HomeMy WebLinkAbout1689T
'
Resolution No. 1689
["Beginning August 1, 2004"]
CON0=0122 Police/Fire Departments
Passed -11/2/2004
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. /6/'1
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, adopting the City's Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
RECITALS
A. The Disaster Mitigation Act of2000 (42 U.S.C. § 5121, et seq.) provides
that as a condition of receipt of federal funds for hazard mitigation measures, a local
government must establish a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying natural
hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of that local government.
B. The purpose of a mitigation plan is to reduce the loss of life and property,
human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural
disasters and to provide a source of pre-disaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist
the City to ensure continued functionality of critical services and facilities in the event of a
natural disaster.
C. Having considered the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Council
would like to adopt the same.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan -Adopt
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. -Local Hazard Mitigation Plan -Adoption. The Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached and filed with the City Clerk, is
hereby adopted
PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City ofKent, Washington
this cfL day ofNovember, 2004.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this :L day ofNovember,
2004.
ATTEST:
/ ---¥~· ." ... :~ ~ : -.... -:..
.....----~·--·
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. (b eq ,
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the _L_ day ofNovember,
2004.
A d.-~ (SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER\CITYCLERK
2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan -Adopt
E\_tliBI r .\
,.
(including ing County
Fire Protectio District #37)
----------
Ld rd
Mitigafon Plan
• KENT
WASHINGlO"''
City of Kent
Local Hazard M1tigat1on Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter One
IntroductiOn and Purpose
Chapter Two
Plannmg Process
Chapter Three
Junsd1ctwnal Profile and Risk Assessment
Chapter Four
Mitigation Strategy
Chapter Five
Plan Implementation and MllLint~•!t.{
Chapter Six
Kmg County Fire Protection
Appendix A
Outreach and PruticipatiOlEl&
Appendix B
DesignatiOn of
Appendix C
Hazard Profiles
Appendix D
Cnt1cal Facilities and Infrastructure
Appendix E
Plannmg Committee Activities
Appendix F
Proclamatwn
Appendix G
Revisions and Updates
References
Introduction
Chapter One
Introduction and Purpose
Kent Emergency Management has managed the development of a Hazard
Mitigation Plan that is compliant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. A Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee was established to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of the vulnerabilities of the City to all relevant natural hazards in order
to identify ways to make the City more resistant to their impacts. This document
reports on the planning process and the outcome of the planning process.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation is
defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long term risk to life
and property from a hazard event. Mitigation encourages long-term reduction of
hazard vulnerability. The goal of mitigation, and the goal of this plan, is to save
lives and reduce property damage. Mitigation is a cost-effective way to reduce
the financial impact of disasters to property owners and to all levels of
government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community
facilities/infrastructure and minimize vital service disruption.
Four basic phases describe the hazard mitigation planning process: organize
resources, assess risk, develop a mitigation plan, and implement the plan and
monitor progress. Communities need to focus resources needed for a successful
mitigation planning process. It is important to include interested members of the
community in addition to those with technical expertise. It is essential that a
variety of people participate in the planning process to ensure a comprehensive
look at hazard mitigation and build consensus. Next, communities need to
identify the characteristics and potential consequences of natural hazards. It is
important to understand how much of the community can be affected by specific
hazards and what the impacts would be for important community assets. Once
the risks posed by natural hazards are understood, communities need to
determine what their priorities should be and then look at possible ways to avoid
or minimize the undesired effects. The result is a natural hazard mitigation plan
and strategy for implementation. Communities can bring the plan to l1fe in a
variety of ways ranging from implementing specific mitigation projects to changes
in the day-to day operation of the local government. To ensure the success of an
ongoing program, it is critical that the plan remains effective. Thus, it is important
to conduct periodic evaluations and make revisions as needed.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.1
Purpose
The City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan and its underlying planning process are
intended to serve many purposes. These include the following:
• Provide a systematic and long term approach to mitigation planning.
• Enhance public awareness and understanding
• Create a decision tool for City officials
• Promote compliance with State and Federal program requirements
• Enhance local policies for hazard mitigation capability
• Provide a flexible approach to the planning process
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.2
Chapter Two
Planning Process
Kent Emergency Management, under the Kent Fire Department, coordinated the
development and draft of the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan that included
King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD) #37. Since 1973, the City of Kent
Fire Department has provided fire and life safety services to KCFPD #37 under a
contractual agreement.
The planning process began in January 2004. The Hazard Mitigation Plan was
developed through a collaborative effort, involving City personnel, local business
representatives, Kent School District representatives and Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) members. These key stakeholders formed a
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee that met regularly and received updates
through the mail.
Figure 2.1 below summarizes the planning process timeline.
January 22, 2004 Planning Committee Kick Off Meeting
Risk Assessment Activity
February 26, 2004 Reviewed Risk Assessment data
Explained Mitiqation Strateav
March & April Emergency Management developed a
draft Risk Assessment
May27, 2004 Planning Meeting
Reviewed draft Risk Assessment
Developed Mitiqation Strateqv
June 24, 2004 Reviewed Mitiqation Strateqy
July 27, 2004 Public Review Session
August Plan reviewed by
Washington State Emergency
Management
September Plan reviewed by Federal Emergency
Management Agency
(F1gure 2.1)
Emergency Management started by reviewing existing City plans and
information. Plans reviewed included:
• The Comprehensive Plan
• Capital Improvement Plan
• Economic Development Plan
• Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
The kick off Mitigation Planning Meeting was held January 22, 2004. Kent
Emergency Management compiled a list of approximately 130 stakeholders that
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
2.1
were mailed an announcement letter. The list included other City departments,
business representatives, Local Emergency Planning Committee members and
Kent School District representatives. The meeting announcement was also
printed in the local paper. Appendix A lists the people who attended the meeting.
Appendix A also includes the public announcements of planning meetings and
the planning process. At the first meeting, Kent Emergency Management gave
an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Kent's proposed planning
process. In small groups, participants completed a Risk Assessment Exercise.
The format of the exercise is discussed in the Risk Assessment portion of this
plan.
In order to identify those individuals who would participate as committee
members, Emergency Management mailed a self-addressed stamped post card
to all 130 of the pre-identified stakeholders. Fifty-seven responded with an
agreement to participate. The committee members and their association are
listed in Appendix A.
The next meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was February
261h, 2004. Emergency Management gave an update on the planning effort and
reviewed the data collected from the Risk Assessment exercise.
During the months of March and April, Emergency Management worked to
produce a draft Risk Assessment. The draft included the data collected from the
Planning Committee. The draft was presented to the group on May 2ih.
Discussion was held and individuals were encouraged to submit comments and
recommendations. Those Planning Committee members not in attendance
received the draft document by mail with an opportunity to comment.
A mitigation strategy was also formulated at the May 2ih meeting. The format of
the exercise is discussed in the Mitigation Strategy portion of this plan.
Emergency Management then created a draft Mitigation Strategy that was
reviewed at the June 24th Planning Meeting and mailed to committee members
not in attendance.
Kent Emergency Management then created a complete draft Hazard Mitigation
Plan. The Plannin~ Committee as well as the public were invited to a Review
Session on July 27 for final comments and suggestions. The Review Session
announcement was sent to all Planning Committee members, published in the
local newspaper and listed on the local public access cable channel. A copy of
the announcement is included in Appendix A.
Washington State Emergency Management will review this Plan before formal
adoption and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final
approval.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
2.2
Chapter Three
Jurisdictional Profile and Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment for the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation plan provides the
factual basis for the mitigation goals and activities proposed by the plan. This
section of the City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan summarizes the results
of the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment process undertaken by
the Planning Committee. The intent of this section is to provide a compilation of
the information gathered and the judgments made about the hazards threatening
the City of Kent as a whole, and the potential vulnerability to those hazards.
The Risk Assessment consists of two parts: a jurisdictional profile of the City of
Kent and a profile of eight natural hazards and one technological hazard. This
plan focuses on natural hazards. However, with the large quantity of hazardous
materials facilities located in the City, it is important to also look at the risk of a
hazardous materials release. The Jurisdictional Profile describes the
composition of the City and identifies specific geographic areas. Each Hazard
Profile describes and documents the impact of past hazard events and identifies
geographic areas most at risk to that hazard.
Jurisdictional Profile
The City of Kent, Washington is centrally located in a region known as the Puget
Sound area. The Cities of Seattle and Tacoma lie 18 miles to the north and
south respectively, with adjacent cities being Renton and Tukwila on the north;
Des Moines on the west; Auburn on the south; Federal Way on the southwest;
and the cities of Covington and Maple Valley along with unincorporated King
County on the east.
Kent is governed by an elected Mayor and 7 City Council members.
Kent is the ih largest city in Washington State and is currently 29.4 square miles
with a population that exceeds 84,500 people.
The population of Kent and the surrounding
area has grown tremendously in recent
decades, and this growth is expected to
continue in the next 20 years.
In the past few decades, Kent has been
transformed from a small, primarily residential
and agricultural community into an employment
and population center for South King County.
Kent is strategically located between both the
Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and has rail and
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.1
truck transportation corridors that pass through the City. The majority of Kent's
economy is in manufacturing and warehouse space. Six square miles, which is
1/3 of all land, is zoned industrial. Based on square footage Kent is also the third
largest distribution center in the United States. There are approximately 1 00
Hazardous Materials facilities that fall under the Emergency Planning and
Community-Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Perhaps the most striking demographic trend in Kent has been the change in the
City's housing stock. In 1970, two-thirds of all housing units in the city were
single-family residential, while one third were multifamily. By 1990, this trend
literally had reversed; approximately one-third of all housing units were single-
family and 60% were multifamily. Today housing stock is split approximately
50/50 due to annexation of areas consisting of primarily single-family
households.
Figure 3. 1 lists the current allocation of land.
Type Area (acres)
Agnculture 2,723
S1ngle Fam1ly 8,521.9 Res1dent1al
Multifamily 1,467 0 Res1dent~al
Commercial 1,826.2
lndustnal 4,200 8
Park & Open 2,030 8 Space
%of total
area
1 5
465
8
100
22 9
47
Approximate
Number of
Structures
62
17,349
3,908
2,131
Physical features have
defined several
geographically distinct
portions of the City. The
planning team has divided
Kent into six geographic
areas based on topographic
features.
(Figure 3.1)
These areas are identified in Appendix B with a map and chart:
• East Hill
• East Hill Slope
• West Hill
• West Hill Slope
• North Valley
• Downtown Core
The East and West Hills are similar in that both areas are mostly residential and
support commercial activity. The East Hill Slope and West Hill Slope are also
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.2
mostly residential, however located on an incline. Most of the manufacturing and
warehouse businesses including many that store hazardous materials are
located in the North Valley. Most of the City's government and the central
business district is located in the Downtown Core area.
While these geographic areas typically have very similar vulnerability and risk, in
some instances a geographic area does have a specific vulnerability and risk to a
particular hazard. If a geographic area does have a unique vulnerability and risk,
it is identified in the hazard profile.
As with any city, the City of Kent has a variety of facilities that are critical or vital
to the safety and welfare of the community. These facilities have been identified
by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and are listed in Appendix D.
Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation
The planning process began with an identification of the natural hazards that
could threaten the City of Kent. A list of hazards to be assessed was established
by Kent Emergency Management. The list was based on the activity provided by
the Mitigation 20/20 software. Hazards that were determined by Emergency
Management to be irrelevant were not included in the assessment. For the most
part, natural hazards that were identified in the City of Kent's Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) were assessed. After the hazard
types were identified, an estimation of the risk from each hazard was completed.
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee completed the risk assessment
exercise at the January 2004 meeting. In small groups, participants completed
the risk assessment exercise based on the Mitigation 20/20 software. A copy of
this exercise is included in Appendix E. Identified stakeholders who were not in
attendance received the exercise through the mail. Each group (individual) was
assigned one hazard to assess.
For purposes of this analysis, "risk" is defined as a relative measure of the
probability that a hazard event will occur in comparison to the consequences or
impacts of that event. That is, if a hazard event occurs frequently, and has very
high consequences, then that hazard is considered to pose a very high risk to the
affected communities. In comparison, if a hazard event is not expected to occur
frequently, and even if it did, the consequences would be minimal, then that
hazard is considered to pose a very low risk.
This relationship between frequency of occurrence and consequences of an
event is illustrated by Figure 3.2.
The graph illustrates that some hazards can be defined as "low risk," for they do
not occur often enough and/or do not result in significant impacts even when they
do occur. In comparison, other hazards may occur often enough and/or have
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.3
sufficiently severe consequences when they do occur, that they must be
considered "high risk." Each of the hazards considered to be a threat can be
qualitatively assessed for its probability of occurrence and its likely
consequences.
Very
Frequent
u.w Oo >z ow zo:: wo::
:::):::) ao wo ffo
Unexpected
or Very Rare
~
':. ~'4et'
~ ~e
\ ~ \")" • 6 •• ~o"
.. •if>'f. ·dl.~~ High Risk
~ e" •• " .. ......
•••••• ••••••
Zero or minimal
consequences
CONSEQUENCES
OF THE EVENT
(F1gure 3.2)
Severe or
catastrophic
consequences
By considering the relative risk of the different hazards that threaten the City of
Kent, greater priority can be given to the "higher" risk hazards, in order to most
effectively utilize the time and resources available for the mitigation planning
process. This supports what can be termed "risk-based planning" because it
facilitates the participants' capabilities to focus on the highest risk hazards.
To do this, the Planning Committee derived a "relative risk score" using a
qualitative process in which participants record, on a numeric scale, the likely
frequency of occurrence, the extent of the community that would be impacted,
and the likely consequences in terms of public safety, property damage,
economic impacts and harm to valuable environmental resources. The numeric
total of the assessments for each of these risk factors is considered in this plan to
constitute the "relative risk score."
The risk estimation numeric factors used are shown in Figure 3.3.
