Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2005-011 City of Yakima Emergency Response / Hazards Mitigation PlanRESOLUTION NO. R-2005- 11 A RESOLUTION adopting the 2003 Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan as the Official Emergency Response/Hazards Mitigation Plan for the City of Yakima. WHEREAS, the 2003 Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program meets state requirements for an emergency management program, and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan meets the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements for compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (44 CFR 201.6); and WHEREAS, the Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP) and other supporting documents and plans, including the flood response plan; Columbia Generating Station; hazardous materials, fixed and transportation; weapons of mass destruction/terrorism; USBR dams; foreign animal disease of livestock; and bio -terrorism, provide a basis for coordinating emergency operations throughout every level of government in the Yakima Valley; WHEREAS, the CEMP is required per RCW 38.52.070; and WHEREAS, keeping the Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program and the Yakima County Multi - Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan up to date is timely and provides the umbrella needed to continue with active participation in both State and Federal programs; and WHEREAS, it is concluded that the adoption of both the Comprehensive Emergency Management Program and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan is necessary and in the public interest; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: That the 2003 Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan are hereby adopted as the official emergency response/hazards mitigation plan for the City of Yakima, provided, however, that neither document shall be deemed to constitute a component or element of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, an official control, or a development regulation, nor shall either document have any mandatory or advisory effect on the future physical development of the City of Yakima or the City of Yakima Urban Growth Area, unless and until formally adopted by the City of Yakima for such purpose. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 18th day of January, 2005. Paul P. George, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP) Executive Summary Legal Requirements RCW 38.52 directs each political subdivision in the State of Washington to establish a local emergency management organisation or to be part of a joint local organization. It further requires that each recognized organization have a plan. WAC 118-30 contains the administrative rules pertaining to local emergency management, including the requirement that the local emergency management organisation be established by ordinance or resolution. The WAC also requires that local jurisdictions maintain a current plan of operations based on an analysis of local hazards. Overview The CEMP describes basic strategies, assumptions and mechanisms through which departments/agencies within government jurisdictions will mobilize resources and conduct activities to guide and support local emergency management efforts through response and recovery. To facilitate effective intergovernmental operations, this plan adopts a functional approach that groups the type of assistance to be provided under Emergency Support Functions. These functions serve as the primary mechanism through which assistance is managed in an effective area. CEMP provides for an orderly means to prevent or minimise (mitigation strategies), prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies or disasters that threaten life, property, economy, and the environment within Yakima County boundaries by: Identifying major natural and technological hazard threats to life, property, economy, and/or the environment that are known or thought to exist. Assigning emergency management responsibilities and tasks. Describing predetermined actions (responsibilities, tasks) to be taken by department/agencies, cities and towns, and other cooperating organizations and institutions, to eliminate or mitigate the effects of these threats and to respond effectively and recover from an emergency or disaster. Providing for effective assignment and utilization of government employees. Documenting the current capabilities and existing resources of departments/agencies, cities and towns, and other cooperating organizations and institutions which must be maintained to enable accomplishment of those predetermined actions. Providing for the continuity of government during and after an emergency or disaster. Rnhanne ennrPratinn (miitnal aid aureementc and memnranrdnmc of understanding) and coordination with cooperating community agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, state and federal agencies. Providing for an emergency planning team comprised of representatives from all departments as identified and utilized through this plan development for: continuing review and revision of the plan; exercise planning and evaluation; reviewing and offering recommendations on emergency management initiatives. r— r�1n—coovs..0rz.'