic lahars, earthquake etc.) based on the analysis in the ICOS Pre-Disaster Mitigation Database. 5.4 Periodic Evaluation and Updating OSPI developed a process for regularly reviewing and updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan and related program activities. The Internal Implementation Team will review the plan at least annually as well as after significant disaster events affecting school facilities in Washington State. The Internal Implementation Team will be responsible for tracking progress of the mitigation actions in the Plan. These reviews will provide opportunities to incorporate new information into the Plan and the ICOS database systems as well as remove outdated items and information. This will also be the time to recognize success of both OSPI and the districts in implementation of the action items. One important task will be to document mitigation projects completed by districts. OSPI will maintain a record of completed projects as examples to encourage other districts to implement similar projects. Page 45

52 The Internal Implementation Team will assess whether and to what extent: The plans goals, objectives and action items still address current and future expected conditions? The mitigation action items accurately reflect OSPI s mission and mitigation priorities? The technical hazard, vulnerability and risk data has been updated or changed? Current resources are adequate for implementing OSPI s Hazard Mitigation Plan? If not, are there other resources that may be available? There are any problems or impediments to implementation? If so, what are the solutions? Other agencies, partners, and the public participated as anticipated? If not, what measures can be taken to facilitate participation? There have been changes in federal and/or state laws pertaining to hazard mitigation in Washington State? The FEMA requirements for the maintenance and updating of district hazard mitigation plans changed? What can OSPI and districts learn from declared federal and/or state hazard events in that have significantly affect school facilities in Washington? Previously implemented mitigation measures performed in recent hazard events? More counties have begun coordinating with school districts to develop mitigation plans? If so, are the OSPI planning tools being used to assist that planning effort? Another important task will be the periodic updating of the information in the ICOS Pre-Disaster Mitigation Database. This will include: Updating hazard data in ICOS as new data becomes available from the United States Geological Survey, FEMA, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies. Reviewing and updating the facility inventory data in the mitigation plan as new campuses and buildings are built and as districts continue to input campus-level and building-level data into ICOS. Compiling and analyzing the latest hazard and facility information to provide a better understanding of the overall risk to school facilities from natural hazards across the state. Page 46

53 Chapter Six: Natural Hazards Risk 6.1 Overview The essence of mitigation planning for natural hazards is to: Identify facilities that have an unacceptably high level of risk from one or more natural hazards. Evaluate ways to mitigate (reduce) the impacts of future disasters on these facilities. Implement mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the risk. Risk from natural hazards means the chance of death, injury, damage or economic loss. Risk is best expressed quantitatively by estimates of the likely extent of damage and economic losses and the numbers of deaths and injuries in future disaster events that may affect a given K 12 facility. Evaluation of natural hazards and estimates of risk have considerable uncertainties: it is not possible to predict where or when a given natural hazard event will occur or exactly how severe the damages, losses or casualties may be for an affected facility. For any given natural hazard event, the damages, losses and casualties may be higher or lower than pre-event estimates. Mitigation planning can provide meaningful estimates of the probabilities of future disaster events affecting a given K 12 facility and can identify which hazards pose the greatest threats to each K 12 facility. Mitigation planning can also help allocate financial resources efficiently by identifying which facilities would benefit most from pro-active mitigation measures to reduce casualties, damages and economic losses in future disasters. All natural hazard events pose some level of risk to facilities subject to the hazard. The level of risk varies markedly with the type and severity of hazard events and the value and vulnerability of facilities subject to the hazard. The overall level of damage, casualties and losses from a natural hazard event can range from none or negligible, to catastrophic events with hundreds or thousands of casualties and billions of dollars in damages and losses. Some hazard events such as earthquakes and severe storms may affect a wide geographic area, while others such as floods and landslides typically affect relatively small geographic areas. Some hazard events, such as earthquakes or tsunamis, may result in high damages and high casualties, while other hazard events, such as floods, may result in high damages but typically few casualties. The level of risk from natural hazards for a given facility results from the combination of hazard and exposure, as shown in the figure below. Page 47

54 Figure 6.1 Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk HAZARD EXPOSURE RISK Frequency Value and Threat to the and Severity + Vulnerability of = Community: of Hazard Events Inventory People, Buildings and Infrastructure Hazard Quantitative evaluation of natural hazards requires making estimates of the frequency of natural hazard events (how often they occur) as a function of the severity or size of a disaster event. All natural hazard events may occur over a wide range of severities. For example, a flood for a given campus may be several feet below the first floor of a building or several feet above the first floor. Similarly, the level of ground shaking from earthquakes affecting a campus may vary greatly, depending on the location and magnitude of earthquake events. Thus, evaluation of each natural hazard must consider events over the full range of hazard events severe enough to result in damages, losses or casualties. The type of data necessary to evaluate natural hazards varies from hazard to hazard. Detailed guidance for each hazard is provided in Chapters 7 13, which address each of the major hazards considered in the K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic hazards, floods, wildland/urban interface fires and landslides. Exposure Exposure has two elements: value and vulnerability. Value means the importance of a facility. Measures of value include the replacement value, the occupancy and the criticality of a facility for providing services. Vulnerability means the expected extent of damages as a function of the severity of a hazard event. For example, two schools with the same level of earthquake hazard and enrollment may have the same value, but may differ markedly in their vulnerability to earthquake damage, depending on the details of their construction. In this case, the school with the higher vulnerability has the higher risk. Risk For any given hazard level, the greater the value and vulnerability, the greater the risk. Facilities with the highest level of risk are those that have both a high hazard level and a high value and vulnerability to the hazard. However, it is important to recognize that a facility with a moderate or even relatively low hazard level, but very high exposure (value and vulnerability), may well have higher risk than a similar facility with a very high hazard level but with much lower exposure. For example, an unreinforced masonry school in a moderate earthquake hazard location may well have a higher risk than a school recently built to current seismic design standards in a much higher earthquake hazard location. Page 48

55 6.2 Natural Hazards Overview The Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses on the six natural hazards that pose the greatest risk to K 12 facilities: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic hazards, floods, wildland/urban interface fires and landslides. Other natural hazards such as avalanches, droughts and severe storms pose much lower levels of risk to K 12 facilities and thus are addressed more briefly. The important concepts for evaluating natural hazards include the following: Some types of hazard events, such as floods, may be predicted a few hours or a few days before an event happens. There may be warnings of possible tsunamis a few minutes or a few hours before waves arrive. Hazard events such as lahars, landslides or wildland/urban interface fires cannot be predicted in advance, but there may be generic warnings that the risk is higher than usual because of weather conditions or because a volcano is showing signs of activity. Other hazard events, such as earthquakes, have no warning (or at most a few seconds) until ground shaking starts at a given location. Hazard events are characterized by their frequency and severity. Each type of natural hazard may occur with a very wide range of severity from barely detectable with little impact on a facility to very severe events with major impacts on a facility. A quantitative definition of the level of hazard at any given location requires making estimates of the frequency or annual probability of hazard events as a function of severity, covering the full range of possible events. The measures of the severity of hazard events vary from hazard to hazard. For floods and tsunamis, the severity of hazard events is measured by inundation depth, along with other variables such as the flow velocity. For earthquakes, the severity at a given location is measured by the intensity and duration of ground shaking, along with the extent that secondary effects such as liquefaction or lateral spreading occur. For lahars, landslides, and wildland/urban interface fires, the severity is measured largely by the size of the affected area. The frequency of hazard events is, by itself, not a meaningful measure of the severity of a hazard. For example, a given community may experience several winter storm events each year with generally minor to moderate impacts but may experience a major tsunami about once every 300 to 500 years on average with damages and losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars including hundreds of deaths. The greater frequency of winter storms doesn t mean that this hazard is of greater concern than the tsunami hazard. Hazard analysis is inherently probabilistic. For most natural hazards, reasonable estimates of the long-term probability of future hazard events can be made as a function of the severity of hazard events, but it is impossible to predict when a major hazard event will occur in the future, other than possible very short-term warnings for some events such as floods. For example, consider a school within a FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain. It is impossible to predict whether a 100-year flood will happen this year, next year, ten years from now, or 200 or more years from now. Some communities have experienced two or more 100-year flood events in only a few years, while others have never experienced a Page 49

56 100-year flood. The correct interpretation of the likelihood of a 100-year flood at a school within a FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain is simply that there is a one percent chance of this event, every year. Hazard analyses provide estimates of the likelihood of future natural hazard events of varying severities, but it cannot predict when a specific hazard event will occur or how severe it will be. A high hazard level does not, by itself, mean that there is necessarily high risk, because risk depends not only on the level of hazard but also on the value and vulnerability of facilities subject to the hazard. The above concepts apply to all natural hazards. However, as noted previously, the details vary from hazard to hazard. Detailed information about each of the major natural hazards is provided in Chapters 7 12 with brief information about other lesser natural hazards in Chapter Natural Hazards Risk Assessment, a Three-Step Process Natural hazards risk assessments can be qualitative by simply ranking the risk as high, medium, or low; or quantitative, with explicit numerical estimates of the potential for damages, losses, deaths and injuries. The spectrum of risk assessments ranges from qualitative rankings with limited inputs of technical hazard, vulnerability and risk data; to very detailed, rigorous quantitative assessments by engineers and natural hazards experts on a building by building basis. Purely subjective risk assessments may be very misleading and should be avoided. Both qualitative and quantitative risk assessments are useful for mitigation planning, as long as the limitations and uncertainties of both approaches are understood. The more rigorous a risk assessment is, the more accurate it will be. The cost of a more rigorous risk assessment will also be higher than for less rigorous assessment. Thus, it is not cost-effective to complete a rigorous risk assessment for every hazard for every campus or every building. The most practical, efficient and cost-effective risk assessment approach for schools is a stepwise process which starts at the campus level then continues to the building level as outlined below. This approach helps to target the facilities with the most identifiable risk, based on the best available information. The goal of these assessments is to identify facilities that may have unacceptably high levels of risk from one or more natural hazards. They establish priorities for mitigation measures to reduce the risk so that the limited resources available for mitigation are focused effectively. Step One: Preliminary Screening for Hazards of Concern In many cases, but certainly not all, it is possible to screen the major natural hazards and determine if the risk posed to a given campus by some of the hazards is nonexistent or low enough to not be of concern. Such hazard-exclusion screening is important, because it allows attention to be focused on the hazards that pose the most significant risks. However, hazardexclusion screening must be done very carefully to avoid dismissing hazards that may actually pose significant threats to a campus. Page 50

57 Preliminary screening is based predominantly on hazard mapping to determine which facilities are within mapped hazard areas for each of the natural hazards. Successfully completing a preliminary screening will assist districts to focus their efforts and resources on gathering more detailed data for buildings that are likely to have the highest levels of risk. Chapters 7 12 of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan contain more complete technical details of each hazard s characteristics. They include a preliminary campuslevel hazard screening for six major hazards. The screening is based on available statewide data. The Inventory and Condition of Schools (ICOS) database at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has also been pre-populated with available campus-level hazard data. The preliminary hazard and risk screening, based on available statewide data, must be interpreted as the starting point for further analyses on a campus-specific or building-specific basis and not as a final determination of the estimated risk. If there is any doubt about excluding a given hazard from consideration when screening a campus, it is better not to exclude the hazard from consideration and to move on to Step Two of the natural hazards risk assessment. The following checklists provide screening criteria to determine whether or not a given campus is subject to enough risk from a hazard to warrant further, more detailed evaluation. If the answers are no to each of the questions for a given hazard, the level of risk is likely nonexistent or extremely low. However, there is always a slight probability that an extreme event, much larger or more severe than anticipated, might pose some risk to the campus. Further technical information about each of the hazards addressed in the following screening templates is provided in Chapters 7 12 which also addresses each of the major hazards. Furthermore, answers for some of the questions are auto-populated in the ICOS database at OSPI and/or in the hazard tables, by campus, in Chapters Earthquakes are not listed with hazard-exclusion screening criteria, because every campus in Washington State has some level of earthquake risk. Even in low seismic hazard areas of the state, there may be a few unusually vulnerable buildings with high enough risk to warrant more detailed evaluation. The above statements notwithstanding, many locations in eastern Washington have low enough levels of seismic hazard that seismic mitigation may not be a high priority. Page 51

58 Table 6.1 Screening Criteria to Exclude Hazards from Detailed Consideration EARTHQUAKES Campus Name: Example 2% in 50 year ground motion for this campus (% g, PGA) Earthquake Hazard Level Ground Motion Percentile among K-12 campuses Site Class (Soil/Rock Type) Liquefaction Potential Is the earthquake ground motion (2% in 50 years) 0.20 g or higher? 58% High 29% Firm Soil D Moderate to High YES More detailed evaluation of earthquake risk recommended for this campus? YES If NO, complete the remaining questions below. If NO, the level of earthquake hazard is lower than for most locations in Washington, but risk assessments are recommended for the following types of buildings built before 1992: Does this campus have buildings of the following types built before 1992? YES NO Unreinforced Masonry (URM) X Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (more than 1 story) Tilt-Up Concrete X Reinforced Masonry Wood Frame with Soft First Story or Cripple Walls Modular (Portable) Buildings X Risk assessments are recommended for the campus buildings in the at-risk categories above. X X X If the 2% in 50 year ground motion is less than 0.2 g and there are no campus buildings in the categories above, the level of earthquake risk for this campus is probably low, but is not zero for any campus in Washington State. Page 52

59 TSUNAMIS YES NO Is the campus within a mapped tsunami inundation zone? If yes, tsunami risk is high. If no, answer the following questions: Is the campus elevation below 30 feet and is the campus within 3 miles of the coast? Is the campus elevation below 50 feet? Is the campus elevation below 100 feet? If yes for any of the above questions, the level of tsunami risk may be significant. Developing and practicing a tsunami evacuation plan is recommended. If no, the tsunami risk is probably nil or extremely low. VOLCANIC HAZARDS (LAHAR) YES NO Is the campus within a mapped lahar inundation zone? If yes, lahar risk is high. If no, answer the following questions: Is the campus within a valley with mapped lahar inundation zones? Is the campus within a valley downslope from an active volcano? If yes for any of the above questions, the level of lahar risk may be significant. Developing and practicing a lahar evacuation plan is recommended. If no, the lahar risk is probably nil or extremely low. Page 53

60 FLOODS YES NO Is the campus within a FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain? Is the campus within a FEMA-mapped 500-year floodplain? Is the campus within any other FEMA-mapped floodplain? If yes, for any of the above questions, the level of flood risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of flood risk is appropriate. If no, answer the following questions: Is the campus near a FEMA-mapped floodplain and with campus elevation less than 5 feet above the 100-year flood? Is there a history of flood events affecting the campus or very near the campus? Is the campus subject to localized storm water drainage flooding? Is the campus protected by a levee or downstream/downslope from a dam or reservoir? Is the campus near a river or stream that is not mapped by FEMA? Is the campus situated on an alluvial fan that may be subject to sheet flow flooding? If yes for any of the above questions, the level of flood risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of flood risk is appropriate. If no, the flood risk is probably nil or extremely low. Page 54

61 WILDLAND/URBAN INTERFACE FIRES YES NO Is the campus within a DNR-designated wildland/urban interface community with extreme, high or moderate risk? Does the campus location have a USGS burn return period of less than 50-Years? Does the campus location have a USGS burn return period of less than 100-Years? If yes, wildand urban interface fire risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of flood risk is appropriate. If no, answer the following questions: Is there a history of wildland/urban interface fires affecting the campus or near the campus? Are there large areas with high vegetative fuel loads adjacent to or near the campus? Have local fire agencies expressed concern about wildland/urban interface fires? If yes for any of the above questions, the level of wildland/urban interface fire risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of wildland/urban interface fire risk is appropriate. If no, the wildland/urban interface fire risk is probably nil or extremely low. LANDSLIDES YES NO Is the campus within 500-feet of DNR mapped landslides? Does the campus have nearby slopes >35% Does the campus have nearby slopes >25% Does the campus have nearby slopes >20% If yes, landslide risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of flood risk is appropriate. If no, answer the following questions: Is there a history of landslides affecting the campus or near the campus? Are there any areas near campus buildings with steep slopes such as deeply incised streams or cut and fill areas? Are there stream channels or swales upslope from the campus and that may be subject to debris flows? If yes for any of the above questions, the level of landslide risk may be significant. Completing a more detailed evaluation of landslide risk is appropriate. If no, the landslide risk is probably nil or extremely low. Page 55

62 Step Two: Campus-Level Risk Assessments For campuses where the hazard level has been identified as being high enough to warrant a risk assessment to obtain a more accurate understanding of the risk, the next step is to refine the hazard data with campus-specific data, and combine the hazard data with campus building inventory data. As noted previously, the statewide hazard data that is available has been preloaded into the Inventory and Condition of Schools Database (ICOS) at OSPI. However for campus-level risk assessments, it is necessary to verify the accuracy of some the statewide data, which is generally of lower resolution and lower accuracy than campus-specific data. This step also requires obtaining additional campus-specific data. Detailed guidance and templates for risk assessments are provided in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. The brief summaries below are intended only as an introduction to the data and approaches necessary for risk assessments. Please refer to the Toolkit for further details. Examples of the types of campus-specific hazard data necessary for a robust risk assessment include: Documentation of past hazard events affecting a campus. Campus elevation data for campuses within or near flood, lahar, or tsunami inundation zones. Quantitative flood hazard data, from FEMA Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, for campuses within FEMA-mapped floodplains. Distances and routes for evacuation to designated safe locations for tsunami, lahar, and wildland/urban interface fire events. Evaluation of site-specific conditions bearing on wildland/urban interface fire and landslide risks. Evaluation of site-specific soil/rock conditions for earthquake risk. Examples of campus-specific building inventory data include: Buildings square footage, construction date, number of stories, first floor elevation, occupancy, and replacement value. Building structural types (for earthquake assessments). The extent of or lack of fire-safe construction details (for wildland/urban interface fire assessments). Step Three: Building-Level Risk Assessments Campus-level risk assessments provide the foundation for evaluating risk and for developing mitigation goals and objectives. However, in most cases, physical mitigation measures are Page 56

63 implemented on a building-by-building basis. Therefore, developing building-specific mitigation measures usually requires more detailed building-level risk assessments. Building-level risk assessments typically require building evaluations by experts such as engineering with substantial experience with the hazard of concern. Examples where engineering evaluations are required include: Detailed seismic evaluation of a building to identify specific structural and nonstructural seismic deficiencies, determine what retrofit measures are required and develop at least a conceptual retrofit scheme and preliminary cost estimate. Detailed seismic and tsunami evaluation to determine if a building, with more than one story, has adequate strength to serve as a vertical evacuation shelter for tsunamis in locations where there is no high ground reachable within the available warning time. Geotechnical studies to evaluate the level of landslide risk or the potential for liquefaction, settlement or lateral spreading during earthquakes. Evaluation of the level of wildland/urban fire risk and the vulnerability of a building to fire. Quantitative evaluation of flood risk, outside of FEMA-mapped floodplains, where special situations exist such as campuses protected by levees, dams or reservoirs upstream from the campus. Further technical information and guidance is contained in the hazard specific chapters (chapters 7 13) and in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. 6.4 Evaluating Acceptable Risk The risk assessments outlined above provide the foundation for decision making and provide much of the information necessary to answer key questions about risk and mitigation priorities including: Is the level of risk for a given campus or buildings acceptable or tolerable? If not, what are the mitigation alternatives, and how do we choose between them? After completing the risk assessments, decision makings should determine whether the level of risk from one or more natural hazards is acceptable. Acceptable risk is a concept that makes many people uncomfortable. However, there is almost always some residual risk regardless of how well a building is designed. For example: A building where the first floor is several feet above the 100-year flood elevation may still have flood damages in a flood event much larger than a 100-year flood. A building designed to current seismic design requirements may still have significant damage in an earthquake with higher levels of ground shaking than the design basis. Page 57

64 A building outside of mapped tsunami or lahar inundation zones may be inundated by tsunami or lahar events larger than anticipated. There are no universally-accepted definitions of acceptable risk. The level of risk deemed acceptable (or at least tolerable) is up to each district to determine based on the importance of each facility and on each district s priorities. In general qualitative terms, risk may be acceptable if the expected damages are low for infrequent events and/or very low for frequent events. The higher and more frequent the expected damages are, the less likely the risk is acceptable. For example, damages of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in minor flood events, that happen every few years, may be acceptable; but damages of $500,000 or $5,000,000 every few years wouldn t be acceptable. Life safety risk, i.e. the likelihood of deaths or injuries, is almost universally deemed less acceptable than the risk of damages. For example, consider a school that, based on a risk assessment, is likely to have significant damage in a tsunami or earthquake event with a return period of about 500 years. Damage to a school once every 500 years may be acceptable, but 50 or 500 deaths once every 500 years on average is not acceptable. For K 12 facilities, high levels of risk for damages, other economic losses, or casualties may all be deemed unacceptable. However, life safety risk is generally the highest concern and mitigation to reduce life safety risk is often deemed to be the highest priority. A common mistake in mitigation planning is to focus too much on frequent hazard events with generally minor consequences and not enough on less frequent events (longer return periods) with very large or even catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, focusing too much on hazard events which are very infrequent may also be misguided. Natural hazard events with relatively long return periods such as a 100-year flood or a 500-year tsunami or earthquake event are often seen as rare, very unlikely events. In reality, the probability that such events occur over the next 30 or 50 years is relatively high. The following table shows the probability that natural hazard events with a wide range of return periods occur over the next 1, 10, 30 or 50 years. Page 58

65 Table 6.1 Probabilistic Risk Table Return period (years) Probability of Occuring in Various Time Periods 1 Year 10 Years 30 Years 50 Years % 89.26% 99.88% % % 65.13% 95.76% 99.48% % 33.52% 70.61% 87.01% % 18.29% 45.45% 63.58% % 9.56% 26.03% 39.50% % 4.89% 13.96% 22.17% % 3.93% 11.33% 18.16% % 1.98% 5.83% 9.53% 1, % 1.00% 2.96% 4.88% 2, % 0.40% 1.19% 1.98% 5, % 0.20% 0.60% 1.00% 10, % 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% Natural hazard events with return periods may seem very long, such as 100 or 500 or 1,000 years have significant probabilities of occurring during the lifetime of a building: Hazard events with return periods of 100 years have probabilities of occurring in the next 30 or 50 years of about 26 percent and about 40 percent, respectively. Hazard events with return periods of 500 years have about a six percent and about a ten percent chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively. Hazard events with return periods of 1,000 years have about a three percent chance and about a five percent chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively. That is, even events with a return period of 1,000 years (or more) may be significant if the consequences of the event happening are very severe (extremely high damages and/or substantial loss of life). For life safety considerations, even natural hazard events with very long return periods of more than 1,000 years are often deemed significant. For example, the seismic design requirements for new construction are based on the level of ground shaking with a return period of 2,475 years (two percent probability in 50 years). Providing life safety for this level of ground shaking is deemed necessary for seismic design of new buildings to minimize life safety risk. Of course, a hazard event with a relatively long return period of 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 or years or longer may occur tomorrow, next year, or within a few years. Return periods of 100 years, 500 years or 1,000 years mean that such events have a one percent, a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. Page 59

66 The most rigorous, quantitative determination of risk to a given facility, from a specified natural hazard, is to calculate the expected average annual damages and losses. The term expected average annual damages and losses means the average damages and losses considering the full range of damaging natural hazard events. For example, consider a hazard event that occurs about once per year with $1,000 in damages and a larger hazard event that occurs about every 100 years with $100,000 both contribute $1,000 to the expected average annual damages and losses. Expected average annual damages and losses are a statistical or a probabilistic estimate of the average losses expected over a long time period concluded by considering the full range of hazard events and weighting each event by the probability of occurrence. In mathematical terms, expected average annual damages and losses are obtained by integrating the probability-damage relationship for the facility for the specified natural hazard. Interpretation of expected average annual damages and losses is straightforward. For example, if the expected annual damages and losses from floods (or earthquakes or any other natural hazard) for one building are $100,000 and $200,000 for another building, then the level of risk for the second building is twice that for the first building. Expected average annual damage and loss calculations can also include estimated casualties (deaths and injuries) to provide a quantitative measure of the relative life safety risk from a group of buildings. Expected average annual damage and loss estimates can be made by using the FEMA Benefit- Cost Analysis software which is discussed in more detail in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. The benefits of a mitigation project are proportional to the reduction in average annual damages and losses that is, the difference in average annual damages between the as-is (before mitigation) and the after mitigation condition of a building. In evaluating risk for a given facility, it is important to recognize that many facilities have risk from more than one natural hazard. In this case, each of the hazards posing significant risk must be evaluated. For example, a seismic retrofit for a building with a high risk from floods or tsunamis may not make sense. 6.5 Establishing Mitigation Priorities The first step in establishing mitigation priorities is to define the relative importance of measures to reduce life safety risk versus the risk of damages and economic losses. If life safety is the highest priority, then mitigation measures that address the facilities for which the life safety risk is highest become the highest mitigation priorities. The following discussion focuses on life safety mitigation, as an example, but similar principles apply for mitigation projects to reduce damages or other economic losses. If a district has several schools with identified life safety risks, such as schools in mapped tsunami inundation zones or schools with significant seismic vulnerabilities, then presumably the school with the highest life safety risk is the highest priority for mitigation. Page 60

67 The most quantitative, rigorous way to compare life safety risk for a population of schools is to calculate what is known as the expected average annual casualty rates. In this context, expected average annual means the average number of deaths and injuries per year over a very long time period. Expected average annual estimates require estimating the expected number of casualties as a function of the probability and severity of hazard events and then mathematically integrating the curve to determine the expected average casualty rates. Such calculations can be done using the FEMA benefit-cost software which is discussed in the following section. Benefit-cost analysis requires a moderate amount of technical/mathematical understanding. However, when such calculations are done, the interpretation of the results is easy: The school that has the highest expected average annual casualty rates has the highest life safety risk; therefore, it is likely to be the highest priority for mitigation. That is, a school with an expected average annual death rate of 1.5 per year (that is 150 deaths per 100 years) from earthquakes, has a higher life safety risk than one with an expected average annual death rate of 0.5 (that is, 50 deaths per 100 years). Simpler, semi-quantitative analysis of relative life safety risk can be based on occupancy only, if the hazard levels and vulnerability of schools are approximately equal. That is, the school with the highest occupancy probably poses the greatest life safety risk. However, because mitigation costs are generally proportional to the size of a facility, a better measure of relative risk might be the occupancy per 1,000 square feet. There are other complexities that affect prioritization of mitigation implementation, such as limited financial resources that may result in selecting the best mitigation project within available resources which may not necessarily be the highest priority project overall. However, it is important to remember that risk arises from the combination of hazard and exposure. A lower occupancy school may have higher life safety risk than a high occupancy school with the same hazard level, if the lower occupancy school has much higher vulnerability such as the probability of collapse in an earthquake. Once a facility has been determined to be a high priority for mitigation, there is one more question to answer before exploring mitigation alternatives. Does it make more sense to replace an at-risk facility with a new facility or to mitigate the existing facility? There are several situations where replacement of an at-risk facility with a new facility may be preferable to implementing mitigation measures for an existing facility: Mitigation costs for the existing facility are a high percentage of the cost of replacement with a new facility. The existing facility is in poor condition, functionally obsolete, or is in a less than optimum location. The existing facility is subject to more than one hazard. For example, it may well not make sense to undertake a seismic retrofit for a school that is also at significant risk from floods, tsunamis or other natural or anthropogenic (human-caused) hazards. Page 61

68 Replacement with a new, current code facility is a very effective mitigation measure, because a new facility would be built to current building code requirements and located in conformance with floodplain management regulations and other land use regulations. However, the availability of resources to replace a building must be considered in making such a determination. Of course, with any new facility it makes sense to avoid locating the new facility in an area subject to natural or anthropogenic hazards even if building in a hazardous location would not be prohibited by existing regulations or policies. There are many factors to consider in decision making about acceptable risk and establishing mitigation priorities, including not only the potential for damages, losses, and casualties, but also factors such as: Historical preservation. A building of historical significance may be deemed more important than a non-historic building. Emergency shelters. Schools that are designated emergency shelters may be deemed more important than schools not so designated. Functionality/operability for district function. A building that serves a unique function or a facility that is the only one of its kind (such as the only high school) in a district may be deemed more important than facilities where there are several such facilities in the district. The conceptual steps in decision making about acceptable risk and establishing mitigation priorities are outlined in the figure on the following page. Page 62

69 Figure 6.2 The Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Flowchart Risk Assessment Quantify the Threat to the Built Environment Is the Level of Risk Acceptable? YES: Risk is Acceptable, -Mitigation Not Necessary NO: Risk is Not Acceptable -Mitigation Desired -Identify Mitigation Alternatives -Find Solutions to Risk -Prioritize Mitigation Alternatives -Use Benefit Cost Analysis and Related Tools -Obtain Funding -Implement Mitigation Measures -Reduce Risk 6.6 Implementing Mitigation Measures Once a school district has made a decision that mitigation is desired for a given campus or a given building, and that replacement with a new facility is not feasible, the next step is to evaluate mitigation alternatives. For any facility and any hazard there is almost always a range of possible mitigation alternatives with a wide range of cost and effectiveness in reducing future casualties, damages and economic losses. Developing and evaluating mitigation alternatives for a specific facility generally requires engineering and facility planning input to carefully consider the site-specific details of the hazard(s) for which a facility is being mitigated. This is needed to determine what measures are practical, and to explore the inevitable trade-off between mitigation project cost and the effectiveness of the project to reduce future disaster impacts. Selection of a specific mitigation project, from a range of alternatives, may be made subjectively by selecting the alternative that feels best or may be based on cost considerations. For example, if a given alternative is the maximum cost that a district can afford, then more-robust Page 63

70 but more expensive alternatives may be discarded even though they may be more effective in reducing future disaster impacts. A rigorous, quantitative evaluation of mitigation alternatives for a given facility can be completed via benefit-cost analysis. Benefit-cost analysis may be desired when there are two or more attractive mitigation alternatives and the selection between the alternatives is difficult. More detailed guidance on benefit-cost analysis is included in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. The summary below focuses on how the results of benefit-cost analysis can be used to evaluate mitigation alternatives. The results of benefit-cost analyses of mitigation projects include explicit numerical estimates of the dollar amounts for damages and economic losses and (for hazards that pose significant life safety risk) the numbers of casualties for the full range of severity of hazard events. Such results are present, both for the before-mitigation (as-is) condition of the facility and the after-mitigation condition of the facility, for a range of hazard events of various return periods and severities. These quantitative results provide powerful insights that are helpful for decision making including: The benefit-cost ratio for each alternative and thus whether a given alternative is eligible for possible FEMA grant funding. The effectiveness of each alternative in reducing casualties, damages and losses, including the residual risks after mitigation. The trade-off between cost and performance (extent of reductions in casualties, damages and losses). The incremental benefits, costs and benefit-cost ratio in going from a less expensive project to a more expensive project. Examples of how such data may support decision making include: Determining that a lower-cost alternative does (or does not) reduce casualties, damages and losses to an acceptable level. Determining that the extra costs of a higher-cost alternative reduces casualties, damages and losses by enough to more than the lower-cost alternative to justify (or not) the higher costs. Once a final decision has been reached on the final scope and cost of a desired mitigation project, the final steps are to obtain funding and implement the project. Mitigation projects may be funded entirely by district funding sources including capital budgets and/or bond funding or funded in part by FEMA or other grants. The Mitigation Planning Toolkit contains additional information about potential grant funding sources for mitigation projects. Page 64

71 As noted previously, all FEMA mitigation grants require a benefit-cost analysis with a benefitcost ratio of at least 1.0 for funding eligibility. Thus, benefit-cost analyses should be a part of the mitigation project development process whenever seeking FEMA grant funding. Further information about each of the natural hazards considered in the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan is provided in the hazard-specific chapters which follow. These chapters also include examples of typical mitigation projects for each of the natural hazards. Page 65

72 Chapter Seven: Earthquakes 7.1 Introduction Every location in Washington State has some level of earthquake hazard which varies widely according to location within the state. Historically, awareness of seismic risk in Washington has generally been high among the public and public officials. The Puget Sound area had damaging earthquakes in 1909, 1939, 1946, 1949, 1965 and Eastern Washington had damaging earthquakes in 1872 near Lake Chelan and in 1936 near Walla Walla. Epicenters of historical earthquakes in Washington with magnitudes of 3.0 or higher are shown in Figure 7.1 on the following page. The awareness of seismic risk in Washington has increased because of devastating earthquakes and tsunamis in Indonesia (2004) and Japan (2011). The geologic settings for the Indonesia and Japan earthquakes are very similar to the Cascadia Subduction Zone along the Washington coast. 7.2 Washington Earthquakes Earthquakes are described by their magnitude (M) which is a measure of total energy released by an earthquake. The most common magnitude is the moment magnitude that is calculated by seismologists from the amount of slip (movement) on the fault causing the earthquake and the area of the fault surface that ruptures during the earthquake. Moment magnitudes are similar to the Richter magnitude that was used for many decades but has now been replaced by the moment magnitude. The magnitudes for the largest earthquakes recorded worldwide and in Washington are shown below. Table 7.1 Largest Recorded Earthquakes 1, 2 Worldwide Magnitude Washington Magnitude 1960 Chile Chelan 6.8 a 1964 Prince William Sound, Alaska Olympia Sumatra, Indonesia Nisqually Japan Tacoma Kamchatka, Russia Bremerton Chile Walla Walla Ecuador Friday Harbor 6.0 a Estimated magnitude. Page 66

73 Figure 7.1 Epicenters of Historic Earthquakes in Washington with Magnitudes of 3.0 or Higher 3 Page 67

74 Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 do not include the January 26, 1700 earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone which has been identified by tsunami records in Japan and paleoseismic investigations along the Washington Coast. The estimated magnitude of the 1700 earthquake is approximately 9.0. This earthquake is not shown in Table 7.1 because it predates modern seismological records. However, this earthquake is among the largest known earthquakes worldwide and the largest earthquake affecting Washington over the past several hundred years. The closest analogy to this earthquake and its effects, including tsunamis, is the 2011 Japan earthquake. Earthquakes in Washington, and throughout the world, occur predominantly because of plate tectonics the relative movement of plates of oceanic and continental rocks that make up the rocky surface of the earth. Earthquakes can also occur because of volcanic activity and other geological processes. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a geologically complex area off the Pacific Northwest Coast from Northern California to British Columbia. In simple terms, several pieces of oceanic crust (the Juan de Fuca Plate and other smaller pieces) are being subducted (pushed under) the crust of North America. This subduction process is responsible for most of the earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest and for creating the volcanoes in the Cascades. Figure 7.2 on the following page shows the geologic (plate-tectonic) setting of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. There are three main source regions for earthquakes that affect Washington. They are 1) Interface earthquakes on the boundary between the subducting oceanic plates and the North American plate, 2) Intraplate earthquakes within the subducting oceanic plates, and 3) Crustal earthquakes within the North American Plate. Interface earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone occur on the boundary between the subducting plate and the North American Plate and may have magnitudes up to 9.0 or perhaps 9.2, with probable return periods (the time period between earthquakes) of 300 to 500 years. These are the great Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake events that have received attention in the popular press. The last major interface earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone occurred on January 26, These earthquakes occur about 40 miles offshore from the Pacific Ocean Coastline. Ground shaking from such earthquakes would be the strongest near the coast, and strong ground shaking would be felt throughout much of Western Washington with the level of shaking decreasing further inland from the coast. Page 68

75 Figure 7.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone 4 Paleoseismic investigations have identified 41 Cascadia Subduction Zone interface earthquakes over the past 10,000 years. This history corresponds to one earthquake about every 250 years. Of these 41 earthquakes, about half are M9.0 or greater that represent full rupture of the fault zone from Northern California to British Columbia. The other half of the earthquakes represents M8+ earthquakes that rupture only the southern portion of the subduction zone. The 300+ years since the last major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake is longer than the average of about 250 years for M8 or greater and shorter than some of the intervals between M9.0 earthquakes. The time history of these major earthquakes is shown below. Page 69

76 Figure 7.3 Time History of Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes 5 Intraplate earthquakes occur within the subducting oceanic plate. These earthquakes may have magnitudes up to about 7.5 with probable return periods of about 500 to 1000 years at any given location. These earthquakes can occur anywhere along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The 1949, 1965 and 2001 earthquakes listed in Table 7.1 are examples of this type of earthquake. These earthquakes occur deep in the earth s crust, about 20 to 30 miles below the surface. They generate strong ground motions near the epicenter but have damaging effects over significantly smaller areas than the larger magnitude interface earthquakes discussed above. Crustal earthquakes occur within the North American plate. Crustal earthquakes are shallow earthquakes, typically within the upper five or ten miles of the earth s surface, and some ruptures may reach the surface. In western Washington, crustal earthquakes are mostly related to the Cascadia Subduction Zone. In central and eastern Washington, the mechanisms responsible for crustal earthquakes are not as well understood and may be related to the Cascadia Subduction Zone and/or to other geological/tectonic processes. There are numerous crustal faults mapped within Washington State. USGS-mapped faults in the Puget Sound Area are shown in Figure 7.4 and listed in Table 7.2. Page 70

77 Figure 7.4 USGS Mapped Crustal Faults in the Puget Sound Area6, 7 Table 7.2 USGS Mapped Faults in the Puget Sound Area 6, 7 Page 71

78 Fault Number Fault Name 550 Calawah Fault 551 Unnamed Faults In Straight of Juan de Fuca 552 Hood Canal Fault Zone 554 Macaulay Creek Fault 555 Unnamed Fault South of Port Angeles 556 Little River Fault 557 Unnamed Fault along Barnes Creek 570 Seattle Fault Zone 571 Strawberry Fault Zone 572 Southern Whidbey Island Fault 573 Utsalady Point Fault 574 Devils Mountain Fault 575 Saddle Mountain Faults 581 Tacoma Fault Zone USGS-mapped faults in the Walla Walla area are shown in Figure 7.5 and listed in Table 7.3. This figure is shown as an example of active faults in eastern Washington. USGS-mapped faults elsewhere in Washington are available at: Page 72

79 Figure 7.5 USGS Mapped Faults in the Walla Walla Area8 Page 73

80 Table 7.3 USGS Mapped Faults in the Walla Walla Area 8 Fault Number Fault Name 561a,b,c 562a,b 563a,b Frenchman Hills Faults and Structures a Saddle Mountain Faults and Structures Umtanum Ridge Faults and Structures 565 Rattlesnake Hills Structures 567 Horse Haven Hills Structures 578a,b Faults Near Walla Walla 696 Thompson Valley Fault 698 Jocko Fault 699a,b Mission Fault 705 Ninemile Fault 845a,b Hite Fault System 846 Wallula Fault System a The geologic term "structure" means folds and other geologic structures deemed capable of generating earthquakes. Fault zones and seismogenic fold zones in Washington, that are known to be active or suspected of being active by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, are shown in Figure 7.5. Page 74

