CLEARWATER COUNTY, IDAHO MULTI

 C L E A R WAT E R C O U N T Y, I D A H O M U LT I ­ H A Z A R D M I T I G AT I O N P L A N JUNE 2011 Prepared By Northwest Management, Inc. Foreword “Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long‐term risk to human life and property from hazards. Mitigation activities may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident. However, it has been demonstrated that hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive, comprehensive, long‐term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs.”1 The Clearwater County Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed during 2010 ‐11 by the Clearwater County Multi‐Hazard and Wildfire Protection Plan committees with assistance from Northwest Management, Inc. of Moscow, Idaho. Four bound documents have been produce as part of this planning effort. They include: ¾ 2011 Clearwater County Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan o Clearwater County Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan Terrorism and Civil Unrest Supplement (limited distribution) ¾ 2011 Community Wildfire Protection Plan o Community Wildfire Protection Plan Appendices This Plan satisfies the requirements for a local multi‐hazard mitigation plan and a flood mitigation plan under 44 CFR Part 201.6 and 79.6. 1
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008. 1
Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview .....................................................................................................................5
Overview of this Plan and its Development ......................................................................................5
Phase I Hazard Assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Goals and Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 – Planning Process............................................................................................................. 15
Documenting the Planning Process ................................................................................................. 15
Description of the Planning Process .........................................................................................................................15
The Planning Team ..........................................................................................................................................................15
Planning Committee Meetings ....................................................................................................................................17
Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................................................................19
Chapter 3 – Community Profile.......................................................................................................... 23
Clearwater County Characteristics .................................................................................................. 23
Geography and Climate ..................................................................................................................................................23
Demographics ....................................................................................................................................................................23
Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................................................................24
Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................................................26
Development Trends.......................................................................................................................................................30
Overview of Emergency Response System ............................................................................................................32
Regional Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................................................32
Chapter 4 – Hazard Risk Assessment............................................................................................... 37
Clearwater County Risk Assessments .............................................................................................. 37
Flood.......................................................................................................................................................................................37
Landslide ..............................................................................................................................................................................43
Severe Weather .................................................................................................................................................................46
Wildland Fire ......................................................................................................................................................................51
Extended Power Outages...............................................................................................................................................60
Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................................................63
Avalanche.............................................................................................................................................................................65
Geological Hazards...........................................................................................................................................................67
Dam Failure.........................................................................................................................................................................77
Chapter 5 – Jurisdictional Vulnerability Assessment................................................................. 79
Clearwater County Annex .................................................................................................................... 79
City of Orofino Annex ................................................................................................................................................... 113
City of Elk River Annex ................................................................................................................................................ 125
2
City of Pierce Annex...................................................................................................................................................... 135
City of Weippe Annex................................................................................................................................................... 143
Chapter 6 – Mitigation Strategy ......................................................................................................152
Administration and Implementation of Action Items..............................................................152
Plan Monitoring and Maintenance.......................................................................................................................... 152
Prioritization of Action Items ................................................................................................................................... 154
Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategies........................................................................................................................ 159
Chapter 7 – Appendices ......................................................................................................................201
Supporting Information .....................................................................................................................201
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................................... 201
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................. 202
2011 Landslide Activity Amendment.................................................................................................................... 203
Landside Mapping – Project Impact....................................................................................................................... 205
Planning Committee Minutes.................................................................................................................................... 220
Summary of 2011 Revisions...................................................................................................................................... 224
Public Meeting Slideshow .......................................................................................................................................... 226
Potential Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 230
Local Resolutions of Adoption.................................................................................................................................. 234
3
Chapter 1 Plan Overview • Planning Participants • Phase I Hazard Assessment Chapter 1
Plan Overview IN THIS SECTION: • Goals and Guiding Principles 4
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview Overview of this Plan and its Development This Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan is the result of analyses, professional cooperation and collaboration, assessments of hazard risks and other factors considered with the intent to reduce the potential for hazards to threaten people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems in Clearwater County, Idaho. The planning team responsible for implementing this project was led by Clearwater County Emergency Management. Agencies and organizations that participated in the planning process included: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Elk River City of Orofino City of Pierce City of Weippe Clearwater County Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association Elk River Fire Department Evergreen Rural Fire District Grangemont Rural Fire District Orofino City and Rural Fire District Pierce Fire Department Sunnyside Rural Fire District Twin Ridge Rural Fire District U.S. Army Corp of Engineers University of Idaho Upper Fords Creek Rural Fire District Weippe Fire Department In the spring of 2010, Clearwater County Emergency Management solicited competitive bids from companies to provide the service of leading the assessment, developing the data, and updating the Clearwater County Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan. Northwest Management, Inc. (NMI) was selected to provide this service to the County. The Project Co‐Managers from Northwest Management, Inc. were Mr. Vaiden Bloch and Mrs. Tera R. King. Phase I Hazard Assessment The Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan is developed in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) and Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security requirements for a county level pre‐disaster mitigation plan. Based on the hazards included in the 2005 document and funding availability, the planning committee in Clearwater County updated or developed annexes for the following hazards: 5
Updated Hazards: Flood Landslide Severe Weather Wildland Fire Geological Hazards Extended Power Outage New Hazards Assessed: Terrorism/Civil Unrest Avalanche Dam Failure Hazardous Materials Additional hazard annexes may be added to this Plan as funding allows. The highest priority hazards to be considered for future evaluation are: Pandemic Technological Insect Infestation A Phase I Assessment was facilitated with Clearwater County planning committee to determine the relative frequency of a hazard’s occurrence and the potential impact a hazard event will have on people, property, infrastructure, and the economy based on local knowledge of past occurrences. A matrix system with hazard magnitude on the x axis and frequency on the y axis was used to score each hazard. Magnitude of Hazards Value Reconstruction Assistance From Geography (Area) Affected 1 Family Parcel 2 City Block or Group of Parcels County Section or Numerous Parcels 4 State Multiple Sections 8 Federal Countywide 2 Expected Bodily Harm Little to No Injury / No Death Multiple Injuries with Little to No Medical Care / No Death Major Medical Care Required / Minimal Death Major Injuries / Requires Help from Outside County / A Few Deaths Massive Casualties / Catastrophic Loss Estimate Range Population Sheltering Required Warning Lead Times $1000s No Sheltering Months $10,000s Little Sheltering Weeks $100,000s Sheltering Required Neighboring Counties Help Days $1,000,000s Long Term Sheltering Effort Hours $10,000,000s Relocation Required Minutes A scoring system (shown above) was also used to categorize the relative magnitude each hazard may have on the community. Frequency was rated as “High” for hazards occurring multiple times per year in a 5 year period, “Medium” for hazards occurring every 5 to 25 years, or “Low” for hazards occurring more than 25 years apart.2 The following table summarizes the Phase I Hazard Assessments for Clearwater County. 2