A single, numeric value is selected from each of the five risk factors. The five
values are then used to derive a total relative risk value for a particular hazard
that is "weighted" for the probability of its occurrence. The total relative risk for a
particular hazard in calculated by adding the selected numeric values for the
"Impact Area," "Health & Safety," "Property," "Environment" and "Economy" and
multiplying this total by the numeric value selected for the "Probability of
Occurrence," or, in other words, by using the formula shown in Figure 3.4.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.4
RISK FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERION ASSIGNED
VALUE
No developed area impacted 0
Less than 25% of developed area impacted 1
Area Impacted Less than 50% of developed area impacted 2
Less than 75% of developed area impacted 3
Over 75% of developed area impacted 4
Unknown but rare occurrence 0
Unknown but anttci]:Jate an occurrence 1
Probability of 100_years or less occurrence 2
Occurrence 25 years or less occurrence 3
Once a year or more occurrence 4
Health and No health or safety impact 0
Safety Few injunes/illnesses 1
Consequences Few fatalities but many Injuries/illnesses 2
Numerous fatalities 3
No property damage 0
Consequences Few properties destroyed or damaged 1
to Property Few destroyed -marlY dam~ed 2
Few damaged -many_ destre>yed 2
Mai!Y pror!erties damaged and destre>yed 3
Consequences Little or no environmental dam~ge 0
to Environmental Resources damaged with short term recovery_ practical 1
Resources Resources damaged Wtth long term recovery feasible 2
Resources destroyed beyond recovery 3
No economic impact 0
Economic Low direct and I or low indtrect costs 1
Consequences Low dtrect and high indtrect costs 2
High dtrect and low indtrect costs 2
High direct and high indirect costs 3
(Ftgure 3.3)
[
Area +Health and Safety +Consequences to+ C~~~:;::~;::'=~ + Economic ] X Probability of _ Relative
Impacted Consequences Property Resources Consequences Occurrence -R1sk
(Ftgure 3.4)
The resulting numeric value for relative risk can vary from zero, meaning the
identified hazard poses no estimated risk to the jurisdiction, up to a maximum of
80, which means that the identified hazard poses a very substantial risk to the
jurisdiction.
Members of the Planning Committee were given the opportunity to assess an
assigned hazard. Emergency Management assessed all hazards. Planning
Committee members' responses were averaged, with the assessment done by
Emergency Management. The scores of each hazard are listed in Figure 3.5 and
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.5
displayed on a graph in Figure 3.6. Since the City of Kent and KCFPD #37 share
many demographic, geographic and hazard characteristics the hazards assessed
are applicable to both the City of Kent and King County Fire Protection District
#37.
~
.Q
ns
.Q e
D.
5
4
3 -
2
1
0
Hazard
High Winds
Earthquake
Urban Fire
Flood
Hazmat
Wmter Storm
Landslide
Volcanic Activity
[ ;'('ilJ';h~
-~~~~~r!r\_;
·'··t ,., )
I
''
Low
Risk
• Had
I
Impact Probability Risk
9.25 4 75 44
12.75 35 41 5
8.75 4 35
9 3.75 33 75
8 4 32
75 4 30
7.5 2.5 18.75
11.25 1.5 17
5 ?5 /.5 ~A ):;-,
'-t ·~"
5 t1 1 '} 0 ""Jr....,
J ::..·J
.:: 2 r,
"• 1 c' c:, ~· 75 •J
(F1gure 3.5)
Relative Risk
HazMat
Wm ~ Stonn + + +Urban Fire
+Flood
• Eartbquake
Medium
• and High Landslide
Risk
+ Volcamc
ActiVIty
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Impact
(Figure 3.6)
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.6
14
In order to simplify the numeric rating system, hazards were placed into three
categories: high risk, medium risk, and low risk. Hazards that received a rating of
over 30 were placed in the high risk category. Hazards that received a rating
range of 15-30 were placed in the medium risk category. Hazards that received
a rating below 15 were placed in the low risk category. Shown in Figure 3.7.
High Risk
Earthquake
Flood
Winter Storm
Hazard profiles were completed for
medium and high risk hazards. At this
time, low risk hazards will not be
discussed because they do not pose a
significant threat. A detailed profile of
high and medium risk hazards is in
Appendix C.
Hazardous Matenals
Htgh Wtnds
Urban Ftre
Medium Risk :_;.)'-)
.
'.\ ,,
Landslide ! ,-,_
Volcanic Act1v1ty I' '
r:l
(Figure 3.7)
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.7
''
~",
Chapter Four
Mitigation Strategy
The next phase of the mitigation planning process is to develop a mitigation
strategy. In an effort to reduce the effects of disaster to the community, a
mitigation strategy is developed based on the information found from the Risk
Assessment. The mitigation strategy for the City of Kent consists of five goals
accompanied by supporting objectives and 11 recommended mitigation actions.
The mitigation goals identified by this plan are established to create a long-term
vision for the City of Kent. These mitigation goals express the desire to protect
the community and reduce the cost of disaster.
To support each goal, the mitigation objectives define the implementation steps
that will be used to successfully attain the goal. The objectives listed are specific
and measurable.
To make each goal a reality, a set of recommended mitigation actions have been
developed. Mitigation actions typically can be grouped into six categories.
• Prevention
• Property Protection
• Public Awareness
• Natural Resource Protection
• Emergency Services
• Structural Projects
The City of Kent is committed to mitigating the effects of disasters. Examples of
this include: City Hall was recently retrofitted to increase its seismic stability, City
of Kent Public Works Department pursued and was awarded a grant to perform
seismic retrofit of a City water reservoir and Kent facilities has secured large
objects.
The City of Kent has developed a comprehensive approach to mitigation by
recommending actions from a variety of categories. This section of the City of
Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan lists the goals, objectives and actions that were
accepted by the Planning Committee. Kent Emergency Management developed
the list of goals. At a Planning Committee meeting held on May 27th, 2004,
participants brainstormed ideas for objectives, actions as well as additional goals.
Planning Committee members who were not in attendance were given the
opportunity to provide input by completing the Mitigation Strategy Development
Survey. A copy of this survey is in Appendix E.
In order to establish priority for the listed mitigation projects, a cost/benefit review
was conducted to establish a cost/benefit factor. This was a subjective process
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.1
undertaken by Emergency Management with input from appropriate agencies.
Each mitigation project was rated on estimated cost and estimated benefit using
a scale of one to three.
Three factors were taken into consideration to define benefit:
• Does the action protect critical facilities and infrastructure?
• Does the action mitigate either a high risk hazard or multiple hazards?
• Does the action mitigate an affected geographic area?
Emergency Management determined the level of benefit for each project: high
(3), medium (2) or low (1 ).
Cost was based on total dollar amount necessary to complete the project.
Emergency Management estimated the cost of each project. A low cost project
was defined as estimated to cost less than $10,000. A medium cost project was
defined as estimated to cost $10,000-$50,000. A high cost project was defined
as estimated to cost greater then $50,000.
Figure 4. 1 below details the relationship between cost and benefit to determine
the cost/benefit factor. Priority is established by the cost/benefit factor.
1 2 3
r
1 2 3 4
2 3 4 5
High Cost
Low Cost 3 3 5 6
(F1gure 4.1)
The completion of each of the listed mitigation goals heavily depends on future
funding. Funding sources will be researched and pursued as they become
available. Whenever possible, mitigation actions will be incorporated into the
normal budget process for the City. However, the approval of this Mitigation Plan
does not necessarily guarantee that all or any of the mitigation actions will be
implemented.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.2
The time frame for each mitigation action was defined as either short term, mid-
term or long term. Short term projects are projected to be completed in the next
two years. Mid-term projects are projected to be completed in two to five years.
Long term projects are expected to take longer than five years to implement.
Goal# 1
Increase the resilience of the City to the effects of a major earthquake.
Objectives:
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Assure that City facilities are earthquake resistant.
Maintain a program to promote citizen preparedness
Increase the level of business economic recovery
Determine the level of seismic stability of structures in pre-identified
hazard areas
Recommended Actions:
1,2,6 & 11
Goal# 2
Preserve the continuity of local government
Objectives:
2.1
2.2
Clearly identify essential City Services.
Clearly identify positions that are essential for disaster operations
and delivering essential services.
2.3 Maintain communications within the City, other agencies and
citizens.
Recommended Actions:
1 ,2,3,6 & 11
Goal# 3
Minimize loss to structures and infrastructures, particularly pre-Identified critical
facilities located within hazard areas.
Objectives:
3.1
3.2
Assure critical facilities will withstand impacts from a disaster.
Assure that future buildings and development are designed to be
resistant to hazards.
3.3 Improve the current data regarding critical facilities/infrastructure list
found in Appendix D for this plan.
3.4 Improve current data on geographic area susceptibility and
vulnerability to particular hazards.
Recommended Actions:
1,2,3, & 6
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.3
Goal# 4
Reduce the impacts of wind and snow storms to the community.
Objectives:
4.1 Identify the minimum staffing levels for adequate response to
events related to storms.
4.2 Educate and inform the public to dangers associated with storms.
4.3 Keep the public informed of current conditions.
4.4 Update information about vulnerable populations.
4.5 Have safe transportation routes and methods.
4.6 Assure continuity of utilities to our citizens.
Recommended Actions:
4,5,9, 10, & 11
Goal# 5
Minimize damage and Joss due to flooding events in known hazard areas.
Objectives:
5.1 Provide adequate evacuation routes to safely and effectively
evacuate out of immediate flooding area.
5.2 Ensure that current zoning is appropriate in areas of reoccurring
flooding.
5.3 Improve current information regarding flood prone areas.
5.4 Educate and inform the public to dangers associated with flood
waters.
Recommended Actions:
3,4,5, &11
Goal# 6
Reduce the occurrence and impacts of a hazardous materials incident.
Objectives:
6.1
6.2
Encourage the reduction of storing and using hazardous materials.
Prepare and maintain readiness for responding to hazardous
materials incidents.
6.3 Communicate the potential risks of hazardous material use and
storage with the community.
6.4 Assess current conditions or status of business that use or store
hazardous materials.
Recommended Actions:
4,5, &11
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.4
To successfully complete the mitigation goals and objectives established by the
Planning Committee, Emergency Management developed a list of mitigation
actions.
Action 1:
Action 2:
Action 3:
Prioritize seismic retrofit for critical facilities to meet the most
current standards for new buildings to the maximum extent
possible.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management &
Community Development
4
(cost=1 benefit=3)
Long Term
City Capital Improvement Project
Grant funds
Mitigate the non-structural impacts of an earthquake on City owned
critical facilities.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management,
Community Development
Parks Facilities
5
(cost=2 benefit=3)
Short Term
City budget
Grant funds
Use the HAZUS computer modeling program to estimate loss.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
City of Kent
Emergency Management
4
(cost=2 benefit=2)
Short Term
Emergency Management staff
Grant funds
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.5
Action 4:
Action 5:
Action 6:
Action 7:
Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Kent by
implementing a reverse 911 system.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management
4
(cost=2 benefit=2)
Long Term
Grant funds
Enhance public notification system. Implement a public awareness
campaign focused NOAA weather radios. Improve the existing
Traffic Information System (TIS} by increasing coverage area and
adding alert beacons.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management
Public Works
4
(cost=2 benefit=2)
Mid-term
City budget
Grant funds
Identify slope areas that threaten critical facilities due to lack of
vegetation and erosion control. Prioritize and implement slope
stabilization measures.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management
Public Works
3
(cost=2 benefit=1)
Mid-term
City budget
Grant funds
Increase public education efforts toward preventing stove top
cooking fires the cause of most residential fires.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
City of Kent
Kent Fire Department
6
(cost=3 benefit=3)
On going
Fire Department Public Education
staff
Fire Department budget
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.6
Action 8:
Action 9:
Pre-identify lahar evacuation routes.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management &
Public Works
4
( cost=3 benefit= 1 )
Long Term
City budget
Grant funds
Identify reoccurring utility outage areas and work with utility
providers to remove hazards along those areas.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management &
Public Works
5
(cost=3 benefit=2)
Short Term
City budget for staff time
Action 1 0: Make available back-up power sources to vulnerable populations.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
Emergency Management
2
(cost=1 benefit=1)
Long term
Grant funds
Action 11 : Construct a facility that would house a permanent Emergency
Coordination Center.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Resources/Funding:
City of Kent
Emergency Management
4
(cost=1 benefit=3)
Long Term
City Capital Improvement Project
Grant funds
Bond Measure
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.7
Chapter Five
Plan Implementation and Maintenance
Adoption
The Kent City Council will adopt the Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan by resolution.
Prior to the adoption, Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD)
will review the document and make suggestions pursuant to the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000. Kent Emergency Management will be responsible for
making the necessary corrections before the Plan is formally adopted and
delivered to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for final
approval. When completed the resolution will be inserted into Appendix F.
Once the plan has been approved by FEMA, the City of Kent will be eligible to
apply for both the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM).
Evaluation
Kent Emergency Management will be responsible for conducting any necessary
reviews and coordinating appropriate revisions.
An annual review will be conducted during the anniversary month of Plan
approval. The Plan will be reviewed by the Emergency Manager or his/her
designee to ensure that information is still current. A record of revisions and
updates will be maintained in Appendix G.
Continued public involvement will be maintained by publishing the Plan on the
Kent City website with instructions to contact Emergency Management with any
comments. In addition, each annual review will be announced via the local news
media (i.e. City web page, City public access cable television, and newspaper)
allowing for individuals to participate.
A formal review and adoption will take place at least every five years. The formal
review process will include re-establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee. The Committee will review all portions of the Mitigation Plan to
insure that the information is relevant. Particular attention will be focused on
mitigation goals, objectives and actions. Implemented mitigation actions will be
reviewed to determine their success. Additional mitigation actions will be
researched and added.
Additional reviews may be required following a major disaster or event. The
Director of Emergency Management will make such determination. Should an
unscheduled review be necessary, Kent Emergency Management will conduct
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
5.1
and coordinate the review to insure that the Hazard Mitigation Plan remains
relevant.