81 Figure 7.6 Faults and Seismogenic Folds in Washington Known or Suspected to be Active 3 Page 75

82 Crustal earthquakes are possible not only on faults mapped as active or potentially active but also on unknown faults. Many significant earthquakes in the United States have occurred on previously unknown faults. Based on the historical seismicity in Washington and on analogies to other geologically similar areas, small to moderate crustal earthquakes up to M5 or M5.5 are possible almost any place in Washington. There is also a possibility of larger crustal earthquakes in the M6+ range; albeit, in the absence of known mapped faults, the probability of such events is likely to be low. 7.3 Earthquake Concepts for Risk Assessments Earthquake Magnitudes When evaluating earthquakes, it is important to recognize that the earthquake magnitude scale is not linear but rather logarithmic. Each one step increase in magnitude, for example from M7 to M8, corresponds to an increase of about a factor of 30 in the amount of energy released by the earthquake because of the mathematics of the magnitude scale. Thus, a M7 earthquake releases about 30 times more energy than a M6, while a M8 releases about 30 times more energy than a M7 and so on. Thus, a great M9 earthquake releases nearly 1,000 times more energy than a large earthquake of M7 and nearly 30,000 times more energy than a M6 earthquake. The public often assumes that the larger the magnitude of an earthquake, the worse it is. That is, the big one is the M9 earthquake and smaller earthquakes such as M6 or M7 are not the big one. This is only true in very general terms. Higher magnitude earthquakes do affect larger geographic areas with much more widespread damage than smaller magnitude earthquakes. However, for a given site, the magnitude of an earthquake is not a good measure of the severity of the earthquake at that site. For any earthquake, the intensity of ground shaking at a given site depends on four main factors: Earthquake magnitude. Earthquake epicenter, which is the location on the earth s surface directly above the point of origin of an earthquake. Earthquake depth. Soil or rock conditions at the site, which may amplify or de-amplify (dampen) earthquake ground motions. An earthquake will generally produce the strongest ground motions near the epicenter (the point on the ground above where the earthquake initiated) with the intensity of ground motions diminishing with increasing distance from the epicenter. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends on the four factors listed above. Thus, for any given earthquake there will be contours of varying intensity of ground shaking versus distance from the epicenter. The intensity will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter, and often in an irregular pattern, not simply in concentric circles. This irregularity is caused by soil conditions, the Page 76

83 complexity of earthquake fault rupture patterns, and possible directionality in the dispersion of earthquake energy. The amount of earthquake damage and the size of the geographic area affected generally increase with earthquake magnitude: Earthquakes below about M5 are not likely to cause significant damage, even locally very near the epicenter. Earthquakes between about M5 and M6 are likely to cause moderate damage near the epicenter. Earthquakes of about M6.5 or greater (e.g., the 2001 Nisqually earthquake in Washington) can cause major damage, with damage usually concentrated fairly near the epicenter. Larger earthquakes of M7+ cause damage over increasingly wider geographic areas with the potential for very high levels of damage near the epicenter. Great earthquakes with M8+ can cause major damage over wide geographic areas. A mega-quake M9 earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone could affect the entire Pacific Northwest from British Columbia, through Washington and Oregon, and as far south as Northern California with the highest levels of damage nearest the coast. Intensity of Ground Shaking There are many measures of the severity or intensity of earthquake ground motions. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI) was widely used beginning in the early 1900s. MMI is a descriptive, qualitative scale that relates severity of ground motions to the types of damage experienced. MMIs range from I to XII. More accurate, quantitative measures of the intensity of ground shaking have largely replaced the MMI and these are used in this mitigation plan. Modern intensity scales use parameters that can be physically measured with seismometers, such as the acceleration, velocity, or displacement (movement) of the ground. The intensity of earthquake ground motions may also be measured in spectral terms as a function of the frequency of earthquake waves propagating through the earth. In the same sense that sound waves contain a mix of low, moderate, and high-frequency sound waves; earthquake waves contain ground motions of various frequencies. The behavior of buildings and other structures depends substantially on the vibration frequencies of the building or structure versus the spectral (frequency) content of earthquake waves. Earthquake ground motions also include both horizontal and vertical components. A common physical measure of the intensity of earthquake ground shaking, and the one used in this mitigation plan, is Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). PGA is a measure of the intensity of shaking relative to the acceleration of gravity (g). For example, an acceleration of 1.0 g PGA is an extremely strong ground motion that does occur near the epicenter of large earthquakes. With a vertical acceleration of 1.0 g, objects are thrown into the air. With a horizontal acceleration of Page 77

84 1.0 g, objects accelerate sideways at the same rate as if they had been dropped from the ceiling. Ten percent g PGA means that the ground acceleration is ten percent that of gravity, and so on. Damage levels experienced in an earthquake vary with the intensity of ground shaking and with the seismic capacity of structures. The following generalized observations provide qualitative statements about the likely extent of damages for earthquakes with various levels of ground shaking (PGA) at a given site: Ground motions of only one percent g or two percent g are widely felt by people. Hanging plants and lamps swing strongly, but damage levels, if any, are usually very low. Ground motions below about ten percent g usually cause only slight damage. Ground motions between about ten percent g and 30 percent g may cause minor to moderate damage in well-designed buildings with higher levels of damage in more vulnerable buildings. At this level of ground shaking, some poorly designed buildings may be subject to collapse. Ground motions above about 30 percent g may cause significant damage in well-designed buildings and very high levels of damage (including collapse) in poorly designed buildings. Ground motions above about 50 percent g may cause significant damage in most buildings, even those designed to resist seismic forces. 7.4 Earthquake Hazard Maps The current scientific understanding of earthquakes is incapable of predicting exactly where and when the next earthquake will occur. However, the long term probability of earthquakes is well enough understood to make useful estimates of the probability of various levels of earthquake ground motions at a given location. The current consensus estimates for earthquake hazards in the United States are incorporated into the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps. These maps are the basis of building code design requirements for new construction, per the International Building Code adopted in Washington. The earthquake ground motions used for building design are set at 2/3rds of the two percent in 50 years level of ground motion. The following maps show contours of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with ten percent and two percent chances of occurring over the next 50 years. The ground shaking values on the maps are expressed as a percentage of g, the acceleration of gravity. For example, the ten percent in 50 year PGA value means that over the next 50 years there is a ten percent probability of this level of ground shaking or higher. In very qualitative terms, the ten percent in 50 year ground motion represents a likely earthquake while the two percent in 50 year ground motion represents a level of ground shaking close to, but not the absolute, worst case scenario. Page 78

85 A very important caveat for interpreting these maps is that the 2008 USGS seismic hazard maps show the level of ground motions for rock sites. Ground motions on soil sites, especially soft soil sites will be significantly higher than for rock sites. Thus, for earthquake hazard analysis at a given site, it is essential to include consideration of the site s soil conditions. Figure 7.6 on the following page, the statewide two percent in 50 year ground motion map, is the best statewide representation of the variation in the level of seismic hazard in Washington with location: The dark red, pink and orange areas have the highest levels of seismic hazard. The tan, yellow and blue areas have intermediate levels of seismic hazard. The bright green and pale green areas have the lowest levels of seismic hazard. The detailed geographical patterns in the maps reflect the varying contributions to seismic hazard from earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone and crustal earthquakes within the North American Plate. For example, the bands of dark red (very high hazard) in the Puget Sound area shown in Figures 7.7 and 7.9 reflect areas with a moderately high earthquake hazard from Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes combined with a high hazard from the most active crustal faults in the Puget Sound Area the Seattle Fault System and the Southern Whidbey Island Fault. The differences in geographic pattern between the two percent in 50 year maps and the ten percent in 50 year maps reflect different contributions from Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes and crustal earthquakes. These maps are generated by including earthquakes from all known faults taking into account the expected magnitudes and frequencies of earthquakes for each fault. The maps also include contributions from unknown faults that are statistically possible anywhere in Washington. The contributions from unknown faults are included via area seismicity which is distributed throughout the state. Page 79

86 Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Washington State PGA value (percent g) with a Two Percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Page 80

87 Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Washington State PGA value (percent g) with a Ten percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Page 81

88 Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Puget Sound Area PGA value (percent g) with a Two percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Page 82

89 Figure USGS Seismic Hazard Map: Puget Sound Area PGA value (percent g) with a Ten percent Chance of Exceedance in 50 years Page 83

90 The ground motions shown in the previous figures represent ground motions with the specified probabilities of occurrence. At any given site, earthquakes may be experienced with ground motions over the entire range of levels of ground shaking from just detectible with sensitive seismometers to higher than the two percent in 50 year ground motion. The complete probabilistic picture of earthquake ground motions at a given site is shown in a seismic hazard curve that shows the annual probability of ground motions covering the full range of ground motions. For any site, the annual probability always decreases with increasing level of ground shaking (PGA). Figure 7.11 shows the annual probability of earthquake ground motions exceeding each level of ground shaking. For example, the annual probability of 0.40 g is a little higher than However, as illustrated in the preceding figures, the levels of ground shaking vary markedly with location in Washington. Figure 7.11 Seismic Hazard Curve Example A summary of the levels of seismic hazard is shown below in Table 7.4. Page 84

91 Table 7.4 Earthquake Ground Motions with a Two Percent Chance of Being Exceeded in 50 Years Peak Ground Acceleration (% g) Number of Campuses Percent of Campuses Percent of Campuses This Level or Higher 70% to 74% % 1.07% 60% to 70% % 11.21% 50% to 60% % 48.85% 40% to 50% % 68.01% 30% to 40% % 73.62% 25% to 30% % 80.75% 20% to 25% % 89.61% 15% to 20% % 99.63% Less Than15% % % Totals % N/A As shown in Table 7.4, 68 percent of the campuses have ground motions of 40 percent g or higher and more than 80 percent have ground motions of 25 percent g or higher, for the two percent in 50 years level of ground shaking. Ground motions in this range are likely to result in significant damage for many buildings. Only about ten percent of campuses have ground motions below 20 percent g for the two percent in 50 years level of ground shaking. Overall, the range of ground motions for the 2,426 campuses is a high of percent g and a low of percent g. Ground motions at the high end of this range are likely to result in significant damages even for buildings designed to current seismic codes. Ground motions towards the low end of this range may result in significant damage for a few buildings that are unusually vulnerable to earthquake damage. These ground motions are based on the USGS two percent in 50 year ground motions, as shown in Figure 7.6, adjusted for the Washington Department of Natural Resources estimates of soil and rock types for each campus location. As discussed previously and in the following section, soil sites in general, and especially soft soil sites, generally amplify earthquake ground motions. 7.5 Site Class: Soil and Rock Types As discussed previously, the soil or rock type at a given location substantially affects the level of earthquake hazard, because the soil or rock type may amplify or de-amplify ground motions. In general, soil sites amplify ground motions that is for a given earthquake, a soil site immediately adjacent to a rock site will experience higher levels of earthquake ground motions than the rock Page 85

92 site. However, at very high levels of ground shaking, soft soil sites actually de-amplify ground motions rather than amplifying them. In simple terms, the six site classes are identified as follows: A Hard Rock B Rock C Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock D Firm Soil E Soft Soil F Very Soft Soil For reference, the formal technical definitions of site class per the International Building Code are shown below. Table 7.5 International Building Code Site Class Technical Definitions Site Class A B C D Soil Profile Name Hard Rock Rock Very Dense Soil & Soft Rock Stiff Soil Soft Clay Soil Shear Wave Velocity, V s (ft/s) V s > < V s < V s V s 1200 Std Penetration Resistance, N N > N 50 V s < 600 N < 15 S u < 1000 Any profile with more than 10 feet of soil having the following characteristics: E 1. Plasticity index PI > 20, N/A N/A Undrained Shear Strength, Su (psf) N/A N/A S u S u 2000 F 2. Moisture content w 40%, and 3. Undrained shear strength S u < 500 psf Site specific soil investigation required The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has made statewide estimates of site class based on available geological data. Site class varies markedly with location, often over very short distances. Thus, it is not possible to show site class maps except at high spatial resolution for small areas. However, the ICOS Database at OSPI includes the DNR site class estimates for each K 12 campus in Washington. In addition to the six standard site classes shown in Table 7.4, the DNR estimates also include intermediate classifications where the available geological data are insufficient to identify the specific site class. These intermediate classifications include: B C, C D, and D E. Page 86

93 For risk assessment purposes, the amplification/de-amplification for sites with intermediate site classes can be interpolated or rounded up to higher of the two site class ground motions. 7.6 Ground Failures and Other Aspects of Seismic Hazards Much of earthquake damage occurs from ground shaking that affects buildings and infrastructure; however, there are several other consequences of earthquakes that can result in substantially increased levels of damage in some locations. These consequences include surface rupture, subsidence or elevation, liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading, landslides, dam, reservoir or levee failures, tsunamis and seiches. Any of these consequences can result in very severe damage to buildings, up to and including complete destruction, as well as a high likelihood of casualties. Surface Rupture Surface rupture occurs when the fault plane, along which rupture occurs in an earthquake, reaches the surface. Surface rupture may be horizontal and/or vertical displacement between the sides of the rupture plane. For a building subject to surface rupture, the level of damage is typically very high and generally results in destruction of the building. Horizontal or vertical rupture through a building in a major earthquake means that two parts of the building are displaced by several feet in horizontal or vertical direction or both. Surface rupture does not occur with interface or intraplate earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone and does not occur with all crustal earthquakes. However, surface rupture does occur when crustal earthquake fault ruptures reach and break the ground surface. Faults in Washington where surface rupture is likely include the Seattle Fault System, the Tacoma Fault System and the Southern Whidbey Island Fault System. Subsidence or Uplift Large interface earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone are expected to result in subsidence of up to several feet in many coastal locations, while other locations may be uplifted by several feet. For facilities located very near sea level, co-seismic subsidence may result in the facilities being below sea level or low enough so that flooding becomes very frequent. Subsidence may also impede egress by blocking some evacuation routes and thus increase the likelihood of casualties from tsunamis. Subsidence or uplift may be fairly uniform over an area or be uneven due to variations in soil/rock type. Uneven subsidence or uplift may substantially increase building damages in a manner analogous to surface rupture. Liquefaction, Settlement and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction is a process where loose, wet sediments lose bearing strength during an earthquake and behave similar to a liquid. Once a soil liquefies, it tends to settle vertically and/or spread laterally. With even very slight slopes, liquefied soils tend to move sideways downhill (lateral spreading). Settling or lateral spreading can cause major damage to buildings and to buried infrastructure such as pipes and cables. Page 87

94 The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has made statewide estimates of liquefaction potential, based on available geological data. Liquefaction potential varies markedly with location, often over very short distances. Thus, it is not possible to show liquefaction potential maps except at high spatial resolution for small areas. However, the ICOS Database at OSPI includes the DNR liquefaction potential estimates for each K 12 campus in Washington with the following categories: very low, very low to low, low, low to moderate, moderate, moderate to high, high, and very high. Landslides Earthquakes can also induce landslides, especially if an earthquake occurs during the rainy season and soils are saturated with water. The areas prone to earthquake-induced landslides are largely the same as those areas prone to landslides in general. As with all landslides, areas of steep slopes with loose rock or soils and high water tables are most prone to earthquake-induced landslides. See Chapter 12 Landslides for a more detailed discussion of landslides. Dam, Levee and Reservoir Failures Earthquakes can also cause dam failures in several ways. The most common mode of earthquake-induced dam failure is slumping or settlement of earth fill dams where the fill has not been properly compacted. If the slumping occurs when the dam is full, then overtopping of the dam with rapid erosion leading to dam failure is possible. Dam failure is also possible if strong ground motions heavily damage concrete dams. Earthquake induced landslides into reservoirs have also caused dam failures. Earthquake-induced failures of levees are very similar to failures of earth fill dams. If levee crests slump enough to create overtopping, then rapid erosion leading to levee failure is possible. Earthquake-induced failures of concrete or steel water storage reservoirs for potable water systems are also possible. For campuses behind levees or with dams or reservoirs upstream from a campus, a seismic risk assessment should include evaluation of possible inundation of the campus from dam, levee or reservoir failures. Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis, that are sometimes incorrectly referred to as tidal waves, result from earthquakes that cause a sudden rise or fall of part of the ocean floor. Such movements may produce tsunami waves that have nothing to do with the ordinary ocean tides. Tsunamis may also be generated by undersea landslides, by terrestrial landslides into bodies of water, and by asteroid impacts. However, earthquakes are the predominant cause of tsunamis. In the open ocean, far from land and in deep water, tsunami waves may be only a few inches high and thus be virtually undetectable except by special monitoring instruments. These waves travel across the ocean at speeds of several hundred miles per hour. When such waves reach shallow water near the coastline, they slow down and can gain great heights. Page 88

95 Tsunamis affecting the Washington Coast can be produced from very distant earthquakes off the coast of Alaska or elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. For such tsunamis, the warning time for the Washington Coast would be at least several hours. However, interface earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone can also produce tsunamis. For such earthquakes the warning times would be very short less than 30 minutes for some coastal locations. Because of this extremely short warning time, emergency planning and public education about the critical importance of rapid evacuation are essential before such an event occurs. Tsunamis can also be created by crustal earthquakes, such as the Seattle Fault System and the Tacoma Fault System that cross parts of Puget Sound because these earthquakes are likely to include vertical movements of the Sound floor that will generate tsunamis. The warning times for such tsunamis would be only a few minutes. A similar earthquake phenomenon is seiches that are waves from sloshing of inland bodies of waters such as lakes, reservoirs, or rivers. Seiches may result in damages to docks and other shoreline, or near-shore, structures. See Chapter eight Tsunamis for a more detailed discussion. 7.7 Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimates for K 12 Facilities in Washington Scenario Earthquakes There are a wide range of possible earthquakes with many different magnitudes and locations that will affect K 12 facilities including not only Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes and crustal earthquakes on known faults but also crustal earthquakes on unknown faults. To explore the range of potential earthquake impacts on K 12 facilities in Washington we consider nine scenario earthquakes. These scenarios include the most likely major earthquakes, including interface and intraplate earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone and the most likely major crustal earthquakes on active faults such as the Seattle Fault Zone. For completeness, we also consider several lower probability earthquakes with longer return periods on mapped faults in Central and Eastern Washington. Page 89

96 Table 7.6 Scenario Earthquakes Earthquake Fault Magnitude a Return Period (Years) Cascadia Subduction Zone: Interface b Cascadia Subduction Zone: Intraplate (Nisqually) b Seattle Fault System 7.2 1,000 b Southern Whidbey Island Fault System 7.4 4,000 c Chelan Fault Zone 7.2 Unknown Cle Elum Seismic Zone 6.8 Unknown Mill Creek Fault Zone ,000 d Latah Fault Zone 5.5 Unknown Hite Fault Zone ,000 d a Department of Natural Resources magnitude for earthquake scenarios. b Estimate based on historical events and paleoseismic studies. c Calculated from USGS estimates of about 12,000 years for each of the northern, middle and southern fault zones. 9 d USGS estimate 9, rounded. Paleoseismic studies of the Cascadia Subduction Zone interface earthquakes suggest return periods varying from about 250 years to about 1,000 years, with about 250 years being the average for M8+ earthquakes and about 500 years being the average for M9 or greater earthuakes. 9 Because the last such earthquake occurred in 1700, the annual probability of a future earthquake is probably higher than indicated by the long term averages stated above. Cascadia Subduction Zone intraplate earthquakes occurred in 1949, 1965, and The 500-year estimated return period is based on the fact that such earthquakes can occur anywhere within the subducting plate. Thus, the return period at any given location is much longer than the return period for such earthquakes on the entire subducting plate and because the M7.2 scenario is significantly larger than the historical earthquakes with M6.7 or M6.8. The USGS estimated return period for the Seattle Fault northern zone is 5,000 years with no return periods estimated for the middle and southern fault zones. 10 Paleoseismic studies suggest three surface rupturing events in the past 2,500 years. 11 The 1,000 year return period estimate assumes that return periods for the middle and southern fault zones is similar to that for the northern zone and combines this with the estimate of three events in 2,500 years. HAZUS Loss Estimates for Scenario Earthquakes FEMA s HAZUS MH Version 2.1 software was used to estimate the casualties, damages and economic losses for K 12 facilities for each of the nine scenario earthquakes. Page 90

97 These estimates are based on available statewide data and estimates and should be not be interpreted literally but rather as approximate estimates of the levels of casualties, damages and economic losses likely if each of these scenario earthquakes were to occur. These results should be interpreted in the aggregate only at the statewide level or county level and not interpreted at the district or campus level. Making credible loss estimates at the district or campus level requires much more detailed district-level, campus-level and building-level data than was available for these scenarios. Data inputs for these earthquake scenarios include: USGS shakemaps with earthquake ground motions for each scenario. Total square footage of buildings at each campus. The number of portable buildings at each campus. In the absence of detailed data on building types for each K 12 building, the total square footage of non-portable buildings was estimated as follows: o Wood frame (77 percent). o Masonry (12 percent). o Steel (8 percent), o Concrete (3 percent). Structural building types for non-wood frame buildings were allocated per HAZUS default assumptions. Estimated average occupancies per 1,000 square feet during school hours: o High Schools 7. o Middle Schools 7.5. o Elementary Schools and Others 10. Building replacement values per square foot: o High Schools $ o Middle Schools $ o Elementary Schools and Others $ o Portables $ Contents value an average of 5.22 percent of building replacement value. Estimated values for elementary, middle and high schools are $10/SF, $14/SF and $19/SF, respectively, from insured replacement values. Page 91

98 Seismic vulnerability parameters HAZUS default assumptions. HAZUS results for the nine scenario earthquakes are summarized in the tables which follow. Building and contents damages are based on typical replacement values for buildings and contents and HAZUS estimated damage percentages as a function of level of ground shaking. Estimate numbers of injuries and deaths are based on the estimated average occupancies for schools and HAZUS estimates of casualties as a function of building damage: Level One Minor Injuries. Level Two Major Injuries. Level Three Critical Injuries that pose an immediate life threatening condition if not treated immediately. Many persons with this level of injury may die. Level Four Death Business Interruption Costs include displacement costs to temporary facilities, disruption costs, income loss and wage losses. These estimates are based entirely on HAZUS values: Income Losses: $0.146 per square foot per day. Wage Losses: $0.345 per square foot per day. Rental Costs: $0.051 per square foot per day. Disruption Costs: $0.95 per square foot per day. Actual values may differ from the above HAZUS values and may vary from district to district and earthquake event to earthquake event. CAVEAT Re: Interpretation of HAZUS Results The HAZUS results on the following pages are based on available statewide data and estimates. There is significant uncertainty in earthquake damage and loss estimates. The numerical results should not be interpreted literally as predictions for any scenario earthquake but rather as approximate estimates of the level of possible damages, losses and casualties. Actual damages, losses and casualties in future earthquakes may be significantly higher or lower than these estimates. Page 92

99 Table 7.7 Summary of HAZUS Scenario Earthquake Results: K 12 Facilities Statewide Scenario Earthquake Building Damages Building Loss Ratio Contents Damages Contents Loss Ratio Business Interruption Losses Total Damages and Losses Cascadia Subduction Zone: Interface M9.0 $2,275,193, % $45,300, % $1,767,967,467 $4,088,461,779 Cascadia Subduction Zone: Intraplate M7.2 $518,208, % $18,426, % $626,106,684 $1,162,741,462 Chelan Fault Zone M7.2 $79,517, % $2,031, % $52,248,796 $133,797,823 Cle Elum Seismic Zone M6.8 $38,129, % $1,110, % $38,008,508 $77,248,546 Hite Fault Zone M6.8 $62,388, % $1,665, % $31,428,547 $95,481,879 Latah Fault Zone M5.5 $29,679, % $1,316, % $40,870,903 $71,867,401 Mill Creek Fault Zone M7.0 $66,240, % $1,941, % $56,771,629 $124,953,699 Seattle Fault System M7.2 $2,861,645, % $57,913, % $2,518,588,387 $5,438,147,217 Southern Whidbey Island Fault System M7.4 $1,750,506, % $36,435, % $1,405,060,608 $3,192,001,908 Scenario Earthquake Deaths Critical Injuries Major Injuries Minor Injuries Total Deaths and Injuries Cascadia Subduction Zone: Interface M ,543 3,227 Cascadia Subduction Zone: Intraplate M Chelan Fault Zone M Cle Elum Seismic Zone M Hite Fault Zone M Latah Fault Zone M Mill Creek Fault Zone M Seattle Fault System M ,034 5,414 Southern Whidbey Island Fault System M ,318 3,073 Page 93

100 The estimated casualties for the scenario earthquake shown above are for school occupancies (students and staff) during normal school hours when schools are in session. These casualty estimates are based on the simplified assumptions in HAZUS which assume typical seismic performance of buildings of a given structural type. Actual casualties may be higher: In many earthquakes, a majority of casualties occur from a few buildings that have major damage and collapse. The possible collapse of even a few more school buildings could result in much higher casualties than shown above. Many people with critical injuries will die. These results do not include deaths and injuries from tsunamis that are expected from the Cascadia Subduction Zone M9.0, Seattle Fault Zone M7.2 and the Southern Whidbey Island M7.4 earthquake scenarios. Detailed results for the Cascadia M9.0 scenario earthquake are shown in Table 7.8 and Figure The casualty estimates in Table 7.8 have fractional deaths and injuries, which are shown to avoid rounding errors and to avoid showing zero casualties when a small number are expected statistically. These fractional casualties are interpreted probabilistically. For example, the 0.6 deaths in Whatcom County schools should be interpreted as a 60 percent chance of one death. The full set of detailed results tables and maps for all of the earthquake scenarios are included in the Appendix at the end of this chapter. Page 94

101 Table 7.8 Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface M9.0 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA Minor Major Critical Building Contents Deaths Building Loss ($) Content Loss ($) Injuries Injuries Injuries Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $1,069, % $47, % $103,485 $1,220,768 Clallam $97,320, % $1,789, % $71,393,867 $170,504,118 Clark $75,980, % $2,102, % $74,414,718 $152,497,757 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $51,511, % $1,293, % $40,597,064 $93,402,080 Douglas $474, % $16, % $0 $491,934 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $278, % $9, % $0 $288,005 Grays Harbor $149,301, % $3,602, % $160,233,874 $313,137,849 Island $27,044, % $514, % $23,415,290 $50,974,281 Jefferson $18,676, % $378, % $11,899,887 $30,954,455 King $703,590, % $13,102, % $559,874,105 $1,276,567,252 Kitsap $116,045, % $2,353, % $87,042,552 $205,441,277 Kittitas $1,875, % $60, % $1,344,315 $3,280,233 Klickitat $634, % $18, % $118,635 $771,824 Lewis $40,905, % $1,101, % $30,855,296 $72,862,167 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $55,985, % $1,034, % $29,634,616 $86,654,463 Okanogan $103, % $4, % $0 $108,542 Pacific $33,069, % $833, % $23,162,805 $57,065,680 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $353,847, % $6,886, % $278,927,040 $639,661,298 San Juan $4,421, % $105, % $4,044,303 $8,571,415 Skagit $59,313, % $951, % $35,713,338 $95,978,032 Skamania $934, % $28, % $753,193 $1,716,686 Snohomish $274,105, % $5,009, % $218,486,045 $497,601,199 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $167,142, % $3,065, % $81,142,138 $251,350,620 Wahkiakum $3,232, % $81, % $1,203,149 $4,516,556 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $32,730, % $736, % $33,482,728 $66,949,718 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $5,599, % $169, % $125,024 $5,893,570 Totals 2, , $2,275,193, % $45,300, % $1,767,967,467 $4,088,461,779 Page 95

102 Figure 7.12 Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface M9.0 Scenario Page 96

103 The previous damage and loss estimates are for specific scenario earthquake events. A complementary approach to evaluating the level of earthquake risk is expected average annual losses, that is a probability-weighted calculation, taking into account the full range of possible damaging earthquake ground motions. Expected average annual losses are shown in Table 7.9 by county including the statewide totals. These results were calculated using HAZUS. Table 7.9 Expected Average Annual Earthquake Losses County # Schools Minor Injuries Major Injuries Critical Injuries Deaths Building Loss ($) Contents Loss ($) Business Interuption Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $12,631 $384 $10,478 $23,492 Asotin $7,156 $225 $7,480 $14,860 Benton $105,235 $3,168 $88,968 $197,370 Chelan $136,415 $3,128 $91,208 $230,752 Clallam $691,267 $13,140 $514,510 $1,218,917 Clark $1,211,848 $34,139 $866,238 $2,112,225 Columbia $2,758 $89 $2,279 $5,126 Cowlitz $435,789 $12,086 $467,690 $915,565 Douglas $41,908 $1,258 $39,547 $82,714 Ferry $6,645 $205 $6,048 $12,898 Franklin $42,337 $1,265 $33,129 $76,730 Garfield $1,571 $50 $1,622 $3,242 Grant $72,987 $2,199 $72,037 $147,224 Grays Harbor $571,675 $15,527 $535,306 $1,122,508 Island $557,452 $10,459 $362,117 $930,028 Jefferson $278,668 $5,191 $172,548 $456,407 King $14,270,981 $267,823 $9,154,474 $23,693,278 Kitsap $2,234,366 $41,800 $1,763,236 $4,039,402 Kittitas $89,965 $1,970 $67,747 $159,682 Klickitat $45,755 $1,348 $46,451 $93,554 Lewis $401,922 $11,283 $359,103 $772,308 Lincoln $9,833 $306 $8,148 $18,287 Mason $500,005 $9,303 $419,196 $928,504 Okanogan $69,293 $1,663 $51,921 $122,876 Pacific $136,140 $3,666 $140,216 $280,022 Pend Oreille $7,613 $243 $5,724 $13,580 Pierce $6,584,441 $122,895 $4,285,269 $10,992,605 San Juan $122,470 $2,308 $103,054 $227,832 Skagit $784,984 $14,817 $731,213 $1,531,014 Skamania $38,393 $1,122 $29,556 $69,072 Snohomish $4,989,298 $93,632 $3,363,581 $8,446,512 Spokane $138,083 $4,408 $103,206 $245,697 Stevens $25,397 $795 $25,834 $52,027 Thurston $1,920,301 $35,697 $1,265,167 $3,221,165 Wahkiakum $11,937 $328 $10,993 $23,257 Walla Walla $35,861 $1,131 $24,373 $61,365 Whatcom $940,960 $18,257 $748,163 $1,707,381 Whitman $15,548 $490 $15,770 $31,809 Yakima $309,709 $9,156 $292,182 $611,047 Totals 2, $37,859,596 $746,954 $26,285,782 $64,892,332 Page 97

104 The average annual casualty estimates above are shown with fractional deaths and injuries, to avoid rounding errors and to avoid showing zero casualties when a small number are expected statistically. These fractional casualties are interpreted probabilistically. For example, the average earthquake deaths in Pierce County schools are estimated to be 0.5 per year. This means an average of 50 deaths per 100 years. This means that 50 deaths could happen next week, next year or ten years from now or not for many decades into the future. 7.8 Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessments at the District, Campus and Building-Levels The previous sections of this chapter provided an overview of seismic hazards and seismic risk at the statewide level. More detailed district, campus or building-level seismic hazard and seismic risk assessments and especially loss estimates for scenario earthquakes require more detailed data on a building-bybuilding basis. Statewide-level assessments provide a very useful initial screening, but are not accurate enough to guide mitigation decision making and priorities for a single district, campus or building. Detailed guidance for seismic hazard risk assessments at the district, campus, or building-level is provided in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. The synopsis below outlines the main steps. District, Campus or Building-Level Seismic Risk Assessments: Main Steps Gather any previous seismic vulnerability/risk assessments and any geotechnical reports for the campus. Compile summaries of any previous earthquakes that resulted in damage to the campus including dates, a brief narrative description of the damage, estimates of dollar damages and summary of other consequences such as the duration of school closure for repairs. Note: The absence of previous earthquake damage does not mean that the level of earthquake risk is low. A campus with no history of earthquakes may have a high seismic risk, because the return periods for major earthquakes are relatively long. Evaluate the level of seismic hazard for the campus based on the probabilistic earthquake hazard data, soil type, and liquefaction potential data pre-loaded into the ICOS database at OSPI and supplemented with campus-specific studies (if available). Complete basic inventory data for campus buildings including square footage, number of stories, construction date(s), and occupancy data. Determine whether any buildings have had seismic retrofits. If so, gather copies of reports or documentation regarding the retrofits. Determine the structural type for each building, and determine whether or not each building has significant vertical or horizontal irregularities Make a preliminary screening, based on the above data, to identify which buildings are Page 98

105 likely to have the highest level of seismic risk and/or which buildings warrant more detailed evaluation. Undertake detailed seismic risk evaluations for the buildings deemed most likely to be a high risk from earthquakes. These risk assessments can be done in steps: o Preliminary screening risk evaluation. o More detailed risk evaluations using the American Society of Civil Engineers Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings methodology (ASCE 31-03), or a similar method, for one or more buildings based on the preliminary screening risk evaluation. Prioritize seismic mitigation measures based on the results of the detailed seismic risk assessments for selected buildings. Prioritization can be qualitative, considering the vulnerability, occupancy and importance of each building; or quantitative, based on benefit-cost analyses. Complete seismic retrofits for the highest priority buildings as funds become available. The Washington State Seismic Safety Committee, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division completed a pilot seismic risk assessment using the ASCE method noted above. 12 This pilot study for schools in the Aberdeen and Walla Walla School Districts is a good example of the use of the ASCE methodology to evaluate the level of seismic risk at the building level. 7.9 Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Measures for K 12 Facilities Typical Seismic Mitigation Measures There are several possible earthquake mitigation measures for K 12 facilities, including: Replacement of seismically vulnerable buildings with buildings that meet the seismic provisions in the current building code. Structural retrofits for buildings. Nonstructural retrofits for buildings and contents. Installation of emergency generators for buildings with critical functions including designated emergency shelters. Enhanced emergency planning, including earthquake drills. Replacement of seismically vulnerable buildings, with new buildings built to current seismic provisions in the building code, almost always results in better seismic performance than retrofitted buildings. It is rarely, if ever, possible to bring an older building up to 100 percent of the seismic performance of a current-code building. A new replacement building also has other Page 99

106 advantages such as energy efficiency and meeting current functionality objectives. Of course, the major impediment to widespread replacement of seismically vulnerable buildings is the cost. Structural seismic retrofits of buildings involve strengthening the structural elements to resist horizontal and vertical forces on the building and keep a building from falling down including foundations, bearing walls, beams, columns, and floor and roof diaphragms. Doing structural seismic retrofits may be especially cost effective when done concurrently with building remodeling or modernization projects. Nonstructural seismic retrofits involve bracing or anchoring of nonstructural building components such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, HVAC systems, and building contents. Typical targets for nonstructural mitigation are items where falling creates significant life safety risk, and/or items with high monetary values, or items that are important for facility operability. Installation of emergency generators may be appropriate for buildings with critical functions to help ensure post-earthquake operability. Such mitigation projects may be done in conjunction with seismic retrofits (for seismically vulnerable buildings) or without seismic retrofits (for buildings whose seismic performance is adequate). Enhanced emergency planning does not reduce damages and losses in future earthquakes but may reduce casualties via duck-and-cover drills and evacuation drills. Enhanced emergency planning may also reduce post-earthquake recovery time by being better prepared for earthquake events. FEMA mitigation grants, which typically provide 75 percent of total project costs, are potentially available for all of the above types of seismic mitigation measures except for building replacements. FEMA has funded retrofits of many seismically vulnerable buildings. Seismic Retrofit Costs for K 12 Facilities Seismic retrofit costs for a given K 12 building vary tremendously depending on many factors, including: The size and structure type of the building. The extent and type of seismic deficiencies in the building. The level of seismic performance desired after retrofit. Location within Washington, because location affects the level of seismic design and construction costs vary with location. Given the above factors, it is not possible to make a single estimate of typical seismic retrofit costs per school building. Seismic retrofit costs can range from about $5/SF (cripple wall bracing for a portable classroom) to well above $100/SF for a major structural retrofit of an unreinforced masonry building with major deficiencies. As a rough generalization, many seismic retrofits range from $50/SF to $100/SF. Total project costs are often much higher because in many cases Page 100

107 seismic retrofits are done concurrently with other remodeling or upgrades of a building s electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems. Retrofitting every school building in Washington State, that was designed and built to less than the current seismic code provisions, is unrealistic from both the engineering perspective and the cost perspective. A very rough estimate of the total seismic retrofit costs for K 12 facilities in Washington State is that perhaps percent of existing facilities might need to be retrofitted. The total inventory of K 12 facilities is approximately 165 million square feet. If we assume that average costs for seismic retrofits are in the range of $75 to $100 per square foot, then the total costs for seismic retrofits for percent of the square footage range from about $1.2 billion to about $3.3 billion. For reference, British Columbia is undertaking a province-wide seismic retrofit program for schools with a total cost of approximately $3 billion. British Columbia has a population about 2/3 of Washington s population. Scaling by the population, a similar statewide program in Washington might cost roughly $4 billion to $5 billion. Combining these estimates suggests that seismic retrofits for K 12 facilities in Washington might cost roughly $1 billion to $4 billion, depending on the scope of such an effort. This amounts to a cost of approximately $150 to $600 per person in Washington, or $7.50 to $30.00 per year, per person for a 20-year time period. However, seismic retrofit costs could be significantly lower than estimated above if, as seems likely, a significant fraction of the buildings with major seismic deficiencies are also functionally obsolete, in poor condition, or have major non-seismic deficiencies, and as a result they will be gradually replaced with new facilities in the future. Page 101

108 Chapter Eight: Tsunamis 8:1 Overview Tsunamis are ocean waves that are most commonly initiated by earthquakes with vertical deformation of the seafloor. Tsunami waves propagate outwards from the location of origin for very large distances. For example, a tsunami-triggering event anywhere in the Pacific Ocean will result in measurable tsunamis for the entire Pacific Ocean coastline. The mechanism by which undersea earthquakes trigger tsunamis is illustrated by the following figure. Figure 8.1 Earthquake-Generated Tsunamis 1 Page 102

109 In deep open ocean waters, tsunami waves have very long wavelengths, up to about 150 miles, and small amplitudes, ranging from a few inches to less than three feet. In the open ocean, tsunami waves may be barely perceptible to a ship. However, as tsunami waves reach shallow water near coastlines, the wavelengths shorten and their amplitudes increase markedly reaching feet or more. Once tsunami waves reach shore, the maximum run-up elevation and inundation distance inland vary markedly from event to event and location to location. Run-up elevations and inundation distances from the coast strongly depend not only on the offshore wave height but also on the near shore bathymetry and the detailed local topography at any given location. Tsunami inundations are flood events, but the level of damage may be much more severe than typical riverine or coastal flooding events for several reasons: Tsunami inundation depths may be much higher than flood events. Tsunami current velocities may be much higher than for flood events especially on outgoing surges as tsunami waters return to the ocean. Tsunami inundations typically involve multiple episodes of flooding with both incoming and outgoing surges. The depth, velocity, and multiple surges typically result in widespread damage to buildings, infrastructure and vegetation that generate heavy debris loads that in turn further exacerbate tsunami damage. Multiple-surges experienced during tsunamis are illustrated in Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2 Tsunami Surges in Hilo, Hawaii from M Chile Earthquake 2 Page 103

110 The power of tsunamis to result in nearly total destruction of buildings is illustrated by the photograph from the March 2011 Tohoku tsunami in Japan shown in Figure 8.3 below. The photograph shows the complete destruction of hundreds of buildings with little but the foundations remaining after the tsunami event. Only a few very robust buildings survived this tsunami. Figure 8.3 Complete Destruction: March 2011 Tohoku Tsunami, Japan 3 The March 2011 Tohoku tsunami in Japan was generated by a M9.0 earthquake on a subduction zone that is nearly identical to the Cascadia Subduction Zone along the coast of the Pacific Northwest. See Chapter Seven Earthquakes for further information about earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. 8.2 Tsunami Sources The most common source mechanism for tsunami generation is earthquakes within the ocean floor. Earthquake sources for tsunamis are commonly divided into two types: Distant or far-field earthquake events within the Pacific Ocean that occur thousands of miles from Washington State. For far-field events, the warning time between an earthquake event that generates a tsunami, and arrival of tsunami waves, is several hours or more. Local or near-field earthquake events that occur very close to the Washington coast. For near-field events, the warning time is generally an hour or less and may be as short as a few minutes. For Washington, the most important near-field earthquake sources are the Page 104

111 Cascadia Subduction Zone and two faults crossing Puget Sound: the Seattle Fault Zone and the Tacoma Fault Zone. The following figure shows tsunami travel times for the 1964 Prince William Sound M9.2 earthquake that generated tsunamis throughout the Pacific Ocean. For Washington State, the travel times for this tsunami were between four and five hours. Figure 8.4 Tsunami Travel Times: M Prince William Sound Alaska Earthquake. 4 (Travel Time Contours are Hours) For Washington State, both distant and local earthquake sources contribute significantly to the total tsunami hazard. However, distant earthquakes generate much smaller tsunamis in Washington, with long warning times. Local earthquakes may generate much larger tsunamis with very short warning times. Local earthquake-generated tsunamis from earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone are the greatest tsunami hazard for coastal areas of Washington. The estimated return periods for major earthquake generated tsunamis are about 250 years to 500 years for Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes and about 1,000 years for a Seattle Fault Zone earthquake. The return period for the Tacoma Fault System is poorly known but may range from about 1,000 years to several thousand years. Page 105