Custer County, Idaho. Scoring system partially adapted from the Custer County Multi‐Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2008. Pp 165‐168. 6
Magnitude Frequency Low Medium High Low Geologic Dam Failure Power Outage Terrorism/Civil Unrest Avalanche Wildland Fire Severe Weather Landslide Hazardous Materials Flood Medium High The inclusion of additional hazards was considered; however, due to funding limitations, participating jurisdictions chose not to assess pandemic, technological, insect infestation, crop failure, or other hazards until additional funding becomes available. At such a time, the Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan will be revised to include additional hazards. Goals and Guiding Principles Federal Emergency Management Agency Philosophy Effective November 1, 2004, a Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is required for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre‐Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) eligibility. The HMGP and PDM programs provide funding, through state emergency management agencies, to support local mitigation planning and projects to reduce potential disaster damages. The new local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan requirements for HMGP and PDM eligibility is based on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which amended the Stafford Disaster Relief Act to promote an integrated, cost effective approach to mitigation. Local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plans must meet the minimum requirements of the Stafford Act‐Section 322, as outlined in the criteria contained in 44 CFR Part 201. The plan criteria cover the planning process, risk assessment, mitigation strategy, plan maintenance, and adoption requirements. In order to be eligible for project funds under the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, communities are required under 44 CFR Part 79.6(d)(1) to have a mitigation plan that addresses flood hazards. On October 31st, 2007, FEMA published amendments to the 44 CFR Part 201 at 72 Federal Reg. 61720 to incorporated mitigation planning requirements for the FMA program (44 CFR Part 201.6). The revised Local Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk (July 2008) used by FEMA to evaluate local hazard mitigation plans is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – 7
Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through October 31, 2007 was used as the official guide for development of a FEMA‐compatible Clearwater County Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan. 3 FEMA will only review a local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted through the appropriate State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO). Draft versions of local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plans will not be reviewed by FEMA. FEMA will review the final version of a plan prior to local adoption to determine if the plan meets the criteria, but FEMA will be unable to approve it prior to adoption. In Idaho the SHMO is: Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 4040 Guard Street, Bldg 600 Boise, ID 83705 A FEMA designed plan will be evaluated on its adherence to a variety of criteria. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adoption by the Local Governing Body Multi‐jurisdictional Plan Adoption Multi‐jurisdictional Planning Participation Documentation of Planning Process Identifying Hazards Profiling Hazard Events Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Multi‐jurisdictional Risk Assessment Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures Multi‐jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Implementation Through Existing Programs Continued Public Involvement Planning Philosophy and Goals Clearwater County Planning Philosophy This effort will utilize the best and most appropriate science from all partners and will integrate local and regional knowledge about natural hazards while meeting the needs of local citizens and the regional economy. 3
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008. 8
Mission Statement To make residents, communities, state agencies, local governments, and businesses less vulnerable to the effects of hazards through the effective administration of hazard mitigation grant programs, hazard risk assessments, wise and efficient infrastructure hardening, and a coordinated approach to mitigation policy through federal, state, regional, and local planning efforts. Our combined priorities will be the protection of people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems that contribute to our way of life and the sustainability of the local and regional economy. Jurisdictional Planning and Mitigation Goals Clearwater County: 1. Create, update, and enforce ordinances that adhere to the County’s mitigation goals and strategy. 2. Maintain an all‐hazard mitigation planning document that is credible, feasible, readable, renewable, do able, understandable, and beneficial while also being simple enough to provide effective guidance. 3. Increase local knowledge of hazards and hazard mitigation approaches by improving and maintaining the existing system of information dissemination to the public. 4. Strengthen hazard preparedness and response. 5. Increase the County’s firefighting capacity and suppression infrastructure. 6. Increase the actions homeowners take on their own to reduce their vulnerability to urban fire and wildland fire. 7. Reduce hazard fuel sources that increase risk to people and property. 8. Reduce the threat of landslide to people, property, structures and systems through growth management planning efforts, improved design and construction standards, and programs that address current risk planning, and improved design and construction. 9. Reduce health and safety risks to people and reduce property damage that results from severe weather event. 10. Increase existing telecommunication capability to reduce emergency response times during a hazard event and to improve climate for increased economic development. 11. Reduce the vulnerability of county residents and property to flood throughout Clearwater County, but particularly in the Orofino Creek drainage. 12. Reduce the health and safety risk to people and reduce property damage that results from the loss of electrical power. 13. Reduce the earthquake risk to people, property, structures and systems in Clearwater County by improving existing policies that guide building construction and land use development. City of Orofino: 1. Support the establishment of an administrative position within County government for the purpose of carrying out the action items of the all hazard mitigation plan and provide information to the Commissioners to facilitate the decision making process. 2. Improve and support communication capabilities. 9
3. Train volunteers to increase the number of certified firefighters. 4. Encourage "clean up" activities every year. Educate public on outdoor yard burning and on "burn permit" requirements. 5. Secure a backup power source for the City of Orofino water system. 6. Develop “defensible space” around the city to protect the city from a wildland fire event. 7. Build and expand the economic development structure that will improve the city’s economic environment and local economy. 8. Improve the City’s readiness to protect property during a flood event. 9. Improve the city’s storm water system. 10. Improve floodplain management within the city. 11. Develop mitigation strategies that will help reduce the impacts of severe storms and other natural and man‐caused hazard incidents. 12. Provide public educational opportunities related to disaster resistance and emergency response. City of Elk River: 1. Strengthen hazard preparedness and response. 2. Improve City policies and practices that effectively reduce the risk of hazards to people and private and public property, buildings, and infrastructure. 3. Increase the firefighter capacity. 4. Increase the actions homeowners take on their own to reduce their vulnerability to urban and wildland fire. 5. Reduce hazardous fuel sources that increase risk to people and property. 6. Improve response capability by ensuring that the City has sufficient and functional emergency equipment. 7. Reduce the threat of landslides, earthquake, and loss of electrical power to people, property, structures and systems. 8. Reduce health and safety risk to people and reduce property damage resulting from a severe weather event. 9. Increase existing telecommunication capabilities. 10. Build and expand the community’s economic development structure. 11. Decrease flood damage to public and private property. City of Pierce: 1. Increase local knowledge of hazards and hazard mitigation approaches by improving and maintain the existing system of disseminating information to the public. 10
2. Strengthen hazard preparedness and response. 3. Improve communication capabilities. 4. Increase firefighter capacity within the community. 5. Increase the actions homeowners take on their own to reduce their vulnerability to urban and wildland fire. 6. Reduce hazardous fuel sources that increase risk to people and property. 7. Improve response capability by ensuring the City has sufficient and functional emergency equipment. 8. Reduce the threat of landslides and earthquakes to people, property, structures, and systems within the community. 9. Reduce health and safety risks to people and reduce property damages resulting from severe weather events. 10. Build and expand the economic development structure and capacity within the community. 11. Decrease flood damage to public and private property. 12. Reduce the health and safety risk to people and reduce property damage resulting from the loss of electrical power. City of Weippe: 1. Strengthen hazard preparedness and response, particularly communication capabilities. 2. Increase firefighter capacity within the community. 3. Increase the actions homeowners take on their own to reduce their vulnerability to urban and wildland fire. 4. Improve response capability by ensuring the City has sufficient and functional emergency response equipment and infrastructure. 5. Reduce the threat of landslides, earthquakes, and loss of electrical power to people, property, structures, and systems. 6. Increase existing telecommunication capabilities to improve emergency response and increase economic development. 7. Reduce health and safety risks to people and property resulting from severe weather events. 8. Improve the health and diversification of the local economy. 9. Decrease flood damage to public and private property. 10. Reduce the health risk posed by water contamination. 11