.'r my lei CflJ'ca.r3iig 1; La Emergency aVC Management Program (CEMP) is to provide government, associated agencies and volunteer organizations guidance for the following: Mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery policy and procedures. Disaster and emergency responsibilities. Emergency management training and public education activities. The CEMP is strategic and "responsibility oriented", and addresses: Coordinated county -wide evacuation, shelter, and post -disaster response and recovery. Rapid deployment and pre -deployment of resources. Communication and warning systems. Annual exercises to determine the ability to respond to emergencies. Clearly defined responsibilities for departments/agencies, cities and towns, associated agencies and volunteer organizations through a "functional" approach to planning and operations. Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP) Table of Contents Letter of Promulgation Forward Acknowledgments Record of Changes Record of Changes Form How To Use This Plan Basic Program (Plan) This plan describes the basic strategies, assumptions and mechanisms through which the jurisdictions (government and private) within Yakima County will mobilize resources and conduct activities to guide and support local emergency management efforts. Elements include: I. Mission II. Organization and Responsibilities III. Concept of Operations IV. Administration and Logistics V. Direction and Control VI. Attachments A. Responsibilities--Primary/Support--Matrices Figure 1--CEMP Emergency Support Function Planning Responsibility Matrix B. Agreement for Mutual Aid for Emergencies or Disasters in Yakima County C. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms, References Section I: Continuity of Operations (COOP) COOP planning and program is an effort to assure the continuance of essential local jurisdiction functions during emergencies and disasters. COOP aims to ensure that critical daily "business" functions and emer- gency function responsibilities are maintained Elements include: A. Purpose B. Background C. Objectives D. Planning Considerations E. Elements of a Viable COOP Capability F. COOP Implementation G. Responsibilities Section 2: Mitigation Mitigation efforts include activities that will prevent or reduce the impact of emergency/disaster results on people, property and environment Efforts include building codes, land use planning, training and education, structural and non-structural safety measures. Federal policies require a formal mitigation program implementation plan any time an area is subject of a Presidential Disaster Declaration and federal disaster monies are received. Elements include: 7 Emergency Services IkAeasures 2. Public Information 3. Preventative/Property Protection 4. Environmental Protection 5. Pre- and Post -Disaster Mitigation Measures 6. Preventative Section 3: Preparedness Preparedness is an "insurance policy" against disasters. It is undertaken because )mitigation activities rannnt eliminate the occurrence of all events. Preparedness is planning how to respond should an emergency or disaster occur, and working to increase local resources and their ability to respond effectively. Preparedness activities include planning to ensure the most effective, efficient response; efforts to minimize damages, such as forecasting and warning systems; and laying the groundwork for response operations, such as stockpiling supplies. Elements include: A. General B. Policies C. General Preparedness Activities D. Terrorism Preparedness Activities E. Training F. Exercises G. Public Awareness and Education H. Planning Tabs: Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) Transportation ESF 1 Telecommunications/Warning ESF 2 Public Works/Engineering ESF 3 Firefighting ESF 4 Information Analysis/Planning ESF 5 Mass Care ESF 6 Resource Support ESF 7 Health/Medical ESF 8 Search and Rescue ESF 9 Hazardous Materials ESF 10 Food and Water ESF 11 Energy ESF 12 Military Support to Civil Authorities ESF 20 Recovery SF 21 (Addressed as CEMP, Section 5) Law Enforcement ESF 22 Damage Assessment ESF 23 Evacuation/Movement ESF 24 Animal Response ESF 25 Section 4: Response During an emergency event or disaster, various responders must suddenly work in a coordinated fashion to maximize the results of their efforts. No one agency, city, town or special district can afford to maintain the personnel and equipment levels necessary to handle an earthquake, flood, etc. These entities must work together. Elements include: A. General B. Policy C. General Response Functions D. Purpose of CEMS E. Organizational Levels F. CEMS Emergency Functions (EFs) G. Mutual Aid Section 5: Recovery Recovery is designed to identify those actions that local jurisdictions must take to support themselves and to coordinate emergency recovery activities at the conclusion of the response activities. Recovery provides local jurisdiction emergency management personnel with operational guidance in order to effectively manage recovery activities in the aftermath of an emergency or disaster. Elements include: Emergency Support Function (ESF) 21, Recovery Reentry Operations Recovery Management Rebuilding and Reconstruction Public Agency Recovery Business Recovery Section 6: Special Subjects Identifies plans that require specific response criteria as determined by Local, Federal and/or State regulations. Elements include: A. Flood Response Plan (TBD) B. Columbia Generating Station (CGS) C. Hazardous Materials—Fixed and Transportation D. Weapons of Mass Destruction/Terrorism E. USBR Dams F. Foreign Animal Disease of Livestock (TBD) G. BioTerrorism (Health District) Strategic Hazard Identification Community Assessment (HULA) Yakima County Emergency Management Program Elements Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMVIP) 54 Hazards Impact to: People, Property, Economy, Environment Empowers through: -► Operational Multi - Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan Implementation — Authorities and Regulations To define: Roles and Responsibilities For Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery Community Emergency Management System (CEMS) Qperations Field Local EOC Operational Area EOC Goals, Functions, Projects/ Activities Standards for Response —► Tactical / Hazard Specific Coordination Mutual Aid Agreement Flood Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Wind Storm Earthquake Volcanic Eruption H[azMat Hazard Specific Flood HazlVIat Fire Weather Energy Terrorism Mass Fatalities CGS Jurisdiction Emergency Operations Plans (EOP) 54 Hazards Impact to: People, Property, Economy, Environment Empowers through: -► Operational Multi - Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan Implementation — Authorities and Regulations To define: Roles and Responsibilities For Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery Community Emergency Management System (CEMS) Qperations Field Local EOC Operational Area EOC Goals, Functions, Projects/ Activities Standards for Response —► Tactical / Hazard Specific Coordination Mutual Aid Agreement Flood Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Wind Storm Earthquake Volcanic Eruption H[azMat Hazard Specific Flood HazlVIat Fire Weather Energy Terrorism Mass Fatalities CGS Local Mitigation Planning Requirements Of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 §201.6 of the Interim Final Regulation Local Mitigation Plan is the hazard mitigation plan required of a local or Indian tribal government acting as a subgrantee as a condition of receiving a project subgrant under the IJMGP as outlined in 44 CFR 201.6. Subgrantee means the government or other legal entity to which a subgrant is awarded and which is accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds provided. Subgrantees can be a State agency, local government, private non-profit organizations, or Indian tribal government as outlined in Sec. 206.433. Indian tribal governments acting as a subgrantee are accountable to the State grantee. Plan requirement. (1) For all disasters declared on or after November 1, 2003, local and tribal government applicants for subgrants, must have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 prior to receipt of HMGP subgrant funding. Until November 1, 2003, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the implementation of subgrants Sec. 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans The local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Local plans will also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. (a) Plan requirement. (1) For disasters declared after November 1, 2003, a local government must have a mitigation plan approved pursuant to this section in order to receive HMGP project grants. Until November 1, 2003, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the implementation of the project grant. (2) Regional Directors may grant an exception to the plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and impoverished community, when justification is provided. In these cases, a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant. If a plan is not provided within this timeframe, the project grant will be terminated, and any costs incurred after notice of grant's termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. (3) Multi jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction participates in the process, answers all the questions and has officially adopted the plan. State-wide plans will not be accepted as multi jurisdictional plans. (b) Planning process. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. (c) Plan content. The plan shall include the following: (1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. (2) A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include: A description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. (ii) A description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: (i) (A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; (B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate; (C) Providing a generaldescription of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. (iii) For multi jurisdictional. plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (3) A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, :policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include: (i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. (ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. (iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (iv) (c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. (v) For multi jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (4) A plan maintenance process that includes: (i) A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. (ii) A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. (iii) Discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. (5) Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. (d) Plan review. (1) Plans must be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for initial review and coordination. The State will then send the plan to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office for formal review and approval. (2) The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after receipt from the State, whenever possible. (3) Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for HMGP project grant funding. YAIQMA COUNTY MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RY The Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan includes resources and information to assist countyresidents, public and private sector organizations, and others interested in participating in planning for natural and technological hazards. The mitigation plan provides a list of activities that may assist Yakima County in reducing risk and preventing loss from future hazard events. The action items address multi -hazard issues, as well as activities for flood, landslide, severe winter storm, wind- storm, wildfire, earthquake, volcanic eruption and hazardous materials. How IS DIE PLAN ORGANIZED? The mitigation plan contains a five-year action plan matrix, background on the purpose and method- ologyused to develop the mitigation plan, a profile of Yakima County, sections on eight natural and techno- logical that occur within the county, and several appendices. All of the sections are described in detail in Section 1, the plan introduction. WHO PARTICIPATED IN DEVELOPING 'nit PLAN? The Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan is the result of a collaborative effort between Yakima County cities/towns, citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private sector. Public participation played a key role in development of goals and action items. Public forums were held to include Yakima County residents in plan development. Aproject Steering Committee met on December 11, 2002, to review the DMA200 0 process and provide guidance in developing the plan.. The Steering Committee was comprised ofrepresentatives from: - Yakima County Board of County Commissioners Ron Gamache, County Commissioner Doug Cochran, Yakima County ChiefAdministrative Officer - Yakima County Public Works Vern Redifer, Director and County Engineer - Yakima County Planning Department DickAnderwald, Director -Yakima Valley Office of Emergency Management Jim Hall, Director, Office of Emergency Management Charles W. Erwin, Senior ProgramAnalyst, Office of Emergency Management WHAT IS '1 u PLAN MISSION? The mission of the Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan is to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural and technological hazards. This can be achieved by increasing public awareness, documenting the resources for risk reduction and loss -prevention, and identifying activities to guide the county towards building a safer, more sustainable community. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE i YAKIMA COUNTY MuLII-J1UIUSDI€'rIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN 'HAT ARE THE PLAN GOALS? The plan goals describe the overall direction that Yakima County jurisdictions, organizations, and citizens can take to work toward mitigating risk from natural and technological hazards. The goals represent stepping -stones between the broad direction of the mission statement and the specific recommendations outlined in the action items. IL Protect Life; Property and Public welfare Implement activities that assist in protecting lives bymakdnghomes, businesses, infrastructure, critical facilities, and other property more resistant to losses from natural and technological hazards. Reduce losses and repetitive damages for chronic hazard events while promoting insurance coverage for catastrophic hazards. Improve hazard assessment information to make recommendations for discouraging new development and encouraging preventive measures for existing development in areas vulnerable to natural and technological hazards. 2. Public Awareness Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of the risks associated with natural and technological hazards. Provide information on tools, partnership opportunities, and funding resources to assist in implementing mitigation activities. 3. Partnerships and Implementation Strengthen communication and coordinate participation among and within public agencies, citizens, non- profit organizations, business, and industry to gain a vest interest in implementation. Encourage leadership within public and private sector organizations to prioritize and implement local, county, and regional hazard mitigation activities. 4. Emergency Services Establish policy to ensure mitigation projects for critical facilities, services, and infrastructure. Strengthen emergency operations by increasing collaboration and coordination arr,nngpublic agencies, non- profit organizations, business, and industry. Coordinate and integrate natural and technological mitigation activities, where appropriate, with emergency operations plans and procedures. How ARE nil ACTION ITEMS ORGANIZED? The action items are a listing of activities in which county agencies, local jurisdictions and citizens can be engaged to reduce risk. Each action item includes an estimate of the time line for implementation. Short-term action items (ST) are activities that county agencies, local jurisdictions may implement with PAGE 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YAKIMA COUNTY MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN existing resources and authorities within one to two years. Long-term action items (LT) may require new or additional resources or authorities, and may take be- tween one and five years to implement. MULTI-YEAR ACTION PLAN MAS The action items are organized within the following matrices, which list the multi -hazard and hazard -specific action items included in the mitigation plan. The matrix includes the following information for each action item: 1. Coordinating Organization. The coordinating organization is the public agency with regulatory re- sponsibility to address natural or technological hazards, or that is willing and able to organize resources, find appropriate funding, or oversee activity implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Coordinating organiza- tions may include local, county, or regional agencies that are capable of or responsible for implementing activities and programs. 