Implementation Through Existing Programs
The City of Kent relies on three basic plans to guide and control development
within the City: the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan and the
Economic Development Plan. Where appropriate, the City of Kent Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into these existing planning documents. The
City of Kent's Community Development Department will assist with incorporating
this plan into the current planning documents.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
5.2
Chapter Six
King County Fire Protection District #37 Annex
to the City Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan
Introduction
To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Kent Emergency
Management has managed the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
for the City of Kent that includes King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD)
#37. KCFPD #37 is vulnerable to the same hazards as the City of Kent. Since
1973, the City of Kent Fire Department has provided fire and life safety services
to KCFPD #37. The two jurisdictions share many demographic, geographic and
hazard characteristics. For this reason, KCFPD #37 has provided this annex to
the City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Jurisdictional Profile
King County Fire Protection District (KCFPD) #37 is in the State of Washington
and is centrally located in a region known as the Puget Sound area. KCFPD #37
contains both unincorporated and incorporated areas as described in Figure 6.1.
The District is adjacent to the City of Kent and encompasses all of the City of
Covington. It serves a total area of approximately 30 square miles with a total
population of74,783.
KCFPD #37 is governed by three Commissioners. The District owns one fire
station, several apparatus and employs five personnel.
Unincorporated City of Covington Total
Square Miles 23.5 6.5 30
Population 60,000 14,783 74,783
(Figure 6.1)
Planning Process
KCFPD # 37 followed the planning process established by the City of Kent.
In addition to the public review process undertaken by the City of Kent, public
review and comment was solicited through open public Fire Commissioner's
meetings and an advertised public open house.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
6.1
Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation
The City of Kent and KCFPD #37 have similar vulnerabilities and risk to hazards.
Therefore, the district accepts the City's Risk Assessment data found in
Appendix C.
Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategy for KCFD #37 includes two goals.
• Educate the public on what they can do to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to hazard events.
• Mitigate structural and non-structural impacts of hazard events to the
existing facilities and all future facilities.
To successfully complete the mitigation goals, Emergency Management
developed two mitigation actions.
Action 1:
Action 2:
Mitigate the non-structural impacts of an earthquake on District
owned critical facilities.
Coordinating Agency:
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Time Frame:
Kent Fire Department
5
(cost=2 benefit=3)
Short Term
Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Fire District
#37 by implementing a reverse 911 system.
Coordinating Agency: Kent Fire Department & Valley
Communications Center
Benefit/Cost Factor: 3
(cost=1 benefit=2)
Time Frame: Long Term
Plan Implementation and Maintenance
The three Commissioners will adopt the Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan, which
includes this annex. Prior to the adoption, Washington State Emergency
Management Division (EMD) will review the document and make suggestions
pursuant to Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Kent Emergency Management will
be responsible for making the necessary corrections before the Plan is formally
adopted and delivered to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
for final approval. Once the plan has been approved by FEMA, KCFPD #37 will
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
6.2
be eligible to apply for both the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM).
KCFPD #37 will follow the review schedule set by the City of Kent.
Implementation Through Existing Programs
The Fire Chief for the City of Kent Fire Department and the Fire Commissioners
develop the KCFPD #37 budget. Whenever possible, KCFPD #37 will implement
the suggested mitigation action through the development of the annual budget.
The budget is the only existing planning mechanism that the KCFPD #37
maintains.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
6.3
Appendix A
Meeting Attendance
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meeting attendance on
January 22, 2004
Name
Martin Best
Ang1 Caster
Pam Cobley
M1ke Condon
Jack Datm
Sandra DeMarre
Roark Doubt
Bnan Felczak
Chns Hall
Michelle Hale
Becky Hanks
Harry Hardey
B1ll Jividen
Tom Keown
Ke1th Klug
Mary Kovac
Scott Knesel
Doug Mclean
Chuck M1ller
B1ll Osborne
Paul Schultz
Larry Rabel
Kimberly Reser
Alana Schumts
Trent Spurgeon
Darrell Staaleson
Jean Strother
Mark Swet1tch
R1ck Tokarzewskl
Aimee Vance
Dick Walker
Agency
Washington State Emeroency Management D1v1sion
West Bav Condo
Roth Hill Eno. on behalf of Soos Creek Water and Sewer D1stnct
Olympic Pipeline
Univar USA
Kent School Distr1ct
Boeing
City of Kent Fire Department (Emergency Management)
Kino County Water Distr1ct 111
C1ty of Kent F1re (Emeroency Management}
Kent School Distnct
City of Kent Buildino Serv1ces
Starbucks
Highhne Water District
Kent School District
Mult1Care
Ball Metal
Washington Cold Storage
C1ty of Kent Police Department
City of Kent Planning Serv1ces
Philip Services
C1ty of Kent F1re (Emergency Management}
K1ng County Fire Protection D1stnct #37 (Emergency Management}
Starbucks
Bakery Chief
Staaleson Engineenng
Kent Area PTA council
Const. Chemical Plant
Kino County Emergency Manaoement
City of Kent Municipal Court
Department of Ecology
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.l
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meeting attendance on
February 26, 2004
Name
Paul Adams
Martin Best
Larry Blanchard
Tim Campbell
Steve Caputo
Jack Datin
Sandy DeMarre
Cathie Destad1n
Becky Hanks
Garrett Huffman
Michael Karl
Mary Kovac
Bill Osborne
Larry Rabel
Kimberly Resor
David Richardson
Cra1g Schevmerhom
Ken Sonsteng
Darrell Stalleson
Jean Strother
Calvin Terada
Butch Vankirk
Stan Waldrop
Dick Walker
Agency
Coatings Unlimited
Washington State Emergency Management Divis1on
C1ty of Kent Public Works Department
Midway Sewer District
SeaTac Disposal
Univar USA
Kent School District
US Army Corps. of EnQineers
Kent School District
Master Builders
King County Water District 111
MultiCare Health Services
C1ty of Kent PlanninQ
City of Kent F1re DepartmentjEmerQency ManaQement)
King County Fire Protection Distnct #37 (Emergency Management)
King County Regional Just1ce Center
Sea Tac Disposal
Stalleson Engineering
Kent Area PTA counc1l
U.S. Environmental Protection AQency
King County Journal Newspaper
C1ty of Kent Information TechnoloQY
Department of EcoloQy
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.2
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Members
(returned postcard designating involvement)
I Name I Agency
[Paul Adams
[Mart1n Best
[Larry Blanchard
[Lea Boyle
[Tim Campbell
Jsteve Caputo
[steve Carpenter
jPam Cobley
[Mike Condon
[Gary Crueger
[Ed Cunninham
[Jack Da!in
[Terry Davis
[David Delph
[Sandra DeMarre
[cathie Destadm
[Chns Hall
[Becky Hanks
:Harry Hardey
[Howard Hams
[John Henry
[vern Howard
[Garrett Huffman
[Bill Jividen
[Michael Karl
[Tom Keown
[Alycia K1Mann
[Keith Klug
[Mary Kovac
[scott Kriesel
[Ross McDonald
[Doug McLean
[Ken Miller
[Chuck Miller
[Jim Morrow
[Ted NIXOn
[Larry Nardi
[coatings Unlimited Inc.
[WAEMD
[City of Kent
[Puget Sound Energy
[Midway Sewer Distnct
[Foamex
[Roth Hill Eng. on behalf of Soos Creek Water and Sewer D1strict
[Olympic Pipeline
[Philip Services
[AT&T Wireless
[UnivarUSA
[comcast
[City of Covmgton
[Kent School District
[us Army Corps of Eng1neers
[water D1stict 111
[Kent School District
[Kent Building Services
[lnterplastic Corp.
[Exotic Metals
[Polyform US
[Master Builders
[starbucks
[water D1stict 111
[Highline Water District
[Banta
[Kent School District
[MultiCare Health System
[Ball Metal
[NRC Environmental Serv1ce
[washington Cold Storage
[City of Federal Way
[City of Kent
[Campbell Nixon Associates
[Fields Company LLC
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.3
/Bill Osborne
/Pat Pawlak
/Larry Rabel
Joan Rees
/Kimberly Resor
/John Robertson
Jcra1g Schermerhorn
/Alana Schumpe
/Alex Senecault
Jsgt. David Richardson
/J.C Smith
/Ken Sonsteng
/Trent Spurgeon
/Darrell Staaleson
/Jean Strother
/Mark Swet1tch
/J1m Teddy
/Calvin Terada
/Aimee Vance
/Butch Vankirk
]stan Waldrop
;Richard Walker
'Ken Weathenll
,Brad Weddle
/City of Kent
/City of Kent Fire Department (Emergency Management)
/City of Kent F1re Department
/Scientech
/King County Fire Protection District #37 (Emergency Management)
/Trammell Crow Company
/Leisure Supply
/Starbucks
/City of Kent
/K.C. Regional Justice Center
/Mikron lnd
/SeaTac Disposal
/Bakery Chet
/staaleson Engineering
/Kent Area PTA Council
/Degussa
Jumted Warehouse Co.
Jus EPA-Region 1 o
/City of Kent
/King County Journal
/City of Kent
/Dept. of Ecology
/City of Kent
/DiPietro Trucking Co.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.4
,/'~>
'---""" KENT
WASHINGTON
FOR IMMEDIATE REL
PIO: Lt. Pat Pawlak
Department
ppawlak@ci.kent.wa.us
SE
http://www.ci.kent.wa.us
24 Hour: 206-972-4082
MEDIA INFORMATION
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Kent Fire
24611 1161h Avenue
Kent, WA 98030
Subject: City of Kent Mitigation Planning Committee Fax: 253-856-6400
Like all commumt1es, the C1ty of Kent 1s vulnerable to many different kinds of disasters, wh1ch can
have substantial human, economic, and environmental consequences for 1ts citizens. Actions are
being planned to eliminate or minim1ze the consequences of future disasters through the
development of a new plan, the City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigat1on Plan. The plan will be
prepared by the recently created City of Kent Mitigation Planning Committee.
The purpose of this plan is to identify local hazards and methods required to reduce risk to life
and property before a disaster occurs. The plan w1ll also serve as a gUJde for policy deCISIOns
directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the Plan will be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer commumty through future code
development, 1mproved planning, and land use.
The Mitigation Planning Committee will be a cooperat1ve effort of local governments, public, and
private organizations in the City of Kent. The committee will assess vulnerabilities to different
types of disasters and develop spec1fic proposals for act1on that could reduce or mm1mize these
vulnerabilities. These proposals are called "mitigation 1n1t1atives" and Will form the core of the C1ty
of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Local Mitigation Plan, once developed, is expected to help the C1ty of Kent take advantage of
state and federal funding opportunities for eligible hazard m1tigat1on projects. Federal programs
offer increased funding levels to eligible mitigation projects if they are proposed for a community
that has an approved local mitigation plan.
Both public and private sector organizations can make a valuable contribution to the City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The first in a series of meetings is scheduled for January 22nd,
2004 at 3:00p.m. The meeting will be held at Kent Fire Station 73 located at 26512 Military Road
S. Members of the community can share their perspective and comments by attending the
meeting or by contacting Kent Emergency Management.
Mailing address: Kent Frre Emergency Management
24611 1161h Ave S.E.
Kent, WA 98030
E-mail: KentECC@c1.kent wa us
Phone number. (253) 856-4440
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.5
Public Notice
Pursuant to the Disaster MitigatiOn Act of 2000, actiOns are being planned to eliminate or
minimize the consequences of future disasters through the development of a City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to reduce risk to life and
property before a disaster occurs. The plan will also serve as a guide for policy decrsions
directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the plan will be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer community through future
code development, and better focused planning and land use.
Kent Emergency Management invites interested parties to attend a Mitigation Planning
Meeting scheduled for January 22, 2004 at 3:00p.m. held at Kent Fire Station 73 (26512
Military Road South). Members of the community can share their perspective and
comments by attending the meeting or by contacting Kent Emergency Management.
Mailing Address:
E-mail:
Phone number:
Kent Fire Emergency Management
246ll 116th Ave. South
Kent, W A 98030
KentEcc@ci.kent. wa. us
(253) 856-4440
Published in the King County Journal Newspaper 1/20/04 and 1/21/04
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitrgation Plan
A.6
City of Kent
Emergency Management
Public Notice
Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, actions are bemg planned to eliminate or
minimize the consequences of future disasters through the development of a City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to reduce risk to life and
property before a disaster occurs. The plan will also serve as a guide for policy dectsions
directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the plan will be incorporated mto the City's
Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer community through future
code development, and better focused planning and land use.
Kent Emergency Management invites interested parttes to attend a Mitigat10n Planning
Meeting scheduled for February 26th, 2004 at 3:00p.m. held at Kent Fire Station 73
(26512 Mtlitary Road South). Members of the community can share their perspective
and comments by attending the meeting or by contacting Kent Emergency Management.
Mailing Address:
E-mail:
Phone number:
Kent Fire Emergency Management
24611 1161h Ave. South
Kent, W A 98030
KentEcc@ci.kent. wa. us
(253) 856-4440
Published in the King County Journal Newspaper 2/23/04 and 2/24/04.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.7
City of Kent
Emergency Management
Public Notice
Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of2000, actions are being planned to eliminate or
minimize the consequences of future disasters through the development of a City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the plan is to reduce risk to life and
property before a disaster occurs. The plan will also serve as a guide for pohcy dectsions
directed toward mitigation. Once developed, the plan will be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan and will assist the City in building a safer community through future
code development, and better focused planning and land use.
Kent Emergency Management invites interested parties to attend a Mittgation Planning
Meeting scheduled for May 27th, 2004 at 3:00p.m. held at Kent Fire Station 77 (20717
132nd Ave South). A draft portion of the plan will be distributed. Members of the
community can share their perspective and comments by attending the meetmg or by
contacting Kent Emergency Management.