Integration with Other Local Planning Documents During the development of this Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan several planning and management documents were reviewed in order to avoid conflicting goals and objectives. Existing programs and policies were reviewed in order to identify those that may weaken or enhance the hazard mitigation objectives outlined in this document. Clearwater County Emergency Operations Plan The Clearwater County Emergency Operations Plan4 (CC‐EOP) provides, to the extent possible, actions to be taken by responsible elements of Clearwater County, its municipalities, and of cooperating State, Federal agencies and private organizations. These actions are taken to prevent avoidable disasters, reduce the vulnerability of county residents to any disasters that may strike, establish capabilities for protecting citizens from the effects of disasters, respond effectively to the actual occurrence of disasters, and provide for recovery in the aftermath of any emergency involving extensive damage or other weakening influence. The purpose of the Clearwater County Emergency Operations Plan is to minimize personal injury or property damage resulting from the occurrence of a major emergency or disaster. Clearwater County Comprehensive Plan The Clearwater County Comprehensive Plan5 has been developed as a planning guide for use in making decisions that affect the orderly growth and development of Clearwater County. The Plan was developed by Clearwater County government to guide the use of public lands and resources as well as private land, and to protect the rights of private landowners. The Comprehensive Plan has several goals and policies outlined that relate to natural resources and construction in hazardous areas. Clearwater County Interoperable Emergency Communications Plan The Interoperable Emergency Communications Plan6 identifies and locates Clearwater County’s communication capabilities including points of contact, system redundancies, and improvement recommendations and long term goals. It is the County’s intent to promote interagency cooperation and provide policy‐level direction to support efficient and effective use of resources to achieve interoperable communications. Clearwater County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance7 recognizes that flood hazard areas of Clearwater County are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, 4
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Emergency Operations Plan. Orofino, Idaho. January 2010. 5
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Orofino, Idaho. Adopted December 1962. Amended September 1992. 6
Clearwater County. Interoperable Emergency Communications Plan. Clearwater County Emergency Management. Orofino, Idaho. Reviewed September 2009. 7
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Orofino, Idaho Adopted April 1987. 12
disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. The purpose of the ordinance is to alleviate the flood impacts to the extent possible by restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling the alterations of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural barriers that accommodate flood waters; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that will unnaturally divert waters or increase the flood hazards in other areas. Clearwater County Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance #348 This amendment to the County’s subdivision ordinance requires platting for all subdivisions except “simple subdivisions”. Platting ensures that the developer establishes a reasonable access road, conforms to minimum lot sizes, and meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Idaho Code. Clearwater County Building Ordinance 42 The Building Ordinance9 adopts portions of the latest version of the International Building Code, Residential Code, and Energy Conservation Code. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote the establishment of safe building practices within Clearwater County, and to provide for enforcement by the County. Clearwater County Zoning Ordinance The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance10 is to promote the orderly development of property within Clearwater County, in accordance with the general objectives of the Clearwater County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (hereafter “Comprehensive Plan”) and to establish and regulate viable Zoning districts to conserve and stabilize the value of existing properties in Clearwater County. These regulations shall apply to all property within Clearwater County located outside the designated boundaries of the cities of Elk River, Orofino, Pierce, and Weippe, but will not apply to lands held under Federal trust for the Nez Perce Tribe or other designated State or Federal lands. 8
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Amendment to County Ordinance #34. Orofino, Idaho. Adopted July 2004. 9
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Building Ordinance 42. Orofino, Idaho. Adopted October 2005. 10
Clearwater County. Clearwater County Zoning Ordinance. Orofino, Idaho. December 2004. Available online at http://www.clearwatercounty.org/?OrdinanceIndex. 13
Chapter 2 Planning Process IN THIS SECTION: • Description of the Planning Process • The Planning Team • Public Involvement Chapter 2
Planning Process • Planning Committee Meetings 14
Chapter 2 – Planning Process Documenting the Planning Process Documentation of the planning process, including public involvement, is required to meet FEMA’s DMA 2000 (44CFR§201.4(c)(1) and §201.6(c)(1)). This section includes a description of the planning process used to develop this plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how all of the involved agencies participated. Description of the Planning Process The Clearwater County Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a collaborative process involving all of the organizations and agencies detailed in Chapter 1 of this document. The planning process included five distinct phases which were in some cases sequential (step 1 then step 2) and in some cases intermixed (step 4 completed throughout the process): 1. Collection of Data about the extent and periodicity of hazards to ensure a robust dataset for making inferences about hazards in and around Clearwater County. 2. Field Observations and Estimations about risks, juxtaposition of structures and infrastructure to risk areas, access, and potential mitigation projects. 3. Mapping of data relevant to pre‐disaster mitigation control and mitigation, structures, resource values, infrastructure, risk assessments, and related data. 4. Facilitation of Public Involvement from the formation of the planning committee to news releases, public meetings, public review of draft documents, and acknowledgement of the final plan by the signatory representatives. 5. Analysis and Drafting of the Report to integrate the results of the planning process, providing ample review and integration of committee and public input, followed by signing of the final document. The Planning Team Leading the planning effort from Clearwater County was Don Gardener representing Clearwater County Emergency Management. Additional partners included local communities, fire departments, law enforcement, federal and state agencies, and others. Northwest Management, Inc. Project Co‐Managers were Tera R. King and Vaiden Bloch. The planning committee met with many residents of the County during the community risk assessments and at public meetings. Additionally, the press releases encouraged interested citizens to contact their elected officials or attend planning committee meetings to ensure that all issues, potential solutions, and ongoing efforts were thoroughly discussed and considered by the committee. When the public meetings 15
were held, many of the committee members were in attendance and shared their support and experiences with the planning process and their interpretations of the results. The planning philosophy employed in this project included the open and free sharing of information with interested parties. Information from federal and state agencies was integrated into the database of knowledge used in this project. Meetings with the committee were held throughout the planning process to facilitate a sharing of information between cooperators. Multi Jurisdictional Participation CFR requirement §201.6(a)(3) calls for multi‐jurisdictional planning in the development of hazard mitigation plans which impact multiple jurisdictions. This All Hazards Mitigation Plan is applicable to the following jurisdictions: •
•
•
•
•
Clearwater County City of Elk River City of Orofino City of Pierce City of Weippe These jurisdictions were represented on the planning committee, in public meetings, and participated in the development of hazard profiles, risk assessments, and mitigation measures. In order to be included as a participating and adopting jurisdiction, planning committee leadership required that each jurisdiction attend at least one planning committee meeting, submit a goals statement, and develop a mitigation strategy including at least one action item. The monthly planning committee meetings were the primary venue for authenticating the planning record. However, additional input was gathered from each jurisdiction in a combination of the following ways: •
Planning committee leadership visits to local government meetings where planning updates were provided and information was exchanged – regular updates were provided by Clearwater County Emergency Management at County Board of Commissioners meetings. Additionally, representatives on the planning committee periodically attended municipality meetings to provide council members with updates on the project and request reviews of draft material. •
One‐on‐one correspondence and discussions between the planning committee leadership and the representatives of the municipalities and special districts was facilitated as needed to ensure understanding of the process, collect data and other information, and develop specific mitigation strategies. For example, in October 2010, planning committee leadership met individually with the mayors of Weippe and Pierce to gather additional data, review assessments, and discuss mitigation strategies. •
Public meetings hosted by multiple jurisdictions involving elected officials, municipality representatives, local volunteers, business community representatives, and local citizenry. Numerous representatives of the planning committee attended public meetings. 16
•
Written correspondence was provided at least monthly between the planning committee leadership and each participating jurisdictions updating the cooperators on the progress of the document, making requests for information, and facilitating feedback. All of the participating jurisdictions provided comments to the draft document during the data gathering phase as well as during the various committee and public review processes. •
At the request of planning committee leadership, all of participating jurisdictions hosted copies of the draft Clearwater County Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan and provided staff to be on hand to answer any questions during the public review phase of the planning process. Like other areas of rural Idaho and the United States, Clearwater County’s human resources have many demands placed on them in terms of time and availability. A few of the elected officials (county commissioners and city mayors) do not serve in a full‐time capacity; some of them have other employment and serve the community through a convention of community service. Recognizing this and other time constraints, many of the jurisdictions decided to identify a representative to cooperate on the planning committee and then report back to the remainder of their organization on the process and serve as a conduit between the planning committee and the jurisdiction. Planning Committee Meetings The following people participated in planning committee meetings, volunteered time, or responded to elements of the Clearwater County Multi – Hazard Mitigation Plan’s preparation. Many participants served on the committee as dual representatives of more than one jurisdiction. 17
Clearwater County Participants: *Indicates Adopting Jurisdiction •
*Angela VanderPas.................... Clearwater County GIS •
*Bill Maison ............................... Clearwater County Fire Mitigation •
*Bobbi Kaufman ........................ Clearwater County Building and Planning •