2. Time Line. Action items include both short- and long-term activities. Each action item includes an estimate of the time line for implementation. Short-term action items (ST) are activities which county and local jurisdiction agencies are capable of implementing with existing resources and authorities within one to two years. Long-term action items (LT) may require new or additional resources or authorities, and may take between one and five years to implement. 3. Ideas for Implementation. Each action item includes ideas for implementation and potential resources, which may include grant programs or human resources. The matrix includes the page number within the mitigation plan where this information can be found. 4. Plan Goals Addressed. The plan goals addressed by each action item are included as a way to monitor and evaluatehowwell the mitigation and evaluate how well the mitigation plan is achieving its goals once implementation begins. The plan goals are organized into the following five areas: - Protect Life, Property and Public Welfare - Public Awareness - Natural Systems - Partnerships and Implementation - Emergency Services 5. Partner Organizations. Partner organizations are listed in Appendix B, of this plan and are agencies or public/private sector organisations that maybe able to assist in the implementation of action items by provid- ing relevant resources to the coordinating organization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 111 YAKIMA COUNTY MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN How Wri J • .TBE PLAN BE INIPLOCEN's° W, MONITORED, AND EVALUATED? The Plan Maintenance Section of this document details the formal process that will ensure that the Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and eval»ating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. PLAN ADOPTION The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and participating jurisdictions, e.g. cities, towns and special districts, will be responsible for adopting the Yakima Co'uL ty Multi-J'uisdictionai Hazards Mitigation Plan. These governing boards have the authority to promote sound public policy regarding natural and technologi- cal hazards. Reference Appendix B for a listing of those jurisdictions. TabieB.1 lists those stakeholders participating in the mitigation plan promulgation. Appendix B further classifies jurisdictions as either Pending or Participating. Pending indicates those jurisdictions who have not elected to complete data collection. Participating are those that have provided OEM with completed forms listing mitigation strategies and actions and will be formally adopting the mitigation plan. COORDINATING BODY AYakima Cnnnh T-Ta7arrl Mitiaaatinn Steering Cnmmitteewill he reApansiblefnrennrilinatingimrnlementa- tion of Plan action items and undertaking the formal review process. The BOCC will assign representatives from agencies, including, but not limited to, the current Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee. FACILITATOR The BOCC and governing bodies representing the cities/towns and special districts will adopt theYakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan, and the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee will take responsibility for plan maintenance. The Office of Emergency Management Director, or designee, will serve as afacilitator to convene meetings of the steering committee, assign tasks such as updating and presenting the Plan to the members of the committee. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared n: il:ty .......on,_ ..11 VI. U.I Hazard 11 toga u«CS4.....ing/"�U...irdtL.... members. responsibility among all of the r].GtGZLLLLlV11L1}J'GLLLVIl Steering L.V1111u1LLGG 1llGi11VG1 J. IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS Yakima County jurisdictions address county -wide planning goals and legislative requirements through its Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Flood Control Zone District, Critical Areas and Shoreline Programs, Capital Improvement Plans, and International Building Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides a series of recommendations that are closely related to the goals and objectives of these existing planning programs. Yakima County jurisdictions (Reference Appendix B for this listing.) will have the opportunity to implement recommended mitigation action items through existing programs and procedures. Upon adoption of the Mitigation Plan, the Office of Emergency Management will assist local municipalities in developing then hazard mitigation goals and actions by providing the mitigation plan as abaseline of information on the natural and technological hazards that impact the county. FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS The Mitigation Plan will be evaluated on an annual basis to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The evaluation pro- cess includes a firm schedule and timeline, and identifies the local agencies organizations participating in plan evaluation. The facilitator will be responsible for contacting the Hazard iviitigation Steering Committee PAGE ill EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YAKThIA COUNTY MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN members and organizing the annual meeting. Committee