112 Tsunamis can also be generated by other sources including submarine landslides, landslides from land into bodies of water, and asteroid impacts. These non-earthquake sources can generate extremely large tsunamis but are much less likely to occur. These tsunami-generated sources have very long return periods, from thousands of years to hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years. Submarine landslides can cause significant tsunamis by displacing ocean water. They can generate significant tsunamis only if two conditions are both met 1) the volume of material moving in the landslide must be large, and 2) the landslide must move rapidly. Slow moving landslides don t generate significant tsunamis. The return periods for major submarine landslides not generated by earthquakes are typically long because it takes thousands, or tens of thousands, of years for enough sediment to be deposited on an undersea slope to result in a substantial landslide. Submarine landslides generated by earthquakes are much more common. However, when earthquakes generate submarine landslides, it is typically the earthquake that generates the major tsunami, not the landslide. For completeness, we note that on-land landslides into the ocean can generate extreme tsunamis in very localized areas. The most dramatic example occurred in 1958 in Lituya Bay Alaska which is a narrow fjord about two miles wide and six miles long. An approximate 30 million cubic feet landslide created a wave about 800 feet high that denuded trees on the hillside across from the landslide to an elevation of about 1,600 feet. Run-up heights elsewhere in this bay ranged from about 30 feet to about 600 feet. There are no locations along the Washington Coast where such extreme localized landslide generated tsunamis can occur. However, locally damaging tsunamis can be generated by smaller landslides from steep slopes into the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound or other bodies of water in Washington. Asteroid impacts into the Pacific Ocean can generate large tsunamis, but these are extremely unlikely. Return periods for asteroid impacts of various sizes are not well determined, but all estimates yield very long return periods for large asteroid impacts. The estimated return period for impacts of one kilometer diameter asteroids is about 500,000 years. 5, 6 The return period for an asteroid of this diameter hitting the Pacific Ocean would be about 1.5 million years. Reports in the popular press have sometimes suggested that tsunamis generated by asteroids could devastate the entire Pacific Ocean Coast. However, scientific analysis shows that ocean wide effects would require an asteroid diameter greater than two kilometers. 7 The return period for asteroids of this diameter hitting the Pacific Ocean is likely greater than five million years. That is, such events have extremely low probabilities of occurring. Tsunamis can also be generated by nuclear explosions. Even very large nuclear explosions release far less energy than large asteroids (such as one kilometer diameter asteroid). Thus, while a nuclear explosion could result in a tsunami that might cause damage, it would not result in major Pacific-wide tsunamis. Page 106

113 8.3 Historical Tsunamis Affecting Washington State Local Tsunamis The written historical record of tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest extends for, at most, a few hundred years with more detailed records available for less than 200 years. However, paleoseismic studies have extended the record of tsunami events, and of earthquakes, that would have generated tsunamis to about the last 10,000 years. A great Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake with an estimated magnitude of 9.0 occurred on January 26, The date and time of this earthquake was determined from detailed tsunami data from Japan. This earthquake generated a major tsunami that affected the entire Pacific Ocean Coastline. Subsequent geologic investigations in Washington have found that this earthquake caused much of the land on Washington s outer cost to subside by about five feet, and there are numerous locations along the Pacific Coast, and the coast of Puget Sound, where tsunami-generated deposits have been identified on land. Based on analysis of these deposits, tsunami inundations occurred up to 30 feet above sea level at many coastal locations. Paleoseismic studies by Goldfinger and Others 8 have identified 41 previous major earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone with magnitudes estimated to range from about M8.0 to M9.0 over the past 10,000 years. This data suggests an average return period of about 250 years between major earthquakes. The average return period for a M9.0 mega-earthquake is estimated to be about 500 years; although, the intervals between major earthquakes vary substantially. It is believed that all of these Cascadia Subduction earthquakes would have generated substantial tsunamis affecting the Pacific and Puget Sound Coasts. There is also geologic evidence for an earthquake of about M7 on the Seattle Fault Zone about 1,100 years ago between the years 900 and 930. The uplift of the floor of Puget Sound generated a significant tsunami with inundation depths estimated to be up to 20 feet at the Seattle waterfront. Distant Tsunamis Most far-field tsunamis, generated by large earthquakes within the Pacific Ocean, have minor effects along the Washington Coast, with typical run-up heights ranging from a few inches to one or two feet. The most significant distant tsunami event occurred from the 1964 M9.2 Prince William Sound earthquake in Alaska. In this event, run-up heights of several feet were recorded at many locations along the Pacific Coast. Run-up heights between ten and 15 feet were recorded at a few locations including Ocean Shores, Moclips, Seaview and Wreck Creek. 9 Effect of Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Current consensus estimates of the expected rate of sea level rise over the next years will result in significantly higher inundation depths for both tsunamis and floods. The projected Page 107

114 increase in inundation depths arises from a combination of sea level rise and expected beach erosion. A recent estimate for sea level rise over the next 100 years is 1.4 meters (about 4.6 feet), but a sea level rise up to 2.0 meters (about 6.5 feet) is possible. 10 The inundation elevation for either tsunami or flood events would be increased by the amount of sea level rise. Thus, over the next 50 to 100 years the frequency of tsunami inundation, or coastal storm surge flooding, to a given elevation will increase significantly. 8.4 Tsunami Hazard Analysis and Mapping The major sources for tsunami hazards for the Washington Coast and the Puget Sound Coast are near-field earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, the Seattle Fault Zone and the Tacoma Fault Zone. As noted previously, near-field earthquakes are capable of generating much larger tsunamis than far-field earthquakes. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with other agencies, has prepared tsunami evacuation and inundation maps for at-risk locations along the Washington Coast. DNR has prepared tsunami evacuation maps for the following communities: 11 Aberdeen Hoquiam. Amanda Park. Bay Center. Bellingham. Clallam Bay. Cosmopolis South Aberdeen. Hoh Reservation. La Push. Long Beach Ilwaco. Lummi Island. Lummi Resevation. Neah Bay. North Cove Tokeland Shoalwater Bay Tribe. Ocean Park - Ocean City Copalis Beach Pacific Beach Moclips. Ocean Shores. Page 108

115 Point Roberts. Port Angeles. Port Townsend. Queets. Quinalt. Raymond South Bend. Sandy Point. Sequim. Taholah Ocean Tracts Point Grenville. Taholah Village. Tsa alal Village. Westport Grayland - Ocosta An example tsunami evacuation map (Aberdeen Hoquiam) is shown in Figure 8.5 on the following page. Tsunami inundation maps showing the locations of K 12 facilities within or near mapped tsunami inundation zones are shown in Figures 8.6 to 8.18 on the following pages. The K 12 facilities shown in Figures 8.6 to 8.18 are listed in Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 which follow the figures. Page 109

116 Figure 8.5 Example Tsunami Evacuation Map/Brochure: Aberdeen Hoquiam11 Page 110

117 Figure 8.5 Continued Example Tsunami Evacuation Map/Brochure: Aberdeen Hoquiam11 Page 111

118 Figure 8.6 Tsunami Inundation Map: Overall Page 112

119 Figure 8.7 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ferndale School District Page 113

120 Figure 8.8 Tsunami Inundation Map: Burlington Edison School District Page 114

121 Figure 8.9 Tsunami Inundation Map: La Conner School District Page 115

122 Figure 8.10 Tsunami Inundation Map: Seattle School District Page 116

123 Figure 8.11 Tsunami Inundation Map: North Beach School District Page 117

124 Figure 8.12 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ocosta School District Page 118

125 Figure 8.13 Tsunami Inundation Map: Ocean Beach School District Page 119

126 Figure 8.14 Tsunami Inundation Map: Fife School District Page 120

127 Figure 8.15 Tsunami Inundation Map: Cape Flattery School District Page 121

128 Figure 8.16 Tsunami Inundation Map: Taholah School District Page 122

129 Figure 8.17 Tsunami Inundation Map: Hoquiam Aberdeen School Districts Page 123

130 Figure 8.18 Tsunami Inundation Map: Raymond South Bend School Districts Page 124

131 8.5 Tsunami Hazard and Risk Assessment for K 12 Facilities As documented by the tsunami inundation maps shown on the previous pages, evaluation of the level of tsunami hazard has been completed for most developed locations on the Washington Coast. This evaluation included several steps: Identify a range of earthquake events capable of generating significant tsunamis. Model the tsunami generated by each event. Model the deep water propagation of the tsunami wave from source to offshore of the site of interest. Model the tsunami propagation in shallow water offshore from the site of interest. Model the on-land run-up to determine the inundated area. The state-of-the-art of tsunami modeling has improved markedly in recent years. Nevertheless, there are substantial uncertainties in estimating the tsunami run-up elevation and inundation depth, at specific locations for a given tsunami-generating event, such as a M9.0 earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The significant sources of uncertainty include: Limited spatial resolution for near shore bathymetry and for onshore topography. Limited accuracy for both the offshore and onshore elevation data. Variability in sea level from tidal cycles and/or storm surge conditions. Variability in the details of the fault rupture and vertical deformation of the seafloor for a given earthquake. For example, if there are ten M9.0 earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone over the next several thousand years, the tsunamis generated may vary substantially from event to event. Tsunami wave reflection and refraction effects that may result in constructive or destructive interference between waves with significant increases or decreases in tsunami wave heights. Possibility of larger than anticipated earthquakes on tsunami-generating faults or tsunamis generated on unknown faults. All of these factors combine to produce substantial uncertainties. The tsunami evacuation and inundation maps shown in the previous section are based on the maximum considered tsunami event for the tsunami modeling by DNR and other agencies, along with the best available data to estimate the tsunami run-up elevation and inundation depths for this event. At any given location, substantially higher tsunami run-up elevations and inundation depths (than those illustrated on the maps) are possible and may occur. Page 125

132 For mitigation planning and evacuation planning, campuses with elevations less than 100 feet may have enough risk to warrant immediate evacuation to be implemented and the development of an evacuation plan for earthquakes that generate strong ground shaking at the campus. The above observations are based on the factors resulting in uncertainty in tsunami modeling and from experience in the March 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake. Many people who were outside the mapped tsunami inundation zones or who went to designated evacuation points died. The tsunami was much larger than anticipated, with inundation over a much wider area than anticipated, causing many designated evacuation locations to be inundated by the tsunami. For K 12 facilities, evaluation of the structural characteristics of buildings to determine the extent to which the building may be capable of withstanding tsunami forces is not necessary, unless a multi-story building is under consideration as a vertical evacuation shelter for tsunamis. For tsunamis, the predominant mitigation measure is immediate evacuation to safe elevations to minimize casualties. The following tables identify 223 K 12 campuses at risk, or potentially at risk, from tsunami inundation in four groups as shown in Table 8.2. Risk Category Number of Campuses Table 8.1 Tsunami Risk Categories Campuses at elevations above 100 feet have extremely low tsunami risk essentially nil except perhaps for extreme events much larger than anticipated tsunamis. Footnotes for the following tables: Within Mapped Tsunami Zone Elevation (Feet) Distance To Coast (Miles) High or Very High 38 YES All All Low or Moderate 68 NO Less than 30 Less than 5 Low 32 NO 30 to 50 Less than 5 Very Low 85 NO 50 to 100 Less than 5 a The distance to the coast is an estimate from GIS data. Distances may differ. b The estimated campus elevations are based on GIS data (digital elevation maps) for the campus latitude and longitude in the OSPI database. Small errors in the latitude or longitude may result in substantial elevation errors, especially near the coast. For campus-specific tsunami risk assessments, surveyed elevation data for the campus are necessary. Page 126

133 Table 8.2 Schools within Mapped Tsunami Inundation Zones FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Within Mapped Inundation Zone? TSUNAMI HAZARDS Distance to Coast (Straightline) Miles a Campus Elevation At Grade (NAVD 1988) Feet b A.J. West Elementary School Aberdeen 1801 Bay Ave. Aberdeen Yes Alexander Young Elementary Aberdeen 1700 Cherry St Aberdeen Yes Birth to 3 Contracts Seattle rd AV S Seattle Yes Central Elementary School Hoquiam 310 Simpson Avenue Hoquiam Yes Chauncey Davis Elementary School South Bend 500 E. 1st South Bend Yes Columbia Junior High School Fife th Avenue E Tacoma Yes Developmental Preschool Raymond 1016 Commercial Street Raymond Yes Edison Elementary School Burlington-Edison 5801 Main ST Edison Yes Emerson Elementary School Hoquiam 101 W Emerson Hoquiam Yes Fife High School Fife th St E Tacoma Yes Harbor High School Aberdeen 300 N. Williams Aberdeen Yes Head Start Seattle rd Ave S Seattle Yes Hopkins Preschool Center Aberdeen 1313 Pacific Aberdeen Yes Hoquiam Homelink School Hoquiam 2500 Simpson Ave Hoquiam Yes Hoquiam Middle School Hoquiam 200 Spencer Hoquiam Yes Interagency Programs Seattle rd AVE S Seattle Yes Learning Opportunity Center Fife th St E Tacoma Yes Long Beach Elementary School Ocean Beach 400 WA Ave S Long Beach Yes Miller Junior High School Aberdeen 100 E Lindstrom Aberdeen Yes Neah Bay Elementary School Cape Flattery 3560 Deer Street Neah Bay Yes Neah Bay Junior Senior High School Cape Flattery 3560 Deer Street Neah Bay Yes North Beach Junior High School North Beach 336 State Route 109 Ocean Shores Yes North Beach Senior High School North Beach 336 State Route 115 Ocean Shores Yes North Bellingham Elementary Ferndale 6175 Church Road Ferndale Yes Northwest Career & Technical Academy La Conner 305 N. 6th Street La Conner Yes Ocean Beach Early Childhood Center Ocean Beach 305 Fifth Street SE Long Beach Yes Ocean Shores Elementary School North Beach 300 Mt. Olympus Way Ocean Shores Yes Ocosta Elementary School Ocosta 2580 Montesano Street South Westport Yes Ocosta Junior Senior High School Ocosta 2580 Montesano Street South Westport Yes Raymond Elementary School Raymond 1016 Commercial Street Raymond Yes Raymond Home Link School Raymond 1016 Commercial Street Raymond Yes Raymond Junior Senior High School Raymond 1016 Commercial Street Raymond Yes South Bend High School South Bend 400 E. 1st South Bend Yes Stevens Elementary School Aberdeen 301 S. Farragut Aberdeen Yes Taholah Elementary & Middle School Taholah 600 Chitwhin Dr. Taholah Yes Taholah High School Taholah 600 Chitwhin Dr. Taholah Yes Transportation Maintenance Center Hoquiam 30th Street & Bay Ave. Hoquiam Yes Washington Elementary School Hoquiam 3003 Cherry Street Hoquiam Yes Page 127

134 Table 8.3 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Below 30 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Within Mapped Inundation Zone? TSUNAMI HAZARDS Distance to Coast (Straightline) Miles a Campus Elevation At Grade (NAVD 1988) Feet b 10th Street School Marysville th Ave NE Marysville No Alki Elementary School Seattle AV SW Seattle No Allen Elementary School Burlington-Edison Cook Road Bow No Barnes Elementary School Kelso 401 Barnes Kelso No Blue Heron Middle School Port Townsend 3939 San Juan Ave Port Townsend No Brinnon Elementary School Brinnon 46 Schoolhouse Rd. Brinnon No Broadway Learning Center Longview th Avenue Longview No Cedar Program Coupeville 1276 Engle Rd Coupeville No Central Elementary School Ferndale 5610 Second Avenue Ferndale No Choice Alternative School Shelton 807 W. Pine St. Shelton No Columbia Valley Garden Elem School Longview th Avenue Longview No Cosmopolis Elementary School Cosmopolis 1439 Fourth Street Cosmopolis No Coweeman Middle School Kelso 2000 Allen St Kelso No Decatur Elementary School Lopez Island Decatur Island Anacortes No Harding School Longview 28th Ave & Harding St Longview No Heritage School Marysville th Ave NE Marysville No Home Port Learning Center Bellingham 707 Astor St Bellingham No Hood Canal Elementary & Junior High Hood Canal 111 N. Hwy 106 Shelton No Hoquiam High School Hoquiam 501 W. Emerson Hoquiam No Huntington Middle School Kelso 500 Redpath Kelso No J.M. Weatherwax High School Aberdeen 410 North G Street Aberdeen No Jenne-Wright Elementary School Central Kitsap 9210 Silverdale Way NW Silverdale No Kelso High School Kelso 1904 Allen St Kelso No Kent Elementary School Kent th Avenue South Kent No Kessler Elementary School Longview 1902 E Kessler Blvd. Longview No La Conner Elementary School La Conner 305 North Sixth St La Conner No La Conner High School La Conner 307 N. 6th. St. La Conner No La Conner Middle School La Conner 512 N. 6th St. La Conner No Lincoln Elementary School Hoquiam 700 Wood Hoquiam No Longview LSD Administration Longview rd Ave Longview No Longview School District Special Services Longview rd Avenue Longview No Loowit High School Kelso 1904 Allen St Kelso No Mark Morris High School Longview 1602 Mark Morris Court Longview No Marysville Arts and Technology High School Marysville th Ave NE Marysville No Page 128

135 Table 8.3 Continued Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Below 30 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION TSUNAMI HAZARDS Within Distance Campus Elevation Facility Name District Address City Mapped to Coast At Grade Inundation (Straightline) (NAVD 1988) Zone? Miles a Feet b Marysville Coop Program Marysville th St NE Marysville No McDermoth Elementary School Aberdeen 409 North K St Aberdeen No Middle School Options North Kitsap Barber Cut-Off Road NE Kingston No Mint Valley Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview No Monticello Middle School Longview th Avenue Longview No Mt. Solo Middle School Longview 5300 Mt. Solo Road Longview No Naselle Elementary School Naselle-Grays River 793 SR 4 Valley Naselle No Naselle Junior Senior High Schools Naselle-Grays River 793 SR 4 Valley Naselle No Neely O'Brien Elementary School Kent 6300 S 236th ST Kent No Northlake Elementary School Longview 2210 Olympia Way Longview No Ocean Park Elementary School Ocean Beach Vernon Ave Ocean Park No Off Campus Central Kitsap 9210 Silverdale Way NW Silverdale No Olympic Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview No Out Of District Facility Renton 300 SW 7TH ST Renton No Pacific Beach Elementary School North Beach 11 Fourth Street Pacific Beach No Peninsula High School Peninsula Purdy Dr NW Gig Harbor No Queets-Clearwater Elementary School Queets-Clearwater HWY 101 Forks No Quil Ceda Elementary School Marysville th St NE Marysville No R. A. Long High School Longview 2903 Nichols Blvd. Longview No Rainier Beach High School Seattle 8815 Seward Park Ave. S Seattle No Riverside Elementary School Puyallup th St E Puyallup No Robert Gray Elementary School Longview 4622 Ohio Street Longview No Saint Helens Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview No Saratoga School Stanwood-Camano rd PL NW Stanwood No Stanwood Elementary School Stanwood-Camano RD PL NW Stanwood No Stanwood Middle School Stanwood-Camano ST ST NW Stanwood No Structured Learning Center Longview 3602 Memorial Park Dr Longview No Totem Middle School Marysville th St Marysville No Twin Harbors - A Branch of New Market Skills Center Aberdeen 410 North G Street Aberdeen No Wallace Elementary School Kelso 410 Elm St Kelso No Woodland Administration Office Woodland 800 3rd St Woodland No Woodland High School Woodland 757 Park Woodland No Woodland Middle School Woodland 755 Park Street Woodland No Woodland Primary School Woodland 600 Bozarth Woodland No Page 129

136 Table 8.4 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 30 and 50 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION TSUNAMI HAZARDS Within Distance Campus Elevation Facility Name District Address City Mapped to Coast At Grade Inundation (Straightline) (NAVD 1988) Zone? Miles a Feet b Aylen Junior High School Puyallup th St NW Puyallup No Belfair Elementary School North Mason NE Hwy 3 Belfair No Catlin Elementary School Kelso 404 Long Ave. Kelso No Clallam Bay Elementary School Cape Flattery No Clallam Bay High and Elementary School Cape Flattery HWY 112 Clallam Bay No Columbia Elementary School Washougal 2349 B St Washougal No Conway School Conway State Route 564 Mount Vernon No Custer Elementary Ferndale 7660 Custer School Road Custer No Evergreen Elementary School Shelton 900 W. Franklin St. Shelton No Ferndale High School Ferndale 5830 Golden Eagle Drive Ferndale No Fruit Valley Elementary School Vancouver 3301 Fruit Valley Rd Vancouver No Karshner Elementary School Puyallup th Ave NW Puyallup No Kent Elementary School - Old Kent 317 4th Ave S Kent No Kent Junior High School Kent 620 Central Ave N Kent No Liberty Elementary School Marysville th St Marysville No Marysville Middle School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Marysville Mountain View High School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Marysville On-line Move Up Program Marysville th St NE Marysville No Marysville Special Education School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Mill Creek Middle School Kent 620 Central Ave N Kent No Renton Senior High School Renton 400 S 2ND ST Renton No Richard Gordon Elementary School North Kitsap Barber Cut-Off Rd NE Kingston No Robert Gray Elementary School Aberdeen 1516 North B St Aberdeen No Sartori Education Center Renton 315 Garden Ave N Renton No School Home Partnership Program Marysville th St NE Marysville No Skamania Elementary School Skamania 122 Butler Loop Road Skamania No South Lake High School Seattle 8601 Rainier Ave S Seattle No South Shore K-8 School Seattle 4800 S Henderson St Seattle No TEAM High School Woodland 143 Davidson Woodland No Transportation Maintenance Center Shelton N 8th St & W Pine St Shelton No Washougal Special Services Washougal 4855 Evergreen Way Washougal No Woodland Intermediate School Woodland 2250 Lewis River road Woodland No Page 130

137 Table 8.5 Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 50 and 100 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Within Mapped Inundation Zone? TSUNAMI HAZARDS Distance to Coast (Straightline) Miles b Campus Elevation At Grade (NAVD 1988) Feet c Adams Elementary School Seattle AV NW Seattle No Addams Middle School Seattle th Ave NE Seattle No Allen Creek Elementary School Marysville th NE Marysville No Anacortes Middle School Anacortes 2202 M Avenue Anacortes No Avanti High School Olympia 1113 Legion Way SE Olympia No Bellingham High School Bellingham 2020 Cornwall Ave Bellingham No Birchwood Elementary School Bellingham 3200 Pinewood Ave Bellingham No Blaine Elementary School Blaine 836 Mitchell Ave Blaine No Blaine High School Blaine 1055 H Street Blaine No Blaine Middle School Blaine 975 H Street Blaine No Blaine Primary School Blaine 820 Boblett St Blaine No Bremerton High School Bremerton th Street Bremerton No Brookside Elementary School Shoreline th Avenue N.E. Lake Forest Park No Carrolls Elementary School Kelso 3902 Old Pacific Hwy S Kelso No Cascade Elementary School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Cedarcrest School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Chimacum Creek Primary School Chimacum 313 Ness Corner Rd Port Hadlock No Clearview Alternative High School Ferndale 5275 Northwest Dr Bellingham No Columbia Elementary School Bellingham 2508 Utter St Bellingham No Concord International School Seattle 723 S Concord St Seattle No Cooper Elementary School Seattle 4408 Delridge Way SW Seattle No Coupeville High School Coupeville 501 South Main Coupeville No Coupeville Middle School Coupeville 501 South Main Coupeville No Crossroads Community School Quilcene PO Box 40 Quilcene No Dunlap Elementary School Seattle 4525 S Cloverdale St. Seattle No Experimental Education Unit Seattle 1959 NE Pacific St Seattle No Franklin High School Seattle 3013 S Mt. Baker Blvd. Seattle No Friday Harbor High School San Juan Island 45 Blair Street Friday Harbor No Friday Harbor Middle School San Juan Island 85 Blair Street Friday Harbor No Garfield Elementary School Everett 2215 Pine Street Everett No Gause Elementary School Washougal TH ST Washougal No Griffin Bay School San Juan Island 265 Blair Street Friday Harbor No Griffin Home Renton 2500 Lake WA Blvd N Renton No Grove Elementary School Marysville 6510 Grove St Marysville No Page 131

138 Table 8.5 Continued Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 50 Feet and 100 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Within Mapped Inundation Zone? TSUNAMI HAZARDS Distance to Coast (Straightline) Miles a Campus Elevation At Grade (NAVD 1988) Feet b Hathaway Elementary School Washougal TH ST Washougal No Hawthorne Elementary School Seattle AV S Seattle No Home Education Partnership Anacortes 2200 M Avenue Anacortes No HomeConnection Oak Harbor 350 S. Oak Harbor St. Oak Harbor No Hough Elementary School Vancouver 1900 Daniels St Vancouver No Hutch School Seattle 527 Minor Av N Seattle No Ilwaco Middle High School Ocean Beach 314 Brumbach Ilwaco No Jane Addams K-8 School Seattle AVE NE Seattle No Jemtegaard Middle School Washougal SE Evergreen Blvd Washougal No John Muir Elementary School Seattle 3301 S HORTON ST Seattle No Kellogg Marsh Elementary School Marysville st St NE Marysville No Kingston High School North Kitsap Siyaya Avenue NE Kingston No Kingston Middle School North Kitsap 9000 W Kingston Rd Kingston No Madison Elementary School Olympia 1225 Legion Way SE Olympia No Marshall Elementary School Marysville th St NE Marysville No Marysville Pilchuck High School Marysville th St NE Marysville No McGilvra Elementary School Seattle AV E Seattle No Minter Creek Elementary School Peninsula th Ave NW Gig Harbor No Mountain View Elementary Ferndale 5780 Hendrickson Road Ferndale No Mountain View Elementary Port Townsend 1919 Blain Street Port Townsend No MP Pathways of Choice Marysville th St NE Marysville No Naselle Youth Camp School Naselle-Grays River 11-S Youth Camp Lane Valley Naselle No Nathan Hale High School Seattle th AV NE Seattle No North Middle School Everett 2514 Rainier Ave. No North Whidbey Middle School Oak Harbor 67 NE Izett St. Oak Harbor No Oak Harbor Aadministrative Service Center Oak Harbor 350 S Oak Harbor St Oak Harbor No Oak Harbor Middle School Oak Harbor 150 SW Sixth Ave. Oak Harbor No OASIS School K-12 Orcas Island 557 School Rd East Sound No Options High School Bellingham 2015 Franklin St Bellingham No Orcas Island Elementary School Orcas Island 611 School Rd East Sound No Orcas Island High School Orcas Island 715 School Rd East Sound No Orcas Island Middle School Orcas Island 715 School Rd East Sound No Parents As Partners Port Angeles 216 E 4TH ST Port Angeles No Pass Program Everett th St. Everett No Page 132

139 Table 8.5 Continued Schools within Five Miles of Coast and Elevation Between 50 Feet and 100 Feet FACILITY INFORMATION TSUNAMI HAZARDS Within Distance Campus Elevation Facility Name District Address City Mapped to Coast At Grade Inundation (Straightline) (NAVD 1988) Zone? Miles a Feet b Pinewood Elementary School Marysville th Ave NE Marysville No Quilcene High And Elementary School Quilcene Highway 101 Quilcene No Saltars Point Elementary School Steilacoom Historical 908 3RD Street Steilacoom No Science and Math Institute Tacoma 5501 N. Pearl St Tacoma No Shuksan Middle School Bellingham 2717 Alderwood Ave Bellingham No Special Education Oak Harbor 350 S. Oak Harbor St. Oak Harbor No Special Education Port Angeles 216 E 4TH ST Port Angeles No Stuart Island Elementary School San Juan Island 485 Ellsworth Ave Friday Harbor No Tacoma School of the Arts Tacoma 1950 Pacific Avenue Tacoma No Tulalip Elementary School Marysville th Ave NW Marysville No Twin City Elementary School Stanwood-Camano ND AVE NW Stanwood No Union Ridge Elementary School Ridgefield 330 North Fifth Ave Ridgefield No Vaughn Elementary School Peninsula Hall Road KPN Vaughn No Waldron Island School Orcas Island 1 School Rd Waldron Island No Whatcom Middle School Bellingham 810 Halleck St Bellingham No Whitney Elementary School Anacortes 1200 M Avenue Anacortes No Tsunami Loss Estimates The magnitude of damages and casualties from any given tsunami event depends on several factors including: The severity of the tsunami as measured by the run-up height, inundation depths, flow velocities, debris loads, and number of cycles of incoming and outgoing surges. The number and size of inundated K 12 facilities. The capacity of inundated facilities to withstand tsunami forces. The occupancy of the inundated facilities at the time the tsunami occurs. The effectiveness of evacuations to safe havens. This depends on how quickly evacuation starts and the distance/time to safe havens at high enough elevation to be outside the tsunami inundation area. Casualty estimates (the numbers of deaths and injuries) for K 12 facilities depend very strongly on the time of year, day of week, and time of day; because the occupancy of K 12 facilities varies markedly as a function of these variables. Typically, high occupancies only occur for seven or eight hours per day for about 180 days per year. Occupancies are generally lower for the shoulder hours outside of the normal school day for before and after school activities or special events. Over the course of an entire year 24 hours per day for 365 days most K 12 facilities have significant occupancies for only about 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. That is, for percent of the time, the occupancy for K 12 facilities will be very low or zero when a tsunami occurs. For completeness, there is also a very small probability that a tsunami Page 133

140 will occur at a time of unusually high occupancy such as for a major sporting or other special event. The probability of this occurring is very low since such unusually high occupancies probably occur for less than one percent of the time in any given year. For earthquake-generated tsunamis, total casualties will depend on a facility s earthquake performance as well as on the extent of tsunami inundation and the effectiveness of evacuations. Casualties may result from earthquake damage and earthquake damage may also impede and delay evacuations and thus result in higher numbers of casualties from the ensuing tsunami. Given these many variables, it is not possible to make precise estimates of the extent of damages and casualties for any given tsunami event. The estimates below should be interpreted as illustrating the approximate range of possible damages and casualties. For any given tsunami, damages and casualties may be lower or higher than these estimates, and the number of inundated campuses may be lower or higher than these estimates. We consider three possible tsunami scenarios: A major distant tsunami event such as a M9.0 or larger earthquake in Alaska. A major local tsunami event such as an approximately M7.0 earthquake on the Seattle Fault Zone or the Tacoma Fault Zone within Puget Sound. A major local tsunami event from a great M9.0 or larger earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Distant Tsunami Events As previously discussed, most distant tsunami events result in coastal run-up heights of less than two feet. In this case, damages and casualties for K 12 facilities would almost certainly be nil. However, as illustrated by the 1964 M9.2 Prince William Sound Alaska earthquake event, some very large distant earthquakes can result in run-up heights of up to feet at a few locations on the Washington Coast. Thus, in such events a few campuses at elevations below about 15 feet might suffer damage. The dollar amount of damages to buildings and contents could range from nil to several million dollars if one or several campuses suffered moderate damage. Tens of millions of dollars of damages could occur if several campuses suffered major damage. Most likely, damages would be towards the low end of this range. The warning time for tsunami arrivals on the Washington Coast for distant tsunami events is at least four to five hours for Alaska earthquakes and approximately ten hours for earthquake in the western Pacific or southern Pacific. Thus, there is ample time for complete evacuation, and the casualties at K 12 facilities should be nil providing everyone heeds warnings and moves to high ground. In the worst case, with some people not evacuating, there could be a small number of deaths most likely less than five. Local Tsunami Events: Puget Sound Earthquakes The tsunami inundation maps, and the tables listing schools with known or potential tsunami risk, show that there are about ten campuses in the Puget Sound area that are at risk. Major earthquakes on the Seattle Fault Zone or the Tacoma Fault Zone would likely result in major Page 134

141 damage to many of these campuses. Furthermore, because of the uncertainties in predicting the exact inundation areas for any given tsunami event, it is possible that some campuses at low elevations outside of the mapped tsunami inundation areas may also suffer damage. There is an important caveat about Puget Sound earthquakes and tsunamis. Deep earthquakes, such as the 1949, 1965 and 2001 events in the Puget Sound area do not generate tsunamis (other than perhaps local tsunamis generated by landslides into bodies of water), because these earthquakes do not result in vertical deformation of the floor of Puget Sound. However, other types of earthquakes in the Puget Sound area can generate substantial tsunamis. Estimated tsunami damages to buildings and contents for K 12 facilities from major earthquakes on the Seattle or Tacoma Fault Zones might range from $10 $20 million at the low end to perhaps $100 million or more at the high end, depending on the number of campuses inundated. These estimates are based on the average building replacement values per square foot, average building sizes for elementary school, middle school and high school campuses, and average contents replacement values. Many facilities suffering tsunami inundation will be a complete loss because the damage is complete or so severe that complete rebuilding is necessary or because the damage is severe enough that the community decides to build a new facility. Ideally, the new facility should be built out of the tsunami inundation zone, rather than to repair the existing damaged facility after a tsunami. Total damages to K 12 facilities in these events, including earthquake damages would be much higher. See Chapter Seven Earthquakes for earthquake loss estimates. The warning time for these very nearby events will be short everywhere in Puget Sound and very short, less than five minutes, for some locations near the fault. If a facility is occupied when a tsunami occurs and given the short warning time, casualties are likely for campuses with significant inundation (water depths of several feet or more) unless evacuation is extremely effective. For tsunamis generated by local earthquakes in Puget Sound, the number of casualties could range from none (if the tsunami occurs when the campuses are not occupied) to several hundred or perhaps 1,000 or more. Ten campuses inundated without evacuations before tsunami arrivals is a worst case scenario. For a given event, the number of casualties depends on the number of campuses inundated, on the inundation depths, and on the extent to which the campus is evacuated before inundation occurs. For events such as major earthquakes on the Seattle or Tacoma Fault Zones, with very short warning times, casualties are likely for any campuses within the inundation zone that are not evacuated when the tsunami arrives. M9.0 Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone Local tsunami events from great M9.0 (or possibly higher) earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone will generate tsunamis affecting the entire Pacific Coast of Washington as well as affecting rivers near the coast and Puget Sound. As shown in Tables 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 there are 223 campuses at known or potential risk from these tsunami events. The warning time between the earthquake event that generates a tsunami and tsunami arrival at a given campus varies significantly with location, from approximately 15 minutes to about one hour. Page 135

142 A M9.0 or greater earthquake will generate a major tsunami that will inundate all or nearly all of the 38 campuses within the mapped tsunami inundation zones and may well inundate others as well. For loss estimating purposes we assume inundation of about 38 campuses. With assumptions similar to those stated in the previous section, total damages in the range of $300 $500 million appear likely. For many campuses, the casualty rate may be lower than that estimated for the Puget Sound earthquake scenarios, because the warning time between the earthquake and tsunami arrival is somewhat longer. On the other hand, there are several campuses for which evacuation to safe havens may be nearly impossible since they are too far away from safe havens and cannot reach high ground before the arrival of tsunami waves. Furthermore, for M9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes, widespread coastal subsidence of several feet may result in flooding that blocks evacuation routes. Earthquake damage to bridges may block evacuation routes resulting in longer evacuation times. Evacuation routes may also be blocked by earthquake debris including downed power lines, fires, or hazmat releases. For tsunamis during normal school hours, the population at risk for the 38 campuses within the mapped tsunami zones is approximately 15,000 based on typical sizes (square feet) for elementary, middle, and high schools along with typical occupancies per 1,000 SF. For tsunamis during normal school hours, the number of casualties, deaths, and injuries for a scenario in which all 38 campuses are inundated will probably be very high. Under very optimistic conditions in this scenario, assuming that most occupants evacuate to safe havens before tsunami arrivals, perhaps from five to ten is estimated. More realistic estimates may be higher with perhaps percent deaths. In the worst case scenario, with evacuations that are too slow, the casualty rate could possibly approach 50 percent, or as many as 7,500 deaths. In addition, there would be substantial numbers of injuries. Notwithstanding, it is important to recognize with the estimates above that it is not possible to make precise estimates of the extent of damages and casualties for any given tsunami event. The estimates above should be interpreted only as illustrating the approximate range of possible damages and casualties. For any given tsunami, the number of inundated campuses and the level of damages and casualties may be lower or higher than these estimates The above damage and loss estimates are summarized in the table below. Page 136

143 Table 8.6 Tsunami Damage and Death Estimates for Tsunamis with Schools in Session Tsunami Event Number of Campuses Inundated Damage Estimates Death Estimates Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Distant Earthquake 1 0 to 2 None $1 million to $2 million None Less than 5 Puget Sound Earthquake 2 2 to 10 $10 million to $20 million $100 million or higher 50 to to 1,000 Cascadia M9.0 Earthquake 15 to 40+ $200 million to $150 million $400 million or higher 750 to 1,500 5,000 to 7,500 1 Large magnitude earthquake in Alaska, Chile, Japan or elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. 2 Magnitude 7+ earthquake on the Seattle Fault, Tacoma Fault or Southern Whidbey Island Fault systems. 8.7 Tsunami Mitigation Measures Evacuation Planning For tsunamis affecting K 12 facilities the highest priority is minimizing casualties. Therefore, for tsunamis, from M9.0 earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone or earthquakes on the Seattle or Tacoma Fault Zones, evacuation for facilities in or near mapped tsunami zones must be begin immediately after any earthquake with strong ground shaking is experienced. Waiting until the earthquake source is identified and trying to determine whether or not a tsunami is likely may be a fatal mistake. For all K 12 facilities that are, or may be, at tsunami risk, the highest priority mitigation measure is robust emergency planning for evacuation before a tsunami arrives. Robust emergency planning means implementing the following steps: Identify designated safe haven locations for tsunami evacuations. Designated safe haven locations should be at least 50 feet above sea level with a preference for higher elevations of 100 feet or more whenever possible. For tsunami safe haven evacuation locations, the primary criterion should be the shortest possible travel time to reach a safe elevation. An ideal location would be at an elevation above 100 feet with available shelter for evacuees located at the shortest travel distance from the K 12 facility. It should be reachable by a route that does not include any bridge crossings or locations with other likely impediments to rapid pedestrian travel. If an ideal location is not available, then the highest priority is immediate life safety. This means a short travel time to a safe location without shelter is preferable to longer travel time to a location with shelter. Evacuees can move to a longer term shelter, if necessary, after the full series of tsunami inundation waves has ceased. Page 137

144 Identify the best (shortest travel time) evacuation routes, taking into account that coastal subsidence is likely to occur (for M9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone events) and that bridges may not be passable because of earthquake damage. To be effective during an actual tsunami event, evacuations must be practiced on a regular basis so that students and staff know exactly what to do when a tsunami is likely to occur including: o Begin evacuation immediately upon cessation of strong ground shaking, without taking time to gather possessions. o Proceed along designated routes to designated safe haven locations as quickly as possible. For distant tsunami-generating events, such as a major earthquake in Alaska, the warning time before tsunami arrivals is generally at least four or five hours. For such events, evacuation may still be required for low-elevation facilities, but the evacuation may occur over a longer time period than for local tsunami events. For distant events, evacuations can proceed by bus or automobile transport to locations that provide suitable temporary shelter. Vertical Evacuation Evacuation to natural high ground is the always the preferred evacuation choice for locations where natural high ground is high enough to be above the worst case tsunami and is reachable within the estimated arrival times. However, for existing K 12 facilities at locations where evacuation to natural high ground is impossible because of the travel time and distance before tsunami arrivals, the only evacuation possibility is vertical evacuation. Vertical evacuation means evacuation to structures near the K 12 facility including: Upper stories of multistory buildings if, and only if, the buildings have been thoroughly evaluated and determined to have adequate elevations to provide tsunami safety and adequate structural capacity to resist both earthquake damage and tsunami damage. Vertical evacuation to a structure that is at too low an elevation or is likely to have major damage or collapse from ground shaking or tsunami inundation provides little or no protection from tsunamis. Engineered evacuation platforms that may be purpose-built for tsunami evacuation only or multi-purpose. Engineered berms at high enough elevations that are designed to prevent failure from tsunami forces. Other Tsunami Mitigation Measures There are several other tsunami mitigation measures that may be effective in some circumstances, including: Reinforcing a multi-story building to make it suitable for vertical evacuation. Page 138