Mailing Address:
E-mail:
Phone number:
Kent Fire Emergency Management
24611 1161h Ave. South
Kent, W A 98030
KentEcc@ct.kent. wa. us
(253) 856-4440
Published in the King County Journal Newspaper 5/25/04 and 5/26/04.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.8
City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan
In compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Kent Emergency
Management has coordinated the development of a City of Kent Hazard
Mitigation Plan. A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was formed involving
City Departments, Businesses, Utility Districts, and Kent School District
representatives.
The purpose of the plan is to identify local hazards and methods required to
reduce risk to life and property before a disaster occurs. The Plan will serve as a
guide for policy decisions directed toward mitigation.
King County Fire Protection District #37 will annex to the City's Plan.
A requirement of the planning process is to allow for public comment. Kent
Emergency Management is holding a public review session to give citizens of
Kent and Fire District #37 an opportunity to view the Plan and give comments.
Interested parties are invited to stop by on July 27th anytime between 4:00 and
7:00pm.
For more information contact Kimberly Resor at (253) 856-4343.
---------------------------------------------------------1
Public Review Session 1
Tuesday July 27 1h
4:00 pm -7:00 pm
Kent Fire Headquarters
24611 116th Ave SE
Kent WA 98030 . _________________________________________________________ J
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
A.9
Appendix B
Designation of Geographic Areas
For planning purposes the City of Kent was broken down into 6 geographic
areas. The chart below defines the boundaries of each geographic area.
Geographic areas are also designated on the map.
Name
East Hill
East Hill Slope
North Valley
Downtown Core
West Hill Slope
West Hill
North East South
Boundary Boundary Boundary
City Limits City Limits City Limits
City Limits 10410 Ave City Limits
extending to
108th Ave
City Limits Central Ave James Street
until 167, then
follows 167
James Street Central Ave City Limits
City Limits West shore of City Limits
Green River
until the 5900
block then
directly South
City Limits Military Road City Limits
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
B.1
West
Boundary
104m Ave
extendmg to
108th Ave
Central Ave
unttl167, then
follows 167
West shore of
Green River
West shore of
Green River
until the 5900
block then
directly South
Military Road
City Limits
:/ ,,
i'
I
'
,;,_
,,
' "
1,'
e
Seattle-Tacoma
lnternabonal
Airport
',,
City of Kent Hazard Mitigation Plan
Geographic Areas
'' '
~,
PaJ1lh~>r
Lake
',
/
', '
• Support
Ser)IIOO
e
: "-'
Lake
Youngs
---
Major Water Features
.A. Fire Stations
N MaJor Roads
City Limrts
1 East Hill
2 East H1ll Slope
3 North Valley
4 ~Core
S West H•ll Slope
6 WestHIII
:+
SCALE: 1" = 90,000'
""
Definition of Hazard
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake Hazard Profile
EARTHQUAKE
Earthquakes are defined as the sudden release of energy occurring from the collision or
shifting of crustal plates on the earth's surface or from the fracture of stressed rock
formations in that crust. This release of energy results in the earth shaking, rocking,
rolling, jarring and jolting; having the potential to cause minimal to great damage in the
Puget Sound area. Earthquakes are measured by units of magnitude, which is a
loganthmic measure of earthquake size. This means that at the same distance from the
earthquake, the shaking will be 10 times as large during a magnitude 5 earthquake as it
would during a magnitude 4 earthquake.
History of Hazard as it Affects the City of Kent
Western Washington and the Kent area have a long history of documented earthquake
activity. Kent is geographically located in an area known as the Pacific Ring of Fire.
The same geologic events that result in the creation of volcanoes and volcanic events may
also generate notable earthquakes. Western Washington is framed by the Pacific, North
American, and Juan de Fuca plates, with a significant amount of active fault lines
identified in the Puget Sound area. All of these have been the cause of earthquakes in
history, with the most notable recent earthquakes being the 1949 magnitude 7.1 Olympia
earthquake, which caused over $100 million in damage and killed 8 people; the 1965
magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma earthquake which caused over $50 million in damage and
killed 7 people; the 1999 magnitude 5.5 Satsop earthquake; and the 2001 magnitude 6.8
Nisqually earthquake. Annually, hundreds of earthquakes occur in Washington, most of
which go unnoticed (less than magnitude 2.5).
Hazard Identification
The earth is divided into three main layers --a hard outer crust, a soft middle layer and a
central core. The crust is broken into massive irregular pieces called "plates", which have
been moving very slowly over the earth's surface for billions of years, driven by energy
deep within the earth. This movement has shaped the physical features of the earth --its
mountains, valleys, plains, and plateaus. As these plates move, stresses are built up and
periodically release energy in areas where the plates come into contact with each other.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.l
•
•
'
Deep E.w~qualces (40 millis below ~e E.arlh's surface) .-e within the subductng
ac!BIIG p1111e •It bends beneath ~e cmtnental plate. The llwgest deep
NCI'~weilt earfhqualces knCMn were n 1949 (M 7, f), I !165 ( M 6.5), and :1001 (M 6.8).
Shallow earlhqualces (less ~an 15 miles deep) •e cauB by faullll n lhe
NCI'~ AmeriGan Cmtnent. TheSeallle fault produced a &hallow magnitude 7 +
earthquake I ,100 ye .. ago. O~er magnlllllfe 7+ e~rllqualces occurred n
18i2, 1918, and 1946.
SublluctiDn E.arlhqualces are huge quakes that result when ~e boundary between ~e
aceaniG and cmtlrlenlal plates rlfJI:ures. n 1100, lhe most recent cascadia Subduction
lcne -~quake sent a lllui'IBflll aslar • Ja~&~.
~~~ Mt. St Helena/Other cascade Volcanos
There are three technically distmct types of earthquakes that have the abihty to generate
powerful damaging motion in the greater Puget Sound area:
BenioffZonellnterplate (Deep) earthquakes
These earthquakes occur at depths of 15 to 60 miles from the subducting Juan de Fuca
plate. The Olympia, Seattle-Tacoma, Satsop and Nisqually earthquakes are all examples
of Bemoff Zone earthquakes. They usually do not exceed magnitudes of 7.5, are 15-40
seconds in duratiOn, have normal faulting with no large aftershocks. These earthquakes
are more frequent than subduction zone earthquakes, typically occumng every 30 or so
years.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.2
Subduction Zone events
These earthquakes occur along the interface between tectonic plates, generated from the
collision of the Juan de Fuca, Pacific, and North American plates. This area is also
known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and it ranges from southern British Columbia to
Northern California. These earthquakes are considered great magnitude events and may
reach 8.0-9.0 on the Richter scale. Researchers say the stresses they observe off the
coast of Washington could cause an earthquake measuring up to 9.5. The duration of
shaking could last up to 3 minutes. A subduction zone earthquake may also generate
tsunamis. The last known subduction earthquake in the Puget Sound area occurred m
1700. Geologic evidence indicates that these great earthquakes may have occurred at
least seven times in the last 3,500 years, suggesting a return time of 400-600 years.
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes
The largest known historic earthquake in Washington or Oregon occurred in 1872 in the
North Cascades. This earthquake had an estimated magnitude of7.4 and was followed by
many aftershocks. It was probably at a depth of 10 miles or less within the continental
crust. Many other crustal sources in Washington and Oregon could also produce
damaging earthquakes. Recent studies have found geologic evidence for large shallow
earthquakes 1,100 years ago within the central Puget Basin. Massive block landslides into
Lake Washington, marsh subsidence and tsunami deposits at West Point in Seattle,
tsunami deposits at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island, and large rock avalanches on the
southeastern Olympic Peninsula have all been dated to approximately 1,100 years ago.
Earthquake energy is released on the earth's surface primarily through faults. A fault is a
fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to
those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long
period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault. Fault
rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness. Rupture
may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden
displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by
shaking. The following is a map of major earthquake fault zones in the Puget Sound
region.
City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.3
Major Faull Zones
In the Pugat sound
~===+--;-
+ +
+
+
N. Whldbey Is. Fault
S. Whldbey Is. Fault
Kent
+ 47
+
5U KM
123 122
In addition to the different types of earthquakes, geologic factors affect how the Kent
area will fare during an earthquake. The Kent valley is composed of soft matenals such
as mud, artificial fill and layers of sand and clay that can amplify ground shaking and
make overall damage more intense. Soft soils tend to liquefy during an earthquake
creating a condition known as "liquefaction". This condition can result in local areas
experiencing severe damage, especially where the ground fails (or liquefies) under
buildings, pipelines or bridges. Landslides and rock falls may be triggered on steep
slopes.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.4
Vulnerability Analysis
Tom Reese I The Seattle T1mes
A worker mspects the damage from an earthquake-
tnggered mudsltde that flowed mto Cedar Rtver m
Renton's Maple Valley. The mudsltde caused f/oodmg
that moved Paul Patnck's truck and nearly reached hts
house.
Any building or structure built on land that slides in an earthquake could be destroyed,
creating an extreme hazard for those buildings or structures on the hillsides above the
valley floor. Landslides could also pose a threat to transportation routes, preventing
emergency vehicles from respondmg in an earthquake disaster. Additwnally dtsruption of
water, sewer, power and communication lines would be likely.
Steve Bloom I The Associated Press
South Puget Sound Commumty College student Jeff
Ennett walks along an Olympta stdewalk made buckled
by Wednesday's quake
TransportatiOn and communicatiOn would be limited or inaccessible. Major
transportation lifelines are bmlt on liquefaction prone soils and hillstdes which could be
destroyed as a result of an earthquake. Bridges may be damaged or need structural
assessment resultmg in road closures. Assessment of bridges, overpasses and roadways
may be delayed, creating a potential continuum of harm. Downed utthty lines could
cause more problems for transportation as well as the loss of communication and power.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigatwn Plan
c.s
Fire, a disaster in 1tself, frequently accompanies earthquakes. Fire usually occurs as a
result of damaged electrical eqmpment, broken gas lines, fuel spills, disrupted heating
equipment or any combmation thereof. These fires can break out in multiple locations in
a short penod of time following an earthquake, quickly causing firefighting resources to
be overextended. Additional strain on firefighting capabilities could be caused by
transportation route interruptions and broken water lines, which would make firefighting
impossible.
Masonry Damage m Seattle after the 2001 Nzsqually earthquake
Damage to existing structures in the area could be great, with older brick buildmgs and
tilt-up warehouses potentially being the most susceptible. Because the Kent valley
contains the largest concentration of older buildings and lies on soil prone to liquefaction,
it 1s likely that thts area would be the most heavily damaged in the event of an
earthquake. Another concern is the potential for destruction and damage of tilt-up
buildings in the industrial area of Kent. As well as being located on the liquefaction soil,
many of these structures have hazardous materials stored on site, which when released
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.6
have a high potential for being life threatening. High populated facilities, such as schools
and community buildings are of concern as well, due to the potential high loss of life.
Howard Hanson Dam, and to a lesser degree the Mud Mountain Dam, have more than a
significant effect on the flow of the Green and White Rivers, making flooding of the Kent
valley an added concern. The Green River flows through the Kent area and the White
River flows through south Auburn. An earthquake of significant magnitude could cause
enough damage to these dams to create a serious flood hazard.
The time that an earthquake occurs significantly determines the impact of the quake. The
most significant effect of time relates to the potential for human casualties. Experts
believe that casualties would be greatest during hours of heavy vehicular traffic and when
large numbers of people are in concentrated areas such as business and government
districts, places of commerce and schools. Thus the highest potential for human
casualties in Kent resulting from an earthquake exists during the 12-hour period from
6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Geographic Area Explanation
The North Valley and Downtown Core is composed of soft material that is likely to
create liquefaction. In a significant earthquake, it is expected that the North Valley and
Downtown Core will sustain a significant amount of damage.
Conclusions
The effects of a major earthquake in the Kent area have the potential to be catastrophic.
Hundreds of people could be killed and thousands left homeless. Damage to buildmgs
and structures could be in the millions of dollars. Transportation and communication
could be disrupted from flooding, landslides, structure damage, and downed lines.
Building codes continue to be strengthened to address potential effects of earthquakes on
structures. However, because of an earthquake's potential for catastrophic human and
economic consequences, it is incumbent upon local government to continue to take
appropriate actions to mitigate against its severity by conscientious enforcement of codes
and improved building standards, and by educating our citizens as best we can to be
ready for a great quake. Public awareness programs, school staff and student community
"Drop, Cover and Hold" training and drills. Community Emergency Response Team
(C.E.R. T) education and training, and community outreach on what to do before, during
and after an earthquake are just part of the answer.
RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE
The measure of strength of an earthquake is indicated by a number called its magnitude. e Magnitude is calculated from a measurement of either the amplitude or the duration of
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.7
specific types of recorded seismic waves. In general, the different magnitude scales (for
example, local or Richter magnitude and surface wave magnitude) give similar
numerical estimates of the size of an earthquake, and all display a logarithmic relation to
recorded ground motion. That means each unit increase in magnitude represents an
increase in the size of the recorded signal by a factor of 10. Seismologists sometimes
refer to the size of an earthquake as moderate (magnitude 5), large (magnitude 6), major
(magnitude 7), or great (magnitude 8).
The intensity of an earthquake is a measure of the amount of ground sbakmg at a
particulate site, and it is determined from reports of human reaction to shaking, damage
done to structures, and other effects. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (Table 1) is
now the scale most commonly used to rank earthquakes felt in the United States.
Table 1. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. From a pamphlet "The seventy of an
earthquake" prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1986. See Wood
and Neuman (1931) for complete details.
I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.
II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
Delicately suspended objects may swing.
III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildmgs.
Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock
slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of truck. Duration estimated.
IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened.
Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like
heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken.
Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of
fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII. Damage negligible in building of good design and constructiOn; slight to
moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or
badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving
motorcars.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.8
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary
substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built
structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy
furniture overturned.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame
structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with
partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent
greatly.
XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.9
Definition of Hazard
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Flood Hazard Profile
FLOODING I DAM FAILURE
A flood is an unusually large flow or rise of water, especially over land not usually
covered with water.