members will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the mitigation strategies in the Plan. CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Office of Emergency Management is dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual review and updates of the Mitigation Plan. Copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept at public libraries in the county. The existence and location ofthese copies will be publicized on the county's website. This site will also contain an email address and phone number to which people can direct their comments and concerns. DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATIONACTIONS FEMA provides grants (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) to local jurisdictions to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures following major disaster declarations. To be eligible, projects must permanently reduce losses from natural hazards, comply with environmental requirements, be identified in the local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and be cost-effective. Examples of prof ects that can be funded include: property acquisition or structure relocation with conversion of land to public open space; elevation -in-place of flood prone buildings; flood retrofit or seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings; training for architects, engineers, building officials, and other professionals on implementation of mitigation standards and codes; and initial implementation of vegetation management programs intended to reduce exposure ofhigh-risk structures to wildfire hazards. The local government HMGP cost -share is normally 25%. Hazard mitigation actions can identify a range of structural approaches to lower the costs of future disasters by meeting the unique needs of the community. Structural mitigation projects could involve modifying the current "built" environment to decrease the risk to people and property by `retrofitting" structures in existing neighborhoods. They can also be just the opposite and involve restoring the environment ofhazardous areas to its original condition by removing vulnerable structures. Two critical mitigation initiatives that impact all jurisdictions are the Flood Control Zone District funding and the adoption of the International Building Codes. Mitigation strategies can also involve non-structural initiatives, such as educational programs to inform the community about the risk the public and its property face in order to encourage them to purchase insurance or retrofit their homes. Program can also include developing and enforcing regulations to prevent construc- tion in hazard areas, or to ensure that development that does occur will be resistant to the hazards threaten- ing the area. Yakima County jurisdictions, i.e., cities/towns, special districts—schools, fire and irrigation, occupy a uniqueness when attempting to follow FEMA guidance in developing mitigation actions. First, declared disasters under the StaffordAct, which historically have included Yakima County, have been limited to 100 -year flooding as witnessed in the 1995-1996 floods. Even the most recent Nisgnally Earth- quake resulted in Yakima County's inclusion in a federal disaster declaration for Individual Assistance only. The Risk Assessment and hazard map for each participating jurisdiction (Reference Section 3—Risk Assessment and hazard mapping in Sections 6-13) establishes the jurisdiction's hazard vulnerability. Based upon these two tools, Yakima County jurisdictions are relatively disaster -free. The exception to this would be incidents of flooding. Flood mitigation actions, to include funding, are adequately addressed by the Flood Control Zone District. Jurisdictions rely upon the FCZD for determining flood mitigation actions. An exception to this are the irrigation districts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE V YAKIMA t COUNTY MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLA Secondly, due to a jurisdictions risk assessment and proximity to identified hazards, the majority ofmitiga- tion actions involve on-going public awareness and education, as represented by fire and school districts. Therefore, public education, emphasizing individual responsibility and action, is an important element of a successful hazard mitigation program. Many of the participating jurisdictions have developed educational materials and programs that benefit them and the population within their jurisdiction. PAGE Vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STRUCTURE OF '1711+; PLAN Each section of the mitigation plan provides information and resources to assist people in understanding the county and the hazard -related issues facing citizens, businesses, and the environment. Combined, the sections of the plan work together to create a document that guides the mission to reduce risk and prevent loss from future hazard events. The structure of the plan enables people to use a section of interest to them. It also allows county jurisdictions to review and update sections when new data becomes available. The ability to update individual sections of the mitigation plan places less of a staffing burden on jurisdictions. Decision - makers can allocate staff resources to selected pieces in need of review, thereby avoiding a full update, which can be time-consuming. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a hazards mitigation plan that remains current and relevant to Yakima County jurisdictions The mitigation plan is organized in three parts. Part 1 contains an executive summary, introduction, county profile, risk assessment and multi -hazard section. Part 2 contains the eight hazard sections and Part 3 includes five appendices and two attachments. Each section of the plan is described below. PART 1: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Executive Summary The Executive Summary provides an overview of the mitigation plan mission, goals, to reduce risk and prevent loss from future hazard events. Section 1: Introduction The Introduction describes the background and purpose of developing the mitigation plan. for Yakima County. Section 2: Community Profile Community Profile presents the history, geography, demographics, and socio -economics of Yakima County. It serves as a tool to provide an historical perspective of hazards in the county. Section 3: Risk Assessment Risk Assessment provides information on hazard identification, vulnerability and risk associated with hazards in Yakima County. Section 4: Multi -Hazard Goals and Action Items Multi -Hazard Goals and Actions Items provides information on the process used to develop goals and action items that cut across the eight hazards addressed in the mitigation plan. Section 5: Plan Maintenance Plan Maintenance provides information on plan implementation, monitoring and evaluation. PART 2: HAZARD -SPECIFIC INFORMATION Five chronic hazards and three catastrophic hazards are addressed in this plan. Chronic hazards occur with some regularity and may be predicted through historic evidence and scientific methods. The chronic hazards addressed in the plan include: - Section 6: Flood - Section 7: Landslide - Section 8: Wildfire - Section 9: Severe Winter Storm - Section 10: Wind Storm Catastrophic hazards do not occur with the frequency of chronic hazards, but can have devastating impacts on life, property, and the environment. The three catastrophic hazards presented in the plan are: - Section 11: Earthquake Section 12: Volcanic Eruption - Section 13: Hazardous Materials Falai of the hazard -specific sections includes information on the history, 1nazaru causes and characteristics, hazard assessment, goals and action items, and local, state, and national resources. Jurisdictions identified in Appendix B were invited to submit their mitigation efforts and are included under each section. PART 3: RESOURCES The plan appendices are designed to provide users of the Mitigation Plan with additional information to assist them in understanding the contents of the mitigation plan, and potential resources to assist them with implementation. Appendix A: Plan Resource Directory This appendix includes county, regional, state, and national resources and programs that may be of technical and/or financial assistance to Yakima County during plan implementation. Appendix B: Public Participation Process This appendix includes specific information on the various public processes used during development of the plan. Appendix C: Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects and Prioritizing This appendix describes FEMA's requirements for benefit cost analysis in hazards mitigation, as well as approaches for conducting economic analysis of proposed mitigation activities. Methodology for prioritizing mitigation actions is described. A Y 4.+ A carri”..11vla AJ. L1.76 Ul Abi VL�'111A This appendix provides a list of acronyms for county, regional, state, and federal agencies and organizations that may be referred to within the Mitigation Plan. Appendix E: Survey of Mitigation Projects and Initiatives This appendix provides lists of "best practices" compiled from numerous sources, e.g.; state and federal mitigation guidebooks. Attachment One Agreement for Yakima Valley Office of Emergency Management, dated April 3, 1984 and updated on October 18, 2000. Attachment Two Section Two Mitigation, Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP). This section of the CEMP describes the strategy for county -wide mitigation efforts. The Yakima County Multi - Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan becomes an extension of Section Two. ITEM TITLE: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of January 18, 2005 Resolution adopting the 2003 Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan SUBMITTED BY: Chief Sam Granato, Chief of Yakima Police Department Chief Dennis Mayo, Chief of Yakima Fire Department Joe Caruso, Supervising Code Inspector CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Joe Caruso, Supervising Code Inspector (509) 575-6257 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The 2003 Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program meets state requirements for an emergency management program, and the 2004 Yakima County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan meets the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements for compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (44 CFR 201.6). The Yakima County Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP) and other supporting documents and plans, including the flood response plan; Columbia Generating Station; hazardous materials, fixed and transportation; weapons of mass destruction/terrorism, USBR dams; foreign animal disease of livestock; and bio -terrorism, provide a basis for coordinating emergency operations throughout every level of government in the Yakima Valley. The CEMP is required per RCW 38.52.070 and provides a current framework for all hazards reduction in the community. Resolution X Ordinance Other (Specify) Contract Mail to (name and address): Phone: Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2005-11