145 Abandoning a K 12 facility within a tsunami inundation zone and replacing it with a new facility well outside of the inundation zone. Siting new facilities well outside the inundation zone whenever possible. If no such sites exist within a given community, design the new facility for vertical evacuation. Physical mitigation measures to minimize tsunami damage are perhaps possible in some circumstances but are probably rarely practical or cost-effective for K 12 facilities. Examples of physical mitigation measures include building berms or concrete barriers to protect a facility from tsunami inundation. The tsunami section of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a foundation of information and guidance to help school districts: Determine whether any of their facilities have an unacceptably high level of risk for tsunamis. Identify mitigation measures that will most effectively meet district priorities for reducing tsunami risk. Page 139

146 Chapter Nine: Volcanic Hazards 9.1 Overview The Cascades, which run from British Columbia into northern California, contain more than a dozen major volcanoes and hundreds of smaller volcanic features. In the past 200 years, seven of the Cascade volcanoes in the United States have erupted including four in Washington: Mount St. Helens, Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, and Mount Rainier, as well Mount Hood in Oregon. Over the past 4,000 years (a geologically short time period), the most active volcano in the Cascades has been Mount St. Helens with about 14 eruptions. Many other volcanoes in the Cascades are deemed active or potentially active. The Smithsonian Institution s Global Volcanism Project 1 lists seven active volcanoes in Washington. These volcanoes are listed below and include Mount Hood in Oregon which is close enough to potentially affect parts of Washington. Table 9.1 Active Volcanoes in Washington 1 Volcano Type Last Eruption Mount Baker Stratovolcano 1880 Glacier Peak Stratovolcano Mount Rainier Stratovolcano 1894 (?) Mount Adams Stratovolcano 950 AD (?) Mount St. Helens Stratovolcano West Crater Volcanic Field 5750 BC (?) Indian Heaven Shield Volcanoes BC Mount Hood (Oregon) Stratovolcano 1866 Numerous volcanoes of the Cascades differ markedly in their geological characteristics. The largest volcanoes are generally what geologists call composite or stratovolcanoes which have steep slopes because they are built mostly by flows of viscous lava. Shield volcanoes have gentle slopes because they are built mostly by flows of more fluid, low viscosity lavas. Volcanic fields are areas where volcanic activity occurs or large areas from numerous vents, fissures and cinder cones. Photographs of the eight volcanoes listed in Table 9.1 are shown in Figure 9.1 on the following page. Page 140

147 Figure 9.1 Washington Volcanoes and Mount Hood 1 Mt. Rainier Mount St. Helens Mt. Baker Glacier Peak Mt. Adams West Crater Volcanic Field Page 141

148 Indian Heaven Shield Volcanoes Mt. Hood The current USGS ranking of threat potential for the eight volcanoes shown above is shown in the following table. Six of the eight volcanoes are ranked as having high to very high threat potential. Table 9.2 USGS Volcano Threat Potential 2 Volcano Mount Baker Glacier Peak Mount Rainier Mount Adams Mount St. Helens West Crater Indian Heaven Mount Hood (Oregon) USGS Threat Potential a High to Very High High to Very High High to Very High High to Very High High to Very High Low to Very Low Low to Very Low High to Very High a Qualitative ranking based on rate of volcanic activity, explosiveness, and consequences. Detailed information about specific volcanoes may be found on the following websites. Page 142

149 Table 9.3 Volcano Websites Institution United States Geological Survey (USGS) USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory Website Smithsonian Institution (Global Volcanism Project) Washington State Department of Natural Resources (see: Geology and Earth Resources Division) Volcanic Hazard Types In Washington, awareness of the potential for volcanic eruptions was greatly increased by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens that killed 57 people. In this eruption lateral blast effects covered 230 square miles and reached 17 miles northwest of the crater. Pyroclastic flows covered six square miles reaching five miles north of the crater, and landslides covered 23 square miles. Ash accumulations measured about ten inches at ten miles downwind, one inch at 60 miles downwind, and.5 inch at 300 miles downwind. Lahars (mudflows) affected the North and South Forks of the Toutle River and ultimately reached the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers as far as 70 miles from the volcano. Volcanic eruptions often involve several distinct types of hazards to people and property, evidenced by the Mount St. Helens eruption. Major volcanic hazards include lava flows, blast effects, pyroclastic flows, landslides or debris flows, ash falls, and lahars. Proximal Volcanic Hazards (Effects near Volcanic Source Only) Lava flows are eruptions of molten rock. Lava flows for the major Cascades volcanoes tend to be thick and viscous forming cones and thus typically affect only areas very near the eruption vent. However, flows from the smaller mafic volcanoes may be less viscous flows that spread out over wider areas. Lava flows destroy everything in their path. Blast effects may occur with violent eruptions, such as Mount St. Helens in Most volcanic blasts are largely upwards. However, the Mount St. Helens blast was lateral with impacts 17 miles from the volcano. Similar or larger blast zones are possible in future eruptions of any of the major Cascades volcanoes. Mount St. Helens and Glacier Peak have a history of explosive eruptions and lateral blasts which are a significant threat. Mount Rainier has had only limited explosive activity and one small blast in the past 10,000 years and thus has a low probability of future blasts. Mount Baker has had little explosive activity and has a low probability of future blasts. Mount Adams and Mount Hood are the least explosive volcanoes and have very low probabilities of future lateral blasts. Pyroclastic flows are high-speed avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments and gases. Pyroclastic flows can be as hot as 1500 o F and move downslope at 100 to 150 miles per hour. Pyroclastic flows are extremely deadly for anyone caught in their path. Page 143

150 Landslides, debris avalanches and debris flows are the rapid downslope movement of rocky material, snow and/or ice. Volcano landslides can range from small movements of loose debris to massive collapses of the entire summit or sides of a volcano. Landslides on volcanic slopes may be triggered by eruptions, earthquakes, or simply heavy rainfall. Distal Volcanic Hazards (Effects at Considerable Distances from Volcanic Source) Lahars or mudflows are common during eruptions of volcanoes with heavy loading of ice and snow. These flows of mud, rock and water can rush down channels at 20 to 40 miles an hour and can extend for more than 50 miles. For some volcanoes, lahars are a major hazard because highly populated areas are built on lahar flows from previous eruptions. Ash falls result when explosive eruptions blast rock fragments into the air. Such blasts may include tephra (solid and molten rock fragments). The largest rock fragments (sometimes called bombs ) generally fall within two miles of the eruption vent. Smaller ash fragments (less than about 0.1 ) typically rise thousands of feet into the air in eruption columns before falling back to earth. In very large eruptions, ash falls may total many feet in depth near the vent and extend for hundreds or even thousands of miles downwind. Volcanic Event Warning Times Most of the volcanic hazard events are related to eruptive activity. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitors active volcanoes, and most eruptive events would have precursory activity for days, weeks or months before a volcanic eruption. However, the exact time of an eruption cannot be predicted. It is also possible that some eruptions may have no precursory activity. For example, a major collapse of a volcanic peak could trigger a volcanic eruption. Some of these hazards including lahars, landslides, debris avalanches or debris flows may be triggered by non-volcanic events such as earthquakes or prolonged heavy rain, Precursory activity, indicating a likely eruptive event in the near future that may affect one or more campuses, should put the school facilities and districts in high volcanic hazard locations on high alert. Possible actions range from diligent monitoring of USGS announcements, to practicing evacuation drills, to pro-active evacuations and school closures before an eruption occurs. At present, there is a lahar warning system only for the Puyallup River and Carbon River valleys. For all schools within lahar hazard zones, immediate evacuation would be prudent when an eruption begins. For schools in locations without the benefit of a lahar warning system, awareness if an approaching lahar would be limited to district officials being notified (which may or may occur in time) or from hearing the approaching lahar (which would provide at most five or ten minutes warning time). Therefore, for schools in lahar zones, the prudent action would be immediate evacuation as soon as an eruption starts, if proactive evacuation has not already occurred. For schools within possible lateral blast zones, the warning time would be almost zero if a lateral blast occurs (a few minutes at most). This is not nearly enough time to evacuate. Lateral blasts Page 144

151 are unlikely to occur; however, given the dire consequences, pro-active evacuation before an eruption occurs would be prudent if a volcanic eruption appears likely. Pro-active evacuation is extremely urgent if there are indications that a lateral blast may occur. 9.3 Volcanic Hazards for K 12 Facilities Most locations, very near volcanic sources in Washington, have little development and no K 12 facilities. There are some K 12 facilities located within the proximal volcanic hazard areas, as defined previously, including lateral blast zones for Mount Rainier and Glacier Peak lava flow and pyroclastic flow zones for Mount Adams. As discussed later in this chapter, the return periods for such events are very long ranging from 5,000 years or 10,000 years to 100,000 years or more. Therefore, the probability of such events is very low but not zero. There are many K 12 facilities at risk from the distal volcanic hazards: lahars and ash falls. Lahars are most commonly initiated when volcanic activity rapidly melts snow and ice at high elevations on a volcano, when large volcanic landslides liquefy, or when lakes or reservoirs drain rapidly. Volcanic ash and debris constitutes part of the load carried by lahars, but as lahars flow downslope they pick up additional debris load from eroding sediments and vegetation. Large lahars may be up to hundreds of yards wide and tens of yards deep and capable of carrying large boulders more than 30 feet in diameter. Small lahars may flow only a short distance from the point of origin. However, larger lahars may flow very long distances. In 1980, lahars from Mount St. Helens reached the Columbia River near Longview, about 70 miles away. Lahars from Mount Rainier have reached Puget Sound and some communities downstream from Cascade volcanoes are built on historical lahar deposits. Buildings inundated by lahar flows are generally totally destroyed and may be deeply buried under many feet of deposited debris. Lahars pose an extreme life safety threat for K 12 facilities within the lahar inundation zone. When a lahar occurs, evacuation to safe locations well outside of the anticipated lahar inundation zone must be completed before arrival of the lahar at a facility s location. As noted previously, Mount St. Helens has been by far the most active volcano in the Cascades over the past, 4,000 years. Fortunately, there are no K 12 facilities within the mapped lahar zones for Mount St. Helens. However, there are K 12 facilities within the mapped lahar zones for the other volcanoes with lahar maps. Volcanic Hazard Maps The figures on following pages show USGS mapped volcanic hazard zones for the six high, or very high, potentially threatening volcanoes listed in Table 9.2. They are Mount Adams (including the Indian Heaven shield volcanoes area), Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount Hood, Mount Rainier and Mount St. Helens. Volcanic hazard zones have not been mapped for the West Crater Volcanic Field area. Page 145

152 The USGS lahar maps show volcanic events of several return periods. For example, for a given volcano, larger lahars have longer return periods smaller annual probabilities than smaller lahars. For details of each of the USGS volcanic hazard scenarios, see USGS publications for each volcano in the references for this chapter. For mitigation planning purposes, the most important volcanic hazard information is: Whether a given campus is within one or more USGS-mapped volcanic hazard zones. If so, what are the return periods (annual probabilities) of volcanic events that may affect a given campus? If a volcanic event occurs, can students and staff be evacuated to a safe area before the lahar or other volcanic phenomenon reaches the campus? Page 146

153 Figure 9.2 Volcanic Hazard Map: Overall3, 4 Page 147

154 Figure 9.3 Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map Map 4, 5 Page 148

155 Figure 9.3A Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: Northwest Area Close-Up 4, 5 Page 149

156 Figure 9.3B Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: West Area Close-Up 4, 5 Page 150

157 Figure 9.3C Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map: Southwest Area Close-Up 4, 5 Page 151

158 Figure 9.4 3, 6, 7 Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Lahar Map Page 152

159 Figure 9.4A 3, 6, 7 Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Lateral Blast Zone Map Page 153

160 Figure 9.5 Mount Adams Volcanic Hazards Map 3, 8 Page 154

161 Figure 9.6 Mount St. Helens Lahar Map 3, 9 Page 155

162 Figure , 11 Mount Hood Volcanic Hazards Map Page 156

163 Ash Falls The USGS probabilistic ash fall maps are shown in Figure 9.8 on the following page. The maps show the probabilities of one centimeter (0.4 inch) or more of ash and ten centimeters (four inches) or more of ash over a 30-year time period. The probabilistic ash fall contours are dominated by Mount St. Helens because this volcano is the most active volcano in the Cascades. The probabilistic ash fall contours are higher eastward from Mount St. Helens and the other volcanoes because the prevailing winds are from the west. Thus, significant ash falls are much more likely east of volcanoes than west. For any volcanic eruption that generates ash, the thickness of ash accumulations decreases with distance from the volcano. Thus, locations nearest to Mount St. Helens, or to the other volcanoes, will receive the highest ash accumulations. Depending on which volcano erupts and the volume of volcanic ash ejected by an eruption on prevailing winds, the thicknesses of ash fall will vary markedly with location. However, ash fall may affect a significant number of K 12 facilities in Washington. Page 157

164 Figure 9.8 USGS Ash Fall Probabilistic Maps 10 Page 158

165 In extreme ash fall events, ash accumulation depths may reach several feet or more. None of the volcanoes in the Cascades are believed capable of generating such extreme volumes of ash. However, most roofs cannot support more than a few inches of wet ash. Extreme ash thickness is not necessary for building roofs to collapse as a result of ash. Most ash fall events impacting K 12 facilities are likely to be relatively minor with an inch or less of ash likely to occur. However, even minor amounts of ash fall can result in significant impacts. The impacts of ash fall on K 12 facilities include health and several other disruptive effects including: Moderately heavy ash falls may prevent some evacuations due to a combination of vehicular traffic disruption and health concerns that may preclude people being outside during heavy ash falls. In this case, shelter in place may be necessary, possibly for several days. Respiratory problems for at-risk populations such as young children, people with respiratory problems, and the elderly. Clogging of filters and possible severe damage to vehicle engines, furnaces, heat pumps, air conditioners, commercial and public building combined HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) and other engines and mechanical equipment. Clean-up and ash removal from roofs, gutters, sidewalks, roads, vehicles, HVAC systems and ductwork, engines and mechanical equipment. Impacts on public water supplies drawn from surface waters including degradation of water quality (high turbidity) and increased maintenance requirements at water treatment plants. Possible electric power outages from ash-induced short circuits in distribution lines, transmission lines, and substations. Disruptions of vehicular and air traffic. 9.4 Volcanic Hazards Risk Assessment There are 179 K 12 facilities located within USGS mapped volcanic hazard zones. The tabulated volcanic hazards include lahars, lava flows, pyroclastic flows and lateral blasts. The number of K 12 facilities within USGS mapped volcanic hazard zones is much smaller than the number of facilities subject to ash falls. However, the level of risk, especially life safety risk, is much higher from lahars, lava flows, pyroclastic flows and lateral blast events than from ash fall events. The USGS mapped volcanic hazard zones that include K-12 facilities are summarized in the table below. Page 159

166 Table 9.4 USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones Volcano USGS Mapped Hazard Zone Volcanic Hazard Type Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Adams Zone LA Lava Flows & Pyroclastic Deposits 30, % Adams Zone LB Lava Flows & Pyroclastic Deposits 100, % Adams Zone LC Lava Flows & Pyroclastic Deposits 1,000, % Adams Zone DL Lahars 30, % Baker Case 1 Lahars 1, % Baker Case M Lahars 14, % Baker Blast Zone Blast Zone 30, % Glacier Peak GP Lahar 1 Lahars 1, % Glacier Peak GP Lahar 2 Lahars 5, % Glacier Peak & Baker Case M + Lahar Lahars 5, % Hood Case DA Lahars/Flooding/Erosion % Rainier Case M Lahars 5, % Rainier Case 1 Lahars % Rainier Case 2 Lahars % Rainier Blast Zone Blast Zone 20, % 1 Lahars affecting areas near the volcano, such as Darrington. 2 Lahars affecting areas further from the volcano, near Puget Sound. The return periods above are mostly based on USGS estimates, supplemented with other estimates for hazard zones without USGS estimates. There are several important caveats regarding the interpretation of the estimated return periods shown above: There is considerable uncertainty inherent in all of the return period estimates. Within each hazard zone, there is a substantial range of possible sizes/severity of events. That is, volcanic events may be smaller or larger than the mapped zones. Within each hazard zone, the return period for an event affecting a given location varies with location within the hazard zone. K 12 facilities that are closer to a volcano have a higher probability of being affected by an event because smaller events will reach locations nearer the volcano. Correspondingly, K 12 facilities that are further from a volcano have lower probabilities of being affected by an event. K-12 facilities in close proximity to volcanoes may have significantly higher levels of volcanic hazard (shorter return periods) than those shown above in Table 9.4. These schools include those in Concrete (Mt. Baker and Glacier Peak), Darrington (Glacier Peak), and the many K 12 facilities near Mt. Rainier. Page 160

167 The following table provides a qualitative ranking of the level of volcanic hazards, based on the estimated return periods. Table 9.5 Volcanic Hazard Levels Return Period (Years) Volcanic Hazard Level 500 or less Very High 501 to 1,000 High 1,001 to 5,000 Moderate 5,001 to 10,000 Low 10,001 to 30,000 Very low more than 30,000 Extremely Low Page 161

168 Table 9.6 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Very High Hazard) Facility Name District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Case 2 Lahar Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone Governing Volcanic Event Alpac Elementary School Auburn Pacific Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Aylen Junior High School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Columbia Junior High School Fife Tacoma Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Daffodil Valley Elementary School Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High E B Walker High School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Eismann Elementary School Sumner Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Fife High School Fife Tacoma Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Kalles Junior High School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Karshner Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Learning Opportunity Center Fife Tacoma Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Maple Lawn Elementary School Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Maplewood Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High McAlder Elementary School Sumner <Null> Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Meeker Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Orting Administration Office Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Orting High School Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Orting Middle School Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Orting Primary School Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Orting Special Education Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Phoenix Program Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High PSD Special Services Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Ptarmigan Ridge Intermediate School Orting Orting Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Puyallup High School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Puyallup High School (Annex) Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Quest Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Riverside Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Robert Miller Gymnasium Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Shaw Road Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Spinning Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Stewart Elementary School Puyallup Puyallup Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Sumner High School Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Sumner Middle School Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Sumner Special Services Sumner Sumner Case 1 Case 2 Case M Case % Very High Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 162

169 Table 9.7 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (High Hazard) Facility Name District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Case 2 Lahar Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone Governing Volcanic Event Auburn Riverside High School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High Carbonado Historical School 19 Carbonado Carbonado Case 1 Case M Case % High Columbia Crest Elementary School Eatonville Ashford Case 1 Case M Case % High Gildo Rey Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High Ilalko Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High Mt Baker Middle School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High Olympic Middle School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High Pioneer Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case 1 Case M Case % High White Pass Elementary School White Pass Randle Case 1 Case M Case % High Wilkeson Elementary School White River Wilkeson Case 1 Case M Case % High Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 163

170 Table 9.8 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Moderate Hazard) Facility Name District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Case 2 Lahar Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone Governing Volcanic Event Volcanic Hazard Level Apolo High School Winlock Winlock Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Auburn Senior High School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Barnes Elementary School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Bonney Lake High School Sumner Bonney Lake Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Butler Acres Elementary School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Byron Kibler Elementary School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Cascade Middle School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Chinook Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Collins Alternative Programs White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Concord International School Seattle Seattle Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Coweeman Middle School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Dick Scobee Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Elk Ridge Elementary School White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Enumclaw Office Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Enumclaw Middle School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Enumclaw Senior High School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Foothills Elementary School White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Fort Stevens Elementary School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Glacier Middle School White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Huntington Middle School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kelso KSD Administration Building Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kelso High School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kelso Virtual Academy Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kent Elementary School Kent Kent Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kent Elementary School - Old Kent Kent Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Kent Junior High School Kent Kent Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Lakeland Hills Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Liberty Ridge Elementary School Sumner Sumner Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Loowit High School Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate McKenna Elementary School Yelm McKenna Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Mill Creek Middle School Kent Kent Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Mill Pond Elementary School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Mountain Meadow Elementary School White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Page 164

171 Table 9.9 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Moderate Hazard) Facility Name District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Case 2 Lahar Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone Governing Volcanic Event Mountain View Middle School Sumner Bonney Lake Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Neely O'Brien Elementary School Kent Kent Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Out Of District Facility Renton Renton Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Ridgeline Middle School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Showalter Middle School Tukwila Seattle Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Southwood Elementary School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Southworth Elementary School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Special Education Kelso Kelso Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Special Education School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Special Education School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Sunrise Elementary School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Terminal Park Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Thunder Mountain Middle School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Toledo Alternative Options Toledo Toledo Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Toledo Elementary School Toledo Toledo Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Toledo High School Toledo Toledo Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Toledo Middle School Toledo Toledo Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Tukwila Elementary School Tukwila Tukwila Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Victor Falls Elementary School Sumner Bonney Lake Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Washington Elementary School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate West Auburn Senior High School Auburn Auburn Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Westwood Elementary School Enumclaw Enumclaw Case M Case M 5, % Moderate White Pass Junior Senior High School White Pass Randle Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate White River High School White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate White River Special Education Services White River Buckley Case M LBZ Case M 5, % Moderate Winlock Middle School Winlock Winlock Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Winlock Senior High School Winlock Winlock Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Yelm Extension School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Yelm High School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Yelm Middle School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Yelm Prairie Elementary School Yelm Yelm Case M Case M 5, % Moderate District Offices Toledo Toledo Case M Case M 5, % Moderate Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 165

172 Table 9.10 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Rainer (Very Low Hazard) Facility Name District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Case 2 Lahar Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone Governing Volcanic Event Eatonville Developmental Preschool Eatonville Eatonville 24 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Eatonville Elementary School Eatonville Eatonville 24 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Eatonville High School Eatonville Eatonville 24 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Eatonville Middle School Eatonville Eatonville 24 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Emerald Ridge High School Puyallup Puyallup 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Frontier Junior High School Bethel Graham 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Glacier View Junior High School Puyallup Puyallup 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Kapowsin Elementary School Bethel Graham 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Nelson Elementary School Bethel Graham 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Weyerhaeuser Elementary School Eatonville Eatonville 28 N/A LBZ LBZ 20, % Very Low Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 166

173 Table 9.11 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Baker or Glacier Peak Facility Name District City Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Glacier Mount Baker Peak Central Elementary School Ferndale Ferndale Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High Educational Resource Center Mount Baker Deming Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High Mount Baker Senior High School Mount Baker Deming Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High Nooksack Valley Connections Nooksack Valley Everson Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High Nooksack Valley Middle School Nooksack Valley Everson Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High North Bellingham Elementary Ferndale Ferndale Case 1 Case M Case 1 1, % High Alternative Education at Nooksack VallNooksack Valley Everson Case M Case M 14, % Very Low Nooksack Elementary School Nooksack Valley Everson Case M Case M 14, % Very Low Nooksack Valley High School Nooksack Valley Everson Case M Case M 14, % Very Low Nooksack Valley Special Services Nooksack Valley Everson Case M Case M 14, % Very Low Sumas Elementary School Nooksack Valley Sumas Case M Case M 14, % Very Low Darrington Elementary School Darrington Darrington GP Lahar 1 GP Lahar 1 1, % High Darrington Middle School Darrington Darrington GP Lahar 1 GP Lahar 1 1, % High Darrington Senior High School Darrington Darrington GP Lahar 1 GP Lahar 1 1, % High Madison Elementary School Mount Vernon Mount Vernon GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Saratoga School Stanwood-Camano Stanwood GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Stanwood Elementary School Stanwood-Camano Stanwood GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Stanwood Middle School Stanwood-Camano Stanwood GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate 1 Lahars affecting areas near the volcano, such as Darrington. 2 Lahars affecting areas further from the volcano, near Puget Sound. Distance to Mount Baker (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Distance to Glacier Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone GP Lahar Governing Volcanic Event Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 167

174 Table 9.12 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Facility Name District City Case 1 Lahar Volcanic Hazard Zones Glacier Mount Baker Peak Allen Elementary School Burlington-Edison Bow Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Burlington-Edison Alternative School Burlington-Edison Burlington Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Burlington-Edison High School Burlington-Edison Burlington Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Central Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Sedro-Woolley Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Clear Lake Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Clear Lake Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Concrete Elementary School Concrete Concrete Case M LBZ GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Concrete High School Concrete Concrete Case M LBZ GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Conway School Conway Mount Vernon Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Edison Elementary School Burlington-Edison Edison Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Jefferson Elementary School Mount Vernon Mount Vernon Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate La Conner Elementary School La Conner La Conner Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate La Conner High School La Conner La Conner Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate La Conner Middle School La Conner La Conner Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Lucille Umbarger Elementary School Burlington-Edison Burlington Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Lyman Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Lyman Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Mary Purcell Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Sedro-Woolley Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Mount Vernon Special Ed Mount Vernon Mount Vernon Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Northwest Career & Technical Academy - Mount Vernon Campus La Conner La Conner Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Sedro Woolley Senior High School Sedro-Woolley Sedro-Woolley Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Skagit Family Learning Center MVSD Mount Vernon Mount Vernon Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Skagit River School House Concrete Concrete Case M LBZ GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Special Services School Concrete Concrete Case M LBZ GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate State Street High School Sedro-Woolley Sedro-Woolley Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Twin Cedars High School Concrete Concrete Case M LBZ GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate Washington Elementary School Mount Vernon Mount Vernon Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate West View Elementary School Burlington-Edison Burlington Case M GP Lahar 2 GP Lahar 2 5, % Moderate 1 Lahars affecting areas near the volcano, such as Darrington. 2 Lahars affecting areas further from the volcano, near Puget Sound. Distance to Mount Baker (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Distance to Glacier Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Case M Lahar Lateral Blast Zone GP Lahar Governing Volcanic Event Return Period (Years) Probability in 50 Years Volcanic Hazard Level Page 168

175 Facility Name Table 9.13 K 12 Facilities within USGS Mapped Volcanic Hazard Zones: Mount Adams District City Distance to Peak (Miles) Approximate Lahar Travel Time (Minutes) Zone LB Lava Pyroclastic Tephra Volcanic Hazard Zones Zone LC Lava Pyroclastic Tephra Zone DL Lahar Governing Volcanic Event Klickitat Elementary & High School Klickitat Klickitat Zone DL Zone DL 30, % Very Low Glenwood Elementary School Glenwood Glenwood 16 N/A Zone LB Zone LB 100, % Extremely Low Glenwood Secondary Glenwood Glenwood 16 N/A Zone LB Zone LB 100, % Extremely Low Trout Lake Elementary School Trout Lake Trout Lake 11 N/A Zone LB Zone LB 100, % Extremely Low Trout Lake School Trout Lake Trout Lake 12 N/A Zone LB Zone LB 100, % Extremely Low Canyon Creek Middle School Washougal Washougal 20 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Cape Horn Skye Elementary School Washougal Washougal 20 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Carson Elementary School Stevenson-Carson Carson 14 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Columbia High School White Salmon Valley White Salmon 20 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Columbia Technical High School White Salmon Valley White Salmon 20 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Hulan L. Whitson Elementary School White Salmon Valley White Salmon 21 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Kaplan Academy of Washington Stevenson-Carson Stevenson 15 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Mill A Elementary School Mill A Cook 15 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Mount Pleasant Elementary School Mount Pleasant Washougal 23 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Skamania Elementary School Skamania Skamania 18 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Stevenson Elementary School Stevenson-Carson Stevenson 16 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Stevenson High School Stevenson-Carson Stevenson 15 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Wayne M. Henkle Middle School White Salmon Valley White Salmon 21 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low White Salmon Academy White Salmon Valley White Salmon 20 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Wind River Middle School Stevenson-Carson Carson 14 N/A Zone LC Zone LC 1,000, % Extremely Low Return Period (Years) Probability Volcanic Hazard in 50 Years Level Page 169

176 Notes for Table 9.6: The volcanic hazard levels shown in Table 9.6 are preliminary estimates, based only on the estimated return period for lahars, lava flows, pyroclastic flows or lateral blasts reaching a given campus. The return periods corresponding to various volcanic hazard levels were shown previously in Table 9.5. More accurate estimates require additional campus-specific information that is beyond the scope of this statewide assessment This includes the distance and travel time to safe havens outside of lahar zones and whether there is a lahar warning system. The estimated lahar travel time to campus is a preliminary estimate only and is based on the straight-line distance from the volcanic peak to the campus with an assumed average lahar velocity of 25 miles per hour. More accurate measurements require determination of the actual travel distance along the flow path and more accurate velocity estimates. Estimated velocities will vary with slope and channel geometry along the lahar path. There are two important caveats on these preliminary travel times: o The travel times are deliberately conservative actual travel times may be longer because flow path distances are longer than straight line distances and because the flow velocities diminish when lahars reach lower slope areas. o However, warning times may be much shorter than travel times. With a warning system, the estimate time between initiation of a lahar and the issuance of a warning is about 30 minutes. Absent a warning system or other notification that a lahar has been initiated, the only warning of an approaching lahar would be a loud rumbling accompanied by a roaring sound similar to that from a jet or locomotive. The time interval between hearing the approaching lahar and lahar arrival may be only five or ten minutes (or even less). The estimated return periods are based on USGS estimates where such estimates have been made and on professional judgment where such estimates are not available. In cases where the USGS estimate is a range, rather than a single value, the quoted values are the midpoint of the range. The K 12 facilities in Table 9.6 are those within the USGS mapped volcanic hazard zones. There may also be other K 12 facilities with lahar risk, especially facilities near the mapped volcanic hazard zones. For example, larger lahars than anticipated may occur and/or temporary debris dams may raise lahar levels upstream and inundate wider areas downstream when they are breached. 9.5 Mitigation of Volcanic Hazards Volcano Monitoring and Volcano Activity Alerts The USGS monitors volcanic activity in the Cascades via networks of seismic sensors (which can detect earthquakes related to magma movements) as well as very accurate ground surface measurements. The USGS also has a volcanic warning and notification system with several levels of alert when a potential eruption becomes more likely and more imminent. Page 170

177 Figure 9.9 Volcanic Alert Levels for People on the Ground 12 Alert Term NORMAL ADVISORY WATCH WARNING Description Volcano is in typical background, noneruptive state or, after a change from a higher level, volcanic activity has ceased and volcano has returned to noneruptive background state. Volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest above known background level or, after a change from a higher level, volcanic activity has decreased significantly but continues to be closely monitored for possible renewed increase. Volcano is exhibited heightened or escalating unrest with increased potential of eruption, timeframe uncertain, or eruption is underway but poses limited hazards. Hazardous eruption is imminent, underway or suspected. There is an important caveat on volcanic alerts. Although volcanoes typically show signs of increasing activity such as magma moving upward to shallow levels before an eruption occurs, this is not always the case. A volcano must be adequately monitored for signs of increasing activity to be detected. Furthermore, a volcanic eruption may occur without immediate warning if a volcano suffers an extremely large landslide that suddenly releases the pressure confining the magma. Such a scenario can result in an immediate eruption, as was demonstrated by the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Most seismic monitoring systems deployed at Cascade volcanoes can, under some circumstances, detect the movement of large lahars; but there are no warning systems in place to alert downstream communities of approaching lahars except in the case of Mount Rainier. A USGS-designed lahar warning system in the Carbon River and Puyallup River valleys, on the west side of Mount Rainier, is operated by Pierce County. A warning system was developed at Mount Rainier because it poses the highest level of lahar risk based on the combination of frequency of past lahars, the large mass of weak rock making up the upper west flank of the volcano and the very large population within the mapped lahar hazard zones downstream. The operation of the Mount Rainier lahar warning system is described in the following quotation from the USGS website: 13 An automated system detects lahar flows by using a network of small sensors called acoustic flow monitors (AFMs) embedded underground to measure ground vibrations made by passing lahars. Computer base stations located in the Washington State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) continuously analyze signals from the field stations. Upon detection of a lahar, the computer alerts local 24 hour emergency monitoring and notification centers, who initiate the warning component of the system. Warning messages would trigger immediate, preplanned emergency-response actions. Know how to respond to a lahar warning. Page 171

178 Residents, employees, and visitors in lahar hazard areas will be notified of an approaching lahar through multiple channels of communication. Many schools and other public and commercial facilities will receive notice directly from the EOC, television and radio stations, as well as NOAA Weather Radio, will broadcast warnings on the Emergency Alert System. A system of All Hazard Alert Broadcast (AHAB) sirens in cities and towns from Orting to the Port of Tacoma will provide evacuation alerts regarding the lahar and protective measures. Check with local officials to find out what is available in your community, school, or workplace. Once people in the Puyallup and Carbon River valleys receive a lahar warning, they need to respond effectively. Pierce County and the State of Washington agencies have developed an evacuation plan with marked evacuation routes to aid residents and visitors. Parts of some communities rely on evacuation by foot to high ground, especially in areas where highways may become clogged with traffic. In at-risk areas too remote to receive notification by one of the above methods, it is necessary to be aware of the natural warning signs of an approaching lahar ground rumbling accompanied by a roaring sound similar to a jet or locomotive. Moving to high ground immediately is the recommended course of action. Volcanic Hazard Mitigation Measures There are no physical measures that are practical from either an engineering perspective or an economic perspective to prevent lahars, lateral blasts, or ash falls from affecting a campus. The following mitigation measures are suggested for districts with facilities in or near mapped lahar and lateral blast zones: Ensure Awareness. Ensure that staff and students are aware of the lahar hazards. Emergency Planning. Develop and practice an effective emergency evacuation plan with designated evacuation methods, evacuation routes, and pre-determined safe haven gathering locations. Develop Criteria. Develop contingency plans and decision-making criteria for district actions if a volcano is showing signs of increased activities. For campuses within mapped volcanic hazard zones, it is essential to define criteria for which the risk is deemed high enough to warrant proactive evacuation of a campus before volcanic activity occurs. Location Avoidance. Whenever possible, avoid building new facilities in or near mapped lahar zones. The following mitigation measures are suggested for districts located within the higher probability ash fall areas as shown previously in Figure 9.9: Ensure Awareness. Ensure that staff and students are aware of ash fall hazards, especially when a volcano is Page 172

179 showing signs of increased activity. Emergency Planning. Develop procedures for ash fall events including evacuation criteria, protocols, and procedures for dealing with ash falls affecting district facilities. Page 173

180 Chapter Ten: Floods 10.1 Introduction Washington State is subject to flooding from several different flood sources: Overbank flooding from rivers and streams. Coastal storm surge flooding. Local stormwater drainage flooding. Channel migration. Sheet flow flooding. Flooding from failures of dams, reservoirs or levees. Other flood source - subsidence, tsunamis and seiches. Overbank flooding from rivers and streams occur throughout Washington most commonly from winter storms with heavy rainfall during November to February. Flood events with significant contributions from snowmelt may also occur during the spring snowmelt season for watersheds with high enough elevations to have significant snowfalls. Although it is less common, overbank flooding can also occur at any time of the year. The severity of overbank flooding depends primarily on flood depth. However, other factors such as flood duration, flow velocity, debris loads, and contamination with hazardous materials also significantly impact the severity of any given flood event. Overbank flooding can be very severe and affect broad geographic areas. Figure 10.1 Chehalis River Flood in Centralia, Washington December Page 174

181 Coastal storm surge flooding affects low elevation areas along the coasts of the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is most common from winter storm events which generally occur from November through February. Coastal flooding results from the combination of storm-driven surges and daily tides. Maximum flooding occurs when the peaks of stormdriven surges coincide with high tides. The severity of coastal flooding depends not only on flood depths but also on wave effects and debris impacts. Wave pounding exerts substantial forces on structures, and extended ponding by frequent waves may destroy structures not designed to withstand wave forces. Wave action may also destroy structures by erosion (scour) that undermines foundations. Debris impacts may greatly increase damages for a given flood depth. Figure 10.2 illustrates storm surge effects. Figure 10.2 Storm Surge Effects Coastal flood events are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future because of global warming and sea level rise. A consensus of climate scientists currently estimate 2 that the sea level may gradually rise by about 1.4 to 2.0 meters (4.6 to 6.2 feet) over the next hundred years. Sea level rise is also expected to exacerbate beach erosion that may further increase flooding potential in coastal areas. Storm water drainage flooding, sometimes referred to as urban flooding, occurs when inflow of storm water exceeds the conveyance capacity of a local storm water drainage system. The drainage system overflows, resulting in water ponding in low lying areas. This type of flooding is generally localized with flood depths that may range from a few inches to several feet. Channel migration flooding occurs when ongoing erosion/deposition on the banks of a river result in the channel of a river or stream migrating (moving) to an extent that structures are affected by floods. Rivers or streams with low gradients (flat topography) and meandering patterns are prone to channel migration. Sheet flow flooding occurs when stream flows are not confined to a channel but occur over a broad area. Sheet flows are common in areas within alluvial fans, which are sloping accumulations of sediments eroded from mountains or hills. Failures of dams, reservoirs for potable water systems or levees, result in flooding areas downstream of dams and reservoirs or behind levees. Failures of major dams, operated and Page 175

182 regulated by state or federal agencies, are possible but unlikely because these dams are generally well-designed and well-maintained. However, failures of smaller dams maintained by local governments, special districts, or private owners are more common. Failures of reservoirs for potable water systems occur, especially from earthquakes. These reservoirs typically have much smaller storage volumes than dams, so flooding from failures is generally localized, but may be severe where flows are confined in narrow channels which contain structures or infrastructure. Similar flooding may occur from failures of large diameter water pipes. Levee failures before overtopping may occur at any time, not only during high water events but also under normal non-flood conditions. There are numerous causes for such failures including scour, foundation failures, under-seepage, through-seepage, and animal burrows etc. Failures of major levees, such as those along the Columbia River, are possible because most major levees are well-designed and well-maintained. However, some levees on the Upper Columbia River and major tributaries have been identified as having significant vulnerabilities. Failures of smaller levees maintained by local governments, drainage districts, irrigation districts or private owners are more common. Flooding from other sources may also occur including subsidence, tsunamis and seiches. Major earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone are expected to result in coastal subsidence of several feet. This subsidence will result in flooding of low elevation areas. Further details about earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone are provided in Chapter Seven Earthquakes. Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes will also generate tsunamis that will cause widespread inundation and heavy damage for low-elevation areas along coastal areas on the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound. Tsunamis within Puget Sound may also be generated by earthquakes on the Seattle Fault Zone or the Tacoma Fault Zone. Earthquakes may also generate seiches in inland bodies of water. Seiches, which are waves from sloshing of water in lakes or rivers, may result in inundation and significant damages to harbor and dock facilities as well as buildings at low elevations near the shoreline. Further details about tsunamis and seiches are provided in Chapter Eight Tsunamis Washington State Floods Overview Historically, flooding has occurred in Washington State throughout recorded history. The most severe, widespread flood events occurred: May/June 1948 with widespread flooding in Eastern Washington and along the Columbia River from spring snowmelt. November 1990 with widespread flooding on Western Washington rivers as well as several Eastern Washington rivers. This event was the flood of record, the greatest recorded flood, on many rivers in Northwest Washington. February 1996 with major flooding on many rivers in Western and Southeastern Washington. This event was the flood of record on many rivers in Southwest Washington. Page 176

183 January 2012 with major flooding in Western Washington. This event was the flood of record on some rivers. Every county in Washington is subject to flood risk and has experienced major flood events. However, Western Washington has experienced more major flood events than Eastern Washington. Presidential Disaster Declarations provide a good indicator of the frequency of major flooding in Washington. Since 1956, there have been 36 Presidential Disaster Declarations for flooding. 3 Figure 10.2 Frequency of Presidential Disaster Declarations for Flooding 3 The counties in Western Washington shown in red or orange above have had the most frequent major flood events with average return periods of five years or less. The frequency of major flooding is correlated with precipitation levels. Figure 10.3 shows 100-year, 24-hour precipitation data. The high precipitation areas shown in blue and green on Figure 10.3 include all of the counties with a history of frequent major flood events. Page 177