*Carrie Bird................................ Clearwater County Clerk •
*Chris Goetz............................... Clearwater County Sheriff’s Office – Sheriff •
Daryl Ketchum ........................... Twin Ridge Rural Fire District •
*Don Gardner ............................ Clearwater County Emergency Management •
*Greg Gerot ............................... City of Pierce ‐ Mayor •
Greg Parker................................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
Howard Weeks .......................... Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association •
*James Martin ........................... City of Elk River ‐ Mayor •
*Jeff Wilson ............................... City of Orofino Police – Chief •
*John Allen ................................ Clearwater County Commissioner •
*John Barton.............................. City of Orofino Public Works •
*Les Eaves.................................. Clearwater County Ambulance •
*Mellisa Stewart........................ Clearwater County Assessor •
*Michael Martin ........................ City of Orofino •
*Mike Lee .................................. Orofino City and Rural Fire District •
*Norman Steadman................... City of Weippe ‐ Mayor •
Pete Summerton........................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
Randy Gordon............................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
*Rick Laam................................. City of Orofino Administrator •
*Rob Simon................................ Clearwater County Road and Bridge •
*Ryan Smathers......................... City of Orofino – Mayor •
Sandra Lee Pinel ........................ University of Idaho •
*Stan Leach................................ Clearwater County Commissioner •
*Tammy Pippenger.................... City of Elk River •
Tera King .................................... Northwest Management, Inc. •
*Todd Perry ............................... City of Orofino Building Inspector •
Vaiden Bloch.............................. Northwest Management, Inc. Committee Meeting Minutes In the summer of 2010, Clearwater County Emergency Management began accepting proposals from contractors interested in assisting the county with the completion of an update to the Multi ‐Hazard Mitigation Plan. Northwest Management, Inc. was hired and began facilitating planning committee meetings in June of 2010. The minutes of each planning committee meeting are included in Chapter 7. 18
Public Involvement Public involvement in this plan was made a priority from the inception of the project. There were a number of ways that public involvement was sought and facilitated. In some cases this led to members of the public providing information and seeking an active role in protecting their own homes and businesses, while in other cases it led to the public becoming more aware of the process without becoming directly involved in the planning. News Releases Under the auspices of the Clearwater County planning committee, periodic press releases were submitted to the Clearwater Tribune, the Clearwater Progress, Window on the Clearwater, the Lewiston Morning Tribune, and KLEW TV. Informative flyers were also distributed around town and to local offices within the communities by the committee members. Figure 2.1. Press Release #1. 19
Public Meetings Public meetings were scheduled in several communities during the hazard assessment phase of the planning process to share information on the Plan, obtain input on the details of the hazard assessments, and discuss potential mitigation treatments. Attendees at the public meetings were asked to give their impressions of the accuracy of the information generated and provide their opinions of potential treatments. The public meetings were held in Orofino, Elk River, and Weippe and were attended by a number of individuals on the committee and from the general public. The public meeting announcement was sent to the local newspapers and distributed by committee members. A sample of the flyer is included below in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2. Public Meeting Flyer. The slideshow presentation used during the public meetings is included in Chapter 7. 20
Documented Review Process Review and comment on this Plan has been provided through a number of avenues for the committee members as well as for members of the general public. During regularly scheduled committee meetings in 2010, the committees met to discuss findings, review mapping and analysis, and provide written comments on draft sections of the document. During the public meetings attendees observed map analyses, photographic collections, discussed general findings from the community assessments, and made recommendations on potential project areas. The first draft of the document was prepared after the public meetings and presented to the committee electronically for a full review. The completed draft document was released for public review on December 27th, 2010. The public review period remained open until January 10th, 2011. Continued Public Involvement Clearwater County is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of this Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Clearwater County Commissioners, through the planning committee, are responsible for the annual review and update of the plan as recommended in the Chapter 6, “Mitigation Strategy” section of this document. The public will have the opportunity to provide feedback about the Plan annually on the anniversary of the adoption at a meeting of the County Board of Commissioners. Copies of the Plan will be kept at the County Courthouse. The Plan also includes contact information for Clearwater County Emergency Management, which is responsible for keeping track of public comments. A public meeting will also be held as part of each annual evaluation or when deemed necessary by the planning committees. The meetings will provide the public a forum for which they can express concerns, opinions, or ideas about the Plan. The County Commissioner’s Office will be responsible for using County resources to publicize the annual meetings and maintain public involvement through the Counties’ webpage and local newspapers. 21
Chapter 3 Community Profile IN THIS SECTION: • Community Characteristics • Development Trends • Regional Hazard Profile Chapter 3 Community Profile • Overview of Emergency Response System 22
Chapter 3 – Community Profile Chapter 3 Clearwater County Characteristics Information summarized from the Clearwater County Area, Idaho soil survey manuscript.11 Clearwater County, Idaho is in the north central part of the Idaho Panhandle and home to Idaho’s oldest courthouse. Major population centers in the area are Elk River, Orofino, Pierce, and Weippe. Clearwater County contains a diverse landscape that ranges from steep rugged mountains dissected by large canyons, to highly productive farmland with the main crops being wheat, barley, and peas. Woodland areas are mostly in the higher rainfall zones in the northern and eastern regions. The western part of Clearwater County includes the dune‐like topography of the Palouse hills. Elevation ranges from about 1,000 feet above sea level along the Clearwater River near Orofino, to about 8,000 feet in the rugged mountainous region found throughout the eastern portion of the County. Geography and Climate Clearwater County is located in northern Idaho and covers about 2,461 square miles. The geography, topography, climate, and other natural attributes such as vegetation vary significantly across Clearwater County. The geographic diversity of Clearwater County is an important factor to consider in wildfire mitigation planning. The climate in Clearwater County is moderate. The highest average daily temperature occurs in July and is approximately 85 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The lowest average daily temperature occurs in January and is approximately 20 degrees (F). The average annual rainfall is about 35 inches. Average monthly precipitation varies from about 1 inch in July and August to approximately 4.3 inches in November and December. Average annual snowfall ranges from about 26 inches near Orofino to approximately 110 inches near Elk River and Pierce. Demographics Clearwater County has a total population of 8,167 according to a recent Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy produced by the Clearwater Economic Development District. Clearwater County has four incorporated communities, Elk River (pop. 136), Orofino (pop. 3,045), Pierce (pop. 527), and Weippe (pop. 370).12 11
Barker, Raymond J. 1981. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. University of Idaho, College of Agriculture. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 12
Clearwater Economic Development Association. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for North Central Idaho. U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development, Administration. Lewiston, Idaho. Approved October 2009. 23
The City of Orofino contains nearly 37% of Clearwater County’s total population. Other incorporated cities in Clearwater County contain approximately 13% of the County’s population. The remaining population (approximately 50%) is scattered in small communities and in rural areas throughout the area.13 Table 3.1. Selected Demographic Statistics. Subject Total population Number Percent 8,930 100.0 SEX AND AGE Male 4,742 53.1 Female 4,188 46.9 Median age (years) 41.9 (X) RELATIONSHIP In households 8,331 93.3 Householder 3,444 38.6 Spouse 2,116 23.7 Child 2,220 24.9 Under 18 years 84 0.9 Non‐relatives 336 3.8 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Households 3,444 100.0 Family households (families) 2,485 72.2 With own children under 18 years 1,014 29.4 Married‐couple family 2,100 61.0 Average household size 2.42 (X) Average family size 2.83 (X) Socioeconomics Clearwater County had a total of 3,456 housing units and a population density of 3.3 persons per square mile reported in the 2000 Census. Ethnicity in Clearwater County is distributed: white 94.8%, black or African American 0.1%, American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.0%, Asian 0.4%, Hispanic or Latino 1.8%, two or more races 2.0%, and some other race 0.6%. Specific economic data for individual communities is collected by the US Census; in Clearwater County this includes Elk River, Orofino, Pierce, and Weippe. Elk River households earn a median income of $30,000 annually, Orofino has a median income of $30,580, Pierce averages $34,318, and Weippe reported a median income of $26,442, all of which compares to the Clearwater County median income during the 13
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American Fact Finder. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 24
same period of $32,071. Table 3.2 shows the dispersal of households in various income categories in Clearwater County. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of its projects on minority or low‐income populations. In Clearwater County, a significant number, 9.7%, of families are at or below the poverty level (Table 3.3). Table 3.2. Poverty Status Statistics in 1999. Number Percent 240 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 9.7 With related children under 18 years 173 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 17.0 1,128 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 13.5 18 years and over 733 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 11.6 65 years and over 110 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 8.2 Related children under 18 years 377 (X) Percent below poverty level (X) 18.9 Families Individuals The unemployment rate was 6.0% in Clearwater County in 1999, compared to 4.4% nationally during the same period. Approximately 13.9% of the Clearwater County employed population worked in natural resources, with much of the indirect employment relying on the employment created through these natural resource occupations. The county's wage levels were relatively low from the beginning, and have grown more slowly than in the nation. When adjusted for inflation and expressed in the value of the dollar in 2008, average pay in Clearwater County rose 6.5 percent from $27,759 in 1993 to $29,572 in 2008. In the same period, U.S. average pay rose 24.9 percent to $45,650. 25