Of all possible natural hazards, Kent is most prone to flooding. There are two types of
flooding which could conceivably occur in this area:
1) Riverine flooding: Floods which occur because of prolonged rain, melting
snow or both. The first element leading to a potential Riverine flood is a heavy,
fresh snow in the mountains. If a weather front with warm winds, usually from
the southeast, and heavy rainfall follow the snow before it has a chance to settle
and solidifY, a flood potential exists.
2) Flash flooding and surface flooding: Several factors contribute to flash
flooding. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration. Topography,
soil conditions, urbanization and ground cover also play important roles. Flash
flooding occurs within a few minutes to a few hours of excessive rainfall, a dam
or levee failure, or a sudden release of water held by an ice or log jam. In
addition, localized surface or "urban" flooding occurs as the result of drainage
systems that are incapable of carrying exceptional volumes of snowmelt and
heavy rain runoff.
The first flooding type is the most likely to occur, with the second being possible as the
result of dam or other flood control system failure, such as the Green River levee system.
History of Hazard
The Kent Valley was historically inundated by large floods until the construction of the
Howard A. Hanson Dam. Since operation commenced in 1962, the dam, in combination
with the levee systems also constructed along the Green River, have prevented that
degree of flooding and limited flood damages.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.lO
Historical flooding from the White River
would merge with the Stuck River and
spill water to the north and south. The
original path of the White River flowed
north to the Duwamish valley through
Kent, but nature transferred the course to · · ~ ..
the Puget Sound into Commence-t -~
Bay. Mud Mountain Dam was erected in ~· ../."',...,: ·' ... · ;
1948 to prevent massive flooding in South ~
King County and North Pierce County. '~'!"-' " · ... ·
There have been five Presidential -· Kent valley floodmg in the 1930's
declarations for flood disasters in King County since 1970, with the most recent and
memorable floods in the vicinity being the ones that occurred in November and
December of 1990, and the flood of February 1996, and the flood of 1997. The 1997
flood is most memorable, not only because it is the most recent but also because the
1997 storm produced approximately 20% more total precipitat10n over a week long
period, but significantly less over a 3-day period (25% less). All of these floods caused
severe damage to several City parks and roadways. The 1996 storm caused extensive
damage resulting landslides and the unfortunate death of one of our citizens. The rainfall
was less intense during the recent 2001 New Year's storm. The most significant
difference between the 1996 and 2001 events was the combination of heavy rainfall and
melting of significant snow accumulations at low elevations in the most heavily
populated areas of the county during the New Year's storm. This combination produced
flooding and large volumes of runoff in the urban and suburban creek basins.
Hazard Identification
The City of Kent experiences flooding to some degree nearly every year. This event is
most likely to occur during "flood season" between the months of October and March
when rains are the heaviest. The major problems have been lowland flooding and road
closures as a result of standing water. Surface floodmg is most likely caused by slow-
moving thunderstorms or by heavy rains associated with spring or early summer storm
systems or combined with Riverine flooding.
A flash flood is likely to occur as the result of some form of flood control system failure.
System failure at either the Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River or the Mud
Mountain Dam on the White River would create disaster potential throughout the Kent
Valley.
A failure of the levee system that has been built up and guards the banks of the Green
River would also produce flash flooding to a lesser degree. Since the banks of the Green
River are built up several feet higher than the surrounding area, damage to these banks or
levees would quickly inundate the adjacent areas and spread throughout the lower, valley
floor.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.ll
The Ctty of Kent has adopted King County's Flood Management Plan, participates in the
Green River Flood Basin Management program, and has adopted Flood Hazard
Regulations (KCC 14.09) to address impacts of potential development in flood areas.
The pendmg update to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance will address updated state and
federal legislation.
Vulnerability Analysis
A very common type of flooding in the lowland areas is due to the frequent two to three
day storm. This flooding normally creates transportation difficulties hke slippery
roadways and poor vistbility, increasing the likelihood of traffic accidents and a
slowdown in emergency response. Basement floodmg and mud slides are also likely
occurrences. A storm lasting longer would worsen the effects considerably. Possibilities
include; senous property damage, disruption of utility systems, inaccessibility of the
valley area via normal traffic routes, health and environmental hazards as a result of
sewer and septic system back ups and storage of hazardous substances in area businesses,
displacement of those living and working in the affected area, and economic disaster for
businesses and citizens ahke.
The Howard Hanson Dam is located
approximately 32 miles upstream from
Kent on the Green River. In the event of
dam failure, the nver banks in the Kent
area would reach their peak (bank level
elevation approximately 39 feet) in
about 7.75 hours with the entire valley
being under 8 -15 feet of water within
29 112 hours.
Howard Hanson Dam
The scenario for failure at the Mud Mountam Dam is much the same as that of the
Howard Hanson Dam. The Mud Mountain Dam lies 26 miles from Kent on the White
River. Dam failure at this location would have flood waters going over its banks and
MudMt Dam
reaching Kent in 4.5 hours with the valley reaching flood
levels of 4-12 feet in 23 1/2 hours.
The bank level elevation would be the same as in the
Howard Hanson Dam scenario because the failure of the
Mud Mountain Dam would send the water out of its
normal path, rerouting into the Kent Valley
The result of such an occurrence would truly be called a
major disaster. With severe property damage caused by
the deluge of water throughout the valley floor the
recovery period would most certainly be a long and costly
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.12
one. The most serious consequence of a flash flood however, would be inadequate
evacuation warning causing the potential for loss of life and millions of dollars worth of
damage.
Conclusions
Flooding in the valley area could conceivably result in anything from minor
inconvenience to loss of life and economic disaster to the citizens and industry in the
community. While the possibility of a dam failure seems remote, the results of such an
event cannot be ignored and must be adequately planned for.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.13
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Profile
Definition of Hazard
This type of hazard includes the production, use, storage, transportation and disposal of
hazardous substance and wastes that place the public, property and environment at
significant risk. Illegal drug labs and dumping present yet another concern Recent
history shows an increased threat from terrorists in connection with hazardous materials.
Hazardous substances are any materials that pose a threat to human health and/or the
environment, and any substance designated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is spilled into the waters of
the United States or is otherwise released into the environment.
Hazardous wastes are by-products of society that can pose a substantial or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed, that possess at
least one of five characteristics (flammable, explosive, corrosive, toxic, or radioactive), or
that appear on the EPA lists.
A hazardous chemical is any hazardous material requiring an MSDS (Material Safety
Data Sheet) under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. Such substances are
capable of producing fires and explosions or adverse health effects such as cancer, bums,
or dermatitis.
Hazardous materials are subject to regulation by a variety of local, state and federal
agencies through an assortment of labor, buildmg, environmental, and transportation
laws, and their amount and location are also subject to City of Kent Zoning Code and
State of Washington regulations.
History of Hazard
On December 4, 1984, a cloud of methyl isocyanate gas, an extremely toxic chemical,
escaped from a Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India. More than 2,500 people
lost their lives. Tens of thousands more were injured, some with permanent disabilities.
Through the years, concerns over incidents of hazardous materials releases have risen due
to the frequency and potential damage these events can cause. This concern has led to
the development and formation of teams specially trained and outfitted to handle these
situations. Demand for use of mitigation teams and procedures has grown from a few
handful of calls in the early 1980's to hundreds of calls today.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.l4
As a city in the state of Washington, Kent has the fifth largest quantity of hazardous
material sites (188). During the period from 2001 to 2003 Kent has averaged 163
Hazardous Materials related calls per year ranging from flammable liqmd spills/leaks to
unknown chemicals, to a full Zone 3 HAZMA T team response.
Hazard Identification
The community experiences the regular use, shipment and storage of a host of hazardous
materials and is a main traffic route for those materials enroute to other hazardous
materials centers in the Puget Sound Region. Kent's exposure to hazardous materials
includes transportation by rail, highway, pipeline, and its storage and use in industry
throughout the City.
Transportation of hazardous
materials over the highways
poses the greatest potential
threat to the community. It is
dominated by flammable
liqmds such as gasoline and
fuel oil which represent about
30% of the total. Other
hazardous materials
transported by truck include;
sulfuric acid, anhydrous
ammoma, caustic soda,
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG),
hydrochloric acid, nitrogen,
mtric acid and sodium chlorate.
These materials are heavily
transported and move through
Kent daily.
Kent Hazardous Matenal Team members
Interstate 5 cames the heaviest volume of hazardous materials in the state. State Routes
99, 516, and 167 are also major hazardous materials routes, all running directly through
Kent. The shipments of hazardous materials by truck is conservatively estimated in
excess of 60,000 bulk shipments annually and does not include matenals transported
between locations within the City.
Rail transportation of hazardous materials is also a factor to be considered. Ratl
transportation of hazardous materials along the corridor between Tacoma and Everett ts
the heaviest in the state. This corridor runs through the Kent valley. Regular shtpments
of chlorine, LPG, caustic soda, anhydrous armnonia, methanol, vinyl chloride, and motor
fuel have origms or destinations along this corridor.
Storage and use of hazardous materials w1thin Kent is currently so widespread that 1t is
impossible to single out one particular area which has the greatest potential for an
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.15
incident. Currently, there are more than 88 facilities in the city of Kent identified by the
Community Right to Know Act that store 10,000 pounds or more of any one substance.
There are also 54 facilities that have been identified as requiring emergency planning.
The area north of South 234th and west of Highway 167 houses the greatest volume and
variety of hazardous materials. Other locations outside this area include those businesses
located along Central Avenue and south of the central business district. Several facilities
within Kent contain radioactive materials and the Ctty is also host to several Federal
Superfund sites.
Pipelines in the Kent area also pose a hazard, particularly in the event of accidental
rupture from excavation or in the event of an earthquake. The Olympic Pipeline runs
north and south along the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and carries
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Numerous other pipelines carrying natural gas are also
present in Kent.
Vulnerability Analysis
The potential exposure to hazardous materials is the most complex and probable
technological hazard in the City. Kent ranks among the top three focal points for
hazardous materials in the Puget Sound Region. Kent houses many chemical producers
and storage facilities and is also a major industrial consumer of hazardous materials.
Since the adoption of SARA (Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act) Title III I
EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act), there have been 54
facilities identified within Kent which use and store "Extremely Hazardous Substances"
in quantities large enough to require emergency planning for those individual facilities
and surrounding area. With the ever growing industrial base in the community, this
number is increasing on a regular basis. The cheinicals included in the EPA list of
"Extremely Hazardous Substances" are primarily chemicals which are extremely toxic,
and when released are immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and
animals and cause serious damage to the environment.
An accident involving hazardous materials can happen anytime and any place. The
danger to life and the environment is dependent on the product type and amount of
material involved in the accident. A small amount of an extremely hazardous substance
can be more dangerous than a large spill of a less hazardous substance. The release of
hazardous materials into the air has the highest potential of being life threatening. This
type of release can occur as the result of a tank rupture by an accident, pressure release or
simply a leaking valve. Many life threatening chemicals routinely found in the area are
in abundance and include chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, formaldehyde and cyanides.
Many other hazardous chemicals stored locally can become airborne as the result of fire
or reaction to other chemicals.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.16
Flammable liquids such as gasoline and diesel represent the largest class of hazardous
materials in Kent. They are probably the most likely substance to cause a chemical
emergency in Kent.
The average individual is not likely to consider the fuel they put in their car extremely
dangerous. Considering the fact that the vapors from one gallon of gasolme provide the
same damage potential as fourteen sticks of dynamite, imagine the damage and loss of
life that would result from a tank truck that explodes in a traffic accident. Further
imagine that the truck is located in a heavily populated area when the accident occurs.
Another potential scenario is the train tank car rupture and explosion of liquified
petroleum gas. Many trains moving through Kent carry multiple tanks of this substance.
An accident involving an explosion of this material could destroy a large area of the City.
The cleanup and recovery from a hazardous materials incident is very time consuming as
well as costly. It is possible that a spill in Kent could enter storm drains and waterways
before it could be contained. Ecological damage to the area aquifers and wildlife could
be substantial. An incident could send dangerous chemicals into the Green River,
downstream to the Duwamish River and into Puget Sound. Hazardous substances
entering sanitary drains could create serious problems at Metro treatment facilities should
they mix with incompatible material. Costs associated with a hazardous material spill
cleanup can run several thousand dollars for a small spill, and into the hundreds of
millions for an accident of disastrous proportion.
Thousands of possibilities exist for hazardous material emergencies. Everything from
toxic gas releases which have the potential to kill thousands, to oil spills which can ruin
environmentally sensitive areas for generations, can and do happen. Spills along
roadways, parking lots and inside facilities occur almost daily to some degree. We must
remember that each of us is vulnerable to the dangers of chemicals on the highway, in our
work places, our schools, and our homes.
Geographic Area Explanation
The North Valley contains the greatest volume and variety of hazardous materials.
Conclusions
Any incident in which hazardous materials are involved has the potential for escalation
from a minor incident into a full scale disaster. The hazardous properties of chemicals,
fuels, radioactive substances and other potentially dangerous materials range from
explosive to highly flammable to poisonous. They have the ability to contaminate the air,
water and other areas of the environment, and are harmful to human, animal and plant
life. The potential for loss of life, extensive property damage, and environmental
contamination is always high when hazardous materials are involved in an accident or are
improperly handled.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.17
The presence of such a tremendous amount of hazardous materials poses a great threat to
the entire community. The majority of area citizens are not aware of the potential danger
to the community posed by the transportation and storage of hazardous materials.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.l8
Definition of Hazard
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
High Winds Hazard Profile
High Winds
This type of hazard is an atmospheric disturbance characterized by a strong wind and
usually accompanied by rain, snow, sleet, hail and often thunder and lightning. The
National Weather Service classifies wind from 38 to 55 MPH as gale force winds; 56 to
74 MPH as storm force winds and any winds over 75 MPH as humcane force winds.
Destructive wmds like those described normally occur between October and March. The
highest recorded wind speed recorded in the greater Kent area was more than 81 miles
per hour.