184 Figure Year, 24-Hour Precipitation 4 The previous maps give a general idea of the likelihood of flooding from county to county. However, within any given county the level of flood risk varies dramatically with location: Many locations in the counties with the highest rainfall and most historical flood events have low or negligible flood risk. Some locations in the counties with the lowest precipitation and the fewest historical flood events have very high flood risk. For a facility at any given location, flood risk depends on the location relative to flood sources, the facility elevation relative to potential flood elevations, the facility value and importance, and its vulnerability to flood damages. FEMA s floodplain mapping, discussed in the following section, provides a good starting point for flood risk assessments. Facilities within FEMA mapped floodplains have at least some level of flood risk. However, determining the level of risk quantitatively requires additional flood hazard data, including the elevation of facilities relative to the elevation of a range of flood events. It is also important to recognize that some facilities not within FEMA-mapped floodplains also have high levels of flood risk. Page 178

185 10.3 FEMA-Mapped Floodplains FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) delineate the regulatory (100-year) floodplain areas in Washington. Per FEMA regulations, there are limitations on new development within the 100-year floodplain. Figure 10.4 on the following page shows the FEMA-mapped floodplains in Washington. Most FEMA-mapped floodplains are small, narrow areas that are difficult or impossible to show on statewide or regional maps. High resolution floodplain maps, known as Firmettes, can be created to show floodplains for individual schools. An example for the A. J. West Elementary School in Aberdeen is shown in Figure FEMA floodplain maps represent the best available data at the time the maps were prepared. FEMA has an ongoing map modernization/update process, but many existing FIRM maps are old (some more than 30 years old). Over time watersheds evolve; therefore, floodplain boundaries and the quantitative flood hazard data discussed in the following section may change over time. In many cases, flood risk in a given location increases with time because increasing development within the watershed increases runoff. Also, development and fill within floodplains, or sedimentation in a river channel, may increase flood elevations. In some cases, flood elevations for a 100-year flood using current data may be up to several feet higher than outdated floodplain maps indicate. Flood risk at a given location may also decrease over time if flood control structures, such as levees or upstream dams for flood control, are constructed or improved. Old floodplain maps are not necessarily incorrect. However, older maps should be interpreted carefully because the older a map is the more likely it is to be significantly incorrect. Recent and future FEMA floodplain maps are available in digital GIS-format and are known as DFIRMs. Older maps, which were originally prepared in paper format only, have been digitized but contain less detailed information than DFIRMs. These maps are known as Q3 maps. For any given location, the most recent FEMA maps should be used for flood risk assessments. Page 179

186 Figure 10.4 FEMA-Mapped Floodplains in Washington State Page 180

187 Figure 10.5 FEMA Firmette for A.J. West Elementary School in Aberdeen A. J. West Elementary School Page 181

188 FEMA floodplain regulations apply within the mapped 100-year floodplain boundary. Thus, the FEMA floodplain maps always delineate the 100-year floodplain boundary. The 100-year flood is defined probabilistically. A 100-year flood does not occur exactly every 100 years. Rather, the 100-year flood is the flood with a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. A one percent annual chance of flooding corresponds to about a 26 percent chance of flooding in a 30-year time period. A given location may have two or more 100-year (or greater) flood events within a few years, have none in several decades, or none in periods longer than 100 years. FEMA floodplain maps identify several types of flood zones, with varying levels of flood hazard. The FEMA flood zone designations have evolved over time, with older maps using different nomenclature than recent maps. FEMA flood zone designations are summarized below. Table 10.1 High Risk Areas ZONE A AE, A1 A30 AH AO AR A99 DESCRIPTION Areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding and a 26 percent chance of flooding over 30 years. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas, no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE Zones are used on recent FIRMs instead of A1 A30 Zones. Areas with a one percent annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from one to three feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over 30 years. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. River or stream flood hazard areas and areas with a one percent or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from one to three feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over 30 years. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. Areas with a temporarily increased flood risk due to the building or restoration of a flood control system (such as a levee or a dam). Areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. No depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. Page 182

189 Table 10.2 High Risk Coastal Areas ZONE V VE, V1 V30 DESCRIPTION Coastal areas with a one percent or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over 30 years. No base flood elevations are shown with these zones. Coastal areas with a one percent or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over 30 years. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analysis are shown at selected intervals within these zones. VE Zones are used in recent FIRMs, instead of V1 V30 Zones. Table 10.3 Moderate to Low Risk Areas ZONE B and X (shaded) C and X (unshaded) DESCRIPTION Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. B Zones are also used to designate base floodplains of lesser hazards such as areas protected by levees from 100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than one square mile. Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year flood level. Zone C may have ponding and local drainage problems that don't warrant a detailed study or designation as base floodplain. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500-year flood and protected by levee from 100-year flood. Table 10.4 Undetermined Risk Areas ZONE D DESCRIPTION Areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No flood hazard analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps are always accompanied by Flood Insurance Studies. Flood Insurance Studies contain summaries of historical floods, details of the flood mapping and quantitative flood hazard data which is essential for quantitative flood risk assessments. Page 183

190 FEMA Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps include a large number of terms of art and acronyms. A good summary of the terms used in flood hazard mapping is available from FEMA Campuses within FEMA-Mapped Floodplains The OSPI listing of K 12 facilities in Washington includes 2,427 active campuses as of late Of these, 169 campuses identified as being located within FEMA-mapped floodplains are listed in Table 10.5 on the following pages. There are several caveats regarding interpretation of the list of campuses located within FEMAmapped floodplains: The identification of campuses as being located within FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplains is based on the latitude-longitude data in the OSPI database. Small errors in latitude-longitude may result in misidentification of a campus as being in or out of mapped floodplains. Some campuses may be partially within and partially outside of mapped floodplains. A single latitude-longitude point for each campus is not adequate to determine such cases. Final determination of the relationship of each campus to mapped floodplains and determining the specific FEMA flood zone that applies to a given campus requires campus-by-campus evaluations including review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map or FEMA Firmette for each campus, including those near, but not identified as within mapped floodplains. Floods significantly larger than the 100-year flood do occur. A determination that a campus is not within a FEMA-mapped floodplain does not necessarily mean that a campus has no flood risk. Campuses outside of mapped floodplains may have significant risk, even high risk in the following circumstances: o The river or stream near a campus has not been mapped by FEMA. o The FEMA floodplain mapping is old, and the stream and/or watershed conditions have significantly changed over time. o Flood risk from local stormwater drainage problems rather than overbank or coastal flooding. FEMA floodplain maps do not consider local stormwater drainage problems. o A campus is downstream of dams or reservoirs or located behind levees. o Debris dams or beaver dams may result in ponding and flooding upstream and/or downstream flooding if such dams fail suddenly. It is important to include evaluation of non-fema mapped flood sources for campuses with any of the characteristics in the preceding bullet or with a history of flood events, during the development of a district hazard mitigation plan. Page 184

191 Table 10.5 Campuses within FEMA Mapped Flood Plains FACILITY INFORMATION FLOOD HAZARDS Facility Name District Address City GIS Map Source FEMA Flood Zone Campus Elevation At Grade Feet a A.J. West Elementary School Aberdeen 1801 Bay Ave. Aberdeen Q3 A 9.84 Harbor High School Aberdeen 300 N. Williams Aberdeen Q3 A Hopkins Preschool Center Aberdeen 1313 Pacific Aberdeen Q3 A Miller Junior High School Aberdeen 100 E Lindstrom Aberdeen Q3 A Stevens Elementary School Aberdeen 301 S. Farragut Aberdeen Q3 A Alexander Young Elementary Aberdeen 1700 Cherry St Aberdeen Q3 A Asotin Elementary School Asotin-Anatone 314 1st St Asotin Q3 X Asotin Junior Senior High School Asotin-Anatone 215 Second Street Asotin Q3 X Brinnon Elementary School Brinnon 46 Schoolhouse Rd Brinnon Q3 A Allen Elementary School Burlington-Edison Cook Road Bow Q3 X Burlington-Edison Alternative School Burlington-Edison 301 N Burlington Blvd Burlington Q3 A Burlington-Edison High School Burlington-Edison 301 N Burlington Blvd Burlington Q3 A Edison Elementary School Burlington-Edison 5801 Main St Edison Q3 A 1.97 Lucille Umbarger Elementary School Burlington-Edison 820 S Skagit St Burlington Q3 A West View Elementary School Burlington-Edison 515 W Victoria Ave Burlington Q3 A Vale Elementary School Cashmere 101 Pioneer Avenue Cashmere DFIRM X Castle Rock Elementary School Castle Rock 700 Huntington Ave S Castle Rock Q3 X Castle Rock High School Castle Rock 5180 Westside Hwy Castle Rock Q3 X Castle Rock Middle School Castle Rock 615 Front Ave SW Castle Rock Q3 X Productive Learning Online Castle Rock 600 Huntington Ave. S Castle Rock Q3 X Centralia High School Centralia 813 Eshom Road Centralia Q3 X Oakview Elementary School Centralia 201 Oakview Avenue Centralia Q3 A Green Hill Academic School Chehalis 375 SW 11th Street Chehalis Q3 A Chewelah Alternative Chewelah N. 210 Park Chewelah Q3 AE Home Link Alternative Chewelah N. 210 Park Chewelah Q3 AE Cedar Program Coupeville 1276 Engle Rd Coupeville DFIRM AE 6.89 Dayton High School Dayton 614 S Third Street Dayton Q3 X Trentwood Elementary School East Valley (Spokane) E Wellesley Ave Spokane Valley DFIRM X Cascade Elementary School Eastmont 2330 N. Baker Ave. East Wenatchee Q3 X Clovis Point Intermediate School Eastmont th St SE East Wenatchee Q3 X Eastmont Columbia Virtual Academy Eastmont 345 6th St NE East Wenatchee Q3 X Eastmont Junior High School Eastmont 905 NE 8th Street East Wenatchee Q3 X Eastmont Senior High School Eastmont 955 3rd Street NE East Wenatchee Q3 X Grant Elementary School Eastmont 1430 SE 1st Street East Wenatchee Q3 X Kenroy Elementary School Eastmont 601 N. Jonathan Ave. East Wenatchee Q3 X Robert E Lee Elementary School Eastmont 1455 N. Baker Ave. East Wenatchee Q3 X Rock Island Elementary School Eastmont 5645 Rock Island Road Rock Island Q3 X Sterling Intermediate School Eastmont 600 N. James Ave. East Wenatchee Q3 X Ellensburg Developmental Preschool Ellensburg 400 E University Way Ellensburg Q3 X Excel High School Ellensburg 400 East University Way Ellensburg Q3 X Morgan Middle School Ellensburg 400 E First Ellensburg Q3 X Washington Elementary School Ellensburg E 6th Ave & N Sprague St Ellensburg Q3 X Elma Elementary School Elma 1235 Monte-Elma Rd Elma Q3 X Enumclaw Middle School Enumclaw 550 Semanski Street Enumclaw Q3 A Thunder Mountain Middle School Enumclaw th Avenue SE Enumclaw Q3 A Beezley Springs Elementary School Ephrata 501 C St NW Ephrata DFIRM AO Ephrata High School Ephrata 333 4th Ave NW Ephrata DFIRM AO Grant Elementary School Ephrata 451 3rd NW Ephrata DFIRM AO Parkway School Ephrata 1011 Parkway Blvd Ephrata DFIRM AO Central Elementary School Ferndale 5610 Second Avenue Ferndale DFIRM AE North Bellingham Elementary Ferndale 6175 Church Road Ferndale DFIRM AE 9.84 Central Elementary School Hoquiam 310 Simpson Avenue Hoquiam Q3 A Emerson Elementary School Hoquiam 101 W Emerson Hoquiam Q3 A Hoquiam Homelink School Hoquiam 2500 Simpson Ave Hoquiam Q3 A 9.84 Lincoln Elementary School Hoquiam 700 Wood Hoquiam Q3 A Washington Elementary School Hoquiam 3003 Cherry St Hoquiam Q3 A Transportation Maintenance Center Hoquiam 30th Street & Bay Ave. Hoquiam Q3 A 9.84 Page 185

192 Table 10.5 Continued Campuses within FEMA Mapped Floodplains FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City GIS Map Source FLOOD HAZARDS FEMA Flood Zone Campus Elevation At Grade Feet a Barnes Elementary School Kelso 401 Barnes Kelso Q3 X Catlin Elementary School Kelso 404 Long Ave. Kelso Q3 X Coweeman Middle School Kelso 2000 Allen St Kelso Q3 X Huntington Middle School Kelso 500 Redpath Kelso Q3 X Kelso High School Kelso 1904 Allen St Kelso Q3 X Wallace Elementary School Kelso 410 Elm St Kelso Q3 X Mill Creek Middle School Kent 620 Central Ave N Kent Q3 X Kent Junior High School Kent 620 Central Ave N Kent Q3 X Kittitas B-5 Special Education Program Kittitas Po Box 599 Kittitas Q3 A La Center Elementary School La Center 700 East 4th Street La Center Q3 A Northwest Career & Technical Academy - Mount Vernon Campus La Conner 305 N. 6th Street La Conner Q3 A 1.64 La Conner Elementary School La Conner 305 North Sixth St La Conner Q3 A 5.25 La Conner High School La Conner 307 N. 6th. St. La Conner Q3 A 5.58 La Conner Middle School La Conner 512 N. 6th St. La Conner Q3 A 4.27 Ready Start Preschool Lake Washington NE 95th St Redmond Q3 A Broadway Learning Center Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X Columbia Valley Garden Elem School Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X Kessler Elementary School Longview 1902 E Kessler Blvd. Longview Q3 X Longview School District. Special Services Longview rd Avenue Longview Q3 X Mark Morris High School Longview 1602 Mark Morris Court Longview Q3 X Mint Valley Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X Monticello Middle School Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X Northlake Elementary School Longview 2210 Olympia Way Longview Q3 X Olympic Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X R. A. Long High School Longview 2903 Nichols Blvd. Longview Q3 X Robert Gray Elementary School Longview 4622 Ohio Street Longview Q3 X Saint Helens Elementary School Longview th Avenue Longview Q3 X Harding School Longview 28th Ave & Harding St Longview Q3 X Longview LSD Administration Longview rd Ave Longview Q3 X Structured Learning Center Longview 3602 Memorial Park Dr Longview Q3 X Decatur Elementary School Lopez Island Decatur Island Anacortes Q3 A 2.30 Fisher Elementary School Lynden 501 N 14th St Lynden DFIRM AE Fryelands Elementary School Monroe Fryelands Blvd. Monroe DFIRM X Salem Woods Elementary School Monroe Wagner Rd. Monroe Q3 X Sky Valley Education Center Monroe Tye St. SE, Bldg. B Monroe DFIRM X Acme Elementary School Mount Baker 5200 Turkington Rd Acme DFIRM X Jefferson Elementary School Mount Vernon 1801 E Blackburn Rd Mount Vernon Q3 A Mount Vernon Special Ed Mount Vernon 920 S 2nd St Mount Vernon Q3 A Skagit Family Learning Center MVSD Mount Vernon 2001 Cleveland Ave Mount Vernon Q3 A Washington Elementary School Mount Vernon 1020 Mclean Rd Mount Vernon Q3 A Nooksack Valley Middle School Nooksack Valley 404 W. Columbia St. Everson DFIRM AE Nooksack Valley Connections Nooksack Valley 404 W Columbia Everson DFIRM X Sumas Elementary School Nooksack Valley 1024 Lawson Street Sumas DFIRM AE North Mason Senior High School North Mason 200 E. Campus Dr. Belfair Q3 A Kenmore Elementary School Northshore Av NE Kenmore Q3 A Long Beach Elementary School Ocean Beach 400 WA Ave S Long Beach Q3 X Ocean Beach Early Childhood Center Ocean Beach 305 Fifth Street SE Long Beach Q3 X Okanogan Alternative High School Okanogan 126 S Main Street Okanogan Q3 X E Omak Elementary School Omak 715 Omak Ave Omak Q3 X Omak Alternative High School Omak 600 W 6th Ave Omak Q3 X Omak High School Omak 20 South Cedar Omak Q3 X Oroville Elementary School Oroville 808 Main Oroville Q3 X Orting High School Orting 320 WA Avenue North Orting Q3 X Palisades Elementary School Palisades 1114 Palisades Rd Palisades Q3 A Pioneer Intermediate Middle School Pioneer 611 E Agate Rd. Shelton Q3 A Pomeroy Elementary School Pomeroy 10th and Columbia Pomeroy Q3 AE Page 186

193 Table 10.5 Continued Campuses within FEMA Mapped Floodplains FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City GIS Map Source FLOOD HAZARDS FEMA Flood Zone Campus Elevation At Grade Feet a Pomeroy Junior Senior High School Pomeroy 1090 Pataha St Pomeroy Q3 X Riverside Elementary School Puyallup th St E Puyallup Q3 X Shaw Road Elementary School Puyallup 1106 Shaw Rd Puyallup Q3 A Queets-Clearwater Elementary Queets-Clearwater Hwy 101 Forks Q3 A Developmental Preschool Raymond 1016 Commercial Street Raymond Q3 A 8.86 Raymond Elementary School Raymond 1016 Commercial St Raymond Q3 A 8.86 Raymond Home Link School Raymond 1016 Commercial St Raymond Q3 A 8.86 Raymond Junior Senior High School Raymond 1016 Commercial St Raymond Q3 A 8.86 Seward Elementary School Seattle 2500 Franklin Ave E Seattle Q3 X Clear Lake Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Lake Street Clear Lake Q3 A Mary Purcell Elementary School Sedro-Woolley 700 Bennett Street Sedro-Woolley Q3 X Skykomish Elementary School Skykomish 105 6th St. N Skykomish Q3 A Skykomish High School Skykomish 105 6th St. N Skykomish Q3 A Centennial Middle School Snohomish 3000 South Machias Road Snohomish Q3 A Riverview Elementary School Snohomish th Street SE Snohomish DFIRM AE 5.25 Mount Si High School Snoqualmie Valley 8651 Meadowbrook Way SE Snoqualmie Q3 A North Bend Elementary School Snoqualmie Valley 400 E Third St North Bend Q3 X Snoqualmie Access Snoqualmie Valley 8001 Silva Ave SE Snoqualmie Q3 A Snoqualmie Elementary School Snoqualmie Valley 755 Park St Snoqualmie Q3 A Snoqualmie Middle School Snoqualmie Valley 9200 Railroad Ave SE Snoqualmie Q3 A Two Rivers School Snoqualmie Valley 330 Ballarat Ave N North Bend Q3 X Chauncey Davis Elementary School South Bend 500 E. 1st South Bend Q3 A South Bend High School South Bend 400 E. 1st South Bend Q3 A Sheridan Elementary School Spokane 3737 E 5th Ave Spokane DFIRM X Saratoga School Stanwood-Camano rd Pl NW Stanwood Q3 A 5.91 Stanwood Elementary School Stanwood-Camano rd Pl NW Stanwood Q3 A 5.58 Stanwood Middle School Stanwood-Camano st St NW Stanwood Q3 A 7.87 Toledo Alternative Options Toledo 130 N. 5th Street Toledo Q3 A Toledo Elementary School Toledo 311 S 6th St Toledo Q3 A Toledo Middle School Toledo 155 N 5th St Toledo Q3 A Garfield Elementary School Toppenish 505 Madison Ave Toppenish Q3 X Kirkwood Elementary School Toppenish 403 South Juniper St Toppenish Q3 X Lincoln Elementary School Toppenish 309 North Alder Street Toppenish DFIRM AE Toppenish Middle School Toppenish 104 Goldendale Avenue Toppenish DFIRM AE Toppenish Pre School Toppenish 407 S. Juniper St Toppenish Q3 X Valley View Elementary School Toppenish 515 Zillah Ave Toppenish DFIRM AE Waitsburg Elementary School Waitsburg 184 Academy Waitsburg Q3 A Waitsburg High School Waitsburg 420 Coppei Ave Waitsburg Q3 AE Abraham Lincoln Elementary School Wenatchee 1224 Methow St. Wenatchee Q3 X Columbia Elementary School Wenatchee 600 Alaska St Wenatchee Q3 X Foothills Middle School Wenatchee 1410 Maple St Wenatchee Q3 X John Newbery Elementary School Wenatchee 850 Western Wenatchee Q3 A Lewis and Clark Elementary School Wenatchee 1130 Princeton Wenatchee Q3 X Mission View Elementary School Wenatchee 60 Terminal Avenue Wenatchee Q3 X Orchard Middle School Wenatchee 1024 Orchard Ave Wenatchee Q3 X Pioneer Middle School Wenatchee 1620 Russell St Wenatchee Q3 A Valley Academy Of Learning Wenatchee 11 N Chelan Avenue Wenatchee Q3 X Washington Elementary School Wenatchee 1401 WA St. Wenatchee Q3 A Westside High School Wenatchee 1521 Ninth Street Wenatchee Q3 A Westside Alternative High School Wenatchee 1521 Ninth Street Wenatchee Q3 X Ahtanum Valley Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 3006 S Wiley Rd Yakima DFIRM AE TEAM High School Woodland 143 Davidson Woodland Q3 X Woodland High School Woodland 757 Park Woodland Q3 X Woodland Intermediate School Woodland 2250 Lewis River Road Woodland Q3 X Woodland Administration Office Woodland 800 3rd St Woodland Q3 X Yelm Middle School Yelm 402 Yelm Ave. W Yelm DFIRM AE Page 187

194 Footnote for Table 10.5 above: a Elevation relative to NAVD 1988 reference datum, from GIS data Flood Hazard Data The level of flood hazard (frequency and severity of flooding) for a given campus or building is not simply determined by whether the campus or building is, or is not, within the mapped 100-year floodplain. Rather, the level of flood hazard depends very strongly on the elevation of buildings relative to the elevation of various flood events such as the 10-year, 50-year or 100-year flood event. For example, consider two schools both within the 100-year floodplain of a given river. The first school has a first floor elevation three feet above the 100-year flood elevation and the level of flood hazard is low (but not zero). The second school has a first floor, elevation three feet below the 100-year flood elevation, and the level of flood hazard is high. In this example, the six foot difference in elevations of the two schools makes an enormous difference in the level of flood hazard. Quantitative evaluation of the level of flood hazard for a given building requires comparison of the building s first floor elevation relative to the elevation of various flood events For FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain areas (AE Zones), the flood hazard data included in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) allows quantitative calculation of the frequency and severity of flooding for any property within the floodplain. Table 10.6 Flood Hazard Data Example Chehalis River at Confluence with Skookumchuck River Flood Frequency (Years) Discharge (cfs) a Flood Elevation (feet) 10 45, , , , a Discharge is the volume of water flowing in a river in cubic feet per second The stream discharge data shown above are from Table 13 on page 34 of the Flood Insurance Study for Lewis County, Washington (November 11, 2010). The flood elevation data are from the Flood Profile Graph 16P also in the Flood Insurance Study. Flood elevations vary with location along the reach of a river. Thus, for any given location along the river, flood elevation data must be read from the flood profile graph covering the location. Page 188

195 Quantitative flood hazard data, as shown above, are important for mitigation planning purposes because they allow more exact, engineering-based determinations of the frequency and severity (i.e. depth) of flooding for any building: the annual probability of floods of every depth. These types of quantitative flood hazard data are also necessary for benefit-cost analysis of flood mitigation projects. Benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool to help prioritize between competing mitigation projects and is required for nearly all FEMA mitigation grants. Quantitative flood hazard analysis, in areas subject to coastal flooding, is conceptually very similar to that discussed previously for riverine flooding with one major difference. For coastal flooding, there are no discharge data. Rather, flood hazards are expressed in terms of flood elevations and wave heights. Evaluating flood hazards and flood risk in coastal areas requires more engineering experience and judgment than interpreting the flood data in mapped riverine floodplains. In coastal areas, wave heights and surge velocities are important parameters that increase damage levels. A risk analysis for a given facility must include evaluation of the capacity of the facility to withstand wave and velocity forces as well as the vulnerability of the facility to damage from erosion or scour The Mitigation Planning Toolkit has more detailed guidance and templates to gather and use the types of flood hazard data discussed above Flood Hazards and Flood Risk Outside of Mapped Floodplains The flood hazard data discussed previously is applicable only for locations within FEMAmapped floodplains or for locations where local hydrologic and hydraulic studies of rivers or streams provide similar quantitative data. Nationwide, more than 25 percent of flood damage occurs outside of FEMA-mapped floodplains. There are many flood-prone areas in Washington outside of FEMA-mapped floodplains, including locations streams too small to be mapped by FEMA and areas subject to localized storm water drainage flooding. For flood-prone locations without quantitative flood hazard data, a different approach is required to evaluate flood hazards and flood risk. There are several possible options: For high value facilities where flood risk appears high, it may be worthwhile to have a local hydrologic and hydraulic study completed to obtain the types of quantitative flood hazard data contained in a FEMA Flood Insurance Study. Such local studies may also be worthwhile when the FEMA Flood Insurance Study is old and there are reasons, such as increased development in the watershed, to suspect that flood hazards may have significantly increased. For locations with a history of flooding, empirical estimates of the frequency and severity of flooding may be made from historical data. For locations subject to stormwater drainage flooding, engineers knowledgeable about the stormwater system may be able to provide quantitative data on the conveyance Page 189

196 capacity of the system to supplement historical flood data. Stormwater systems are often designed to handle only two-year or five-year flood events, and are infrequently designed to handle rainfall events greater than ten-year or 15-year events. Evaluation of flood hazards and flood risk outside of mapped-floodplains necessarily requires more engineering experience and judgment than are required to interpret the flood data in mapped riverine floodplains. Dam, Reservoir and Levee Failures In addition to the flood sources discussed above, many locations in Washington are subject to flooding from dam, reservoir or levee failures. Dams There are about 75 large dams and numerous smaller dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries that provide hydroelectric power, water for many purposes and flood control. A full analysis of the design and safety levels vis-à-vis floods, earthquakes and other hazards for all of these dams is well beyond the scope of this mitigation planning effort. For reference, Figure 10.7 shows some of the major dams in the Columbia River watershed. Many of the larger dams have inundation maps showing the areas of inundation if the dams were to fail. The Washington Department of Ecology Inventory of Dams 6 lists 1,149 dams in Washington with ten acre-feet or more of water storage capacity. This very useful inventory lists the storage capacity, dimension, location, purpose, type and other information. This dam inventory also lists the downstream hazard for life safety based on the number of people at risk if a dam were to fail. The six ranges of lives at risk are: none, 1 6, 7 30, and >300. These rankings are not risk assessments; that is, there is no determination of safety deficiencies or the probability of failure associated with these rankings. These rankings reflect only the population exposed to inundation if a dam were to fail. The Washington Department of Ecology 7 also periodically reports the status of dams with high and significant hazard with safety deficiencies. As of March 2011, the status of 209 dams with identified safety deficiencies was as follows: 171 dams deficiencies fully corrected. 11 dams partial repairs completed. 19 dams engineering studies and/or design work underway. Eight dams no actions taken. Page 190

197 Figure 10.7 Dams in the Columbia River Watershed 8 Page 191

198 Reservoirs At grade or elevated water reservoirs for potable water systems or industrial water storage are potential flood sources if they fail during earthquakes or for any other reason. The storage capacity of many water reservoirs is small, but larger reservoirs have higher storage capacities than the ten acre-feet cutoff for the Department of Ecology s Inventory of Dams. 3 For example, a ten million gallon reservoir holds about 30 acre-feet of water. Failure of large capacity reservoirs may result in significant flooding downslope from the reservoir. Floods from reservoir failures are typically restricted to the immediate downslope areas. Especially when the flow path is a narrow area, structures within the flow path may suffer major damage or be destroyed. Levees Many locations in Washington are protected from flooding by levees. Large levees, such as those along the Columbia River, are generally well-engineered and often well-maintained. However, there are also numerous smaller levees owned and maintained by public entities such as counties, cities, irrigation or flood control districts or private owners. These levees range from nonengineered structures built decades ago for agricultural or other purposes to modern, engineered, well-designed structures. The major levees may be accredited by FEMA to provide at least 100-year protection which means that they have a low probability of failure up to at least a 100-year flood event. Most small levees are not accredited, and their level of protection is generally unknown. Many of these levees likely have levels of protection significantly less than the 100-year event while others may have levels of protection comparable to the major levees. Risk Assessments for Dam, Reservoir and Levee Failures Risk assessments of dams, reservoirs and levees requires detailed engineering analyses of their structural design and condition by engineers experienced with such evaluations. Undertaking such risk assessments is outside the expertise or responsibility of school districts. Therefore, for mitigation planning purposes; risk assessments for dams, reservoirs and levees focus mainly on determining whether there are any such water storage facilities upstream or upslope from a given campus. If so, then further analysis is likely limited to obtaining existing risk reports if available. For campuses with large volume water storage facilities upstream or upslope; awareness of such facilities, awareness of warning systems and protocols for possible failures, and evacuation planning for possible failures in a school district s emergency plan are warranted. Page 192

199 10.7 Flood Scenario Loss Estimates Methods FEMA s HAZUS loss estimating software has the capability to generate loss estimates for scenario floods such as a 100-year flood. HAZUS for floods uses neither the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps nor the quantitative flood hazard data in FEMA Flood Insurance Studies. Rather, HAZUS makes independent estimates based on digital elevation data and approximate hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of watersheds. The accuracy of HAZUS flood loss estimates is limited by the horizontal and vertical resolution of the digital elevation data and by the simplified hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of watersheds. A HAZUS calculation for a scenario statewide 100-year flood event yielded results that were discordant with the FEMA floodplain mapping. There was almost no correlation between the HAZUS results and the FEMA floodplain-mapping. For example, of the 169 campuses within FEMA-mapped floodplains, only 12 were identified by HAZUS as flooding in a 100-year flood event. Furthermore, many campuses identified as flooding in a 100-year event by HAZUS were well outside of mapped floodplains and/or at high elevations relative to the flood sources. The FEMA floodplain mapping is generally based on higher resolution, more accurate data and is likely to be more accurate than the simplified HAZUS methodology. Therefore, HAZUS results are not presented here and scenario flood loss estimates are based on FEMA data as discussed below. Scenario loss estimates for a hypothetical statewide 100-year flood event were calculated for the 168 campuses within FEMA-mapped floodplains (previously listed in Table 10.5). A statewide 100-year flood event is not realistic. For any given flood event, precipitation, snowmelt and runoff characteristics will vary from watershed to watershed. The purpose of selecting the statewide 100-year flood event is simply to explore the approximate level of damages to K 12 campuses in a major flood event that affects many areas of Washington. Statewide 100-Year Flood Scenario Results Loss estimates for a statewide 100-year flood event are calculated from the following input data and assumptions: The square footage of campus buildings from OSPI records. For campuses without data, square footages were estimated as the average square footage for elementary schools and other school facilities, middle schools and high schools. Building replacement values per square foot were estimated from OSPI data as $ for elementary schools and other facilities, $ for middle schools and $ for high schools. Contents replacement values per square foot were estimated from insurance data as $12 for elementary schools and other facilities, $14 for middle schools and $19 for high schools. Page 193

200 Depth-damage functions, the estimate percentages of building damage and contents damage, and the estimated displacement time were taken from the FEMA Version Benefit-Cost Analysis Software, with values for schools. Displacement means that flood damage is severe enough that a building has to be vacated for a period of time while flood damage is repaired. Displacement costs were estimated at $1.50 per square foot per month, plus one-time costs of $1.50 per square foot for round trip moving and other one-time costs. Displacement costs include rental of temporary space, extra transportation costs including staff time, moving costs, set-up costs etc. The aggregated data for the 169 campuses listed in Table 10.5 are shown in Table Table 10.7 Aggregated Values for 169 Campuses Estimates Totals for 169 Campuses Square Feet 10,150,065 Building Replacement Value $2,850,435,731 Contents Replacement Value $146,874,358 The FEMA depth-damage data (typical damages to buildings and contents) are shown in Table Damages are expressed as a percentage of the replacement values of buildings and contents. FEMA data also include displacement times and costs. Table 10.8 FEMA Flood Depth-Damage Functions for Schools Flood Depth (Feet) a a Building Damage b Contents Damage c Displacement Time (Days) 0 0.0% 0.0% % 22.0% % 30.0% % 39.0% % 45.0% % 48.0% 225 Flood depth relative to first floor. For example, a 1 foot flood means water between 0.5 and 1.5 feet above the first floor. b Percent of building replacement value c Percent of contents replacement value Scenario losses for floods of several depths are shown in Table Page 194

201 Table 10.8 Scenario Loss Estimates: Hypothetical Statewide 100-Year Flood for the 169 Campuses within FEMA-Mapped Floodplains Flood Depth (Feet) Building Damage Contents Damage Displacement Costs The above scenario flood loss results should not be interpreted literally, because a 100-year flood affecting the entire state is not realistic. Rather, these results are intended only to show the approximate levels of damage possible in major, widespread flood events. For example, a flood event that affected one-third of the campuses in Table 10.5 with an average flood depth of one foot would be expected to have damages about one-third of those shown in Table 10.8 for a one foot flood depth. The level of flood risk for a specific campus will vary markedly depending on the elevation of campus buildings relative to flood elevations. Many campuses may have zero damage, even though the campus is within a floodplain, if the first floor elevations of all buildings are well above the flood elevation for a given flood scenario. Other campuses may have some or all buildings several feet below the flood elevation and thus have very high levels of damage. Much more accurate flood loss estimates can be made at the district, campus or building-level. However, such estimates require more detailed data about individual buildings. Completing such detailed analysis is outside the domain of the Washington State K 12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan, but it is within the domain for district hazard mitigation plans. The statewide planning effort provides the foundation to support more detailed district-specific mitigation planning efforts Flood Risk Assessments at the District, Campus, and Building Levels The previous sections of this chapter provided an overview of flood hazards and flood risk at the statewide level. Total 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $370,556,645 $32,312,359 $38,062,745 $440,931,749 2 $612,843,682 $44,062,307 $60,900,392 $717,806,382 3 $761,066,340 $57,281,000 $83,738,039 $902,085,379 4 $932,092,484 $66,093,461 $106,575,686 $1,104,761,632 5 $1,031,857,735 $70,499,692 $129,413,333 $1,231,770,760 As previously stated, more detailed district, campus, and building-level flood hazard and flood risk assessments require more detailed data on a building-by-building basis. Statewide assessments are meant for statewide planning purposes and are not accurate enough to be meaningful for a single district, campus or building without more detailed assessments. Page 195

202 Detailed guidance for school districts to perform further flood hazard and flood risk assessments is provided in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. The synopsis below outlines the main steps. The steps necessary for flood hazard and flood risk assessments vary depending on the flood source and on whether or not quantitative flood hazard data are available. However, for every case, the following basic information is needed: A building s number of stories, size, replacement value, and whether or not it has a basement. Building and content replacement values. Estimated displacement costs if a building has to be vacated for flood repairs to be made. Such estimates require evaluating where a district would relocate students if a building or buildings were rendered temporarily unusable because of flood damage. Building first floor elevations. The simplest case, and the one that yields the most quantitative hazard and risk assessment, applies to campuses within FEMA-mapped floodplains and for which quantitative flood hazard data such as that shown previously in Table 10.2 is available. In this case, the main steps are: Obtain campus-specific flood hazard data (see Table 10.2) from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Use the FEMA depth-damage functions in the FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis software to estimate building damages, content damages and displacement costs for each possible flood depth. These calculations are best done using a spreadsheet program such as Excel. The most accurate measure of flood risk is the expected average annual loss total the long term average, taking into account the probability and severity of all possible flood events. The expected average annual average loss can be calculated with the FEMA Benefit-Cost Software. In this case, gathering a history of past flood events is useful to demonstrate the reality of flood risk but is not necessary for the quantitative flood hazard and risk calculations. The above steps are explained in more detail, with examples, in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. For cases where quantitative flood hazard data are not available, fully quantitative flood hazard and risk assessments are not possible the best assessments are semi-quantitative or qualitative. In this case, gathering a history of past flood events is the first step. One important caveat is that the absence of a history of past flood events may indicate that flood risk is low, but this is not necessarily the case. As discussed in Chapter Six, flood risk is inherently probabilistic. A campus that hasn t had a flood in ten, 20 or 30 years may have just been lucky and flood damage might occur with floods of similar return periods. Or, the flood risk might have increased over time because of increasing development upstream in the Page 196

203 watershed (which increases runoff) or because of channel changes. Or, a campus might not have frequent flooding, but the level of damages for a 50-year or 100-year event might be very severe. Semi-quantitative or qualitative flood hazard and risk assessments can be based on several types of data or estimates including: Documented history of past flood events. For campuses with a history of repetitive flooding, there may be enough events to make semi-quantitative estimates of the frequency/severity relationship for floods. For flooding from non-fema mapped flood sources, including localized stormwater drainage flooding, engineers knowledgeable about local conditions may be able to make semi-quantitative estimates of the frequency/severity relationship for floods. For sites subject to flooding from failures of dams, reservoirs or levees; engineers knowledgeable about local conditions and with knowledge of the structural characteristics and condition of the dams, reservoirs or levees may be able to make semiquantitative estimates of the frequency/severity relationship for floods. In cases where there is some quantitative flood hazard data, such as the elevation of the 100-year flood only, a combination of the quantitative and semi-quantitative approaches is applicable. Purely qualitative flood hazard and risk assessments such as the flood risk is high, medium or low provides minimal information that is meaningful and should be avoided whenever possible Flood Mitigation Projects For K 12 facilities with substantial levels of flood risk, there are several types of potential flood mitigation measures available: Replacement of a facility at high risk from floods with a new facility located outside of flood hazard zones. Increasing the elevation of an existing building. Minor flood-proofing actions that address the most vulnerable elements in a facility. Such projects include elevating at-grade utility infrastructure or relocating critical equipment or contents from basement levels of a building to higher levels. Construction of levees, berms or flood walls to protect a facility. Installation of flood gates including building water proofing measures. Local drainage improvements where stormwater drainage is a problem. Replacing an at-risk facility with a new facility outside of flood hazards zones is essentially 100 percent effective in reducing future flood damages. A new replacement building also has other advantages such as energy efficiency and fully meeting current functionality requirements. Of course, the major impediment to widespread replacement is the cost. Page 197

204 The extent to which any of the above mitigation measures are warranted depends on the level of flood risk and on district priorities. For K 12 facilities at high flood risk, FEMA grant funding is potentially available for any of the above types of flood mitigation measures. FEMA doesn t replace existing facilities but does do acquisition/demolition projects in which the fair market value of a property is the total eligible project cost. FEMA-funded acquisition projects require demolition of the existing facility and deed restrictions to prevent future development of the area. Acceptable uses after demolition are limited to green space such as parks or sports fields with development limited to incidental structures such a restroom. With such projects the FEMA funding, which is typically 75 percent of the total project costs, can be used towards building a replacement facility. On a community or regional level, larger-scale flood control measures such as construction of upstream dams or detention basins and channel improvements may be effective in reducing flood risks. However, such larger-scale projects are outside the domain of responsibility for school districts. Page 198

205 Chapter Eleven: Wildland/Urban Interface Fires 11.1 Overview Fire has posed a threat to mankind since the dawn of civilization. Fires often cause substantial damage to property and may also result in deaths and injuries. For the purposes of mitigation planning, we define three types of fires: Structure fires and other localized fires. Wildland fires. Wildland/urban interface fires. Structure fires are fires where structures and contents are the primary fuel. In dealing with structure fires, fire departments typically have three primary objectives: 1) minimize casualties, 2) prevent a structure fire from spreading to other structures, and 3) minimize damage to the structure and contents. Structure fires and the other common types of fire, such as vehicle or trash fires, are most often limited to a single structure or location; although, in some cases they may spread to adjacent structures. Wildland fires are fires where vegetation (grass, brush, trees) is the primary fire fuel with few or no structures involved. For wildland fires, the most common suppression strategy is to contain the fire at its boundaries then let the fire burn itself out. Fire containment typically relies heavily on natural or manmade fire breaks. Water and chemical fire suppressants are used primarily to help make or defend a fire break rather than to put out an entire fire as would be the case with a structure fire. For wildland fires, fire suppression is generally a state and federal agency responsibility; although, local agencies may also participate. Fires in wilderness areas may also be allowed to burn out naturally for forest renewal and other environmental reasons. Wildland/urban interface fires are fires where the fire fuel includes both structures and vegetation. The defining characteristic of the wildland/urban interface area is that structures are built in, or immediately adjacent to, areas with essentially continuous vegetative fuel loads. When wildland fires occur in such areas, they often spread quickly to structures which may, unfortunately, become little more than additional fuel sources for wildland fires. Fire suppression efforts for wildland/urban interface fires focus first on savings lives and then on protecting structures to the greatest extent possible. Local fire agencies have primary fire suppression responsibility for most wildland/urban interface fires; although, state and federal agencies may also contribute. This chapter focuses on wildland/urban interface fires that pose a substantial threat to many parts of Washington and to districts with K 12 facilities in locations with significant risk from wildland/urban interface fires. Page 199