Table 3.3. Occupation and Industry Number Percent OCCUPATION Management, professional, and related occupations 818 25.0 Service occupations 655 20.0 Sales and office occupations 672 20.6 Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 171 5.2 Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 372 11.4 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 582 17.8 INDUSTRY Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 455 13.9 Construction 218 6.7 Manufacturing 454 13.9 Wholesale trade 47 1.4 Retail trade 263 8.0 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 153 4.7 Information 55 1.7 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 108 3.3 Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 139 4.3 Educational, health and social services 715 21.9 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 218 6.7 Other services (except public administration) 136 4.2 Public administration 309 9.4 Natural Resources Clearwater County is a diverse ecosystem with a complex array of vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries that have developed with, and adapted to fire as a natural disturbance process. Nearly a century of wildland fire suppression coupled with past land‐use practices (primarily timber harvesting and agriculture) has altered plant community succession and has resulted in dramatic shifts in the fire regimes and species composition. As a result, some forests in Clearwater County have become more susceptible to large‐scale, high‐intensity fires posing a threat to life, property, and natural resources including wildlife and plant populations. High‐
intensity, stand‐replacing fires have the potential to seriously damage soils, native vegetation, and fish and wildlife populations. In addition, an increase in the number of large, high‐intensity fires throughout the nation’s forest and rangelands has resulted in significant safety risks to firefighters and higher costs for fire suppression. Biota Fish and Wildlife – Clearwater County is home to a diverse array of fish and wildlife species. Clearwater County streams provide habitat for salmon and steelhead, including populations that are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Forestlands and interface areas are important habitat for many species of birds and mammals. 26
Vegetation ‐ In the early 1800s (pre‐European settlement), the landscape in Clearwater County was strikingly different than that which is seen today. Conditions mirrored those found throughout the Palouse region and mountainous regions of northern Idaho. At that time the major vegetation types which occurred in the area were prairie grasslands, meadows, riparian forest and wetlands, open woodland and upland forest. Open grasslands dominated the vegetation throughout the western portion of Clearwater County. Isolated groves of trees within this area were primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir. Throughout the central portion of the County forested lands intermingled with meadows and prairies ultimately giving way to a forest dominated landscape throughout the eastern portion of the County. The forested areas contained a wide diversity of tree species the most predominant of which were ponderosa pine, Douglas‐
fir, lodgepole pine, western larch, western white pine, grand fir, and western red cedar. Vegetation in Clearwater County is a mix of forestland, riparian, and agricultural ecosystems. An evaluation of satellite imagery of the region provides some insight to the composition of the vegetation of the area. The most represented vegetated cover type is a Mixed Mesic Forest type at approximately 17% of the County’s total area. The next most common vegetation cover type represented is a warm mesic shrubs cover type at 13% of the total area. Douglas‐fir cover is the third most common plant cover type at 9%. A Douglas‐fir / grand fir mixed forest represent approximately 9% of the total as well. Agricultural lands represent approximately 2% of the area of the county. Table 3.4. Vegetative Cover Types. Acres Percent of County Mixed Mesic Forest 271,712 17% Warm Mesic Shrubs 211,577 13% Douglas‐fir 146,695 9% Douglas‐fir/Grand Fir 146,062 9% Western Red Cedar/Grand Fir Forest 138,574 9% Grand Fir 121,075 8% Ponderosa Pine 85,893 5% Lodgepole Pine 63,049 4% Mixed Subalpine Forest 55,989 4% Foothills Grassland 49,109 3% Agricultural Land 28,295 2% Western Red Cedar 27,777 2% Mixed Xeric Forest 26,185 2% Douglas‐fir/Lodgepole Pine 25,041 2% Montane Parklands and Subalpine Meadow 23,426 1% Western Red Cedar/Western Hemlock 18,548 1% Water 17,529 1% Western Larch/Douglas‐fir 15,440 1% Subalpine Fir 14,462 1% Exposed Rock 13,844 1% Engelmann Spruce 12,795 1% Western Larch 12,790 1% 27
Table 3.4. Vegetative Cover Types. Acres Percent of County Shrub Dominated Riparian 9,761 1% Western Hemlock 9,526 1% Western Larch/Lodgepole Pine 8,325 1% Needleleaf Dominated Riparian 7,679 0% Mixed Needleleaf/Broadleaf Forest 6,176 0% Graminiod or Forb Dominated Riparian 4,174 0% Mixed Barren Land 3,810 0% Mixed Riparian (Forest and Non‐Forest) 3,357 0% Cottonwood 3,260 0% Needleleaf/Broadleaf Dominated Riparia 2,034 0% Mixed Non‐forest Riparian 1,800 0% Broadleaf Dominated Riparian 1,436 0% Urban 1,055 0% Disturbed Grassland 879 0% Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 585 0% Mixed Whitebark Pine Forest 481 0% Cloud Shadow 408 0% Shoreline and Stream Gravel Bars 308 0% Perennial Ice or Snow 61 0% Rabbitbrush 7 0% 6 0% 1,590,998 Cloud Total Hydrology Clearwater County is within one of Idaho’s fastest growing regions and depends heavily on groundwater for private wells, public drinking water, irrigation, industrial operations, and other beneficial uses. The Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB) is charged with the development of the Idaho Comprehensive State Water Plan. Included in the State Water Plan are the statewide water policy plan and component basin and water body plans which cover specific geographic areas of the state.14 The IWRB has not designated any ground water management or critical ground water areas in Clearwater County. Air Quality The primary means by which the protection and enhancement of air quality is accomplished is through implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards address six pollutants 14
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Rules of the Department of Environmental Quality, IDAPA 58.01.02, “Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements”. Idaho Administrative Code (3‐20‐97), IDAPA 58.01.02, Boise, Idaho. 28
known to harm human health including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides.15 The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 and amended in 1977, is the primary legal authority governing air resource management. The Clean Air Act provides the principal framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality. Under the Clean Air Act, the Organization for Air Quality Protection Standards (OAQPS) is responsible for setting the NAAQS standards for pollutants which are considered harmful to people and the environment. OAQPS is also responsible for ensuring these air quality standards are met, or attained (in cooperation with state, Tribal, and local governments) through national standards and strategies to control pollutant emissions from automobiles, factories, and other sources.16 Smoke emissions from fires potentially affect an area and the airsheds that surround it. Climatic conditions affecting air quality in Central Idaho are governed by a combination of factors. Large‐scale influences include latitude, altitude, prevailing hemispheric wind patterns, and mountain barriers. At a smaller scale, topography and vegetation cover also affect air movement patterns. In Clearwater County, winds are predominantly from the southwest but occasionally blow from the west to northwest. Air quality in the area and surrounding airshed is generally good to excellent. However, locally adverse conditions can result from occasional wildland fires in the summer and fall, and prescribed fire and agricultural burning in the spring and fall. All major river drainages are subject to temperature inversions which trap smoke and affect dispersion, causing local air quality problems. This occurs most often during the summer and fall months and would potentially affect all communities in Clearwater County. Smoke management in Clearwater County is managed by the Idaho/Montana Airshed Group. Much of the county is in Airshed Unit 12B; however, the southernmost region falls into Airshed Unit 13 and the westernmost region is in Airshed Unit 12A. An airshed is a geographical area which is characterized by similar topography and weather patterns (or in which atmospheric characteristics are similar, e.g., mixing height and transport winds). The USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Idaho Department of Lands are all members of the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group, which is responsible for coordinating burning activities to minimize or prevent impacts from smoke emissions. Prescribed burning must be coordinated through the Missoula Monitoring Unit, which coordinates burn information, provides smoke forecasting, and establishes air quality restrictions for the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions which may restrict burning when atmospheric conditions are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Burning restrictions are issued for airsheds, impact zones, and specific projects. The monitoring unit is active March through November. Each Airshed Group member is also responsible for smoke management all year. 15
USDA‐Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2000. Incorporating Air Quality Effects of Wildland Fire Management into Forest Plan Revisions – A Desk Guide. April 2000. – Draft. 16
Louks, B. 2001. Air Quality PM 10 Air Quality Monitoring Point Source Emissions; Point site locations of DEQ/EPA Air monitoring locations with Monitoring type and Pollutant. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Feb. 2001. As GIS Data set. Boise, Idaho. 29
Development Trends A relatively large percentage Clearwater County is federally owned. Private parcels are becoming more and more expensive as the population grows and more property is developed. This factor combined with the highly variable topography throughout the county is expected to produce significantly higher demands on privately held land in the future. Table 3.5. Ownership Categories. Landowner Acres Percent Bureau of Land Management 3,517 0% Bureau of Indian Affairs 8,969 1% City of Elk River 51 0% City of Orofino 102 0% City of Pierce 9 0% City of Weippe 13 0% Clearwater County 185 0% 4 0% Private 495,815 32% Railroad 0 0% 232,729 15% Idaho Fish and Game State of Idaho 32 0% United States 6,231 0% U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 29,863 2% U.S. Forest Service 794,726 51% Idaho Transportation Department Clearwater County’s agricultural sector is relatively small. Most of its farms are on the Weippe Prairie. Clearwater County’s 241 farms primarily produce wheat, forage crops, and cattle. Other crops include peas, barley, and lentils. About 70,000 acres are used for farming and ranching. The average farm covers 289 acres. In 2007, the county’s agricultural products were valued at $8.0 million. Given that 91 percent of Clearwater County is forested, it's inevitable that logging and lumber mills would play a leading role in its economy. Only in recent years have manufacturers outside the lumber and wood products sector began to play significant roles. The long‐term decline in logging and mill jobs has greatly reduced the county’s manufacturing sector from its peak in the late 1970s. The large drop in 2000 occurred when Potlatch closed its Jaype mill in Pierce that employed 215 people. In 2009, Clearwater County was home to 19 logging companies employing about 140 people, 5 mills employing about 70 people, and 17 other manufacturers employing about 140 people. The largest mill is the Tri‐Pro Forest Products cedar mill in Konkolville. The severe job losses in the lumber and wood products sector make Clearwater County and neighboring Idaho County the only counties in the district to suffer even greater percentage job losses in manufacturing than the nation, which lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 2008. Clearwater County’s low‐cost, business‐friendly environment and the availability of rail transportation give it the potential to attract other manufacturing operations. Despite its current problems, the wood products sector eventually will recover some of the jobs it has lost in recent years when the U.S. housing market improves significantly. 30