A tornado is violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform cloud or
underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud.
Tornados are the most violent weather phenomena known. Their funnel shaped clouds
rotating at velocities of up to 300 miles per hour generally affect areas of 1/4 to 3/4 of a
mile wide and seldom more than 16 miles long. Tornados are produced by strong
thunderstorms. Such thunderstorms can also produce large damaging hail, heavy
amounts of rain, and strong damaging winds.
History of Hazard
Winds of a destructive speed bringing
varying degrees of damage, including
downed trees and utility lines,
transportation interruptions and property
damage, occur fairly regularly in this
area. The most recent wind storm in our
area of disastrous proportion was the
Inauguration Day Windstorm in January
1993. Calls for assistance to Kent
Police/Fire totaled more than 1,400
during the 24 hour period of the storm.
This Presidential declared disaster had
winds clocked at approximately 80 miles 2003 Wmdstorm damage
per hour and caused hundred of thousands of dollars in damage.
Other recent windstorms:
December 1995-California Express Windstorm
January-March 1999-La Nina Winter Windstorm
December 2003 -December Storm
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.19
Annual tornado sightings in western Washington average 2 per year. During the past 30
years there have been several tornados recorded in the area. The most recent occurrence
was in 2004. Seven sightings have occurred in the first six months of 2004 with
touchdowns near Tenino and La Center both causing structural damage.
We have been fortunate that none of them have caused heavy damage or loss of life. In
1972 a tornado struck in the City of Vancouver, Washington 145 miles to our south.
During the course of this disaster, an elementary school full of children was destroyed, as
was a shopping center, a bowling alley and many homes. Six people were killed and
some three hundred were injured; damages were upward of six million dollars.
Hazard Identification
The effect upon Kent of a strong windstorm or tornado is hkely to include impact to
power lines, transportation and lifeline routes. Structures are also vulnerable to the effects
of wind from falling trees and other debris.
If a tornado struck Kent, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to
close for an extended period or permanently; fatalities could be high in densely populated
areas; many people could be homeless for an extended period; and routine services such
as telephone or power could be disrupted.
Building codes continue to be strengthened to address potential impacts of windstonns on
structures
Vulnerability Analysis
All areas of Kent are vulnerable to severe windstorms. Windstorms can usually be
predicted more accurately than other local storms. Kent can expect at least one windstorm
each year.
The problems arising from high winds, whether they come in the form of the common
wind storm or the destructive forces of a tornado, are many. Principal damage occurs in
the form of downed trees, utility lines, signs and traffic lights. Damage to buildings
would also be prevalent. Secondary hazards associated with high winds include power
and other ut11ity failures, as well as automobile, railroad and air traffic accidents.
While it is possible to forecast the potential for a tornado formation, it is not possible to
forecast that one will in fact occur or where it will strike. They are typically too sudden in
onset, to small in scope and too short-lived to forecast.
Conclusions
Windstorms are a common natural hazard that will affect not just Kent, but will have
widespread regional impacts. A windstorm of destructive velocity or a deadly tornado
City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.20
could strike this area with little warning. Citizens should be prepared and family plans
and contingencies developed. Schools and businesses should also support preparedness
campaigns and programs to mitigate the effects of a windstorm.
The most effective tool for alerting the public of severe storms is the National Weather
Service (NWS) weather warning network. Broadcast over VHF radio, transmitted to
county agencies, NOAA weather radios with Emergency Alert System capabilities
provide early warning notification needed to prepare for windstorms and tornado
watches/warnings.
The most common effects of these storms is the disruption of electrical and transportation
routes causing hardship and economical loss to citizens, businesses and public assets.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.21
Definition of Hazard
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Landslide Hazard Profile
LANDSLIDE
The term landslide refers to the downward movement of masses of rock and soil.
Landslides in this area are for the most part masses of soil ranging in volume from just a
few feet, to many yards. The rate of travel of a slide can range from a few inches per
month to many feet per second, depending on slope, material and water content.
Landslides can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, erosion, volcanic eruptions and
by human modification of the land.
History of Hazard
The topography of the Kent area has
historically made the area prone to
minor landslides. For the most part
these incidents have been in remote
locations causing little to no
damage. In recent years, however,
there has been an increase in the
number of residential structures
located in areas susceptible to this
condition.
Heavy snowstorms in December
1996 and January 1997 were
followed by a warming trend that
caused quick melting, runoff, and
flooding. This period was then
followed by rain. This led to over
1 00 slides in King County over the ,
subsequent two-month period.
Fissures and sand volcanoes were
discovered on sand bars along the
Green River following the
Nisqually Earthquake on February
28,2001.
.·
Most recently, sliding ofboth the East and West hills has produced incidents that range
from the complete destruction of structures, to the loss of hillside view property.
City of Kent
Local Hazarrl Mitia~tion Phn
Green River Valley
Hazard Identification
Conditions which lead to soil instability and sliding include steep slopes, water saturation
and deep frost. Building and road construction are also a contributing factor to landslides
as they often undermine or steep otherwise stable soil.
Landslide hazard areas include areas potentially subject to landslides based on a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas
susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect,
structure, hydrology, or other factors.
Features that may indicate Landslides include:
• Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the
main house.
• Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations.
• Broken water lines and other underground utilities.
• Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences
• Rapid increase or decrease in creek water level
• Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating jambs and frames
out of plumb
The following are some measures that can be taken to avoid landslide hazards:
• Reduce surface erosion, keep drains and culverts clear.
• Maintain and improve vegetation; trees and shrubs provide root strength to hold
the soil in place and help dewater the slope. If such vegetation is removed, root
strength will be gone within 2 to 12 years and will not be easily restored.
• Protect bluff from surface erosion; apply erosion mats, plastic sheeting, or other
erosion control material where vegetation will not take hold.
The hillsides on the East and West sides of the Kent valley area are particularly
vulnerable to landslide activity. Because there are many structures bmlt along these
hillsides more lives are endangered and there is greater potential for damage in the event
of a major occurrence.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.23
Vulnerability Analysis
Landslides can result in the disruption of roads, water, sewer, gas, electric and phone
lines, as well as serious damage to public and private property. The loss of life likely to
happen in such an occurrence would be a major concern, particularly for those areas
where multi-family construction has taken place.
International Building Code and Kent Zoning Code regulations, as well as the pending
update to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, address impacts of potential development
in landslide areas.
Geographic Area Explanation
The geographic features of the East Hill Slope and West Hill Slope create an increased
risk of landslide.
Conclusion
Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, slidmg, earthquake, or
other geologic events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when
incompatible commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of
significant hazard. Some geologic hazards can be reduced or mitigated by engineering,
design, or modified construction or mining practices so that risks to health and safety are
acceptable. When technology cannot reduce risks to acceptable levels, building in
geologically hazardous areas is best avoided. This distinction should be considered by
counties and cities that do not now classify geologic hazards as they develop thetr
classification scheme.
By learning to recognize old landslides and studying the effects of construction and
landscaping near and on slide-prone areas, we may be able to plan for the slides to come.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.24
City of Kent
Local Hazard M1t1gat1on Plan
Urban Fire Hazard Profile
URBAN FIRE
Definition of Hazard
Urban Fires in cities or towns involve buildings with potential for spread to adjoining
structures. Although the statistics show a decline in fire casualty rates m recent years, the
U.S. rate remains much higher than the yearly reported fire death and damage rates for
Australia, Japan and most of the Western European countries.
The urban fire hazard in Kent involves areas where single family homes, multi-family
occupancies and/or business facilities are clustered close together, mcreasing the
possibility of rapid spread to another structlrre. Other areas are charactenzed by adjoining
buildings. Adjoining bwldings are found in the downtown region of the city or include
other closely spaced wood frame structures. The cause of fires in urban areas usually
mcludes one of the following:
• Cnmmal acts (arson, illegal explosive deVIces, acts ofterronsm)
• Residential accidents (improper use of electrical appliances, faulty
connections, grease fires, smoking, heating appliances or Improper
disposal of wood ashes).
• Industrial accidents (hazardous material mcidents, explosions,
transportation accidents)
• Acts of nature (lightening strikes, earthquake byproduct)
History of Hazard
On August 6, 1993, a series of fires
began in the north Seattle area.
Ultimately, 76 fires occurred, resulting
in losses of over $22 million. On
February 6, 1994, Paul Keller was
arrested and charged with arson. He
ultimately pled guilty to setting 32 of
the fires.
Chern Central Fzre m 1999 caused over $1 mzllwn
(1999) dollars m damage
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.25
Major Kent urban fires:
• Adair's Restaurant, January 1983; a 2 alarm fire causmg over $500,000 in
damages.
• Department of Transportation, December 1991; a 4 alarm fire causing over
$1,000,000 in damages.
• Village Green Apartments, June 1993; a 3 alarm fire including a reg10nal strike
team. The fire displaced over 100 residents and caused over $3,000,000 in
damages.
• Chern Central, September 1999; a 2 alarm hazardous material fire causmg over
$1,000,000 in damages.
• Springwood Apartments, July 2003; a 2 alarm fire displacing dozens of famihes
and causing over $1,300,000 in damages.
Fire in any area is a menace to both life and property. During the two year period from
2002 to 2003 there were more than 1,500 reported fire incidents withm the Greater Kent
Area causing significant monetary loss of property.
Hazard Identification
Fire has many causes which can range from faulty wiring to improper storage and
handling of flammables, illegal explosive devices, and arson. Fires range from small
fires which can be easily managed to a conflagration. A conflagration is a fire that
expands uncontrollably beyond its original source area to engulf adJoining regions.
Wmd, extremely dry or hazardous weather conditions and explosions are usually the
contributmg elements behind a conflagration.
Urban fires can overwhelm local resources
CityofKent
There are certain sectors of the
city and populations which are
more vulnerable to fire than
others. Those areas which have
a high population density
present a high risk for fire
simply due to mcreased
exposure and probability.
Those same areas can also pose
the threat of high casualty rates
for the same reasons. Other
areas include large residential
areas near heavily wooded wild
land, posing a wild land/urban
interface situat10n.
Local Hazard M1tigat10n Plan
C.26
A large urban fire puts a tremendous strain on many of the operating departments of the
community. The fire service needs all available firefighters to control the blaze and yet
must continue to meet normal demands for service; law enforcement provides for
evacuation activities, traffic and crowd control; public works is tasked with supplying
barricades and a continuous supply of critical utilities necessary to manage the incident.
Zone resources may be asked for assistance in one form or another, resulting in reduced
response capabilities in the supporting jurisdictions. A large part of the city's business
district may need to be shut down and major roadways blocked to facilitate the movement
of emergency vehicles. Viewers, sightseers and news media personnel can add to the
disruption as an indirect effect.
The mass movement of citizens through evacuation or disaster migration wlll affect
emergency forces. If people are removed from a residential area, emergency shelters may
be required. The evacuation may have a significant effect on other parts of the
community depending on: the size of the fire zone, the materials burning, the population
density, and the number of people needing to be housed.
Arson fires have been on the increase for the past several years. The arson fire presents a
unique and significant risk to everyone in the community because there is no way of
knowing where, when, and how an arsonist may strike.
Vulnerability Analysis
The housing of low income persons is often in older structures whtch do not conform to
modem building and fire codes and do not contain fire detection devices. These
structures are also prone to faulty electrical, heating and other utility systems due to age
and lack of proper maintenance. Many of these older structures were constructed in very
close proximity to one another, enabling fire to spread rapidly from one structure to
another. Older apartment buildings and hotels also face increased risk of rapid fire
spread due to inadequate frrewall protection and the lack of fire detection and sprinkler
systems.
Some of the newer residential structures and hotels, though still susceptible to high
population risk, are not as vulnerable to frre as are older structures. These structures were
designed and built to include fire resistive features which conform to modem fire and
building codes. Fire detection and/or extinguishing systems were also installed in these
buildings at the time of construction. Though a major fire could certainly occur in these
structures, the likelihood of its spreading to adjoining structures or units before it can be
brought under control is significantly reduced.
Commercial, industrial and multi-family fires present their own unique hazards. Some
newer structures, like residential occupancies, are built with fire resistive construction
and fire detection and/or sprinkler systems (in buildings over 10,000 sq. ft.) thereby
reducing the risk of major fires. Older structures and single family dwellings however,
share many of the same problems as older housing and are at greater risk of fire.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.27
Many commercial and industrial occupancies within Kent store and use hazardous
materials. Kent houses the second largest quantity of hazardous materials sites in all of
King County. The storage and use of these materials not only increases the risk of fire,
but also pose a significant threat to firefighters and the community if the material should
become involved in a fire.
A sizable earthquake in Kent could damage any or all of the city's main water supplies,
transmission lines, and/or feeder lines. Without adequate water reserves, automatic
sprinkler protection would fail, and firefighters would be unable to attack a wide fire
front. In such a setting, a small fire could easily spread beyond control.
Conclusions
The threat of a large scale urban fire is limited in Kent except for the introduction of an
outside event such as an earthquake or hazardous materials mcident. The number of
commercial and industrial fires has been controlled in recent years due to the annual fire
inspections performed by fire department personnel. These inspections not only identify
potential problems, they also provide an opportunity for business owners and workers to
be more aware of fire prevention through education provided at the time of inspection.
Despite the best effort, however, some fires still occur.
The science and art-form of Arson Investigation has also been a significant factor in the
reduction of urban fires. Investigators and fire crews are working together to convict and
or deter more arsonists than ever before.
Despite the efforts of the fire service, aging buildings and acts intentionally or
unintentionally made by people will contribute to incidents of burning buildings in the
Kent area.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.28
Definition of Hazard
C1ty of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volcanic Activity Hazard Profile
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
A volcano is a vent in the earth's crust through which molten rock (magma), rock
fragments, gases, and ashes are ejected from the earth's interior.