206 Major fires in the urban/wildland interface have the potential for enormous destruction and high casualties. For example, the October, 1991 East Bay Fire in Oakland, California burned about 1,600 acres with 25 fatalities, 150 injuries, and over 3,300 single-family homes and 450 apartment units destroyed. Property damages were about $2.4 billion in 2013 dollars. This fire was fueled by high vegetative fuel loads and occurred on an unusually hot, dry, windy day. The fire spread extremely quickly with over 800 homes engulfed by fire within the first hour. The rapid spread of fire completely overwhelmed initial fire suppression efforts Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Many urban or suburban areas have a significant amount of landscaping and other vegetation. However, in most areas the fuel load of flammable vegetation is not continuous. It is broken by paved areas, open space, and areas of mowed grass with low fuel loads. In these areas, most fires are single structure fires. The combination of separation between buildings, fire breaks, and generally low total vegetative fuel loads make the risk of fire spreading much lower than in wildland areas. Furthermore, most developed areas in urban and suburban areas have water systems with good capacities to provide water for fire suppression and fire departments that respond quickly to fires, with sufficient personnel and apparatus to control fires effectively. Thus, the likelihood of a single structure fire spreading to involve multiple structures is generally quite low. Areas subject to wildland/urban interface fires have very different fire hazard characteristics that are more similar to those for wildland fires. The level of fire hazard for wildland/urban interface fires depends on: Vegetative fuel load. Topography. Climate. Ignition sources and frequency of fire ignitions. Fire suppression resources (fire agency response time and resources of crews and apparatus, access and water supplies). High vegetative fuel loads, especially brush and trees, increase the level of wildland/urban fire hazard. Steep topography increases the level of fire risk by exacerbating fire spread and impeding fire suppression efforts by making access more difficult. The level of fire hazard in areas prone to wildland/urban interface fires is also substantially increased when weather conditions including high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds greatly accelerate the spread of wildland fires and make containment difficult or impossible. Fire suppression resources are typically much lower in wildland/urban interface fire areas than in more highly developed areas. Fire stations are more widely spaced with fewer resources of crews and apparatus and longer response times because of distance and/or limited access routes. Water resources for fire suppression are typically lower in these areas. They are often predominantly Page 200

207 residential and may be served by pumped pressure zones with limited water storage or by individual wells that provide no water for fire suppression. These reduced fire suppression resources make it more likely that a small wildland fire, or a single structure fire in an urban/wildland interface area, will spread before it can be extinguished. The level of risk from wildland/urban interface fires for K 12 facilities depends on: Level of fire hazard as outlined above. Value and importance of buildings and infrastructure. Population at risk. Availability of evacuation routes. Vulnerability of the inventory at risk, including whether fire-safe construction practices and defensible space measures have been implemented. The level of risk from wildland/urban interface fire for K 12 facilities also depends on the characteristics of the community in which a facility is located. The risk is lower in communities with effective implementation of fire-safe construction practices and maintenance of defensible space. Conversely, the risk is higher in communities without fire-safe construction and maintenance of defensible space because there is a greater likelihood that a fire ignition will spread rapidly throughout the community and threaten a K 12 facility. Life safety risk in wildland/urban interface fires arises, in large part, from delays in evacuations once a fire has started. For K 12 facilities with significant risk from wildland/urban interface fires, a well-defined, practical and practiced evacuation plan is essential to minimize potential life safety risk Historical Fire Data for Washington State The 2013 Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan 1 includes a list of significant wildland fires in Washington State since The largest fire, the 1902 Yacolt Fire in Skamania and Clark Counties, burned about 230,000 acres and resulted in 38 deaths. Since 1985, there have been 23 fires that burned more than 20,000 acres each destroying 439 homes and causing a total of seven deaths, including four firefighters. These fires also destroyed numerous outbuildings, damaged many more homes and also damaged infrastructure such as above ground utility lines. In addition, 36 structures were destroyed in 2000 at the U.S. Department of Energy s Hanford site. This 192,000 acre fire was largely within the Hanford site. See, Washington State Wildland Fire Statistics 2 for the most recent available ten-year period. Years are shown in Figure 11.1 on the following page. Over this time period there was an average of 1,428 wildland fires per year with an average of 128,491 acres burned per year. These data are only for the federal and state agencies listed in Table 11.1 and do not include the mostly small wildland fires responded to by local fire agencies. Page 201

208 Figure 11.1 Washington State Wildland Fire Statistics Federal and State Agencies Only Detailed data for the 2011 wildland fires, including ignition sources and acres burned, for fires within the jurisdictions of federal and state agencies are shown in Table The data in Figure 11.1 and Table 11.1 do not include wildland fires responded to by local fire agencies. Detailed data for wildland fires responded to by local fire agencies in Washington are not available. National data compiled by the National Fire Protection Association 3 indicate that local fire agencies respond to over 350,000 brush, grass, and forest fires every year. Of these fires, 41 percent were brush or brush and grass mixture fires, 37 percent were grass fires, ten percent were forest, woods or wildland fires, and 12 percent were natural vegetation fires that were not classified further. Of these fires, only four percent burned over ten acres, 22 percent burned between one acre and ten acres, and 74 percent burned less than one acre. Nationwide, an average of about 4,800 buildings are damaged or destroyed by wildland or wildland/urban interface fires each year. Roughly similar statistics are likely to apply within Washington State. Given these national statistics, local fire agencies in Washington respond to many thousands of brush, grass and forest fires every year. However, most of these fires are small and quickly extinguished. Fire ignitions in wildland areas, where the response is predominantly the responsibility of federal and state agencies are more likely to result in fires that burn large acreage. Page 202

209 Table Washington Wildland Fire Data Federal and State Agencies Only Responsible Agency Human Caused Fires Human Caused Acres Burned Lightning Caused Fire Lightning Caused Acres Burned 11.4 Wildland and Wildland/Urban Fire Hazard Mapping and Hazard Assessment The three maps on the following pages present different measures of wildland and wildland/urban interface fire hazards in Washington. Figure 11.2 shows Wildland/Interface Communities identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Figure 11.3 shows High Risk Wildland/Interface Communities and Statewide Assessment High and Moderate Risk Areas identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Figure 11.4 shows the United States Geological Survey Landfire Fire Return Periods. All of these maps must be interpreted carefully as discussed in Section Total Fires Total Acres Burned Bureau of Indian Affairs 158 2, ,183 Bureau of Land Management 20 1, ,878 US Fish and W ildlife Service National Park Service US Forest Service US Department of Defense (Hanford Reservation) Washington DNR 504 7, ,552 Washington Fire Service a 2 5, ,108 Statewide Totals b , ,471 a Washington Fire Service is not defined in the source report. b Statewide totals shown are the sum of the entries. Reported totals in the source report differ slightly from the sum of the entries. Page 203

210 Figure 11.2 Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by Washington Department of Natural Resources Page 204

211 Figure 11.3 Washington Wildland/Urban Interface High Risk Communities and Statewide Assessment High and Moderate Risk Areas 4 Page 205

212 Figure United States Geological Survey Landfire Fire Return Period Map Page 206

213 11.5 Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Hazard and Risk K 12 facilities that may have significant risk for wildland/urban interface fire are those within high hazard areas for wildland/urban interface fires as shown in the preceding maps and without adequate fire safe construction and defensible space. Table 11.2, on the following pages, identifies 236 K 12 facilities located within Wildland/Urban Interface Communities as identified by DNR. This table also includes the USGS fire return periods for these campuses and the corresponding probability of fire over a 50-year time period. Table 11.3 identifies an additional 418 K 12 facilities that are not within Wildland/Urban Interface Communities as identified by DNR but have USGS fire return periods less than 50 years. This overlay of K 12 facilities, with mapped wildland/urban fire hazard areas, is only the first step in a risk assessment for wildland/urban interface fires. Additional facility data and analysis are needed to more accurately determine the potential risk to a specific school district and/or a specific campus. This OSPI planning effort will assist school districts in undertaking the next level of facility data and analysis. There are important caveats regarding the data/estimates in Tables 11.2 and These caveats must be understood before making wildland/urban interface fire mitigation decisions for K 12 facilities within mapped fire hazard areas including: The DNR rankings of Wildland/Urban Interface Communities have extreme, high, moderate or low risk and should be interpreted only as qualitative or semi-quantitative indicators of the relative level of risk. Facilities identified as being located in communities with extreme or high levels of risk may not have extreme or high risk as generally understood for mitigation planning purposes. Some of the extreme or high risk interface communities have long burn return periods per the USGS Landfire map. The USGS Landfire Return Period values should also be interpreted as semi-quantitative indicators of the relative level of risk. The numerical estimates of the burn return period and the corresponding probabilities over a 50-year time period should not be interpreted literally. The DNR rankings and the USGS Landfire Return Periods are based on an analysis of fire regime characteristics such as vegetative fuel loads, topography, climate, and fire suppression resources. The USGS Landfire Return Periods indicate higher levels of fire risk than suggested by historical fire data. The average annual acres burned (Table 11.1) suggest a statewide burn period of greater than 300 years. This is longer than the Landfire estimate of less than 50-years for most of Central and Eastern Washington with some locations have burn return periods of less than ten years. Furthermore, most of the acreage burned has been wildland containing relatively few structures and no K 12 facilities. Page 207

214 Table 11.2 Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Concrete Elementary School Concrete 7838 S. Superior Ave Concrete Extreme N/A N/A Concrete High School Concrete 7830 S. Superior Avenue Concrete Extreme N/A N/A Skagit River School House Concrete Airport Way Concrete Extreme N/A N/A Special Services School Concrete Airport Way Concrete Extreme N/A N/A Twin Cedars High School Concrete Airport Way Concrete Extreme N/A N/A Cle Elum Roslyn High School Cle Elum-Roslyn 2692 Sr 903 Cle Elum Extreme % Glenwood Elementary School Glenwood 320 Bunnell St. Glenwood Extreme % Glenwood Secondary Glenwood 320 Bunnell St. Glenwood Extreme % Klickitat Elementary & High School Klickitat 98 School Drive Klickitat Extreme % Lyle High School Lyle 625 Keasey Avenue Lyle Extreme % Mary Walker High School Mary Walker 500 N 4th St Springdale Extreme % Parent Partner Program Mary Walker 500 N 1st Springdale Extreme % Walter Strom Middle School Cle Elum-Roslyn 2694 Sr 903 Cle Elum Extreme % Centerville Elementary School Centerville 2315 Centerville Hwy Centerville Extreme % Pasadena Park Elementary School West Valley (Spokane) 8508 E Upriver Drive Spokane Extreme % Columbia High And Elementary School Columbia (Stevens) 4961B Hunters Shop Road Hunters Extreme % Windsor Elementary School Cheney 5504 W Hallett Rd Spokane Extreme % Adna Elementary School Adna 220 Dieckman Rd. Chehalis Extreme % Cle Elum Roslyn Elementary School Cle Elum-Roslyn 2696 SR 903 Cle Elum Extreme % Friday Harbor Elementary School San Juan Island 95 Grover Street Friday Harbor Extreme % Friday Harbor High School San Juan Island 45 Blair Street Friday Harbor Extreme % Friday Harbor Middle School San Juan Island 85 Blair Street Friday Harbor Extreme % Griffin Bay School San Juan Island 265 Blair Street Friday Harbor Extreme % Stuart Island Elementary School San Juan Island 485 Ellsworth Ave Friday Harbor Extreme % Swiftwater Learning Center Cle Elum-Roslyn 205 West Idaho Street Roslyn Extreme % Springdale Academy Mary Walker 500 N 4th St Springdale Extreme % Springdale Elementary School Mary Walker 500 N 4th Springdale Extreme % Springdale Middle School Mary Walker 500 N 4th Springdale Extreme % Great Northern Elementary School Great Northern 3115 N Spotted Rd Spokane Extreme % Ponderosa Elementary School Central Valley E. Cimmaron Dr. Spokane Extreme % Boston Harbor Elementary School Olympia 7300 Zangle Rd NE Olympia Extreme % Crossroads Alternative High School Granite Falls 307 North Alder Avenue Granite Falls Extreme % Granite Falls High School Granite Falls th St NE Granite Falls Extreme % Mountain Way Elementary School Granite Falls 702 N. Granite Ave Granite Falls Extreme % Rochester Middle School Rochester 9937 Highway 12 SW Rochester Extreme % South Bay Elementary School North Thurston 3845 Sleater Kinney Rd Ne Lacey Extreme % Adna Middle High School Adna 121 Adna School Rd. Chehalis Extreme % Easton School Easton 1893 Railroad Street Easton Extreme % Granite Falls Middle School Granite Falls 205 North Alder Ave Granite Falls Extreme % Kendall Elementary School Mount Baker 7547 Kendall Rd Maple Falls Extreme % Beach Elementary Ferndale 3786 Centerview Road Lummi Island High N/A N/A Mount Erie Elementary School Anacortes st Street Anacortes High N/A N/A Trafton Elementary School Arlington Jim Creek Rd Arlington High N/A N/A Wayne M. Henkle Middle School White Salmon Valley 480 NW Loop Road White Salmon High % Beaver Valley School Cascade Beaver Valley Rd Leavenworth High % Columbia Technical High School White Salmon Valley 1455 NW Bruin Country Road White Salmon High % Home School Program (REACH) Methow Valley 18 Twin Lakes Rd. Winthrop High % Kettle Falls Elementary School Kettle Falls E 225 8th St Kettle Falls High % Kettle Falls High School Kettle Falls 1275 Juniper St Kettle Falls High % Loon Lake Elementary School Loon Lake 4001 Maple Street Loon Lake High % Loon Lake Homelink Program Loon Lake 3999 Maple Street Loon Lake High % Mead Preschool Mead N Newport Highway Mead High % Meadow Ridge Elementary School Mead N Freya St Mead High % Methow Valley Elementary School Methow Valley 18 Twin Lakes Rd. Winthrop High % Midway Elementary School Mead 821 E Midway Rd Colbert High % Nine Mile Falls Elementary School Nine Mile Falls W. Charles Rd Nine Mile Falls High % Northport Elementary School Northport th Street Northport High % Northport High School Northport th Street Northport High % Phoenix Alternative School Nine Mile Falls W Charles Rd Nine Mile Falls High % Page 208

215 Table 11.2 Continued Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Skyview Elementary School East Valley (Spokane) E Wellesley Ave Spokane Valley High % Wellpinit-Fort Semco High School Wellpinit 40 Abella Lane White Swan High % White Salmon Academy White Salmon Valley Po Box 157 White Salmon High % Artz Fox Elementary School Mabton 805 Wa Mabton High % Camas Elementary School Wapato 1010 S Camas Ave Wapato High % Chief Kamiakin Elementary School Sunnyside 1700 E. Lincoln Avenue Sunnyside High % Compass High School Grandview 913 W 2nd St Grandview High % Contract Learning Center Grandview 913 W 2nd St Grandview High % Harrah Elementary School Mount Adams 3851 Harrah Road Harrah High % Mabton Middle School Mabton 500 E B. St. Mabton High % Mabton Senior High School Mabton 500 B Street Mabton High % McClure Elementary School Grandview 811 W 2nd St Grandview High % Pace Alternative High School Wapato 310 S. Wasco Avenue Wapato High % Pioneer Elementary School Sunnyside 2101 E. Lincoln Sunnyside High % Satus Elementary School Wapato 910 S. Camas Avenue Wapato High % Wapato Middle School Wapato 1309 Kateri Lane Wapato High % YVCC GED School Grandview 913 W 2nd St Grandview High % Zillah Middle School Zillah 1301 Cutler Way Zillah High % Columbia High School White Salmon Valley 1455 NW Bruin Country Rd White Salmon High % Manson Elementary School Manson 950 Totem Pole Road Manson High % Manson Junior Senior High School Manson 1000 Totem Pole Rd Manson High % Bickleton Elementary & High School Bickleton 100 Market St. Bickleton High % Bickleton Elementary School Bickleton 100 Market St. Bickleton High % East Valley Central Middle School East Valley (Yakima) 2010 Beaudry Rd Yakima High % East Valley Elementary School East Valley (Yakima) 1951 Beaudry Road Yakima High % East Valley High School East Valley (Yakima) 1900 Beaudry Road Yakima High % Holden Village Community School Lake Chelan Hcoo Stop 2 Chelan High % Liberty Bell Junior Senior High School Methow Valley 24 Twin Lakes Rd. Winthrop High % Mead Senior High School Mead 302 W Hastings Rd Spokane High % Mount Adams Middle School Mount Adams 541 Signal Peak Road White Swan High % Moxee Elementary School East Valley (Yakima) 408 E. Seattle Avenue Moxee High % Terrace Heights Elementary School East Valley (Yakima) 4300 Maple Court Yakima High % White Swan High School Mount Adams 551 Signal Peak Road White Swan High % Adams Elementary School Wapato 1309 S Camas Ave Wapato High % Garfield Elementary School Toppenish 505 Madison Ave Toppenish High % Grandview High School Grandview 1601 W 5th St Grandview High % Grandview Middle School Grandview 1401 W 2nd St Grandview High % Granger Alternative High School Granger 315 E Mentzer Avenue Granger High % Granger High School Granger 315 East Mentzer Avenue Granger High % Granger Middle School Granger 501 Bailey Avenue Granger High % Harrison Middle School Sunnyside 810 S. 16Th Street Sunnyside High % Hilton Elementary School Zillah 211 Fourth Avenue Zillah High % Kirkwood Elementary School Toppenish 403 South Juniper Street Toppenish High % Lincoln Elementary School Toppenish 309 North Alder Street Toppenish High % Nine Mile Falls Office Nine Mile Falls W Charles Rd Nine Mile Falls High % Outlook Elementary School Sunnyside 3800 Vanbelle Road Outlook High % Roosevelt Elementary School Granger 405 Bailey Avenue Granger High % Sierra Vista Middle School Sunnyside 916 N. 16 Street Sunnyside High % Smith Elementary School Grandview 205 Fir Ave Grandview High % Sun Valley Elementary School Sunnyside 1220 N. 16Th Street Sunnyside High % Sunnyside High School Sunnyside 1801 E. Edison Avenue Sunnyside High % Sunnyside School District Office - Sunnyside 1110 S 6Th St Sunnyside High % Thompson Elementary School Grandview 1105 W 2nd St Grandview High % Toppenish High School Toppenish 141 Ward Road Toppenish High % Toppenish Middle School Toppenish 104 Goldendale Avenue Toppenish High % Toppenish Pre School Toppenish 407 S. Juniper St Toppenish High % Valley View Elementary School Toppenish 515 Zillah Ave Toppenish High % Wapato High School Wapato 1103 S. Wasco Avenue Wapato High % Washington Elementary School Sunnyside 800 E. Jackson Avenue Sunnyside High % Zillah High School Zillah 1602 Second Avenue Zillah High % Page 209

216 Table 11.2 Continued Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Zillah Intermediate School Zillah 303 Second Avenue Zillah High % Chester Elementary School Central Valley 3525 S. Pines Rd. Spokane High % East Valley High School East Valley (Spokane) E Wellesley Ave Spokane Valley High % Mountain View Elementary School Shelton 534 E. "K" St. Shelton High % Olympic Middle School Shelton 800 E K St Shelton High % Pioneer Intermediate Middle School Pioneer 611 E Agate Rd. Shelton High % Trout Lake Elementary School Trout Lake 2310 Hwy 141 Trout Lake High % Trout Lake School Trout Lake 2310 Hwy 141 Trout Lake High % Utsalady Elementary School Stanwood-Camano 608 Arrowhead Rd Camano Island High % Columbia Virtual Academy-Orient Orient 5th And C Street Orient High % Orient Elementary School Orient 5th And C St Orient High % Farwell Elementary School Mead N Crestline Spokane High % Kettle Falls Bus Garage Kettle Falls W Evergreen Dr & Juniper St Kettle Falls High % Lake Spokane Elementary School Nine Mile Falls 6015 Hwy 291 Nine Mile Falls High % Lakeside High School Nine Mile Falls 5909 Hwy 291 Nine Mile Falls High % Lakeside Middle School Nine Mile Falls 6169 Highway 291 Nine Mile Falls High % Mead Alternative High School Mead 529 W Hastings Spokane High % Mountainside Middle School Mead 4717 E Day Mt. Spokane Rd Colbert High % Mt Spokane High School Mead 6015 E Mt. Spokane Park Dr Mead High % Northwood Middle School Mead N Pittsburg Spokane High % Colbert Elementary School Mead 4625 E Greenbluff Rd Colbert High % Columbia Virtual Academy - Kettle Falls Kettle Falls W th Street Kettle Falls High % Kettle Falls Homelink Kettle Falls W th St Kettle Falls High % Kettle Falls Middle School Kettle Falls W th Kettle Falls High % University High School Central Valley E. 32nd Ave. Spokane High % Canyon Creek Middle School Washougal 9731 Washougal River Road Washougal High % Cape Horn Skye Elementary School Washougal 9731 Washougal River Rd Washougal High % Echo Glen School Issaquah SE 99th St Snoqualmie High % Fidalgo Elementary School Anacortes Gibralter Road Anacortes High % Griffin School Griffin rd Ave NW Olympia High % Index Elementary School Index 436 Index Avenue Index High % Kalama Elem School Kalama 548 China Garden Road Kalama High % Kalama Junior Senior High School Kalama 548 China Garden Road Kalama High % Mary M Knight Elementary School Mary M. Knight 2987 W Matlock Brady Rd Elma High % Mt. Solo Middle School Longview 5300 Mt. Solo Road Longview High % Pioneer Primary School Pioneer 110 E Spencer Lake Rd. Shelton High % Rose Valley Elementary School Kelso 1502 Rose Valley Rd Kelso High % Southside Elementary School Southside 161 SE Collier Rd Shelton High % Twin Falls Middle School Snoqualmie Valley S.E. Middle Fork Road North Bend High % Woodland High School Woodland 757 Park Woodland High % Yacolt Primary School Battle Ground 406 W Yacolt Rd Yacolt High % Carrolls Elementary School Kelso 3902 Old Pacific Hwy S Kelso High % Clear Lake Elementary School Sedro-Woolley Lake Street Clear Lake High % Coweeman Middle School Kelso 2000 Allen St Kelso High % Elger Bay Elementary School Stanwood-Camano 1810 Elger Bay Rd Camano Island High % Hood Canal Elementary & Junior High School Hood Canal 111 N. Hwy 106 Shelton High % Kelso High School Kelso 1904 Allen St Kelso High % Loowit High School Kelso 1904 Allen St Kelso High % Ocosta Elementary School Ocosta 2580 Montesano Street South Westport High % Ocosta Junior Senior High School Ocosta 2580 Montesano Street South Westport High % Page 210

217 Table 11.2 Continued Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Skykomish Elementary School Skykomish 105 6th St. N Skykomish High % Skykomish High School Skykomish 105 6th St. N Skykomish High % Toutle Lake Elementary School Toutle Lake 5050 Spirit Lake Hwy Toutle High % Toutle Lake High School Toutle Lake 5050 Spirit Lake Hwy Toutle High % Breidablik Elementary School North Kitsap Waghorn Rd NW Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Burley Glenwood Elementary School South Kitsap 100 SW Lakeway Blvd Port Orchard Moderate N/A N/A Commodore Center Bainbridge Island 9530 NE High School Rd Bainbridge Island Moderate N/A N/A David Wolfle Elementary School North Kitsap Highland Rd NE Kingston Moderate N/A N/A Hilder Pearson Elementary School North Kitsap Central Valley Rd NW Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Kingston High School North Kitsap Siyaya Avenue NE Kingston Moderate N/A N/A North Kitsap Community Center North Kitsap 2003 NE Hostmark St Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A North Kitsap High School North Kitsap 1780 NE Hostmark Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A OASIS School K-12 Orcas Island 557 School Rd Eastsound Moderate N/A N/A Orcas Island Elementary School Orcas Island 611 School Rd Eastsound Moderate N/A N/A Pal Program North Kitsap 1845 NE Hostmark St Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Poulsbo Elementary School North Kitsap Noll Rd NE Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Poulsbo Middle School North Kitsap 2003 NE Hostmark Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Silverdale Elementary School Central Kitsap 9100 Dickey Rd NW Silverdale Moderate N/A N/A South Colby Elementary School South Kitsap 3281 Banner Road SE Port Orchard Moderate N/A N/A Vinland Elementary School North Kitsap Rhododendron Ln NW Poulsbo Moderate N/A N/A Kittitas High School Kittitas 7571 Kittitas Highway Kittitas Moderate % Kittitas B-5 Special Education Program Kittitas Po Box 599 Kittitas Moderate % Kittitas Elementary School Kittitas 500 N. Pierce Avenue Kittitas Moderate % Bainbridge Special Education Services Bainbridge Island 8489 Madison Ave NE Bainbridge Island Moderate % Bayview Alternative School South Whidbey 5611 S Bayview Road Langley Moderate % Coupeville Middle School Coupeville 501 South Main Coupeville Moderate % Hillcrest Elementary School Oak Harbor 1500 NW 2nd Ave. Oak Harbor Moderate % John Sedgwick Junior High School South Kitsap 8995 SE SEdgwick Rd Port Orchard Moderate % Klahowya Secondary School Central Kitsap 7607 NW Newberry Hill Rd Silverdale Moderate % Langley Middle School South Whidbey 723 Camano Ave Langley Moderate % Mullenix Ridge Elementary School South Kitsap 3900 SE Mullenix Rd Port Orchard Moderate % North Whidbey Middle School Oak Harbor 67 NE Izett St. Oak Harbor Moderate % Oak Harbor Elementary School Oak Harbor 151 SE Midway Blvd. Oak Harbor Moderate % Oak Harbor High School Oak Harbor 950 NW 2nd Ave. Oak Harbor Moderate % Olalla Elementary School South Kitsap 6100 SE Denny Bond Blvd Port Orchard Moderate % Olympic View Elementary Oak Harbor 380 NE Regatta Dr. Oak Harbor Moderate % Orcas Island High School Orcas Island 715 School Rd Eastsound Moderate % Orcas Island Middle School Orcas Island 715 School Rd Eastsound Moderate % Ordway Elementary School Bainbridge Island 8555 Madison Ave Ne Bainbridge Island Moderate % Sidney Glen Elementary School South Kitsap 500 SW Birch Rd Port Orchard Moderate % South Whidbey Elementary School South Whidbey 5380 S Maxwelton Rd Langley Moderate % South Whidbey High School South Whidbey 5675 S Maxwelton Langley Moderate % South Whidbey Special Services South Whidbey 721 Camano Ave Langley Moderate % Whidbey Island Academy Shared School South Whidbey 5675 S Maxwelton Rd Langley Moderate % Captain Charles Wilkes Elementary Bainbridge Bainbridge Island Madison Ave NE School Island Moderate % Green Mountain Elementary School Central Kitsap 3860 Boundary Trail NW Bremerton Moderate % Kingston Middle School North Kitsap 9000 W Kingston Rd Kingston Moderate % Special Programs North Kitsap Caldart Ave NE Poulsbo Moderate % Broadview Elementary School Oak Harbor 473 SW Fairhaven Dr. Oak Harbor Moderate % Cedar Program Coupeville 1276 Engle Rd Coupeville Moderate % Coupeville Elementary School Coupeville 6 South Main Coupeville Moderate % Coupeville High School Coupeville 501 South Main Coupeville Moderate % Crescent Harbor Elementary Oak Harbor 330 E. Crescent Harbor Rd. Oak Harbor Moderate % Page 211

218 Table 11.2 Continued Wildland/Urban Interface Communities Identified by DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a HomeConnection Oak Harbor 350 S. Oak Harbor St. Oak Harbor Moderate % Middle School Options North Kitsap Barber Cut Off Road NE Kingston Moderate % Oak Harbor Aadministrative Service Center Oak Harbor 350 S Oak Harbor St Oak Harbor Moderate % Oak Harbor Middle School Oak Harbor 150 SW Sixth Ave. Oak Harbor Moderate % Special Education Oak Harbor 350 S. Oak Harbor St. Oak Harbor Moderate % Lopez Middle High School Lopez Island 86 School Road Lopez Island Low N/A N/A Cape Flattery Preschool Cape Flattery Hwy 112 Sekiu Low % Decatur Elementary School Lopez Island Decatur Island Anacortes Low % Lopez Elementary School Lopez Island 86 School Road Lopez Island Low % Neah Bay Elementary School Cape Flattery 3560 Deer Street Neah Bay Low % Neah Bay Junior Senior High School Cape Flattery 3560 Deer Street Neah Bay Low % Shaw Island Elementary School Shaw Island 44 Hoffman Cove Road Shaw Island Low % Waldron Island School Orcas Island 1 School Road Waldron Island Low % a Landfire Return Periods/Probabilities should not be interpreted literally, but rather as a measure of relative fire hazard level. See Pages11 10 and Page 212

219 Table 11.3 USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Vancouver 5206 Franklin St Vancouver N/A % Bethel Online Academy Bethel B St E Spanaway N/A % Black Lake Elementary School Tumwater 6345 Belmore-Black Lake Road Olympia N/A % Carson Elementary School Puyallup th St E Puyallup N/A % Covington Middle School Evergreen (Clark) NE Rosewood Rd Vancouver N/A % Early Childhood Education Center Vancouver 301 S Lieser Rd Vancouver N/A % Edmonds Heights K-12 School Edmonds th Ave W Edmonds N/A % Ellsworth Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) 512 SE Ellsworth Avenue Vancouver N/A % Endeavour Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) 2701 NE Four Seasons LaNE Vancouver N/A % Fairview Junior High School Central Kitsap 8107 Central Valley Rd Nw Bremerton N/A % Fir Grove Childrens Center Vancouver 2920 Falk Rd Vancouver N/A % Fort Vancouver High School Vancouver 5700 E 18th St Vancouver N/A % Franklin Elementary School Lake Washington NE 60th Kirkland N/A % George C. Marshall Elementary School Vancouver 6400 Macarthur Blvd Vancouver N/A % Gov. John Rogers High School Puyallup th Ave E Puyallup N/A % Harry S. Truman Elementary School Vancouver 4505 NE 42nd Ave Vancouver N/A % Health and Bioscience Academy Evergreen (Clark) 9105 NE 9th St Vancouver N/A % Hough Elementary School Vancouver 1900 Daniels St Vancouver N/A % Hudson's Bay High School Vancouver 1601 E Mcloughlin Blvd Vancouver N/A % Image Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) 4400 NE 122nd Avenue Vancouver N/A % Kent Mountain View Academy Kent Military Rd S Des Moines N/A % Lake Dolloff Elementary School Federal Way 4200 S 308th St Auburn N/A % Lewis and Clark High School Vancouver 2901 General Anderson Ave Vancouver N/A % Lochburn Middle School Clover Park 5431 Steilacoom Blvd SW Lakewood N/A % Marrion Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) NE 14th Street Vancouver N/A % Martin Luther King Elementary School Vancouver 4801 Idaho St Vancouver N/A % McLoughlin Middle School Vancouver 5802 Macarthur Blvd Vancouver N/A % Mountain Meadow Elementary School White River Mundy Loss Rd Buckley N/A % Naches Trail Elementary School Bethel Waller Road East Tacoma N/A % New Market High School Tumwater 7299 New Market Street Sw Tumwater N/A % Nierenberg Center Vancouver 105 S Lieser Rd Vancouver N/A % Orchards Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) NE 69th Street Vancouver N/A % Pioneer Valley Preschool Bethel 7315 Eustis Hunt Rd Spanaway N/A % Ridgefield High School Ridgefield 2630 S Hillhurst Road Ridgefield N/A % Riverview Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) SE Riverridge Drive Vancouver N/A % Roosevelt Elementary School Vancouver 2921 Falk Rd Vancouver N/A % Silver Star Elementary School Evergreen (Clark) NE 86th Street Vancouver N/A % Sorenson Early Childhood Center Northshore Av NE Bothell N/A % Spanaway Elementary School/ ECEAP/Preschool Bethel th Street South Spanaway N/A % Spanaway Junior High School Bethel B Street East Tacoma N/A % Spanaway Lake High School/Preschool Bethel th Street East Spanaway N/A % Thompson Preschool Bethel th Ave E Tacoma N/A % Union Ridge Elementary School Ridgefield 330 North Fifth Avenue Ridgefield N/A % Vancouver School of Arts and Academics Vancouver 3101 Main Street Vancouver N/A % Walnut Grove Elementary School Vancouver 6103 NE 72nd Ave Vancouver N/A % Arcadia Elementary School Deer Park E "D" Street Deer Park N/A % Aster Elementary School Colville 225 Hofstetter Rd Coleville N/A % Bemiss Elementary School Spokane 2323 E Bridgeport Ave Spokane N/A % Bowdish Middle School Central Valley 2109 S. Skipworth Rd. Spokane N/A % Cascade High School Cascade Chumstick Hwy Leavenworth N/A % Cashmere High School Cashmere 329 Tigner Road Cashmere N/A % Cashmere Middle School Cashmere 300 Tigner Road Cashmere N/A % Central Valley High School Central Valley 821 S. Sullivan Rd. Veradale N/A % Central Valley Kindergarten Center Central Valley 1512 N Barker Road Spokane Valley N/A % Chattaroy Elementary School Riverside N. Yale Rd. Chattaroy N/A % Chewelah Alternative Chewelah N. 210 Park Chewelah N/A % Page 213

220 Table 11.3 USGS Landfire Return Periods Less than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Columbia Virtual Academy Valley 3034 Huffman Rd Valley N/A % Columbia Virtual Academy-Colville Colville Columbia Virtual Academy- Colville Colville N/A % Creston Elementary School Creston 485 SE E Street Creston N/A % Creston Junior Senior High School Creston 485 SE E Street Creston N/A % Curlew Elementary & High School Curlew 47 Curlew School Rd Curlew N/A % Davenport Elementary School Davenport th Street Davenport N/A % Deer Park Elementary School Deer Park E "D" Street Deer Park N/A % Deer Park High School Deer Park S. 800 Weber Road Deer Park N/A % Deer Park Home Link Program Deer Park N. 428 Main Street Deer Park N/A % Deer Park Middle School Deer Park S. 347 Colville Ave. Deer Park N/A % East Farms Elementary School East Valley (Spokane) E Rowan Newman Lake N/A % Evergreen Elementary School Mead 215 W Eddy Spokane N/A % Evergreen School Evergreen (Stevens) 3342 Addy-Gifford Rd Gifford N/A % Fort Colville Elementary School Colville Fort Colville Elementary Colville N/A % Franklin Elementary School Pullman 850 SE Klemgard Pullman N/A % Freeman High School Freeman S Jackson Rockford N/A % Garfield at Palouse High School Garfield 600 E. Alder Palouse N/A % Garfield Elementary School Garfield 810 North Third Street Garfield N/A % Garfield Middle School Garfield 810 N Third Street Garfield N/A % Gess Elementary School Chewelah E. 405 Lincoln Chewelah N/A % Greenacres Elementary School Central Valley E. 4th Ave. Greenacres N/A % Hofstetter Elementary School Colville Hofstetter Elementary Colville N/A % Home Link Alternative Chewelah N. 210 Park Chewelah N/A % Icicle River Middle School Cascade Titus Rd Leavenworth N/A % Jefferson Elementary School Pullman 1150 NW Bryant Pullman N/A % Jenkins Middle School Chewelah W. 106 Lincoln Chewelah N/A % Jenkins Senior High School Chewelah E. 702 Lincoln Chewelah N/A % Lamont Middle School Lamont 602 Main Street Lamont N/A % Liberty Junior High & Elementary S North Pine Creek Liberty School Rd Spangle N/A % Liberty Lake Elementary School Central Valley E. Boone Ave. Liberty Lake N/A % Longfellow Elementary School Spokane 800 E Providence Ave Spokane N/A % Madison Elementary School Spokane 319 W Nebraska Ave Spokane N/A % Mead Support Services Mead N Market St Mead N/A % Moran Prairie Elementary School Spokane 4224 E 57th Ave Spokane N/A % Mountain View Middle School East Valley (Spokane) 6011 N Chase Rd Newman Lake N/A % Newport Alternative High School Newport 1302 W. 5th Street Newport N/A % Newport High School Newport 1400 W. 5th Street Newport N/A % Newport Parent Partnership Newport 1201 West 5th Street Newport N/A % Oakesdale High School Oakesdale First & Mccoy Streets Oakesdale N/A % Off-Campus Special Education Central Valley E Cataldo Spokane Valley N/A % Orchard Prairie Elementary School Orchard Prairie 7626 N. Orchard Prairie Rd. Spokane N/A % Osborn Elementary School Cascade 225 Central Ave Leavenworth N/A % Palouse at Garfield Middle School Palouse 600 E Alder Street Palouse N/A % Palouse Elementary School Palouse 600 E Alder Street Palouse N/A % Palouse High School Palouse 600 E Alder Street Palouse N/A % Panorama Distance Colville 225 S Hofstetter St Colville N/A % Panorama School Colville 225 S Hofstetter St Colville N/A % Pullman High School Pullman 510 NW Larry Street Pullman N/A % Republic Senior High School Republic Highway 20 E Republic N/A % Riverside Elementary School Riverside 3802 East Deer Park-Milan Rd. Chattaroy N/A % Riverside High School Riverside 4120 East Deer Park-Milan Rd. Chattaroy, N/A % Riverside Middle School Riverside 3814 E. Deer Park/Milan Rd. Chattaroy N/A % Rogers High School Spokane 1622 E Wellesley Ave Spokane N/A % Sadie Halstead Middle School Newport 331 S. Calispel Avenue Newport N/A % Selkirk Elementary School Selkirk 219 Park Avenue Metaline Falls N/A % Page 214