The county’s aging population has made the health care sector the fastest‐growing sector. Health care grew 38 percent from 345 jobs in 1993 to 475 in 2008. Orofino is home to a psychiatric hospital operated by the State of Idaho and employing more than 90 people. Clearwater Valley Hospital & Clinics in Orofino employs 170 people, while 14 other health care providers employ about 200 people. Gentle Family Dentistry, A Compassionate Care Co. (a home health care agency), Clearwater Healthcare LLC (a nursing home), and Brookside Landing (providing independent and assisted living apartments) are among the largest health care providers. Figure 3.1. Land ownership map for Clearwater County. The federal and state government sectors provide 18 percent of Clearwater County's jobs, while they provide 6 percent of U.S. jobs. During this recession, the federal and state jobs have provided stability as private‐sector jobs declined. The U.S. Forest Service employs 80 people, while the Army Corps of Engineers at Dworshak Dam employs 40 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, which operates a fish hatchery in Orofino, employs 40. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare runs a mental health and drug rehabilitation facility in Orofino that employs nearly 100 people, and the Idaho Department of Corrections operates a prison that employs 135 people. Over the last 20 years, federal employment has fallen as the Forest Service reduced its employment. Federal jobs fell from 309 in 1993 to 200 in 2008. State employment increased slightly from 345 to 360, as the prison grew. Clearwater County lost 20 percent of its population between 1978 and 2008. In the same period, the U.S. population grew 37 percent. The county’s long 31
population decline means continuous downward pressure on retail spending, local government budgets, and construction activity. Clearwater County has suffered considerable economic distress in the last 15 years, as demonstrated by its high unemployment rates. The table below shows some statistics commonly used to measure economic success. The most widely used measure is growth of “real” (adjusted for inflation) per capita income. The county's per capita income in 2008 was only 73.5 percent of U.S. per capita income of $39,906. But the county's per capita income grew 37.2 percent—slightly faster than U.S. per capita It lost 3.0 percent of its total nonfarm payroll jobs and 2.1 percent of its private‐sector employers between 1993 and 2008, while U.S. nonfarm payroll jobs grew 23.7 percent and private‐sector employers grew 38.3 percent.17 Overview of Emergency Response System Clearwater County has a broad base of emergency response organizations and personnel. In many cases, local police departments, fire departments, and ambulance services are the first to respond to an incident; however, there are a variety of other agencies and organizations that are available to assist during a hazard event. In most cases, an extended disaster event will require coordination with all of the available resources. Clearwater County has a single‐point dispatch center located on the top floor of the Clearwater County Courthouse and within the Sheriff’s Office. Clearwater County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) provides dispatch services for all first responding agencies and during the summer also notifies Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protection Association (C‐PTPA) of wildfire issues. The Clearwater County dispatch center is also the answering point for all 911 and business calls for the Sheriff’s Office and Orofino Police Department. The dispatch center has two fully functional consoles and CAD systems that provide backup in case ofa system failure. An additional radio with tone generator is also available as backup. CCSO has the ability to communicate with all local response agencies within the County. In addition, CCSO is able to communicate with the surrounding fire departments and has the ability to communicate with the State Police using a UHF radio located in the dispatch center. CCSO utilizes the State Communications Center, which can patch communication lines for CCSO to other agencies through out the state. Mutual aid agreements have been made between each of the local fire districts and the Idaho Department of Lands to supplement resources of a fire agency or district during a time of critical need. Mutual aid is given only when equipment and resources are available. Regional Hazard Profile Data was collected from a variety of sources for developing Clearwater County’s hazard profile. SHELDUS is a county‐level hazard data set for the U.S. for 18 different natural hazard event types such thunderstorms, 17
Clearwater Economic Development Association. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for North Central Idaho. U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development, Administration. Lewiston, Idaho. Approved October 2009. 32
hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and tornados. For each event, the database includes the beginning date, location (county and state), property losses, crop losses, injuries, and fatalities that affected each county. The data were derived from several existing national data sources such as National Climatic Data Center's monthly Storm Data publications and NGDC's Tsunami Event Database. With the release of SHELDUS 7.0, the database includes every loss causing and/or deadly event between 1960 through 1975 and from 1995 onward. Between 1976 and 1995, SHELDUS reflects only events that caused at least one fatality or more than $50,000 in property or crop damages. Prior to 2001, property and crop losses occurring on the same day within the same geography (i.e. county) are aggregated by hazard type. For events that covered multiple counties, the dollar losses, deaths, and injuries were equally divided among the counties (e.g. if 4 counties were affected, then each was given 1/4 of the dollar loss, injuries and deaths). Where dollar loss estimates were provided in ranges (e.g. $50,000 ‐ 100,000) ‐ such as in NCDC Storm data until 1995 ‐ the lowest value in the range of the category was used. This results in the most conservative estimate of losses during the time period of 1960‐1995. Since 1995 all events that were reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with a specific dollar amount included in the database.18 It is important to keep in mind that the SHELDUS database does not include every hazard event that occurred within an area. Only those events that met a specific reporting criterion as explained above are listed. This means that many local events are not included in this database. Some of the missing events are considered to be major local hazard events such as the 1996 and 1997 flood events that caused some of the worst damages in decades and was declared a State Disaster. 18
HVRI. Natural Hazards Losses 1960‐2008 (SHELDUS). Hazards &Vulnerability Research Institute. University of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina. Available online at http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/. February 2010. 33
Figure 3.2. Summary of SHELDUS Hazard Profile. $16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
Winter Weather
Wind
Wildfire
Severe Storm
Lightning
Heat
Hail
Flooding
Drought
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
Sum of Injuries
Sum of Fatalities
Sum of Property Damage
Sum of Crop Damage
34
This page was intentionally left blank. 35
Chapter 4 Hazard Risk Assessment IN THIS SECTION:
• Flood Annex • Landslide Annex • Severe Weather Annex • Wildland Fire Annex • Extended Power Outages Annex • Hazardous Material Annex • Avalanche Annex • Geological Hazards Annex ¾ Earthquake • Terrorism/Civil Unrest Annex • Dam Failure Annex Chapter 4
Hazard Risk Assessment ¾ Volcano 36
Chapter 4 – Hazard Risk Assessment Clearwater County Risk Assessments Flood Floods have been a serious and costly natural hazard affecting Clearwater County. Floods damage roads, farmlands, and structures, often disrupting lives and businesses. Simply put, flooding occurs when water leaves the river channels, lakes, ponds, and other confinements where we expect it to stay. Flood‐
related disasters occur when human property and lives are impacted by flood waters. An understanding of the role of weather, runoff, landscape, and human development in the floodplain is therefore the key to understanding and controlling flood‐related disasters. Presidential Disaster declarations related to flooding were made for Idaho in 1956, 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1972, 1974, 1984, 1996, 1997, 2005, 2006, and 2008. Natural flood events are grouped into three general categories: Riverine flooding includes those events that are classically thought of as flooding; i.e., a gradual rise of volume of a stream until that stream exceeds its normal channel and spills onto adjacent lands. Such events are generally associated with major meteorological events: spring runoff, winter rain/snowmelt events, and ice jams. Riverine floods typically have low velocities, affect large land areas, and persist for a prolonged period. In contrast, flash floods may have a higher velocity in a smaller area and may recede relatively quickly. Such floods are caused by the introduction of a large amount of water into a limited area (e.g., extreme precipitation events in watersheds less than 50 square miles), crest quickly (e.g., eight hours or less), and generally occur in hilly or otherwise confined terrain. Steep mountainous terrain in Idaho is particularly susceptible to flash floods and debris flows which can occur within thirty (30) minutes of the onset of heavy rain. Flash floods occur in both urban and rural settings, principally along smaller rivers and drainage ways that do not typically carry large amounts of water. Occasionally, floating ice or debris can accumulate at a natural or man‐made obstruction and restrict the flow of water. Ice and debris jams can result in two types of flooding: ¾ Water held back by the ice jam or debris dam can cause flooding upstream, inundating a large area and often depositing ice or other debris which remains after the waters have receded. This inundation may occur well outside of the normal floodplain. 37