A volcano is created when magma erupts onto the surface of the earth. Volcanoes take
many forms according to the chemical composition of their magma and the conditions in
which the magma IS erupted. When magma is erupted it is referred to as lava. Some lava
known as 'basalts' are hot and fluid. Opposite of basalts are 'rhyolites', which are
characterized by their inability to flow freely, erupt explosively or form steep domes.
Midway in between are 'andesites' which are thick, flow slowly, and are mildly explosive.
History of Hazard
On May 18, 1980, Mt. St. Helens erupted with explosive force killing 57 people. Heavy
ash fall blanketed much of Eastern Washington into Northern Idaho and Western
Montana. Subsequent eruptions on May 25 and June 12, similarly affected Western
Washington and Portland, Oregon, although to a lesser degree.
Mount Rainier--at 4393 meters (14,410 feet) the highest peak in the Cascade Range--is
a dormant volcano whose load of glacier Ice exceeds that of any other mountam in the
conterminous Umted
States. This tremendous
mass of rock and ice, in
combmation with great
topographic relief,
poses a variety of
geologic hazards, both
during inevitable future
eruptions and during
the intervemng periods
of repose. The written
history of Mount
Rainier encompasses
the period since about
A.D. 1820, during
which time one or two
small eruptions, several
small debris avalanches,
Recent eruptzons m the Cascades (USGS)
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.29
and many small lahars (debris flows originating on a volcano) have occurred.
Hazard Identification
A volcano IS commonly said to be "active" when it is in the process of eruptmg and
"dormant " when it IS not. Scientists, however, usually use the term "active" to refer to
any volcano that has erupted in historic time or is seismically or geothermally active. By
this definitiOn Mounts Rainier, Baker, Hood and St. Helens are active volcanoes. Even
\obfCi!/lOI!!$ prodUCiit a INide va<"iflty ot nllltural hazards lhlll can IUU pecpltt and dotsttoy ptq:Jerty Till$
Slmpfllli!KI S/1.6'ICII SlloWB a \IIJICWIO M:Jica/ Ol 1/1081!1 fOUIId fn l11e INasiSITI Unlll!ld Sral9S anti A.I!!Sklil, bUI many
of theM f'WJzards also pas& tlslc!J 11ft ofller ~ICtlnOeS, such as tfl08& W1 HaWllii. Some hltzltf'da such as
lilllllltli and land~M. CWJ occu1 -n whwJ a voiCilflO Is; nor erup~ng.. (Hazarrio and twmlii In thlli dlilgram
a111 ttlg/l/ight«< in IXJI(J whflfll tllfiY are d/SaJSSfld" ths lUI below.}
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.30
Glacier Peak, long thought to have been without an eruption for over 10,000 years, is
now known to have erupted as recently as a thousand years ago and possibly even as late
as the 17th century. Mount Adams is also capable of renewed activity.
Volcanoes usually exhibit some warning signs before erupting. Most of these can only
be detected by instruments; therefore, it is not surprising that stories are told about
volcanoes erupting without warning. Explosions caused by heated material coming into
contact with ground water, and involving no new magma, do happen without warning.
They are less spectacular than magmatic eruptions, but can still be violent and release
great mud flows.
The basic hazards of a volcanic eruption are:
1. Steam and gas explosions: Explosions of steam or other gases,
containing pulverized rock particles in suspension, fragments of older
rocks from pea sized to hundreds of tons, newly erupted hot lava bombs,
and a shock wave that may extend for several miles. Steam explosiOns can
occur anytime hot material comes in contact with water, ice, or snow. No
eruptive activity is necessary for this to occur.
2. Volcanic gases: Pockets or clouds of toxic gases kill with chemical
poisons, internal or external bums, or asphyxiation. As an example,
carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and may collect in low areas near active
and inactive volcanoes. Gases mixed with ash make up the eruptive cloud,
the 'smoke' of the volcano.
3. Tephra and volcanic ash: Ash fall normally accompanies the eruptions
of andesitic volcanoes. The lava in these volcanoes is so thick and
charged with gases that it explodes into ash rather than flow.
Ash is harsh, acidic, gritty, smelly, and thoroughly unpleasant. Ash can
cause respiratory problems even to the point of causmg death. When ash
combines with rain, sulphur dioxide combines with water to form dilute
sulfuric acid that may cause bums to skin, eyes and mucous membranes.
Hydrochloric acid rains have also been reported. Acid rains may affect
water supplies, burn foliage, strip paint, corrode machinery, and dissolve
fabric.
Heavy ash fall blots out light, which can cause a heavy demand on power
supplies, leading to possible power failure. Ash clogs water courses and
machinery of all kinds. It causes electrical short circuits, and drifts into all
transportation routes. It is slippery and its weight can cause structural
collapse. Because it is easily carried by air current, it remains a hazard
long after an eruption.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.31
4. Volcanic landslides and glacial outbursts floods: Avalanches of glacial
Ice or rocks may be set in motiOn by explosions, earthquakes or heat
induced melting of ice and snow. The latter may also create a mud flow.
Earthquakes may release meltwater or a glacial outburst flood from behind
an ice dam or within a glacier. This is a common event and can occur
without apparent cause. Most cascade outburst floods have occurred
between August and November, but they may happen at any time of the
year.
! ! I ~ I 1.0 MILES
1 1
110 KILOMETERS
Volcano hazards from Mount Ramter, Washmgton Pyroclasttc:flow hazard zone and
mundatwn zones for Case I, II, and III lahars
5. Lahars: Mud and debris flows composed of melt water, rain, ash, pumice,
rock and anything else in the way, may be released by explosions, heavy
rains, or earthquakes. This danger continues for many years after an
eruption. A volcanic mud flow, whether or not it involves an eruption, is
called a 'lahar' It can move at speeds up to 90 miles per hour and may
attain depths ofhundreds of feet. A large lahar can flow over or destroy a
dam. Further downstream lahars simply entomb everythmg in mud.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.32
6. Lava: Lava flows from Cascade volcanoes tend to be small and slow
moving. The heat of the lava may start fires in its path. Flows may also
bury roads and other escape routes.
7. Volcanogenic earthquakes: Volcanic earthquakes are usually centered
within or beneath the volcano. Tremors may cause the avalanche of rock
and snow, landslides, and building collapse.
Vulnerability Analysis
While the entire area is at risk to some form of damage produced by a volcano, the
greatest risk would appear to be the valley floor due to the possibility of a dam failure.
The topographically low floor of the contiguous lower Green River and Duwamish River
valleys, from Auburn north to Elliott Bay, is considered to be at significantly less (but not
eliminated) risk of inundation by a Case I lahar, relative to that risk in the lower White
River valley. This area will also be at significant risk from Case II lahars or from
subsequent redistribution of sediment from new lahar deposits under either of the two
following conditions: (1) lahars or post-lahar sedimentation significantly reduces the
available storage of Mud Mountain Reservoir; (2) aggradation of the lower White River
valley south of Auburn by lahars or post-lahar sedimentation from Puyallup valley causes
the White and Puyallup Rivers to drain northward into the Green and Duwamish River
valley.
The largest lahar originating at Mount Rainier in the last 10,000 years is known as the
Osceola Mudflow. This cohesive lahar, which occurred about 5600 years ago, was at
least 10 times larger than any other known lahar from Mount Rainier. It was the product
of a large debris avalanche composed mostly of hydrothermally-altered material, and may
have been triggered as magma forced its way into the volcano. Osceola deposits cover an
area of about 550 square kilometers (212 square miles) in the Puget Sound lowland,
extending at least as far as Kent, and to Commencement Bay, now the site of the Port of
Tacoma.
Considering the active Cascade volcanoes, Kent could mostly likely receive significant
ash fall from Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, or Mt. Baker. Volcanic ash is highly disruptive
to economic activity because it covers just about everything, infiltrates most openings,
and is highly abrasive. Ash is slippery, especially when wet; roads, highways, and airport
runways may become impassable. Automobile and jet engines may stall from ash-
clogged air filters and moving parts can be damaged from abrasion, including bearings,
brakes, and transmissions.
Large tephra fragments are capable of causing death or injury by impact, and may be hot
enough to start fires where they land. These hazards usually do not extend beyond about
10 kilometers (6 miles) from the vent. Most tephra-related injuries, fatalities, and social
disruptions occur at greater distances from the vent, where tephra fragments are less than
City ofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.33
a few centimeters (1 inch) across. Clouds of fine tephra can block sunlight, greatly
restrict visibility, and thereby slow or stop vehicle travel. Such clouds are commonly
accompanied by frequent lightning. The combination of near or total darkness, lightning,
and falling tephra can be terrifying.
When inhaled, tephra can create or aggravate respiratory problems. Accumulation of
more than about 10 centimeters ( 4 inches) of tephra on the roof of a building may cause it
to collapse. Even thin tephra accumulations ruin crops. Wet tephra can cause power lines
to short out. Finally, tephra clouds are extremely hazardous to aircraft, because engines
may stop and pilots may not be able to see.
After the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, much attention has been given to the very
real possibility of further volcanic activity in Washington State. Mount Rainier, lying to
the south of Kent, has erupted three times in the past 150 years. Though we could
conceivably experience ash fall from any volcano, Mt. Rainier poses the greatest variety
of threats to our area. Other dangers to life and property would depend on the degree of
volcanic hazard, and the type and size of the eruption.
Conclusions
A volcanic event in the Cascade mountains may occur one or twice in a lifetime. The
Kent area is close enough to be directly affected by eruptions from any one of five
volcanoes. We are susceptible to a variety of hazardous situations during a volcanic
eruption; perhaps of greatest concern is the threat of large mud flows causing damage to
either the Mud Mountain or the Howard A. Hanson Dam. Seismic intensities great
enough to damage these dams would be of equal concern.
Geologic evidence shows major lahar and debris flows have filled the Green River valley
in the past, although recent models put the Kent area at a minor risk. The overall effects
of a major eruption could possibly produce an incident of disaster that could only be
compared to the devastation of a major earthquake.
Tephra and ash fall from a volcanic eruption could pose health concerns for residents as
well as damage property, interrupt transportation, disrupt industry and the local
commerce (see chart below).
Experience at Mount St. Helens showed the need to identify specialized protective
equipment for both vehicles and people working in the shadow of a volcanic eruption.
Essential equipment for personnel would likely include breathing masks or other
respiratory protection. Similar air filtration would be required for vehicles operating in
heavy ash fall.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.34
e Major Losses from the May 18, 1980 Eruption of Mount St. Helens.
!Sector IFederaliPrivate I state ILocaliTotal I% Total
,Forestry l$168.0 l$218.1,$63.7 r=--l$449.8~6.6
1 Clean-up 1307.9 19.7 rs.o-l$41.31363.0 137.4
Property 143.6 144.8 !"2TII6.o lw6.9 111.0
Agriculture 1--139.1 r=-r=-139.1 14.0
Income 1--18.9 r=-r=-18.9 lo.9
,Transport 1--1--r=-~12.1 10.2
Total l$518.6 l$320.61$71.21$59.41$969.81--
Percent of totall53.0 133.1 ~~~--1--
In Mzllwns of dollars
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.35
Defmition of Hazard
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Winter Storm Hazard Profile
Winter Storm
This type of hazard in an atmospheric disturbance characterized by a strong wind and
usually accompanied by rain, snow, sleet, hail, and often thunder or lightmng. Also
characteristic of this hazard is any heavy fall of snow, rain, or hail.
Snow storms or blizzards, which are snow storms accompanied by high wind and/or
drifting snow, occur occasionally m the area.
Hail storms occur when freezmg water in thunderstorm type clouds accumulates m layers
around an icy core. Wind added to hail can batter crops, structures and transportation
systems.
An ice storm occurs when
rain falls out of warm moist
upper layer of atmosphere
into a below freezing, drier
layer near the ground. The
rain freezes on contact with
the cold ground and
accumulates on exposed
surfaces. If this IS
accompanied by wind,
damage can occur to trees
and utility wires.
History of Hazard Freezmg 1ce can cause severe 1mmedwte Impacts
The Kent area, like the rest of the Puget Sound area is known for its moderate climate.
Snowfall rarely exceeds ten inches in an entire season. The snow that does fall seldom
remains on the ground more than a day or two.
Chances for accumulation of snow in the event of one severe weather front following
another is historically minimal. However, since 1985 and most recently in January 2004
the area has experienced major winter storms that have created significant hazards and
disastrous results totalmg in the millions of dollars of damage.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.36
Hazard Identification
All areas of Kent are subject to the effects of these incidents. In particular, people, power
lines, transportation routes and structures are vulnerable to the effects of cold, weight of
the snow, winds and falling trees.
Snow, like other hazards, does not have the same impact on all areas. The depth of the
snow as well as the temperature and location of the snowfall are major factors in
determining the degree of hazard that is presented to the area.
Building codes continue to be strengthened to address potential effects of snow and ICe
storms on structural integrity of buildings.
Vulnerability Analysis
The Kent area has hills on either side
of the valley. The hillsides and
relatively infrequency of snowstorms
make such storms dangerous and
difficult to deal with. Major
transportation difficulties usually occur
as the result of even a minimal
snowfall.
Heavy snowfalls create dangerous,
inaccessible roads, poor visibility, and
resulting traffic accidents. Drivers in
the area have little opportunity to gain experience driving on snow covered streets, with
problems amplified by lack of proper tires and chains to mitigate the hazardous dnving
conditions. Snow removal operations are often hampered by lack of manpower and
equipment. Emergency response by fire and police personnel is often hampered by ice
and snow on roads which are inaccessible under such conditions makmg emergency
response unavailable.
Most of the structural damage resultmg from heavy snowfalls is roof and structure
collapse, with downed power lines and trees providing major difficulties for repair crews
and residents alike. Elderly and invalid persons often find themselves Isolated in these
situatiOns and have difficulty obtaining food, medicines and other necessities.
Additionally, dangerous situations occur as the result of power outages which result in
the lack of heat for many areas. Efforts made to create makeshift heatmg and lighting
often lead to fires, explosions and asphyxiatiOn.