221 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Selkirk High School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione N/A % Selkirk Junior Senior High School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione N/A % Selkirk Middle School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione N/A % Shadle Park High School Spokane 4327 N Ash St Spokane N/A % Shiloh Hills Elementary School Mead 505 E Stonewall Ave Spokane N/A % Stratton Elementary School Newport 1201 W. 5th Street Newport N/A % Summit Valley School Summit Valley 2360 Addy-Gifford Road Addy N/A % Sunrise Elementary School Central Valley E. 24th Ave. Veradale N/A % Tekoa Elementary School Tekoa 200 N Broadway Tekoa N/A % Tekoa High School Tekoa 513 E Henkle Tekoa N/A % Valley School Valley 3034 Huffman Rd Valley N/A % Wellpinit Alliance High School Wellpinit 6231 Old School Rd Wellpinit N/A % Westview Elementary School Spokane 6104 N Moore St Spokane N/A % Willard Elementary School Spokane 500 W Longfellow Ave Spokane N/A % Wilson Elementary School Spokane 911 W 25th Ave Spokane N/A % Woodridge Elementary School Spokane 5100 W Shawnee Ave Spokane N/A % ALPS Alternative Learning Placement Site Othello 1025 S 1st Ave Othello N/A % Amistad Elementary School Kennewick 930 West 4th Avenue Kennewick N/A % Badger Mountain Elementary School Richland 1515 Elementary Street Richland N/A % Bridgeport Aurora High School Bridgeport 1400 Tacoma Bridgeport N/A % Canyon View Elementary School Kennewick 1229 West 22nd Place Kennewick N/A % Captain Gray Elementary/ Early Learning Center Pasco 1102 N 10th Ave Pasco N/A % Carmichael Middle School Richland 620 Thayer Drive Richland N/A % Chiawana High School Pasco 8415 Argent Rd Pasco N/A % Chief Joseph Middle School Richland 504 Wilson Richland N/A % Chief Moses Middle School Moses Lake 1111 E Nelson Road Moses Lake N/A % Colton School Colton 706 Union Colton N/A % Columbia Elementary School Columbia (Walla Walla) 977 Maple Street Burbank N/A % Columbia High School Columbia (Walla Walla) 787 Maple Street Burbank N/A % Cottonwood Elementary School Kennewick South Cottonwood Creek B N/A % Dallesport Elementary School Lyle 325 6th Avenue Dallesport N/A % Delta High School Richland 901 Northgate Dr N/A % Developmental Preschool Wahluke 400 N. Boundary Mattawa N/A % Eastgate Elementary School Kennewick 910 East 10th Avenue Kennewick N/A % Edison Elementary School Kennewick 201 South Dawes Street Kennewick N/A % Ellen Ochoa Middle School Pasco 1801 E Sheppard St Pasco N/A % Emerson Elementary School Pasco 1616 W Octave St Pasco N/A % Enterprise Middle School Richland 5200 Paradise Way West Richland N/A % Entiat Middle and High School Entiat 2650 Entiat Way Entiat N/A % Finley Elementary School Finley E Cougar Rd Kennewick N/A % Finley Middle School Finley S Finley Rd Kennewick N/A % Garden Heights Elementary School Moses Lake 707 E Nelson Road Moses Lake N/A % Grainger Elementary School Okanogan th Street S Okanogan N/A % Hanford High School Richland 450 Hanford Street Richland N/A % Hawthorne Elementary School Kennewick 3520 West John Day Avenue Kennewick N/A % Highlands Middle School Kennewick 425 South Tweedt Street Kennewick N/A % James McGee Elementary School Pasco 4601 N Horizon Drive Pasco N/A % Jefferson Elementary School Richland 1525 Hunt Ave Richland N/A % Kamiakin High School Kennewick 600 North Arthur Street Kennewick N/A % Keene-Riverview Elementary School Prosser 832 Park Ave. Prosser N/A % Keewaydin Discovery Center Kennewick 202 South Dayton Street Kennewick N/A % Kennewick Administrative Office Kennewick 1000 W 4th Ave Kennewick N/A % Kennewick High School Kennewick 500 South Dayton Street Kennewick N/A % Kiona-Benton City High School Kiona-Benton City 1205 Horne Drive Benton City N/A % Kiona-Benton Intermediate Kiona-Benton City 1107 Grace Aveune Benton City N/A % Page 215

222 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Legacy High School Kennewick 201 S. Garfield St Kennewick N/A % Lewis & Clark Elementary School Richland 800 Downing Richland N/A % Lewis & Clark Middle School Yakima 1114 W Pierce St Yakima N/A % Longfellow Elementary School Pasco 301 North 10th Avenue Pasco N/A % Longview Elementary School Moses Lake 9783 Apple Road NE Moses Lake N/A % Marcus Whitman Elementary School Richland 1704 Gray Richland N/A % Mark Twain Elementary School Pasco 1801 N Road 40 Pasco N/A % Mattawa Elementary Preschool Wahluke 400 N. Boundary Mattawa N/A % Mattawa Elementary School Wahluke 400 N Boundary Mattawa N/A % Maya Angelou Elementary School Pasco 6001 Road 84 Pasco N/A % McLoughlin Middle School Pasco 2803 N Road 88 Pasco N/A % Mesa Elementary School North Franklin 200 Pepiot Road Mesa N/A % Mid-Columbia Parent Partnership Kennewick 200 S Fruitland St Kennewick N/A % Morris Schott Elementary School Wahluke 500 N Boundary Mattawa N/A % Moses Lake High School Moses Lake 803 E. Sharon Ave. Moses Lake N/A % N Omak Elementary School Omak 615 Oak Street Omak N/A % New Horizons High School Pasco 3110 Argent Road Pasco N/A % Okanogan Alternative High School Okanogan 126 S Main Street Okanogan N/A % Okanogan Middle School Okanogan 244 South 5th Street Okanogan N/A % Okanogan Outreach Alternative School Okanogan 19 Riverside Dr. Omak N/A % Omak Alternative High School Omak 600 W 6th Ave Omak N/A % Omak High School Omak 20 South Cedar Omak N/A % Omak Middle School Omak 14 S Cedar Omak N/A % Palisades Elementary School Palisades 1114 Palisades Rd Palisades N/A % Park Middle School Kennewick 1011 West 10th Avenue Kennewick N/A % Pasco Early Childhood Pasco 1215 W Lewis Pasco N/A % Pasco Senior High School Pasco 1108 N 10th Avenue Pasco N/A % Pateros Elementary School Pateros 344 W Beach St. Pateros N/A % Pateros High School Pateros 344 W Beach St Pateros N/A % Paterson Elementary School Paterson W. Prior Rd. Paterson N/A % Paul Rumburg Elementary School Entiat 2650 Entiat Way Entiat N/A % Phoenix High School Kennewick 3520 Southridge Boulevard Kennewick N/A % Prosser Falls Education Center Prosser 1500 Grant Ave. Prosser N/A % Richland High School Richland 930 Long Ave Richland N/A % River View High School Finley S Lemon Dr Kennewick N/A % Rivers Edge High School Richland 975 Gillespie Richland N/A % Robert Frost Elementary School Pasco 1915 North 22nd Avenue Pasco N/A % Rock Island Elementary School Eastmont 5645 Rock Island Road Rock Island N/A % Rowena Chess Elementary School Pasco 715 N 24th Ave Pasco N/A % Ruth Livingston Elementary School Pasco 2515 Road 84 Pasco N/A % Sacajawea Elementary School Richland 518 Catskill Richland N/A % Saddle Mountain Elementary School Wahluke 500 Riverview Drive Mattawa N/A % Sentinel Technical Alternative School Wahluke Rd 24 SW Mattawa N/A % Special Programs Richland 615 Snow Ave. Richland N/A % Stanton Alternative School Yakima 901 West Whitman St Yakima N/A % Stevens Middle School Pasco 1120 N 22nd Avenue Pasco N/A % Sunnyside Elementary School Pullman 425 SW Shirley Pullman N/A % Sunset View Elementary School Kennewick 711 North Center Parkway Kennewick N/A % Tapteal Elementary School Richland 705 N 62nd Ave West Richland N/A % Three Rivers Home Link Richland 975 Gillespie Street Richland N/A % Tonasket Elementary School Tonasket 35Es Highway 20 Tonasket N/A % Tonasket High School Tonasket 35Hs Highway 20 Tonasket N/A % Tonasket Middle School Tonasket 35Ms Highway 20 Tonasket N/A % Transportation Maintenance Center Yakima 1802 Perry St Yakima N/A % Tri-Tech Skills Center Kennewick 5929 West Metaline Avenue Kennewick N/A % Twin Rivers Group Home Richland 605 Mcmurray Richland N/A % Page 216

223 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K-12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Virgie Robinson Elementary School Pasco 125 S. Wehe Ave Pasco N/A % Vista Elementary School Kennewick 1701 North Young Street Kennewick N/A % Wahluke High School Wahluke 505 N Boundary Mattawa N/A % Wahluke Junior High School Wahluke 502 N. Boundary Mattawa N/A % Washington Elementary School Kennewick 105 West 21st Avenue Kennewick N/A % Washington Virtual Academy Omak Elem./M.S./H.S. Omak 619 West Bartlett Ave. Omak N/A % Westgate Elementary School Kennewick 2514 West 4th Avenue Kennewick N/A % Whittier Elementary School Pasco 616 N Wehe Avenue Pasco N/A % Wiley Elementary School Richland 2820 S Highlands Blvd West Richland N/A % Wilson Creek Elementary School Wilson Creek 400 Navar Street Wilson Creek N/A % Wilson Creek High School Wilson Creek 400 Navar Street Wilson Creek N/A % Hulan L. Whitson Elementary School White Salmon Valley 450 N Main Street White Salmon N/A % Collins Alternative Programs White River th St E Buckley N/A % Daffodil Valley Elementary School Sumner 1509 Valley Avenue Sumner N/A % Roosevelt Elementary School Roosevelt 615 Chinook Avenue Roosevelt N/A % Abraham Lincoln Elementary School Wenatchee 1224 Methow St. Wenatchee N/A % Ahtanum Valley Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 3006 S Wiley Rd Yakima N/A % Almira Coulee Hartline High School Coulee-Hartline 413 N. 4th Street Coulee City N/A % Almira Elementary School Almira 310 S 3rd St Almira N/A % Apple Valley Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 7 N 88th Avenue Yakima N/A % Asotin Elementary School Asotin-Anatone 314 1st St Asotin N/A % Asotin Junior Senior High School Asotin-Anatone 215 Second Street Asotin N/A % Benge Elementary School Benge 2978 E Benge Winona Rd Benge N/A % Berney Elementary School Walla Walla 1718 Pleasant St Walla Walla N/A % Brentwood Elementary School Mead 406 W Regina Ave Spokane N/A % Brewster Bus Garage Brewster 313 S 7th St Brewster N/A % Brewster Elementary School Brewster 503 S. 7th St. Brewster N/A % Brewster High School Brewster 503 S. 7th St. Brewster N/A % Brewster Junior High School Brewster 422 S 7th St Brewster N/A % Bridgeport Elementary School Bridgeport 1400 Tacoma Ave Bridgeport N/A % Bridgeport High School Bridgeport 1220 Kryger Ave Bridgeport N/A % Bridgeport Middle School Bridgeport 1300 Douglas Bridgeport N/A % Broadway Elementary School Central Valley E. Broadway Ave. Spokane N/A % Cascade Elementary School Eastmont 2330 N. Baker Ave. East Wenatchee N/A % Centennial Middle School West Valley (Spokane) 915 N Ella Rd Spokane N/A % Center Elementary School Grand Coulee Dam 317 Spokane Way Grand Coulee N/A % Charles Francis Adams High School Clarkston 401 Chestnut St Clarkston N/A % Chelan High School Lake Chelan 215 Webster Chelan N/A % Chelan Middle School Lake Chelan 215 Webster Chelan N/A % Chelan Prepatory High School Lake Chelan Po Box 369 Chelan N/A % Clarkston School District Technology Building Clarkston 847 5th St Clarkston N/A % Clovis Point Intermediate School Eastmont th St SE East Wenatchee N/A % Colfax High School Colfax 1110 N. Morton Street Colfax N/A % Columbia Elementary School Wenatchee 600 Alaska St Wenatchee N/A % Cooper Elementary School Spokane 3200 N Ferrall St Spokane N/A % Cottonwood Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 1041 S 96th Ave Yakima N/A % Coulee City Elementary School Coulee-Hartline 410 W Locust Coulee City N/A % Coulee City Middle School Coulee-Hartline 410 W. Locust St. Coulee City N/A % Damman Elementary School Damman 41 Manastash Rd Ellensburg N/A % Davenport Senior High School Davenport 801 7th Street Davenport N/A % Davis Elementary School College Place 31 SE Ash Street College Place N/A % Davis High School Yakima 212 S 6th Ave Yakima N/A % Dixie Elementary School Dixie E. Hwy. 12 Dixie N/A % E Omak Elementary School Omak 715 Omak Ave Omak N/A % Eastmont Columbia Virtual Academy Eastmont 345 6th St NE East Wenatchee N/A % Page 217

224 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Eastmont Junior High School Eastmont 905 NE 8th Street East Wenatchee N/A % Eastmont Senior High School Eastmont 955 3rd Street NE East Wenatchee N/A % Edison Elementary School Walla Walla 1315 E Alder St Walla Walla N/A % Educational Opportunity Center Clarkston 1284 Chestnut St Clarkston N/A % Elementary Alternative Center Clarkston 1253 Poplar St Clarkston N/A % Ellensburg High School Ellensburg 1203 E Capitol Ellensburg N/A % Endicott-St John Elementary and Middle Endicott 308 School Drive Endicott N/A % Foothills Middle School Wenatchee 1410 Maple St Wenatchee N/A % Franklin Middle School Yakima 410 S 19th Ave Yakima N/A % Freeman Elementary School Freeman S Jackson Road Rockford N/A % Freeman Middle School Freeman S Jackson Rd Rockford N/A % Gilbert Elementary School Yakima 4400 Douglas Dr Yakima N/A % Glacier Valley High School Lake Chelan 324 E Johnson Chelan N/A % Glover Middle School Spokane 2404 W Longfellow Ave Spokane N/A % Goldendale High School Goldendale 525 Simcoe Dr. Goldendale N/A % Goldendale Middle School Goldendale 520 E. Collins Dr. Goldendale N/A % Goldendale Primary School Goldendale 820 S. Schuster St Goldendale N/A % Goldendale Support Service Center Goldendale 820 S. Schuster St. Goldendale N/A % Grand Coulee Dam Middle School Grand Coulee Dam 512 Federal Ave Grand Coulee N/A % Grant Elementary School Eastmont 1430 SE 1st Street East Wenatchee N/A % Grantham Elementary School Clarkston 1253 Poplar St Clarkston N/A % Green Park Elementary School Walla Walla 1105 E Isaacs Ave Walla Walla N/A % Harrington Elementary School Harrington 100 S First Harrington N/A % Harrington High School Harrington 100 S First Harrington N/A % Heights Elementary School Clarkston th Ave Clarkston N/A % Highland Elementary School Clarkston 1432 Highland St Clarkston N/A % Highland High School Highland Summitview Cowiche N/A % Highland Junior High School Highland Summitview Cowiche N/A % Homelink Walla Walla 1718 Pleasant St Walla Walla N/A % Independent Learning Center Methow Valley 220 Hwy 20 Twisp N/A % John Campbell Elementary School Selah 408 North First Street Selah N/A % John Newbery Elementary School Wenatchee 850 Western Wenatchee N/A % K-12 Ellensburg Learning Center Ellensburg 1300 E Third Avenue Ellensburg N/A % Kahlotus Elementary & High School Kahlotus 100 W Martin St Kahlotus N/A % Keller Elementary School Keller 17 S. School Rd. Keller N/A % Kenroy Elementary School Eastmont 601 N. Jonathan Ave. East Wenatchee N/A % Lacrosse Elementary School LaCrosse 111 Hill Ave Lacrosse N/A % Lacrosse High School LaCrosse 100 Hill Street Lacrosse N/A % Lake Chelan Preschool Lake Chelan 324 E Johnson Chelan N/A % Leonard M Jennings Elementary School Colfax 1207 N. Morton Street Colfax N/A % Lewis and Clark Elementary School Wenatchee 1130 Princeton Wenatchee N/A % Libby Center Spokane 2900 E 1st Ave Spokane N/A % Lincoln Elementary School Ellensburg 200 S. Sampson Ellensburg N/A % Lincoln Middle School Clarkston th Ave Clarkston N/A % Lincoln Middle School Pullman 315 SE Crestview Pullman N/A % Logan Elementary School Spokane 1001 E Montgomery Ave Spokane N/A % Mansfield Elem and High School Mansfield 491 Road 14 N.E. Mansfield N/A % McKinley Elementary School Yakima 621 S 13th Ave Yakima N/A % Millwood Early Childhood Center West Valley (Spokane) 8818 E Grace Spokane N/A % Morgan Middle School Ellensburg 400 E First Ellensburg N/A % Morgen Owings Elementary School Lake Chelan 407 E Woodin Chelan N/A % Page 218

225 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Mountainview Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 830 Stone Rd Yakima N/A % Mt. Stuart Elementary School Ellensburg 705 W. 15th Ellensburg N/A % Naches Valley High School Naches Valley 101 W. Fifth Street Naches N/A % Naches Valley Intermediate School Naches Valley 101 Shafer Ave Naches N/A % Naches Valley Middle School Naches Valley 32 Shafer Avenue Naches N/A % Nespelem Elementary School Nespelem 229 School House Loop Nespelem N/A % Nob Hill Elementary School Yakima 801 S 34th Ave Yakima N/A % Oakesdale Elementary School Oakesdale First & Mccoy Streets Oakesdale N/A % Okanogan High School Okanogan 244 South 5th Street Okanogan N/A % Orchard Middle School Wenatchee 1024 Orchard Ave Wenatchee N/A % Orondo Elementary and Middle School Orondo 100 Orondo School Road Orondo N/A % Oroville Middle High School Oroville 1016 Ironwood Oroville N/A % Otis Orchards Elementary School East Valley (Spokane) E Wellesley Ave Otis Orchards N/A % P C Jantz Elementary School Odessa 311 South First Street Odessa N/A % Parkway Elementary School Clarkston th St Clarkston N/A % Pioneer Middle School Walla Walla 450 Bridge St Walla Walla N/A % Pioneer Middle School Wenatchee 1620 Russell St Wenatchee N/A % Pomeroy Elementary School Pomeroy 10th And Cloumbia Pomeroy N/A % Pomeroy Junior Senior High School Pomeroy 1090 Pataha St Pomeroy N/A % Preston Hall Middle School Waitsburg 605 Main Street Waitsburg N/A % Red Rock Elementary School Royal 230 Wildflower Street Royal City N/A % Republic Elementary School Republic E Highway 20 Republic N/A % Republic Junior High School Republic E Highway 20 Republic N/A % Republic Parent Partner Republic East Highway 20 Republic N/A % Ritzville Grade School Ritzville 401 E 6th Ave. Ritzville N/A % Ritzville High School Ritzville 209 E Wellsandt Avenue Ritzville N/A % Robert E Lee Elementary School Eastmont 1455 N. Baker Ave. East Wenatchee N/A % Robert S. Lince Elementary School Selah 316 West Naches Avenue Selah N/A % Robertson Elementary School Yakima 2807 W Lincoln Ave Yakima N/A % Roosevelt Elementary School Yakima 120 N 16th Ave Yakima N/A % Rosalia Elementary & Secondary School Rosalia 916 South Josephine Rosalia N/A % Royal High School Royal 955 Ahlers Road Royal City N/A % Royal Middle School Royal 921 Ahlers Road Royal City N/A % Selah High School Selah 801 North First Street Selah N/A % Selah Intermediate School Selah 1401 West Fremont Avenue Selah N/A % Selah Junior High School / Homelink Selah 411 North First Street Selah N/A % Selah Preschool Selah 105 W Bartlett Ave Selah N/A % Seth Woodard Elementary School West Valley (Spokane) 7401 E Mission Spokane N/A % Sheridan Elementary School Spokane 3737 E 5th Ave Spokane N/A % Skill Source Wenatchee 233 Chelan St Wenatchee N/A % Smokiam Alternative High School Soap Lake 120 East Main Street Soap Lake N/A % Soap Lake Elementary School Soap Lake 410 Ginkgo St S Soap Lake N/A % Soap Lake Middle & High School Soap Lake 527 2nd Ave SW Soap Lake N/A % Special Education Preschool Eastmont st St. NE East Wenatchee N/A % Special Education School Wenatchee 112 So. Elliott Street Wenatchee N/A % Special Services Clarkston 1294 Chestnut St Clarkston N/A % Spokane Skills Center Spokane N 4141 Regal Street Spokane N/A % Sprague Elementary School Sprague S. 512 F St Sprague N/A % Sprague High School Sprague 614 W. Fifth Street Sprague N/A % St John Elementary School St. John W 301 Nob Hill Saint John N/A % St John-Endicott High School St. John W 301 Nob Hill Saint John N/A % Star Elem School Star Pasco-Kahlotus Rd. Pasco N/A % Starbuck School Starbuck 717 Tucannon St Starbuck N/A % Steptoe Elementary School Steptoe 12 Tennessee Street Steptoe N/A % Sterling Intermediate School Eastmont 600 N. James Ave. East Wenatchee N/A % Summitview Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 6305 W Chestnut Ave Yakima N/A % Page 219

226 Table 11.3 Continued USGS Landfire Return Periods Less Than 50 Years K 12 Facilities Not Within DNR Wildland/Urban Interface Communities FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City WUI Community DNR Fire Hazard Rating WILDFIRE HAZARDS USGS Landfire Return Period Range (Years) Fire Probability within 50 Year Time Period a Sunnyslope Elementary School Wenatchee 3109 School Street Wenatchee N/A % Thorp Elementary & Junior Senior High School Thorp N Thorp Hwy Thorp N/A % Tieton Intermediate School Highland 711 Thompson Rd Tieton N/A % Vale Elementary School Cashmere 101 Pioneer Avenue Cashmere N/A % Valley Academy Of Learning Wenatchee 11 N Chelan Avenue Wenatchee N/A % Valley View Elementary School Ellensburg 1508 E 3rd Ellensburg N/A % Washington Elementary School Wenatchee 1401 Wa St. Wenatchee N/A % Washtucna Elem./H.S. Washtucna 730 Booth Ave Washtucna N/A % Waterville Elementary School Waterville 200 E Birch St Waterville N/A % Waterville High School Waterville 200 E Birch St. Waterville N/A % Wenatchee High School Wenatchee 1101 Millerdale Ave Wenatchee N/A % Wenatchee Valley Technical Skills Center Wenatchee 327 E Penny Road Ste D Wenatchee N/A % West Valley High School West Valley (Spokane) 8301 E Buckeye Spokane N/A % West Valley High School West Valley (Yakima) 9800 Zier Rd Yakima N/A % West Valley High School Freshman Campus West Valley (Yakima) 9206 Zier Rd Yakima N/A % West Valley Preschool West Valley (Yakima) 3006 S Wiley Rd Yakima N/A % Westside Alternative High School Wenatchee 1510 Ninth Street Wenatchee N/A % Westside High School Wenatchee 1521 Ninth Wenatchee N/A % Whitney Elementary School Yakima 4411 W Nob Hill Blvd Yakima N/A % Whitworth Elementary School Mead 44 W Hawthorne Rd Spokane N/A % Wide Hollow Elementary School West Valley (Yakima) 1000 S 72nd Ave Yakima N/A % Wilbur Elementary School Wilbur 202 Pope Street Wilbur N/A % Wilbur Secondary School Wilbur 202 Pope Street Wilbur N/A % Wilson Middle School Yakima 902 S 44th Ave Yakima N/A % Wishram High And Elementary School Wishram 135 Bunn Street Wishram N/A % Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center Yakima 1116 S 15th Ave Yakima N/A % McDonald Elementary School Central Valley 1512 S. Mcdonald Rd. Spokane N/A % North Pines Middle School Central Valley 701 N. Pines Rd. Spokane N/A % Prairie View Elementary School Mead 2606 W. Johannsen Rd. Spokane N/A % Reardan Elementary School Reardan-Edwall 250 S Aspen Reardan N/A % Reardan Middle Senior High School Reardan-Edwall 215 E Spokane Reardan N/A % Reardan Online Academy Reardan-Edwall 215 E Spokane St Reardan N/A % Trent Elementary School East Valley (Spokane) 3303 N Pines Rd Spokane Valley N/A % a Landfire Return Periods/Probabilities should not be interpreted literally, see Pages11 10 and 11-22, but rather as a measure of relative fire hazard level. The statement that the USGS Landfire Return periods should not be interpreted literally is based on a comparison of the estimates in Tables 11.2 and 11.3 which show more that than 500 K 12 campuses are within communities with estimated 50-year burn probabilities of 60 percent or higher. In contrast, the historical fire record over the past several decades shows that very few, if any, K 12 campuses in Washington have been affected by wildland/urban fires. The USGS Landfire Return Period data are better interpreted as an indication of the likelihood of a fire near a given location rather than the burn probability at a given location. Further insight Page 220

227 into the apparent discordance between the USGS Landfire Return Period estimates and the historical record in Washington requires additional analysis by fire professionals. As noted previously, the data and estimates in the above tables represent only a first step in evaluating the wildland/urban interface fire risk for K 12 facilities. The facilities listed in the above tables may have significant wildland/urban interface fire risk. More accurate evaluation of wildland/urban interface fire risk, for any given campus, requires a site-specific evaluation that includes all of the risk factors listed previously: Vegetative fuel loads adjacent and near the campus, including fuel types, fuel density, and proximity of high fuel load areas to the campus. Topography. Climate. Ignition sources and frequency of fire ignitions. Local fire suppression resources (fire agency response time, resources of crews and apparatus, and water supplies). Extent to which campus buildings have fire-safe construction and defensible space. Evaluation of the above characteristics may require technical advice and support from fire professionals, including local fire agency staff or other fire experts. In general, K 12 campuses probably have a significantly lower wildland/urban interface fire risk than single family residential buildings for several reasons including: K 12 facilities are unlikely to be deeply embedded in heavily forested areas unlike many single family residences. K 12 campuses typically have much larger areas of low fuel load than single family residences such as mowed grassy areas and paved areas. Fire suppression agencies may place a higher priority on protecting K 12 facilities than single family residences. The assertion that K 12 campuses may have a significantly lower wildland/urban interface fire risk than single family residences appears to be supported by the historical fire loss record as discussed in Section Since 1985, wildland/urban or wildland fires have destroyed about 439 homes, but there is no documentation that any K 12 facilities have been destroyed Wildland/Urban Fires: Potential Loss Estimates for K 12 Facilities Based on the discussion of fire hazard data in the previous section, it does not appear that there are enough data to make probabilistic estimates for wildland/urban interface fire losses for K 12 facilities. However, the probability of a single K 12 campus being destroyed, while certainly not zero, appears to be very low. Page 221

228 Although it is possible that a large wildland/urban interface fire could destroy more than one campus, the likelihood of such events appears very low. Damage from wildland/urban interface fires, to one or more campuses, is more likely than complete destruction but still appears to have a low probability. An important caveat on the above qualitative conclusions is that they are based on limited statewide data. There may be some K 12 campuses with moderate, high, or even very high risk from wildland/urban interface fires. However, site-specific evaluations, on a campus-by-campus basis, are necessary to determine which campuses may have substantial risk from wildland/urban interface fires. The potential losses to schools from wildland/urban interface fires are proportional to the number of campuses burned, the square footage of the buildings on a given campus, and the replacement value of buildings and contents. The average K-12 campus in Washington has nearly 68,000 SF of buildings, with an average building replacement value of approximately $300/SF. These data yield an average building replacement value per campus of about $20 million. The average replacement value of contents is about five percent of building replacement value, which brings the total average value at risk to about $21 million per campus. The vast majority of homes that are ignited by wildland/urban interface fires are a complete loss. For school campuses that are ignited, the fraction that are a complete loss may be somewhat lower than for homes, because of the likelihood that fire suppression resources will be focused on larger, more important buildings, such as schools. A rough estimate is that the fire damage for schools affected by wildland/urban interface is likely to be at least 50 percent of replacement value, and perhaps much closer to 100 percent. The corresponding ranges of losses are shown in Table Table 11.4 Potential Losses for Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Affecting K-12 Campuses Fire Event Number of Damage Estimates Death Estimates Campuses Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Small, localized area 1 $10,500,000 $21,000,000 None Less than 5 Medium, affectung a large part of a community 5 $52,500,000 $105,000,000 None Less than 50 Large, affecting several communities 10 $105,000,000 $210,000,000 None More than 100 The most likely number of deaths from wildland/urban interface fires of any size is none that is, in almost all cases evacuation to safe areas is possible before a campus is ignited. However, deaths are possible if evacuation is incomplete or in the unlikely possibility that all evacuation routes from a campus are blocked by fire before evacuation is completed. Overall, the risk of deaths or injuries from wildland/urban interface fires affecting K-12 facilities is very low Mitigation Strategies for Wildland/Urban Interface Fires This section summarizes common strategies for reducing the level of fire risk to both property and life safety in wildland/urban interface areas. These strategies have four elements: 1) Reduce Page 222

229 the probability of fire ignitions, 2) Reduce the probability that small fires will spread, 3) Minimize property damage, and 4) Minimize life safety risk. School districts are not responsible for fire suppression or community-wide mitigation measures for wildland/urban interface fires. These are the responsibility of cities, counties and fire agencies. For districts with campuses determined to be at significant risk from wildland/urban interface fires, there are three types of mitigation measures that may be practical including: For life safety, develop and practice effective evacuation plans for wildland/urban interface fires. For existing facilities with significant risk: o Maintain the maximum possible defensible space around buildings. o Implement fire-safe improvements such as non-flammable roofs and covering vent openings and overhangs with wire mesh to prevent entry and trapping of embers etc. Whenever possible, site new facilities outside of areas with high risk of wildland/urban interface fires, include fire-safe features in the design and ensure the maximum possible defensible space around new buildings. Mitigation projects for wildland/urban interface fire may be eligible for FEMA and other grant funding including: Defensible space activities. Hazardous fuel reduction activities. Ignition resistant construction activities. Page 223

230 Chapter Twelve: Landslides 12.1 Landslide Overview and Definitions The term landslide refers to a variety of slope instabilities that result in the downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials including rocks, soils and vegetation. Many types of landslides are differentiated based on the types of materials involved and the mode of movement. The descriptive nomenclature for landslides is summarized in the following figure. Figure 12.1 Landslide Nomenclature 1 Debris flows and mudslides (mudflows) are often differentiated from the other types of landslides, for which the sliding material is predominantly soil and/or rock. Debris flows and mudslides typically have high water content and may behave similarly to floods. However, debris flows may be much more destructive than floods because of their higher densities, high debris loads, and high velocities. There are three main factors that determine susceptibility (potential) for landslides: 1) Slope, 2) Soil/rock characteristics, and 3) Water content. Page 224

231 Figure 12.2 Major Types of Landslides 1 Page 225

232 Steeper slopes are more prone to all types of landslides. Loose, weak rock or soil is much more prone to landslides than competent rocks or dense, firm soils. Water saturated soils or rocks, with a high water table, are much more prone to landslides because the water pore pressure decreases the shear strength of the soil or rock and thus increases the probability of sliding. Most landslides occur during rainy months when soils are saturated with water. As noted previously, the water content of soils or rock is a major factor in determining the likelihood of sliding for any given landslide-prone location. However, landslides may occur at any time of year, including both dry and rainy months. Landslides are also commonly initiated by earthquakes. Areas prone to seismically triggered landslides are exactly the same as those prone to ordinary (non-seismic) landslides. As with ordinary landslides, seismically triggered landslides are more likely to originate from earthquakes that occur when soils are saturated with water. Any type of landslide may result in damages or complete destruction of buildings in their path as well as deaths and injuries for building occupants. Landslides frequently cause road blockages (by depositing debris on road surfaces) or road damage (if the road surface itself slides downhill). Utility lines and pipes are also prone to breakage in slide areas. The following figures show examples of recent landslides in Washington Figure 12.3 Rolling Bay, Bainbridge Island Page 226

233 Figure 12.4 Road 170 Near Basin City Figure 12.5 Highway 410 Near Town of Nile Page 227

234 12.2 Landslide Hazard Mapping and Hazard Assessment There are two approaches to landslide hazard mapping and hazard assessment: Mapping historical landslides that also provide an indication of the potential for future landslides. Landslide studies by geotechnical engineers to estimate the potential for future landslides. The Washington Department of Natural Resources has mapped known historical landslides in Washington. This map is shown in Figure 12.6 on the following page. Landslide mapping is almost always incomplete because it is difficult to find all landslides especially in remote heavily forested areas. Nevertheless, the historical landslide map gives a general idea of Washington locations that are most prone to landslides. Maps of areas within Washington, with moderate or high landslide incidence and landslide potential, are shown in Figures 12.7 and A more accurate understanding of landslide hazard for a given school building requires a more detailed landslide hazard evaluation by a geotechnical engineer. Such site-specific studies evaluate the slope, soil/rock and groundwater characteristics at specific sites. Such assessments often require drilling to determine subsurface soil/rock characteristics. In areas with moderate to high landslide potential, detailed site-specific landslide assessments are often conducted prior to development of projects to evaluate the level of landslide hazard at the development site. Detailed site-specific landslide hazard assessments may also be conducted to determine the level of landslide hazard at locations where the risk appears high enough to warrant more detailed evaluations. An important caveat for landslide hazard assessments is that even with detailed site-specific evaluations by a geotechnical engineer, there is considerable inevitable uncertainty. That is, it is very difficult to make quantitative predictions of the likelihood or the size of future landslide events. In some cases, landslide hazard assessments by more than one geotechnical engineer may reach conflicting opinions. These limitations and uncertainties notwithstanding, a detailed site-specific landslide hazard assessment does provide the best available information about the likelihood of future landslides. For example, such studies can provide enough information to determine that the landslide risk is higher at one location than another location and thus provide meaningful guidance for siting future development. Given the above considerations, landslide hazard and risk assessments are generally qualitative or semi-quantitative in nature. Page 228

235 Figure 12.6 DNR Mapped Landslides 4 Page 229

236 Figure 12.7 Landslide Incidence and Potential 2 High Incidence: >15 percent of area involved Moderate Incidence: percent of area involved Low Incidence: <1.5 percent of area involved High Susceptibility Moderate Susceptibility Page 230

237 Figure 12.8 Department of Natural Resources Landslide Potential Map 5 Page 231

238 12.3 Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments for K 12 Facilities High risk areas for landslides are locations where landslides have occurred in the past or appear likely to occur in the future, and there are buildings or infrastructure in these areas. The overlap of landslide hazard areas with developed areas is what results in risk that is, threats to people, buildings and infrastructure. Table 12.1 on the following pages summarizes a preliminary landslide hazard and risk assessment for K 12 facilities. The table contains two sets of information: The 15 K 12 facilities within 500 feet of DNR mapped historical landslides. K 12 facilities with estimated maximum slopes in the immediate vicinity of the campus greater than 20 percent. The preliminary landslide hazard and risk assessments are based on the following criteria for the maximum slope in the immediate vicinity of a campus: High Slope > 40 percent Moderate Slope between 30 and 40 percent Low Slope between 20 and 30 percent Very Low Slope < 20 percent Slopes in the immediate vicinity of each campus were calculated from digital elevation data for the campus and for a grid of points 90 meters, 180 meters and 270 meters from the campus location in north, south, east and west directions. The 90-meter intervals for slope calculations were chosen to be commensurate with the digital elevation data which has a 30 meter spacing. The following two measures of landslide hazard provide only a preliminary assessment of landslide hazard and the corresponding risk to K 12 facilities for which these parameters apply. They are location within 500 feet of DNR mapped landslides and slopes > 20 percent. The preliminary screening for landside hazard summarized in Table 12.1 should be interpreted cautiously as an indication of possible landslide hazards, and it is neither a definitive determination of landslide hazards nor the level of landslide risk. More accurate determination of landslide hazards and risk for these and other K 12 facilities requires additional site-specific data, for which this planning effort provides guidance to school districts. Further details are provided in the Mitigation Planning Toolkit. Page 232

239 Table 12.1 Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Endeavour Elementary School Issaquah Se Issaquah-Fall City Rd Issaquah YES Low 29% South Colby Elementary School South Kitsap 3281 Banner Road Se Port Orchard YES Low 28% Carrolls Elementary School Kelso 3902 Old Pacific Hwy S Kelso YES Low 27% Stevenson High School Stevenson-Carson 390 Nw Gropper Road Stevenson YES Low 26% Pacific Cascade Freshman Campus Issaquah Se Issaquah-Fall City Rd Issaquah YES Low 26% Woodland High School Woodland 757 Park Woodland YES Low 24% Pacific Cascade Middle School Issaquah SE Issaquah Fall City Rd. Issaquah YES Low 23% South Kitsap High School South Kitsap 425 Mitchell Ave Port Orchard YES Low 21% Fauntleroy Elementary School Seattle 9131 California Ave Sw Seattle YES Low 20% White Center Heights Elementary Highline Rd Ave S Seattle YES Very Low 19% Gatewood Elementary School Seattle 4320 Sw Myrtle St Seattle YES Very Low 17% Stevenson Elementary School Stevenson-Carson 100 Nw School Street Stevenson YES Very Low 14% Onion Creek Elementary School Onion Creek 2006 Lotze Creek Rd Colville YES Very Low 12% Kaplan Academy of Washington Stevenson-Carson 350 Nw Bulldog Drive Stevenson YES Very Low 10% Mt. Solo Middle School Longview 5300 Mt. Solo Road Longview YES Very Low 5% Stehekin Elementary School Stehekin 3 Mile Main Valley Rd Stehekin NO High 70% Holmes Elementary School Spokane 2600 W Sharp Ave Spokane NO High 60% Wishram High And Elementary School Wishram 135 Bunn Street Wishram NO High 60% Asotin Junior Senior High School Asotin-Anatone 215 Second Street Asotin NO High 59% Leonard M Jennings Elementary School Colfax 1207 N. Morton Street Colfax NO High 57% Holden Village Community School Lake Chelan Hcoo Stop 2 Chelan NO High 57% Wishkah Valley Elementary High School Wishkah Valley 4640 Wishkah Rd. Aberdeen NO High 51% Evergreen School Evergreen (Stevens) 3342 Addy-Gifford Rd Gifford NO High 51% Cape Flattery Preschool Cape Flattery Hwy 112 Sekiu NO High 50% Toutle Lake High School Toutle Lake 5050 Spirit Lake Hwy Toutle NO High 48% Queen Anne Elementary School Seattle 411 Boston St Seattle NO High 47% Toutle Lake Elementary School Toutle Lake 5050 Spirit Lake Hwy Toutle NO High 46% White Pass Junior Senior High School White Pass 516 Silverbrook Road Randle NO High 46% Columbia Virtual Academy-Orient Orient 5Th And C Street Orient NO High 45% Kahlotus Elementary & High School Kahlotus 100 W Martin St Kahlotus NO High 44% Orient Elementary School Orient 5Th And C St Orient NO High 44% Fairwood Elementary School Kent Th Ave Se Renton NO High 44% Victor Falls Elementary School Sumner Canyon Falls Blvd. Bonney Lake NO High 43% Page 233

240 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Fidalgo Elementary School Anacortes Gibralter Road Anacortes NO High 42% Selkirk Elementary School Selkirk 219 Park Avenue Metaline Falls NO High 42% Washington Virtual Academy Omak Elem./M.S./H.S. Omak 619 West Bartlett Ave. Omak NO High 41% Yale Elementary School Woodland Lewis River Road Ariel NO High 41% Inchelium Elementary School Inchelium 1 Hornet Avenue Inchelium NO High 41% Inchelium High School Inchelium 1 Hornet Avenue Inchelium NO High 41% Inchelium Middle School Inchelium 1 Hornet Avenue Inchelium NO High 41% Washington Elementary School Centralia 800 Field Street Centralia NO High 41% Home School Program (REACH) Methow Valley 18 Twin Lakes Rd. Winthrop NO High 40% Methow Valley Elementary School Methow Valley 18 Twin Lakes Rd. Winthrop NO High 40% Trout Lake School Trout Lake 2310 Hwy 141 Trout Lake NO Moderate 39% Sherman Elementary School Tacoma 4415 N 38Th St Tacoma NO Moderate 38% Beaver Valley School Cascade Beaver Valley Rd Plain NO Moderate 38% Tumwater Hill Elementary School Tumwater 3120 Ridgeview St Sw Tumwater NO Moderate 38% Beaver Valley School Cascade Beaver Valley Rd Leavenworth NO Moderate 38% Klickitat Elementary & High School Klickitat 98 School Drive Klickitat NO Moderate 38% Wade King Elementary School Bellingham 2155 Yew Street Rd Bellingham NO Moderate 38% Mo Junior High/Aldercrest School Shoreline Th Ave Ne Seattle NO Moderate 36% Beacon Hill International School Seattle Av S Seattle NO Moderate 35% Pateros High School Pateros 344 W Beach St Pateros NO Moderate 35% Okanogan High School Okanogan 244 South 5Th Street Okanogan NO Moderate 35% Talbot Hill Elementary School Renton 2300 Talbot Rd S Renton NO Moderate 35% Juanita Elementary School Lake Washington 9635 Ne 132Nd Kirkland NO Moderate 35% Colfax High School Colfax 1110 N. Morton Street Colfax NO Moderate 34% Kennydale Elementary School Renton 1700 Ne 28Th St Renton NO Moderate 34% East Valley High School East Valley (Spokane) E Wellesley Ave Spokane Valley NO Moderate 34% Pomeroy Junior Senior High School Pomeroy 1090 Pataha St Pomeroy NO Moderate 34% Willapa Valley Middle High School Willapa Valley 22 Viking Way Raymond NO Moderate 33% Developmental Preschool Willapa Valley 22 Viking Way Menlo NO Moderate 33% Selkirk High School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione NO Moderate 33% Selkirk Junior Senior High School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione NO Moderate 33% Selkirk Middle School Selkirk Highway 31 Ione NO Moderate 33% Olympic View Middle School Mukilteo 2602 Mukilteo Speedway Mukilteo NO Moderate 33% Page 234