¾ High velocity flooding can occur downstream when the jam breaks. These flood waters can have additional destructive potential due to the ice and debris load that they may carry.19 The most commonly reported flood magnitude measure is the “base flood.” This is the magnitude of a flood having a one‐percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Although unlikely, “base floods” can occur in any year, even successive ones. This magnitude is also referred to as the “100‐year Flood” or “Regulatory Flood” by State government. Floods are usually described in terms of their statistical frequency. A "100‐year flood" or "100‐year floodplain" describes an event or an area subject to a 1% probability of a certain size flood occurring in any given year. This concept does not mean such a flood will occur only once in one hundred years. Whether or not it occurs in a given year has no bearing on the fact that there is still a 1% chance of a similar occurrence in the following year. Since floodplains can be mapped, the boundary of the 100‐year flood is commonly used in floodplain mitigation programs to identify areas where the risk of flooding is significant. Any other statistical frequency of a flood event may be chosen depending on the degree of risk that is selected for evaluation, e.g., 5‐year, 20‐year, 50‐year, 500‐year floodplain. The areas adjacent to the channel that normally carry water are referred to as the floodplain. In practical terms, the floodplain is the area that is inundated by flood waters. In regulatory terms, the floodplain is the area that is under the control of floodplain regulations and programs (such as the National Flood Insurance Program which publishes the FIRM maps). The floodplain is often defined as: “That land that has been or may be covered by floodwaters, or is surrounded by floodwater and inaccessible, during the occurrence of the regulatory flood.”20 Winter weather conditions are the main driving force in determining where and when base floods will occur. The type of precipitation that a winter storm produces is dependent on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere over a given area. Clearwater County experiences riverine flooding from two distinct types of meteorological events; spring runoff and winter rain‐on‐snow events. The major source of flood waters in Clearwater County is normal spring snow melt. As spring melt is a “natural” condition, the stream channel is defined by the features established during the average spring high flow (bank‐full width). Small flow peaks exceeding this level and the stream’s occupation of the floodplain are common events. Unusually heavy snow packs or unusual spring temperature regimes (e.g. prolonged warmth) may result in the generation of runoff volumes significantly greater than can be conveyed by the confines of the stream and river channels. Such floods are often the ones that lead to widespread damage and 19
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2007. State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Mitigation Program. November 2007. Available online at http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw‐signatures.pdf. 20
FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program. Washington D.C. Available online at www.fema.gov. 38
disasters. Floods caused by spring snow melt tend to last for a period of several days to several weeks, longer than the floods caused by other meteorological sources. Floods that result from rainfall on frozen ground in the winter, or rainfall associated with a warm, regional frontal system that rapidly melts snow at low and intermediate altitudes (rain‐on‐snow) can be the most severe. Both of these situations quickly introduce large quantities of water into the stream channel system, easily overloading its capacity. On small drainages, the most severe floods are usually a result of rainfall on frozen ground but with moderate quantities of warm rainfall on a snow pack, especially for one or more days, can also result in rapid runoff and flooding in streams and small rivers. Although meteorological conditions favorable for short‐duration warm rainfall are common, conditions for long‐duration warm rainfall are relatively rare. Occasionally, however, the polar front becomes situated along a line from Hawaii through Oregon, and warm, moist, unstable air moves into the region. In general, the meteorological factors leading to flooding are well understood. They are also out of human control, so flood mitigation must address the other contributing factors. The nature and extent of a flood event is the result of the hydrologic response of the landscape. Factors that affect this hydrologic response include soil texture and permeability, land cover and vegetation, land use and land management practices. Precipitation and snow melt, known collectively as runoff, follow one of three paths, or a combination of these paths, from the point of origin to a stream or depression: overland flow, shallow subsurface flow, or deep subsurface (“ground water”) flow. Each of these paths delivers water in differing quantities and rates. The character of the landscape will influence the relative allocation of the runoff and will, accordingly, affect the hydrologic response. Unlike precipitation and ice formation, steps can be taken to mitigate flooding through manipulation or maintenance of the floodplain. Insufficient natural water storage capacity and changes to the landscape can be offset through water storage and conveyance systems that run the gamut from highly engineered structures to constructed wetlands. Careful planning of land use can build on the natural strengths of the hydrologic response. Re‐vegetation of burned slopes diverts overland flow (fast and flood producing) to subsurface flow (slower and flood moderating). Details on rehabilitating burned areas to reduce flash floods, debris flows and landslides can be found in the Landslide chapter of this document. Floods generally come with warnings and flood waters rarely go where they are totally unexpected by experts. Those warnings are not always heeded, though, and despite the predictability, flood damage continues. The failure to recognize or acknowledge the extent of the natural hydrologic forces in an area has led to development and occupation of areas that can clearly be expected to flood on a regular basis. Despite this, communities are often surprised when the stream leaves its channel to occupy its floodplain. A past 39
reliance on structural means to control floodwaters and “reclaim” portions of the floodplain has also contributed to inappropriate development and continued flood‐related damages. Unlike the weather and the landscape, this flood‐contributing factor can be controlled. Development and occupation of the floodplain places individuals and property at risk. Such use can also increase the probability and severity of flood events (and consequent damage) downstream by reducing the water storage capacity of the floodplain, or by pushing the water further from the channel or in larger quantities downstream. There are three types of flash flooding: ¾ Extreme precipitation and runoff events ¾ Inadequate urban drainage systems overwhelmed by small intense rainstorms ¾ Dam failures Debris flows are hazards that are closely related to flash floods, triggered by heavy rainfall, are more commonly considered as a type of earth movement. Extreme Precipitation and Runoff Events: Events that may lead to flash flooding include: ¾ Significant rainfall and/or snowmelt on frozen ground in the winter and early spring months. ¾ High intensity thunderstorms, usually during the summer months. ¾ Rainfall onto burn areas (such as those affected by wildfire) where high heat has caused the soil to become hydrophobic or water repellent which dramatically increases runoff potential during rain. The 2007 fire season saw approximately 2 million acres burn in Idaho. Much of the burned terrain will have water repellent soils for the next 2 to 4 years and higher probability of experiencing flash floods and debris flows than it normally would. Flash floods from thunderstorms do not occur as frequently as those from general rain and snowmelt conditions but are far more severe. The onset of these flash floods varies from slow to very quick and is dependent on the intensity and duration of the precipitation and the soil types, vegetation, topography, and slope of the basin. When intensive rainfall occurs immediately above developed areas, the flooding may occur in a matter of minutes. Sandy soils and sparse vegetation, especially recently burned areas, are conducive to flash flooding. Mountainous areas are especially susceptible to damaging flash floods, as steep topography may stall thunderstorms in a limited area and may also funnel runoff into narrow canyons, intensifying flow. A flash flood can, however, occur on any terrain when extreme amounts of precipitation accumulate more rapidly than the terrain can allow runoff. Flash floods are most common in Idaho in the spring and summer months due to thunderstorm activity.21 Flooding from ice jams is relatively common in Idaho. Ice jam formation depends on air temperature and physical conditions in the river channel. Ice cover on a river (a precursor to the ice jam) is formed when water reaches the freezing point and air temperature is sub‐freezing; large quantities of ice are produced, flow downstream, and consolidate. 21
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2007. State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Mitigation Program. November 2007. Available online at http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw‐signatures.pdf. 40
An ice jam is a stationary accumulation of ice that restricts flow. Ice jams can cause considerable increases in upstream water levels, while at the same time downstream water levels may drop, exposing water intakes for power plants or municipal water supplies. Types of ice jams include freezeup jams, made primarily of frazil ice; breakup jams, made primarily of fragmented ice pieces; and combinations of both. River geometries, weather characteristics, and floodplain land‐use practices contribute to the ice jam flooding threat at a particular location. Ice jams initiate at a location in the river where the ice transport capacity or ice conveyance of the river is exceeded by the ice transported to that location by the river's flow. Change in Slope: The most common location for an ice jam to form is in an area where the river slope changes from relatively steep to mild. Since gravity is the driving force for an ice run, when the ice reaches the milder slope, it loses its momentum and can stall or arch across the river and initiate an ice jam. Water levels in reservoirs often affect the locations of ice jams upstream as a result of a change in water slope where reservoir water backs up into the river. Islands, sandbars, and gravel deposits often form at a change in water slope for the same reasons that ice tends to slow and stop. Because such deposits form in areas conducive to ice jamming, they are often mistakenly identified as the cause of ice jams. While these deposits may affect the river hydraulics enough to cause or exacerbate an ice jam, the presence of gravel deposits is usually an indication that the transport capacity of the river is reduced for both ice and sediment. Ice jams located near gravel deposits should be carefully studied to determine whether the gravel deposit is the cause of the jam or a symptom of the actual cause. Confluences: Ice jams also commonly form where a tributary stream enters a larger river, lake, or reservoir. Smaller rivers normally respond to increased runoff more quickly than larger rivers, and their ice covers may break up sooner as a result of more rapid increases in water stage. Ice covers on smaller rivers will typically break up and run until the broken ice reaches the strong, intact ice cover on the larger river or lake, where the slope is generally milder. The ice run stalls at the confluence, forming a jam, and backing up water and ice on the tributary stream. Channel Features: Natural and constructed features in a river channel may play a role in the locations of ice jams. River bends are frequently cited as ice jam instigators. While river bends may contribute to jamming by forcing the moving ice to change its direction and by causing the ice to hit the outer shoreline, water slope is often a factor in these jams as well. Obstructions to ice movement, such as closely spaced bridge or dam piers, can cause ice jams. In high runoff situations, a partially submerged bridge superstructure obstructs ice movement and may initiate a jam. In smaller rivers, trees along the bank sometimes fall across the river causing an ice jam. Removing or building a dam may cause problems. In many parts of the country, small dams that once functioned for hydropower have fallen into disrepair. Communities may remove them as part of a beautification scheme or to improve fish habitat. However, the effects of an existing dam on ice conditions should be considered before removing or substantially altering it. It is possible that the old dams control ice by delaying ice breakup or by providing storage for ice debris. Dam construction can also affect ice conditions in a river by 41