Ice and freezmg rain, which we are prone to experience armually, create similar
difficulties. Ice and freezmg rain are not as visible as snow, and therefore intensify the
driving and transportation hazards. Freezing conditions are a common occurrence from
November to February. These conditions can exist as the result of a simple rain with
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.37
temperatures dropping below the freezing level overnight creating an 'unknown' hazard to
the community as morning activities begin.
Conclusions
Snow and ice storms can strike the area with little warning. These incidents occur
infrequently and as a result, the effects of them are often enhanced by the publics
inexperience dealing with the challenges posed by them.
The most significant effect of these storms is structural collapse, interruption of utilities
and the disruption of transportation routes, causing life threat, hardship and economic
loss.
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
C.38
Appendix D
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Kent
City of Kent Facilities
Facility Location by Geographical
Area
City Administration Kent City Hall Downtown Core
Fire
Police
Corrections
Public Works
Parks
City Hall Annex
Centennial Center
Police/Fire Training Facility
(Emergency Coordination
Center)
Fire Station 71
Fire Station 72
Fire Station 73
Fire Station 74
Fire Station 75
Fire Station 76
Police Headquarters
North End Substation
East Hill Substation
West Hill Substation
Springwood Substation
Correctional Facility
Corrections Annex
Public Works ShO]_J_s
Public Works Shops Annex
Kent Commons
Kent Senior Center
Resource Center
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.l
East Hill
Downtown Core
East Hill
West Hill Slope
East Hill
East Hill
North Valley
Downtown Core
North Valley
East Hill
West Hill
East Hill
Downtown Core
Downtown Core
Downtown Core
East Hill
Downtown Core
City of Kent Critical Infrastructure
Water
Water Reservoirs
Bridge
Transportation Corridors
Infrastructure
Armstrong Springs Well
Clark Springs Well
Kent Springs Well
Soos Creek Well
Garrison Creek Well
East Hill Well
212m Well
4 Water Reservoirs
2 Water Reservoirs
I Water Reservoir
I Water Reservoir
SE 272nd Street at Lake
Meridian
SE 272na Street over Soos
Creek
SE 256m over Soos Creek
Military_ Road
84tn Avenue (Central Ave)
II6tn Ave. SE
132nd Ave. SE
S. I 80th Street
S. I96tn Street
S. 212th Street
S. 240m Street (James Street)
Smith Street
Canyon Drive
S. 277tn Corridor
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.2
Location by
Geographical Area
East Hill
East Hill Slope
North Valley
East Hill
East Hill Slope
West Htll
West Hill Slope
East Hill
West Hill
Border of East Hill Slope
East Hill
East Hill
Border ofNorth Valley
North Valley
East Hill Slope -North
Valley-West Hill Slope
Border of Downtown
Core-East Hill Slope -
East Hill
Downtown Core
East Hill Slope
East Hill-East Hill Slope
-Downtown Core -West
Hill Sl()l'_e -West Hill
Public Safety
Corrections
Health Care
Schools
Other Facilities Serving Kent
Facility Agency
Valley Communication
Dispatch Facility
Kent Aukeen District Court King County
King County Regional
Justice Center
East Hill Multi Care Multi Care
Kent MultiCare State Street Multi Care
Kent Valley Medical Center Valley
Medical
Kent Jr. High Kent School
Kent Elementary District
Neely-O'Brien Elementary
Kent Meridian H.S
Scenic Hill Elementary
East Hill Elementary
Meridian Jr. High
Sequoia Jr. High
Daniel Elementary
Martin Sortun Elementary
Meadow Ridge Elementary
Millennium Elementary
Horizon Elementary
Meridian Elementary
Pine Tree Elementary
Totem Jr. High Federal Way
Star Lake Elementary School
Sunny Crest Elementary District
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.3
Location by
Geographical Area
East Hill Slope
Downtown Core
East Hill
Downtown Core
East Hill
Downtown Core
East Hill Slope
East Hill
West Hill Slope
Public Safety
Water and Sewer
Bridges
Transportation
Corridors
Other Infrastructure Serving Kent
Agency/Facility Location by
Geo2raphical Area
Regional 800 radio system West Hill Slope
tower
Water District 111 East Hill
Highline Water District West Hill
Soos Creek Water District East Hill
Midway Sewer District West Hill/ West Hill Slope
Hwy167 over Central Ave Downtown Core
Hwy 167 over 4th Ave
Hwy 167 over Meeker
Street
Hwy 167 over Willis Street
State Route 516 over
Green River
212moverf!~ 167 North Valley
1-5 over State Route 516 West Hill
1-5 overS 160m
I-5 over S 277m Street
Hwy 99 (Pacific Hwy. S.) West Hill
1-5 West Hill
State Route 562 (West Downtown Core
Valley H"'}' J.
Hwy. 167 Border of North Valley-
Downtown Core
State Route 515 (104m Border of East Hill
Ave. SE)
State Route 516 (Kent East Hill
Kangley Road-SE 272
Street)
State Route 516 (Kent Des West Hill Slope-West
Moines Road) Hill
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.4
Appendix D
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
King County Fire Protection District #37
King County Fire Protection District #37 Facilities
Fire
Facility
Fire Station 77
Fire Logistics
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.5
Other Agencies and Infrastructure Serving King County
Fire Protection District #37
Water and Sewer
Public Schools
Bridges
Transportation Corridors
Facility
Kentridge H.S.
Kentwood H.S.
Mattson Jr. High
Cedar Heights Jr. High
Cedar Valley Elementary
Emerald Park Elementary
Covington Elementary
Jenkins Creek Elementary
Crestwood Elementary
Panther Lake Elementary
Springbrook Elementary
Glenridge Elementary
Sunrise Elementary
Lake Youngs Elementary
Soos Creek Elementary
Park Orchard Elementary
TahomaH.S.
SE 27200 over Hwy 18
Covington Way over Hwy
18
180Th-Ave S. over Hwy 18
State Route 516
State Route 515
Hwv18
132nd Ave SE
SE 2401h Street
SE 208th Street
180tn Ave SE
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
D.6
A~ency
Water District 105
Covington Water District
Soos Creek Water District
Kent School District
Tahoma School District
City of Kent
Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee
Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation
Assessment Guidelines
Purpose
The Mitigation Planning approach relies on the judgment and knowledge of local
participants to identify and qualitatively rank the hazards that are of concern and
threaten the City of Kent, its citizens, businesses and surrounding agencies.
We value your input and expertise. Please support your community by completmg the
attached Risk Assessment using the following instructions. When completed please fill
out the Request for Comments form and return to Kent Emergency Management.
Instructions
• Please complete the Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation exercise for the two
hazards Indicated by a highlighted mark. For reference, the current City of Kent
Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment is included. Use this along with
your knowledge and expertise to complete the exercise. The natural hazard "hail"
has been completed as an example.
• The hazards threatening the area are identified by either natural or technological
hazards. You have been assigned to complete one of each.
• As each hazard is identified, the risk characteristics of that hazard, as indicated on
the form, should be estimated or predicted. The corresponding number is then
entered onto the form. The form conta1ns descriptive statements regarding each risk
characteristic. As the risk factors for each hazard event are completed, the total for
all factors should be entered at the bottom of the column. Then, for each of the
identified hazards, the participants should estimate the probability or likely frequency
of occurrence of the event.
• Finally, for each hazard, the participants should calculate an estimated risk rating for
the spec1fic hazard.
Risk rating= (total score for hazards) X (score for probability of occurrence)
It is important to remember that this number is only a relative number, intended to
facilitate comparison of Kent's risk for different types of specific hazards to prioritize
the mitigation planning efforts.
~~2001
emergency response piaMong & management, Inc
AU rights reserved
1
e
Natural Hazards
Risk Characteristic
No developed area impacted
Less than 25% of developed area 1mpacted
Area Impacted Less than 50% of developed area Impacted
Less than 75% of developed area Impacted
Over 75% of developed area 1mpacted
No health and safety impact
Health and Few IOJunes or Illnesses
Safety
Few fatalities but many lnJunes or Illnesses Consequences
Numerous fatalities
No property damage
Few properties destroyed or damaged
Property Few destroyed but many damaged Damage
Few damaged and many destroyed
Many properties destroyed and damaged
L---~ -- -
e
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation
CD
""' "' ..,
'" C> c: E :::> c: § e Cl C" ;:; :::> s:; s:; 8 e t:: ~ ~ C> .. en 0 w J: :f
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
3
Copyright. 2001
emergency response planmng & management, Inc
All rights reserved
Natural Hazards
a)
~ .,; ~
g CD ~6 g> :::>·-
Em "'E "E e~ II) CD -gu; E ,e., .s~ '" e .!1' .Eo ..JW ..J <nl-
e
.; e 0 CD !!! ~ 5i.~ u:: 0 ..,., !!! ~ ·c: Z. -c c: "" ~ ~-;; 1l [.!!l '" 32 e :g~ ::I X 6 ~ ~ C/)CDII) ::I
4
e e
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation
Risk Characterisuc
., .,
"" 'C "' E ::> "' .5 c: :c I!! "' 0' '6 ::> .<: .<: 8 e t:: 8 i;i 2> "' UJ c w u:: J: J:
Little or no environmental damage 0
Env1ronmental Resources damaged w1th short term recovery 1
Damage Resources damaged with long term recovery 2
Resources destroyed beyond recovery 3
No econom1c impact 0
Low d1rect and/or Indirect costs 1
Economic Hogh direct and low 10d1rect costs 2 D1srupbon
Low d1rect and h1gh 1nd1recl costs 2
High d1rect and high Indirect costs 3
TOTALSCOREFORNATURALHAZARDS
(Sum of value for Public Safety, Property Damage,
Environmental Impact and Econom1c Disruption)
Probability or Frequency of Occurrence
Unknown but rare occurrence 1
Unknown but anticipate an occurrence 2
Probab1hty of 100 years or less occurrence 3 Occurrence
25 years or less occurrence 4
Once a year or more occurrence 5
TOTAL RISK RATING FOR EACH HAZARD
(Total Score for Natural Hazards) X (Score for Probab1hty of Occurrence)=
Copyright, 200 1
emergency response planmng & management, Inc
All rights reserved
Natural Hazards
.,; ;: E!' .; ,gm "' ::>-'2c: c: ., E
.!!!., ~Q '2 E ~ Jl.;!l E 5I ~ .Siil .!2' .:c ....JW ....1 Ull-
e
B'., ~ .~ :ii.2: .1! u. I!!
.,
'C., ~ lf ·-c: c: !6 ~ ., ll ., "' -g = -e ~ ~ gg (1);2 ::::>
(Sum of R1sk Rat1ngs for Spec1fic Hazards)
5
Kent Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
Mitigation Strategy Development Survey
The next phase of the Mitigation Planning process is to define Goals, Objectives
and Actions. These terms are defined below.
Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They
are usually broad policy-type statements, long term, and represent global
visions.
Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the
identified goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable.
Mitigation Actions are specific actions that help you achieve your goals
and objectives.
Kent Emergency Management has developed a list of possible mitigation goals.
These goals are based on the findings of the risk assessment previously
completed. A draft copy of the Risk Assessment portion of the plan is available
from Kent Emergency Management.
This is your opportunity to comment and make recommendations. Attached is a
list of proposed goals. As an example, Goal #1 includes objectives and
mitigation actions. Please add any additional information to goal #1 that you feel
is important. Also, list possible objectives and actions for each of the other goals.
Finally, include any additional goals that you feel should be included in the
Mitigation Plan.
Goal# 1
Increase the resilience of the City to the effects of a major
earthquake.
Objectives:
1) Assure that City facilities are earthquake resistant
2) Maintain a program to promote citizen preparedness
3) Increase the 'level of business economic recovery
4) Determine the level of seismic stability of structures in pre-
identified hazard areas
Actions:
a) Develop a program to educate small and medium size
businesses through FEMA's Disaster Resistant Jobs
program.
b) Continue to develop and provide the Community
Emergency Response Training (CERT) program to
citizens and businesses.
c) Asses and retrofit City facilities that are inadequately
equipped
d) Implement City Ordinances to enact more stringent
codes for seismic stability
e) Research and gather data, through site visits and
surveys, to assess the seismic readiness of structures in
hazard prone areas
Goal #2
Preserve the continuity of local government.
Objectives:
Mitigation Actions.
Goal #3
Minimize loss to structures and infrastructures, particularly pre-identified critical
facilities located within hazard areas.
Objectives:
Mitigation Actions.
Goal #4
Reduce the impacts of wind and snow storms to the community.
Objectives:
Mitigation Actions.
Goal #5
Minimize damage and Joss due to flooding events in known hazard areas
Objectives:
Mitigation Actions.
Goal #6
Reduce the occurrence and impacts of a hazardous materials incident.
Objectives:
Mitigation Actions.
Addition Goals:
For future use.
Appendix F
Proclamation
For future use.
Appendix G
Revisions and Updates
City of Kent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
References
City of Kent Documents
City of Kent, 1995, City of Kent Comprehensive Plan (revised 2004)
City of Kent, 2003, Economic Development Strategic Plan
City of Kent, 2003, Capital Improvement Program
City of Kent, 1999, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (revised 2004)
City ofKent, 1999, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (revised 2004)
Documents From Other Jurisdictions
King County, 2004 Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Renton, 2004, Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Salem, 2002, Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Pierce County Fire Protection District #14, 2004, Riverside Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Washington State, 2001, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment
Washington State, 2004, Hazard Mitigation Plan
Other Sources
FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Getting Started, 2002.
FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Understanding your Risks,
2001.
FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Developing the Mitigation
Plan, 2003.
FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Bringing the Plan to Life,
2003.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Ref. I
FEMA, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide: Integrating Manmade
Hazards Into Mitigation Planning, 2003.
Mitigation 20/20 (CD-ROM), Emergency Response Planning & Management, Inc., 2002.
CityofKent
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Ref.2