241 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Franklin Elementary School Spokane 2627 E 17Th Ave Valley NO Moderate 33% Columbia Virtual Academy Valley 3034 Huffman Rd Wilkeson NO Moderate 33% Wilkeson Elementary School White River 640 Railroad Ave Republic NO Moderate 33% Republic Senior High School Republic Highway 20 E Republic NO Moderate 32% Republic Elementary School Republic E Highway 20 Republic NO Moderate 32% Republic Junior High School Republic E Highway 20 Republic NO Moderate 32% Republic Parent Partner Republic East Highway 20 Mtlk Terrace NO Moderate 32% Challenge Elementary School Edmonds Th St Sw Tukwila NO Moderate 32% Tukwila Elementary School Tukwila 5939 S 149Th St Wellpinit NO Moderate 32% Wellpinit High School Wellpinit 6270 Ford-Wellpinit Rd Tacoma NO Moderate 32% Willard Elementary School Tacoma 3201 S D St Ephrata NO Moderate 31% Parkway School Ephrata 1011 Parkway Blvd Kalama NO Moderate 31% Kalama Elem School Kalama 548 China Garden Road Kalama NO Moderate 31% Kalama Junior Senior High School Kalama 548 China Garden Road Hoquiam NO Moderate 31% Lincoln Elementary School Hoquiam 700 Wood Curlew NO Moderate 31% Curlew Alternative School Curlew 47 Curlew School Rd Curlew NO Moderate 31% Curlew Parent Partner Curlew 47 Curlew School Rd Federal Way NO Moderate 31% Nautilus K-8 School Federal Way 1000 S 289Th St Federal Way NO Moderate 30% Washington Elementary School Hoquiam 3003 Cherry St. South Bend NO Moderate 30% South Bend High School South Bend 400 E. 1St Arlington NO Moderate 30% Post Middle School Arlington 1220 E. 5Th St Bellevue NO Moderate 30% Puesta del Sol Elementary School Bellevue Nd Avenue Se Bellingham NO Moderate 30% Sehome High School Bellingham 2700 Bill Mcdonald Pkwy Keller NO Moderate 30% Keller Elementary School Keller 17 S. School Rd. Seattle NO Moderate 30% Beverly Park Elem at Glendale Highline 1201 S 104Th St South Bend NO Moderate 30% Chauncey Davis Elementary School South Bend 500 E. 1St Auburn NO Low 29% Chinook Elementary School Auburn 3502 Auburn Way S Tacoma NO Low 29% Northeast Tacoma Elementary School Tacoma Th St Ne Seattle NO Low 29% Van Asselt Elementary School Seattle 8311 Beacon Av S Seattle NO Low 29% Leschi Elementary School Seattle Av La Center NO Low 28% La Center High School La Center 725 Highland Road Index NO Low 28% Index Elementary School Index 436 Index Avenue Belfair NO Low 28% Belfair Elementary School North Mason Ne Hwy 3 Belfair NO Low 28% Page 235

242 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Lakeland Hills Elementary School Auburn 1020 Evergreen Way Se Auburn NO Low 28% Residential Consortium Seattle Av W Seattle NO Low 28% Curlew Elementary & High School Curlew 47 Curlew School Rd Curlew NO Low 28% Bear Creek Elementary School Northshore Avondale Rd Ne Woodinville NO Low 27% Marvista Elementary School Highline Marine View Dr Sw Normandy Park NO Low 27% Skykomish Elementary School Skykomish 105 6Th St. N Skykomish NO Low 27% Lincoln Elementary School Mount Vernon 1005 S 11Th St Mount Vernon NO Low 27% Friday Harbor Middle School San Juan Island 85 Blair Street Friday Harbor NO Low 27% Morton Elementary School Morton 400 W Main Ave Morton NO Low 26% Evergreen High School Highline 830 Sw 116Th St Seattle NO Low 26% Whitworth Elementary School Seattle th Ave S Seattle NO Low 26% Ilalko Elementary School Auburn 301 Oravetz Pl Se Auburn NO Low 26% Kent Prairie Elementary School Arlington Th St Ne Arlington NO Low 26% North Elementary School Moses Lake 1200 West Craig Street Moses Lake NO Low 26% Waldron Island School Orcas Island 1 School Road Waldron Island NO Low 26% Skykomish High School Skykomish 105 6Th St. N Skykomish NO Low 26% Cooper Elementary School Seattle 4408 Delridge Way Sw Seattle NO Low 25% Viewlands Elementary School Seattle SW 3rd Ave NW Seattle NO Low 25% North Olympic Peninsula Skills Center Port Angeles 905 W 9Th St Port Angeles NO Low 25% Chelan High School Lake Chelan 215 Webster Chelan NO Low 25% Chambers Elementary School University Place Th Ave W University Pla NO Low 25% La Center Elementary School La Center 700 East 4Th Street La Center NO Low 25% Creekside Elementary School Issaquah SE 16th St Sammamish NO Low 25% Evergreen Elementary School Shelton 900 W. Franklin St. Shelton NO Low 25% Martin Luther King Elementary School Vancouver 4801 Idaho St Vancouver NO Low 25% Hazelwood Elementary School Renton Th Ave Se Newcastle NO Low 25% Lincoln Elementary School Olympia St Ave Se Olympia NO Low 25% Sunrise Elementary School Kent Nd Ave Se Kent NO Low 25% Sacajawea Elementary School Seattle Av Ne Seattle NO Low 24% Schmitz Park Elementary School Seattle 5000 Sw Spokane St Seattle NO Low 24% Valley School Valley 3034 Huffman Rd Valley NO Low 24% Butler Acres Elementary School Kelso 1609 Burcham St Kelso NO Low 24% Mary Walker Alternative High School Mary Walker 500 N 4Th St Springdale NO Low 24% Page 236

243 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Omak Alternative High School Omak 600 W 6Th Ave Omak NO Low 24% Hilltop Elementary School Highline Th Ave S Seattle NO Low 23% Melvin G Syre Elementary School Shoreline Th Avenue N.W. Shoreline NO Low 23% Mukilteo Elementary School Mukilteo 2600 Mukilteo Speedway Mukilteo NO Low 23% Hilder Pearson Elementary School North Kitsap Central Valley Rd Nw Poulsbo NO Low 23% Pomeroy Elementary School Pomeroy 10Th And Cloumbia Pomeroy NO Low 23% Griffin Home Renton 2500 Lake Wa Blvd N Renton NO Low 23% Shelton View Elementary School Northshore Av W Bothell NO Low 23% Blackwell Elementary School Lake Washington Th Pl Ne Sammamish NO Low 23% Orca K-8 School Seattle Ave S Seattle NO Low 23% Kimball Elementary School Seattle Av S Seattle NO Low 23% Roosevelt Middle School - Old Port Angeles 400 Monroe Rd Port Angeles NO Low 23% Lincoln High School Port Angeles 924 W 9Th St Port Angeles NO Low 22% Wahkiakum High School Wahkiakum 500 South 3Rd Street Cathlamet NO Low 22% Boren School Seattle 5950 Delridge Way Sw Seattle NO Low 22% Dearborn Park Elementary School Seattle 2820 S Orcas St Seattle NO Low 22% Chief Sealth High School Seattle 5950 Delridge Way Sw Seattle NO Low 22% Center Elementary School Grand Coulee Dam 317 Spokane Way Grand Coulee NO Low 22% Bryn Mawr Elementary School Renton 8212 S 118Th St Seattle NO Low 22% Naselle Youth Camp School Naselle-Grays River Valley 11-S Youth Camp Lane Naselle NO Low 22% Showalter Middle School Tukwila 4628 S 144Th St Seattle NO Low 22% Thomas Jefferson High School Federal Way 4248 S 288Th St Auburn NO Low 22% White River High School White River Th St E Buckley NO Low 22% Julius A Wendt Elementary/John C Thomas Middle School Wahkiakum 265 South Third St Cathlamet NO Low 22% Cascade High School Cascade Chumstick Hwy Leavenworth NO Low 22% Sanislo Elementary School Seattle 1812 Sw Myrtle St Seattle NO Low 22% Russell Ridge Center Tahoma Sweeney Road Se Maple Valley NO Low 22% Manson Junior Senior High School Manson 1000 Totem Pole Rd Manson NO Low 22% Bremerton Offices Bremerton 134 S Marion Ave Bremerton NO Low 22% Green Mountain School Green Mountain Ne Grinnel Rd Woodland NO Low 22% Henderson Bay Alt High School Peninsula 8402 Skansie Ave Gig Harbor NO Low 22% Page 237

244 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Lyle Middle School Lyle 625 Keasey Avenue Lyle NO Low 22% Hoquiam Middle School Hoquiam 200 Spencer Hoquiam NO Low 21% Brinnon Elementary School Brinnon 46 Schoolhouse Rd Brinnon NO Low 21% Bellevue High School Bellevue Wolverine Way Bellevue NO Low 21% Dimmitt Middle School Renton Th Ave S Seattle NO Low 21% Mount Pleasant Elementary School Mount Pleasant 152 Marble Rd. Washougal NO Low 21% Edmonds Elementary School Edmonds 1215 Olympic Avenue Edmonds NO Low 21% Madrona Nongraded School Edmonds Th St Sw Edmonds NO Low 21% Maple Elementary School Seattle 4925 Corson Av S Seattle NO Low 21% Starbuck School Starbuck 717 Tucannon St Starbuck NO Low 21% Emerson Elementary School Hoquiam 101 W Emerson Hoquiam NO Low 21% Issaquah Special Services Issaquah 565 Nw Holly St Issaquah NO Low 21% Lakeridge Elementary School Renton 7400 S 115Th St Seattle NO Low 21% Prosser Heights Elementary School Prosser 2008 Miller Ave. Prosser NO Low 21% Briarcliff Elementary School Seattle 3901 W Dravus St Seattle NO Low 21% Fairmount Park Elementary School Seattle 3800 SW Findlay St. Seattle NO Low 21% Stevens Elementary School Seattle Av E Seattle NO Low 21% Cedar River Middle School Tahoma Sweeney Road Se Maple Valley NO Low 21% Lake Louise Elementary School Clover Park Holden Rd Sw Lakewood NO Low 21% West Queen Anne Elementary Seattle 515 W Galer St Seattle NO Low 21% Toledo High School Toledo 1242 State Route 505 Toledo NO Low 21% Manson Elementary School Manson 950 Totem Pole Road Manson NO Low 21% Franklin Elementary School Pullman 850 Se Klemgard Pullman NO Low 21% Lakes High School Clover Park Farwest Dr Sw Lakewood NO Low 21% Panther Lake Elementary School Kent Se 216Th St Kent NO Low 21% Alliance Academy Bremerton 520 National Ave Bremerton NO Low 21% Great Northern Elementary School Great Northern 3115 N Spotted Rd Spokane NO Low 21% Breidablik Elementary School North Kitsap Waghorn Rd Nw Poulsbo NO Low 20% Stillaguamish School Arlington 1215 E 5Th Arlington NO Low 20% Okanogan Middle School Okanogan 244 South 5Th Street Okanogan NO Low 20% Winlock Miller Elementary School Winlock 405 Nw Benton Winlock NO Low 20% J.M. Weatherwax High School Aberdeen 410 North G Street Aberdeen NO Low 20% Terrace Park Elementary School Edmonds TH ST SW Mtlk Terrace NO Low 20% Page 238

245 Table 12.1 Continued Preliminary Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name District Address City Landslides within 500 feet of DNR Mapped Landslides? LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Preliminary Landslide Risk Level Approximate Maximum Slope in Vicinity of Campus (percent) Lowell Elementary School Everett 5010 View Dr. Everett NO Low 20% Sunnyside Elementary School Marysville 3707 Sunnyside Blvd Marysville NO Low 20% Auburn Riverside High School Auburn 501 Oravetz Rd Se Auburn NO Low 20% Boyer Clinic Highline 1850 Boyer Ave E Seattle NO Low 20% Enterprise Elementary School Federal Way Th Ave Sw Federal Way NO Low 20% Emerson Elementary School Snohomish 1103 Pine Street Snohomish NO Low 20% Crescent Heights Elementary School Tacoma 4110 Nassau Ave Ne Tacoma NO Low 20% Lakeside Middle School Nine Mile Falls 6169 Highway 291 Nine Mile Falls NO Low 20% Columbia High And Elementary School Columbia (Stevens) 4961B Hunters Shop Road Hunters NO Low 20% Franklin Elementary School Port Angeles 2505 S Wa St Port Angeles NO Low 20% Roosevelt Elementary School Tacoma 3550 E Roosevelt Ave Tacoma NO Low 20% Kitsap Lake Elementary School Bremerton 1111 Carr Blvd. Bremerton NO Low 20% Shaw Island Elementary School Shaw Island 44 Hoffman Cove Road Shaw Island NO Low 20% Renaissance Alternative High School Bremerton St Street Bremerton NO Low 20% Page 239

246 Without a more detailed site-specific evaluation of landslide hazards and risk for each campus, it is not possible to make quantitative estimates of the level of risk for each campus. Qualitatively, for a given campus or a given building, landslide damages can range from very minor damage to complete destruction. Similarly, the numbers of deaths and injuries can range from none, to many dozens (or more) for large slides that occur without warning while a campus or building is highly populated Mitigation of Landslide Risk Mitigation of landslide risks is often difficult from both the engineering and cost perspectives. In many case, there may be no practical landslide mitigation measure. In some cases, mitigation may be possible. Typical landslide mitigation measures include: Slope stability can be improved by addition of drainage to reduce pore water pressure and/or by slope stabilization measures including retaining walls, rock tie-backs with steel rods, and other geotechnical methods. For smaller landslides or debris flows, protection for existing facilities at risk may be increased by building diversion structures to deflect landslides or debris flows around a facility at risk. For very high risk facilities, with a high degree of life safety risk, abandoning the facility and replacing it with a new facility may be the only possible landslide mitigation measures. For new construction, siting facilities outside of landslide hazard areas is the most effective mitigation measure. Page 240

247 Chapter Thirteen: Other Natural Hazards The previous six chapters address natural hazards which pose the greatest risks for K 12 facilities in Washington. Those risks are 1) earthquakes, 2) tsunamis, 3) volcanic hazards, 4) floods, 5) wildland/urban interface fires and 6) landslides. In addition to the six major hazards there are other natural hazards which generally pose less risk to K 12 facilities and/or risk to only a very small number of K 12 facilities. This chapter addresses three other natural hazards that are addressed in the 2013 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Those risks are 1) avalanche, 2) drought and 3) severe weather. For completeness, this chapter also includes a brief commentary on two other hazards1) climate change and 2) subsidence Avalanches Avalanches occur in areas with high slopes and large accumulations of snow and ice. Avalanches happen when snow and ice becomes unstable and slides rapidly downslope. They pose very high levels of life safety to people in their path and may result in severe damage or destruction to buildings as well as road and highway closures. The following figure shows mountainous areas of Washington with elevations above 2,000 feet. Most, but not all, avalanches occur in areas above this elevation. Figure 13.1 Elevations Above 2,000 Feet in Washington 1 Page 241

248 Deaths from avalanches in Washington State have averaged about three per year 1 with nearly all these deaths occurring to back country recreationists. Detailed statewide mapping of avalanche hazard zones is not available; therefore, if any K 12 facilities are subject to avalanche hazards, it is currently unknown. Most likely, there may be a very small number of K 12 facilities at risk or none. Without statewide mapping of avalanche hazards, hazard and risk assessments must be done on a facility by facility basis. K 12 facilities downslope, from steep slopes, with substantial accumulations of snow and ice may be at risk. Historical avalanche events on such slopes are a strong indicator of possible risk, but avalanches may also occur on slopes with no history of avalanches during time periods of unusually heavy snow and ice accumulations. Possible mitigation measures for K 12 facilities at risk from avalanches include: Proactive avalanche abatement triggering small avalanches to prevent large accumulations of snow and ice. Building diversion barriers to direct avalanches away from at-risk facilities. Relocation of at-risk facilities outside of locations at risk from avalanches Drought Drought is defined as a prolonged period of lower than normal precipitation that is severe enough to reduce soil moisture, water and snow levels below the minimums necessary for sustaining plant, animal and economic systems. Drought is a significant concern in many communities in Washington especially east of the Cascades. Drought is of greatest concern for communities heavily depending on irrigation for agricultural production. Figure 13.2 shows drought susceptibility in Washington by county. The map of drought susceptibility includes both climate conditions and the severity of drought impacts on counties that may be affected by droughts. For most school districts, the most likely impact of drought is recommended or mandatory water conservation measures. This may include restrictions on how much irrigation water is allowed or prohibit irrigation entirely. Only in extreme droughts would water restrictions be severe enough to limit the availability of water for drinking, cooking or sanitary purposes. In many districts, water may be provided to K 12 facilities by more than one water utility. Utilities may be affected differently by drought conditions depending on each utility s water source(s). Thus, the severity of drought impacts on K 12 facilities may vary significantly from facility to facility. Page 242

249 Figure 13.2 Drought Susceptibility for Washington State 1 For most school districts and most K 12 facilities, the impacts of future droughts are likely to be relatively minor. However, for districts or facilities that depend on a single well or a small number of wells for water supplies, more severe impacts are possible. The worst case scenario, which is probably unlikely, would be unavailability of water for drinking, cooking or sanitary purposes. In this case, alternative supplies of water would have to be developed including trucking water to K 12 facilities and/or developing alternative water sources via drilling new wells or adding interties to another water system Severe Weather Severe weather events are possible throughout Washington State including high winds, snow storms, ice storms, thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes. Most such events have at most minor impacts on K 12 facilities; although, more severe events may result in significant damages. Of these types of weather hazards, high winds pose the greatest risk to K 12 facilities; although, the level of risk to most facilities is much lower than from the six major hazards addressed in previous chapters. Page 243

250 High Winds High wind events can occur anywhere in Washington, but the most severe events have occurred on the Pacific Coast and in the Cascades. The following map from the 2013 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation plan shows that nearly all counties in the state are deemed at significant risk from high wind events. Figure 13.3 Counties Most Vulnerable to High Winds 1 The most common impacts from high wind events are loss of electric power from downed overhead power lines due to tree falls or wind loading on power lines. Damage to buildings is typically limited to minor roof damage from wind or from tree falls onto buildings. More severe events such as the 1962 Columbus Day windstorm result in more widespread damage to vulnerable buildings. Most K 12 facilities will suffer little or no damage in minor to moderate windstorms, with higher levels of damage mostly limited to very severe wind events, especially for the most vulnerable buildings such as portables that are not adequately tied down. Page 244

251 Snow and Ice Storms Numerous snow and ice storms occur in Washington State every year. The principal impacts from severe storms are disruption of electric power from downed overhead lines and disruption of transportation. Severe snow or ice storms result in school closures but rarely result in significant damage to school facilities. In severe storms, with unusually heavy loading of snow and/or ice, a few very vulnerable buildings may collapse. Most school buildings have been designed for snow loads and are unlikely to suffer significant damage except for extreme events with snow and/or ice loads well above the design loads. Districts with older buildings, especially large span buildings, in areas with high annual snowfalls may wish to evaluate some buildings for the capacity to withstand snow and ice loads on the roofs. Thunderstorms and Hail Storms Thunderstorms and hail storms occur fairly frequently in Washington State although the frequency and severity of such events is much lower than in many parts of the United States. Severe thunderstorms may have high enough winds to result in downed overhead electric lines and tree falls with disruptions to utilities and transportation. However, the likelihood of thunderstorms severe enough to result in significant damage to K 12 facilities appears very low. Hail storms may occur anywhere in Washington but are more common in eastern Washington. Hail storms with large diameter hail may cause significant damage to exposed vehicles and localized damage to some roofs. However, the likelihood of hail storms severe enough to result in significant damage to K 12 facilities appears extremely low. Tornados Between 1954 and 2012, nearly 100 tornadoes have been reported in Washington State as shown in Figure 13.4 on the following page. The vast majority of these tornadoes were small F0 or F1 on the Fujita Scale or EF-0 or EF-1 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Such small tornadoes often result in minor roof damage but do not generally cause significant damage to buildings and rarely result in significant injuries or deaths. The most severe tornado outbreak in Washington occurred in April An F3 tornado hit Vancouver with six deaths, about 300 injuries, and about $50 million in damages. On this same day there was a F3 near Spokane and a F2 in rural Stevens County. For K 12 facilities the risk of significant damage and casualties from tornadoes is very low, but not zero. Given the low level of risk, mitigation measures such as building safe rooms are not practical or cost-effective. However, district emergency planning should include identifying the best available safe area in each school if a tornado were to occur. Safe areas include a small, interior room with no windows or the fewest possible windows. Page 245

252 Figure 13-4 Washington State Tornadoes Since Extreme Temperatures Extreme cold or extreme heat both pose some risks to students and staff, especially for those that walk or bicycle to/from school. Proactive decisions to close schools are sometimes made for periods of either extreme cold or extreme heat. Closures during extreme heat are more likely for schools without air conditioning. Extreme temperatures also pose some risk to school facilities in several ways: Heating and air conditioning systems in schools are more prone to equipment failures at times of extreme demand such as during periods of extreme temperatures. Water pipes in poorly insulated school buildings may freeze during periods of extreme cold and result in burst pipes and water damage. Utility systems providing electric power and water to schools are also more prone to failures during periods of extreme temperatures: o Electric power systems have more failures during periods of either extreme cold or extreme heat, and power outages may require school closures depending on the duration of the outage. Page 246

253 o Potable water systems may suffer damage during periods of extreme cold, especially small, rural systems with small diameter water pipes with low water flow rates. Loss of water supply typically necessitates school closures. Mitigation Measures for Severe Weather For the most part, addressing severe weather is more in the domain of emergency planning than mitigation planning. Emergency planning measures include developing and practicing responses for events (such as tornado warnings) that may require shelter in place or events (such as power outages, loss of water service or loss of air conditioning during periods of extreme heat), that may require evacuations and transportation planning. Possible mitigation measures for severe weather events include: High Wind Events. o Tie-downs for portable buildings. o Increased tree trimming near above ground electric power lines feeding a school or large trees near school buildings. o Installing wind-resistant roofing materials for schools in high wind areas or with a history of wind damage to roofs. Snow and Ice Storms. o Increased tree trimming as noted above under High Wind Events. o Evaluate and possibly retrofit older buildings, especially large span buildings, that may have been designed for inadequate snow loads. Extreme Temperatures. o Maintain heating and cooling systems in good working order and replace systems near the end of their useful life. o Insulate water pipes, with a history of freezing or with poor insulation, in locations with frequent extended periods of below freezing temperatures Climate Change Global climate change may affect K 12 facilities in two ways: Sea level rise will exacerbate flood and tsunami risk for facilities near the coasts of the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound. Climate change may alter weather patterns with possible effects on the frequency and severity of storm events and/or droughts. Sea level rise will increase the importance of flood and/or tsunami mitigation for K 12 facilities at risk as sea levels gradually rise over future decades. Page 247

254 The effects of climate change on weather patterns are less well understood. However, the impacts on school districts appear likely to be relatively minor Subsidence The term subsidence refers to lowering of ground elevations, which may occur gradually over long time periods or very suddenly for several reasons: Gradual subsidence which typically occurs from ground water pumping or petroleum extraction. Gradual or sudden subsidence from ground failures in locations of historical underground coal mining. Sudden subsidence along the Pacific Coast which will occur from a major interface earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Subsidence at any given location, which occurs gradually and smoothly over a large area, may be almost imperceptible and have little or no impact on buildings. However, subsidence that is sudden can result in substantial damage to buildings and underground utility lines, especially at soil type boundaries where there may be discontinuities in the extent of subsidence. For schools located on or near the Pacific Ocean coast, subsidence from a M9.0 earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone will range from approximately one meter to three meters, depending on location. This level of subsidence will significantly increase flood risk for school campuses at low elevations near the coast and may result in significant building damage if the extent of subsidence varies across a given campus. This type of subsidence may also result in flooding which could block some evacuation routes for locations subject to tsunamis. Page 248

255 Appendix of Tables Earthquake Scenarios: Damage, Casualty Estimates, and Ground Shaking Maps Table A7.1 Total K-12 Facility Inventory Data by County County # Schools Building Value ($) Content Value ($) Square Footage Adams 12 $184,456,326 $9,628, ,924 Asotin 12 $184,596,050 $9,635, ,783 Benton 60 $1,284,835,138 $67,068,394 4,640,203 Chelan 38 $692,619,758 $36,154,751 2,445,687 Clallam 35 $531,000,154 $27,718,208 1,909,804 Clark 130 $2,758,651,359 $144,001,601 9,942,623 Columbia 4 $45,912,069 $2,396, ,486 Cowlitz 46 $860,956,310 $44,941,919 3,072,284 Douglas 20 $338,908,317 $17,691,014 1,218,972 Ferry 13 $156,403,070 $8,164, ,446 Franklin 28 $578,577,863 $30,201,764 2,145,071 Garfield 2 $31,488,676 $1,643, ,209 Grant 54 $820,835,572 $42,847,617 2,954,519 Grays Harbor 44 $722,506,044 $37,714,816 2,608,664 Island 23 $441,648,742 $23,054,064 1,569,389 Jefferson 15 $219,403,276 $11,452, ,580 King 558 $11,547,206,129 $602,764,160 41,595,117 Kitsap 82 $1,606,349,301 $83,851,433 5,833,951 Kittitas 19 $332,092,631 $17,335,235 1,188,199 Klickitat 22 $276,113,210 $14,413, ,365 Lewis 43 $646,359,277 $33,739,954 2,330,829 Lincoln 16 $213,674,528 $11,153, ,735 Mason 21 $340,873,011 $17,793,571 1,204,725 Okanogan 28 $479,167,651 $25,012,551 1,734,336 Pacific 17 $199,587,936 $10,418, ,493 Pend Oreille 11 $180,872,803 $9,441, ,740 Pierce 270 $5,311,331,698 $277,251,515 19,138,609 San Juan 14 $122,155,021 $6,376, ,656 Skagit 48 $853,386,410 $44,546,771 3,134,291 Skamania 10 $137,777,902 $7,192, ,851 Snohomish 223 $4,395,178,143 $229,428,299 15,877,108 Spokane 154 $2,986,189,759 $155,879,105 10,629,054 Stevens 44 $599,910,618 $31,315,334 2,146,486 Thurston 78 $1,490,042,702 $77,780,229 5,438,481 Wahkiakum 2 $23,038,082 $1,202,588 80,640 Walla Walla 28 $498,108,503 $26,001,264 1,785,261 Whatcom 72 $1,281,431,256 $66,890,712 4,571,496 Whitman 26 $379,916,326 $19,831,632 1,351,977 Yakima 104 $2,054,877,400 $107,264,600 7,379,684 Total 2,426 $45,808,439,021 $2,391,200, ,948,726 Page 249

256 Table A7.2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Intraplate M7.2 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA Minor Major Critical Building Contents Deaths Building Loss ($) Content Loss ($) Injuries Injuries Injuries Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clallam $1,075, % $39, % $630,470 $1,745,255 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $7,802, % $275, % $12,452,842 $20,530,357 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grays Harbor $11,635, % $413, % $17,500,186 $29,549,210 Island $713, % $30, % $606,459 $1,349,990 Jefferson $1,383, % $53, % $1,903,648 $3,340,943 King $194,954, % $7,292, % $290,254,851 $492,502,323 Kitsap $33,124, % $1,264, % $43,521,276 $77,910,470 Kittitas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $15,134, % $551, % $16,692,535 $32,378,546 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $10,033, % $333, % $8,987,246 $19,353,369 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $2,478, % $86, % $3,631,760 $6,196,698 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $149,896, % $5,102, % $145,579,351 $300,577,716 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $31,694, % $1,292, % $34,753,376 $67,740,662 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $58,207, % $1,688, % $49,592,683 $109,488,793 Wahkiakum $74, % $2, % $0 $77,130 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Total 2, $518,208, % $18,426, % $626,106,684 $1,162,741,462 Page 250

257 Figure A7.1 Cascadia Subduction Zone Intraplate M7.2 Scenario Page 251

258 Table A7.3 Seattle Fault System M7.2 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Content Loss ($) Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $1,020, % $37, % $0 $1,057,892 Clallam $1,380, % $51, % $0 $1,432,330 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grays Harbor $1,490, % $46, % $12,424 $1,550,025 Island $1,593, % $63, % $417,118 $2,074,375 Jefferson $1,607, % $55, % $1,349,789 $3,012,746 King $2,240,275, % $43,889, % $1,913,047,418 $4,197,212,338 Kitsap $431,687, % $8,515, % $391,214,331 $831,417,628 Kittitas $313, % $13, % $0 $326,838 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $1,186, % $34, % $0 $1,221,378 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $16,006, % $357, % $14,002,268 $30,366,545 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $131, % $4, % $0 $135,813 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $96,539, % $2,715, % $119,142,253 $218,397,100 San Juan $97, % $3, % $0 $101,918 Skagit $1,833, % $70, % $0 $1,904,479 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $56,422, % $1,679, % $74,823,315 $132,925,156 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $8,746, % $326, % $4,579,471 $13,653,138 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $1,312, % $45, % $0 $1,357,519 Total 2, $2,861,645, % $57,913, % $2,518,588,387 $5,438,147,218 Page 252

259 Figure A7.2 Seattle Fault System M7.2 Scenario Page 253

260 Table A7.4 Southern Whidbey Fault System M7.4 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Content Loss ($) Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $127, % $4, % $0 $132,574 Clallam $7,791, % $188, % $7,328,001 $15,307,959 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $109,072, % $2,191, % $79,060,373 $190,324,008 Jefferson $24,206, % $452, % $30,338,436 $54,998,187 King $532,953, % $11,815, % $441,657,566 $986,426,812 Kitsap $20,323, % $649, % $23,666,979 $44,639,923 Kittitas $76, % $3, % $0 $79,915 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $628, % $24, % $0 $653,416 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $21,576, % $781, % $10,367,124 $32,725,101 San Juan $2,184, % $64, % $2,356,995 $4,605,918 Skagit $15,004, % $417, % $17,302,344 $32,724,265 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $1,009,846, % $19,593, % $790,928,250 $1,820,368,835 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $594, % $23, % $0 $618,770 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $6,117, % $224, % $2,054,540 $8,396,226 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Total 2, $1,750,506, % $36,435, % $1,405,060,608 $3,192,001,908 Page 254

261 Figure A7.3 Southern Whidbey Fault System M7.4 Scenario Page 255

262 Table A7.5 Chelan Fault System M7.2 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Content Loss ($) Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $91, % $3, % $0 $94,595 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $40,724, % $942, % $22,514,073 $64,180,723 Clallam $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $26,408, % $738, % $18,542,497 $45,689,192 Ferry $36, % $1, % $0 $38,281 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $3,368, % $104, % $4,110,619 $7,582,959 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Jefferson $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 King $110, % $3, % $0 $114,215 Kitsap $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kittitas $1,166, % $43, % $58,151 $1,268,047 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lincoln $92, % $2, % $0 $95,413 Mason $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Okanogan $7,476, % $190, % $6,978,652 $14,645,561 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $38, % $2, % $8,728 $49,775 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $2, % $74 0.0% $36,077 $39,060 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Total 2, $79,517, % $2,031, % $52,248,796 $133,797,823 Page 256

263 Figure A7.4 Chelan Fault System M7.2 Scenario Page 257

264 Table A7.6 Cle Elum Seismic Zone M6.8 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Content Loss ($) Loss %) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $1,497, % $58, % $0 $1,555,567 Clallam $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $477, % $16, % $0 $493,981 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $17 0.0% $0 $17 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $865, % $26, % $0 $892,301 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Jefferson $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 King $715, % $26, % $0 $742,186 Kitsap $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kittitas $12,781, % $295, % $10,342,017 $23,418,307 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $73, % $3, % $8,728 $86,113 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $2, % $74 0.0% $36,077 $39,060 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $21,715, % $683, % $27,621,686 $50,021,013 Total 2, $38,129, % $1,110, % $38,008,508 $77,248,545 Page 258

265 Figure A7.5 Cle Elum Seismic Zone M6.8 Scenario Page 259

266 Table A7.7 Mill Creek Fault Zone M7.0 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Loss Contents Loss (%) ($) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $78, % $2, % $0 $81,159 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $3,914, % $119, % $2,838,250 $6,871,930 Chelan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clallam $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $842, % $22, % $130,565 $995,838 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $894, % $26, % $82,597 $1,003,445 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Jefferson $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 King $15, % $ % $0 $15,852 Kitsap $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kittitas $838, % $33, % $0 $871,933 Klickitat $1,965, % $62, % $2,853,880 $4,882,419 Lewis $32, % $1, % $0 $33,949 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $38, % $2, % $8,728 $49,775 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $104, % $3, % $0 $107,645 Snohomish $2, % $74 0.0% $36,077 $39,060 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $92, % $2, % $0 $94,786 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $57,420, % $1,664, % $50,821,532 $109,905,907 Total 2, $66,240, % $1,941, % $56,771,629 $124,953,698 Page 260

267 Figure A7.6 Mill Creek Fault Zone M7.0 Scenario Page 261

268 Table A7.8 Latah Fault Zone M5.5 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Loss Contents Loss (%) ($) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Asotin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Benton $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Chelan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clallam $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Garfield $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grant $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Jefferson $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 King $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kitsap $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kittitas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $38, % $2, % $8,728 $49,775 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $2, % $74 0.0% $36,077 $39,060 Spokane $29,524, % $1,310, % $40,826,098 $71,660,842 Stevens $113, % $4, % $0 $117,708 Thurston $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Yakima $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Total 2, $29,679, % $1,316, % $40,870,903 $71,867,402 Page 262

269 Figure A7.7 Latah Fault Zone M5.5 Scenario Page 263

270 Table A7.9 Hite Fault System M6.8 Scenario County # Schools Max PGA L1 Injuries L2 Injuries L3 Injuries L4 Deaths Building Loss ($) Building Contents Content Loss ($) Loss (%) Loss (%) BI Loss ($) Total Loss ($) Adams $250, % $7, % $0 $257,417 Asotin $290, % $8, % $0 $298,639 Benton $3,635, % $114, % $0 $3,750,085 Chelan $677, % $26, % $0 $703,375 Clallam $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Clark $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Columbia $2,074, % $62, % $1,197,225 $3,334,149 Cowlitz $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Douglas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Ferry $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Franklin $1,661, % $51, % $13,219 $1,726,480 Garfield $155, % $4, % $0 $159,491 Grant $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Grays Harbor $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Island $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Jefferson $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 King $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kitsap $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Kittitas $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Klickitat $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lewis $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Mason $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Okanogan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pacific $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pend Oreille $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Pierce $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 San Juan $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skagit $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Skamania $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Snohomish $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Spokane $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Stevens $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Thurston $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Wahkiakum $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Walla Walla $53,054, % $1,373, % $30,218,103 $84,646,707 Whatcom $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Whitman $588, % $16, % $0 $605,537 Yakima $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 Total 2, $62,388, % $1,665, % $31,428,547 $95,481,879 Page 264

271 Figure A7.8 Hite Fault System M6.8 Scenario Page 265

272 Appendix of References Chapter Seven 1. United States Geological Survey (2013). Largest Earthquakes in the World Since University of Washington (2002). Map and List of Significant Quakes in WA and OR, The Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network. University of Washington Department of Earth Sciences. 3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (2013) Cascadia Region Earthquake Working Group (2005): Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes: A Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Scenario. 5. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (2013). The Oregon Resilience Plan. 6. United States Geological Survey (2013) United States Geological Survey (2013) United States Geological Survey (2013) United States Geological Survey, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps Fault Parameters King, Philip G., Aaron R. McGregor and Justin D. Whittet (2011). The Economic Costs of Sea-Level Rise to California Beach Communities, California Department of Boating and Waterways. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: c.aspx Page 266

273 Chapter 8: Tsunami 1. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Tsunami, The Great Waves, Revised Edition. Paris, UNESCO, IOC Brochure United States Geological Survey, Surviving a Tsunami Lessons Learned from Chile, Hawaii, and Japan. Circular Tsunami photo, Tohoku, Japan, Source unknown. 4. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Tsunami Hazards in Oregon. 5. Paine, Michael P. (1999). Asteroid Impacts: The Extra Hazard Due to Tsunami. Science of Tsunami Hazards, Volume 17, pp Near Earth Object, Wikipedia article which references the technical asteroid literature: 7. Crawford, David A. and Charles L. Mader (1998). Modeling Asteroid Impact and Tsunami. Science of Tsunami Hazards, Volume 16, pp Goldfinger, C., and Others, Turbidite Event History: Methods and Implications for Holocene Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661-F. 9. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 5.8, Hazard Profile Tsunami. 10. King, Philip G., Aaron R. McGregor and Justin D. Whittet (2011). The Economic Costs of Sea-Level Rise to California Beach Communities, California Department of Boating and Waterways. Chapter 9: Volcanic Hazards 1. Smithsonian Institution, Global Volcanism Project: 2. United States Geological Survey, Volcanic Hazards Program: 3. United States Geological Survey, Digital data set of volcano hazards for active Cascade Volcanoes, Washington Schilling, S.P., 1996, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Digital data for volcano hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington, Revised 1998 Schilling, et.al, 2008, USGS Open-File Report Page 267

274 5. United States Geological Survey, Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington, Revised 1998 Hoblitt, et.al. 1998, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Potential Volcanic Hazards from Future Activity at Mount Baker, Washington -- Gardner, et.al. 1995, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Volcanic-Hazard Zonation for Glacier Peak Volcano, Washington -- Waitt, et.al., 1995, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Volcano Hazards in the Mount Adams Region, Washington Scott, et.al., 1995, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Volcanic-Hazard Zonation for Mount St. Helens, Washington Wolfe and Pierson, 1995, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Volcano Hazards in the Mount Hood Region, Oregon Scott, et.al. 1997, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey, Digital data for volcano hazards of the Mount Hood Region, Oregon Schilling, et.al, 2008, USGS Open-File Report United States Geological Survey: United States Geological Survey: Chapter 10: Floods 1. Photo credit: Steve Ringman, The Seattle Times. 2. Philip King, Aaron McGregor and Justin Whittet (2011), The Economic Costs of Sea-Level Rise to California Beach Communities. California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Francisco State University. 3. Washington Emergency Management Division records. 4. MGS Engineering and Oregon Climate Service (2006), Washington 100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation. 5. FEMA 480: National Flood Insurance Program, Floodplain Management Requirements, A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials. Available in hard copy and on CD from FEMA at: (800) Washington Department of Ecology (2013), Inventory of Dams in the State of Washington. 7. Washington Department of Ecology (2011), 2010 Report to the Legislature: Status of High and Significant Hazard Dams in Washington with Safety Deficiencies. 8. Columbia River Basin dam map, source unknown. Page 268

275 Chapter 11: WUI Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 5.5, Hazard Profile Wildland Fire and Urban Fire (December 2012, Draft). 2. Northwest Interagency Coordination Center, Northwest Annual Fire Report 2011, March 26, National Fire Protection Association, Brush, Grass and Forest Fires, August Washington Department of Natural Resources, Fire Risk Map, USGS Landfire Map. Chapter 12: Landslides 1. United States Geological Survey (2004), Landslide Types and Processes, Fact Sheet Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division (2009), Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA). 3. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 5.6, Hazard Profile Landslide, October Washington Department of Natural Resources: 5. Washington Department of Natural Resources (2011), unpublished map: Slope Stability Model for Shallow Landslide Potential, West and East Side. Chapter 13: Other Hazards 1. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013). Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division. Page 269

276 For more information about the contents of this document, please contact: School Facilities and Organization, OSPI Phone: (360) To order more copies of this document, please call LEARN (I ) or visit our Web site at Please refer to the document number below for quicker service: This document is available online at: This material is available in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at (888) , TTY (360) Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building P.O. Box Olympia, WA Page 270