creating a jam initiation point. On the other hand, the presence of a dam and its pool may be beneficial if frazil ice production and transport decrease as a result of ice cover growth on the pool.22 The magnitude of most floods in Clearwater County depend on the particular combinations of intensity and duration of rainfall, pre‐existing soil conditions, area of a basin, elevation of the rain or snow level, and amount of snow pack. Man‐made changes to a basin also can affect the size of floods. Although floods can happen at any time during the year, there are typical seasonal patterns for flooding in Clearwater County, based on the variety of natural processes that cause floods: ¾ Heavy rainfall on wet or frozen ground, before a snow pack has accumulated, typically cause fall and early winter floods ¾ Rainfall combined with melting of the low elevation snow pack typically cause winter and early spring floods ¾ Late spring floods in Clearwater County result primarily from melting of the snow pack 22
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2007. State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Mitigation Program. November 2007. Available online at http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw‐signatures.pdf. 42
Landslide Landslide is a general term for a wide variety of down slope movements of earth materials that result in the perceptible downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under the influence of gravity. The materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, or flowing. Some landslides are rapid, occurring in seconds, whereas others may take hours, weeks, or even longer to develop. Although landslides usually occur on steep slopes, they also can occur in areas of low relief. Landslides can occur as ground failure of river bluffs, cut and‐fill failures that may accompany highway and building excavations, collapse of mine‐waste piles, and slope failures associated with quarries and open‐pit mines. While gravity is the primary reason for landslides, there can be other contributing factors, including: •
Saturation, by snowmelt or heavy rains, that weaken rock or soils on slopes •
Erosion by rivers, glaciers, or ocean waves that create over‐steepened slopes •
Topography of slope – its shape, size, degree of slope and drainage •
Stress from earthquakes magnitude 4.0 and greater can cause weak slopes to fail •
Volcanic eruptions that produce loose ash deposits and debris flows •
Excess weight, from accumulation of rain or snow, from stockpiling of rock or ore, from waste piles, or from manmade structures, may stress weak slopes to failure •
Human action, such as construction, logging or road building that disturbs soils and slopes Determining probability of future landslide events in specific locations is difficult because so many factors can contribute to the cause of a landslide or ground failure. Landslides typically occur on slopes and in areas where they have taken place before. Idaho's geology, landscape, climate, soils, and other factors are locally conducive to landslide activity and numerous landslides occur each year in Idaho. Many of these, though, are small events whose impacts are not well documented. The Idaho Geological Survey has identified and plotted over 3,000 major landslides in the state. Landslides are also included on local and regional geologic maps and other geologic sources. There is no reliable estimate of total landslide costs and losses in Idaho, but these events are costly. For example, ongoing landslide problems magnify the challenges of maintaining U.S. 95, the primary north‐
south transportation link in the Panhandle region as well as U.S. Highway 12, the primary east‐west transportation link in north central Idaho. It is often impossible to redirect traffic on these heavily traveled roads as alternate routes do not exist and detours in steep terrain are difficult or impossible to construct. Landslides here disrupt emergency functions and commerce, as well as personal lives. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g. lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. Significant landslide events (those resulting in disasters) are rare, but several have been recorded in the State. Prior to 1976, major events had a significant impact on transportation, communities, and natural resources in 1919, 1934, 1948, 1964, 1968, and 1974. 43
Figure 4.1. State Landslide Disaster Declarations 1976‐2000. Landslides range from shallow debris flows to deep‐seated slumps. They destroy homes, businesses, and public buildings, undermine bridges, derail railroad cars, interrupt transportation infrastructure, damage utilities, and take lives. Sinkholes affect roads and utilities. Losses often go unrecorded because insurance claims are not filed, no report is made to emergency management, there is no media coverage, or the transportation damages are recorded as regular maintenance. Land stability cannot be absolutely predicted with current technology. The best design and construction measures are still vulnerable to slope failure. The amount of protection, usually correlated to cost, is proportional to the level of risk reduction. Debris and vegetation management is integral to prevent landslide damages. Corrective measures help, but can often leave the property vulnerable to risk. These are characteristics that may be indicative of a landside hazard area: • Bluff retreat caused by sloughing of bluff sediments, resulting in a vertical bluff face with little vegetation. •
Pre‐existing landside area. •
Tension or ground cracks along or near the edge of the top of a bluff. •
Structural damage caused by settling and cracking of building foundations and separation of steps from the main structure. •
Toppling bowed or jack sawed trees. •
Gullying and surface erosion. •
Mid‐slope ground water seepage from a bluff face. By studying the effects of landslides in slide prone areas we can plan for the future. More needs to be done to educate the public and to prevent development in vulnerable areas. Some hazards can be mitigated by engineering, design, or construction so that risks are acceptable. When technology cannot reduce the risk to acceptable levels, building in hazardous areas should be avoided. 44
The primary factors that increase landslide risk are slope and certain soil characteristics. In general, the potential for landslide occurrence intensifies as slope increases on all soil types and across a wide range of geological formations. Landslides may occur on slopes steepened by man during construction, or on natural ground never disturbed. However, most slides occur in areas that have had sliding in the past. All landslides are initiated by factors such as weaknesses in the rock and soil, earthquake activity, the occurrence of heavy snow or rainfall, or construction activity that changes a critical factor involved with maintaining stability of the soil or geology of the area. A prime example of this includes previously stable slopes where home construction utilizing independent septic systems are added. The increased moisture in the ground, when coupled with an impermeable layer below the septic systems has led to surface soil movements and mass wasting. Landslides can be triggered by natural changes in the environment or by human activities. Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often combine with one or more triggering events, such as heavy rain, snowmelt, or changes in ground water level. Late spring‐early summer is slide season, particularly after days and weeks of greater than normal precipitation. Long‐term climate change may result in an increase in precipitation and ground saturation and a rise in ground‐water level, reducing the shear strength and increasing the weight of the soil. Stream and riverbank erosion, road building or other excavation can remove the toe or lateral slope and exacerbate landslides. Seismic or volcanic activity often triggers landslides as well. Urban and rural living with excavations, roads, drainage ways, landscape watering, logging, and agricultural irrigation may also disturb the solidity of landforms, triggering landslides. In general, any land use changes that affects drainage patterns or that increase erosion or change ground‐water levels can augment the potential for landslide activity. Landslides are a recurrent menace to waterways and highways and a threat to homes, schools, businesses, and other facilities. The unimpeded movement over roads—whether for commerce, public utilities, school, emergencies, police, recreation, or tourism—is essential to a normally functioning Clearwater County. The steep walls of the Clearwater River drainage pose special problems to U.S. Highway 12 and State Highways 7 and 11. The disruption and dislocation of this or any other routes in the canyon caused by landslides can quickly jeopardize travel and vital services. 45
Severe Weather Severe storms are a serious hazard that can and do affect Idaho on a regular basis. Severe storms affect the entire state with varying degrees, due to the complex landscape and the influence from the Pacific Ocean. Although Idaho’s climate sees relatively few damaging storms in comparison with the rest of the nation, it still poses a significant hazard to the state and local communities. Storm‐related Presidential Disaster declarations were made for Idaho in 1964, 1972, 1974, 1996, 1997, 2005, and 2006. Most of these storms resulted in flood damages. Idaho lies entirely west of the Continental Divide, which forms its boundary for some distance westward from Yellowstone National Park. The northern part of the State averages lower elevations than the much larger central and southern portions, where numerous mountain ranges form barriers to the free flow of air from all points of the compass. In the Idaho Panhandle, the main barrier is the rugged chain of Bitterroot Mountains forming much of the boundary between Idaho and Montana. The extreme range of elevation in the State is from 738 feet of the confluence of the Clearwater and Snake Rivers to 12,655 feet at Mt. Borah in Custer County. Comprising rugged mountain ranges, canyons, high grassy valleys, arid plains, and fertile lowlands, the State reflects in its topography and vegetation a wide range of climates. Located some 300 miles from the Pacific Ocean, Idaho is, nevertheless, influenced by maritime air borne eastward on the prevailing westerly winds. Particularly in winter, the maritime influences are noticeable in the greater average cloudiness, greater frequency of precipitation, and mean temperatures, which are above those at the same latitude and altitude mid‐continent. This maritime influence is most marked in the northern part of the State, where the air arrives via the Columbia River Gorge with a greater burden of moisture than at lower latitudes. The pattern of average annual temperatures for the State indicates the effect both of latitude and altitude. The highest annual averages are found in the lower elevations of the Clearwater and Little Salmon River Basins, and in the stretch of the Snake River Valley from the vicinity of Bliss downstream to Lewiston, including the open valleys of the Boise, Payette, and Weiser Rivers. The range between the mean temperature of the coldest and warmest months of the year varies from less than 40° F at a number of northern stations, to well over 50° F at stations in the higher elevation of the central and eastern parts of the State. In general, it can be said that monthly means are 32° F or lower at stations above 5,000 feet from November through March; between 4,000 and 5,000 feet, November through February; 3,000 to 4,000 feet, December through February; and 2,000 to 3,000 feet, only one or two months. In summer, periods of extreme heat extending beyond a week are quite rare and the same can be said of periods of extremely low temperatures in winter. In both cases the normal progress of weather systems across the State usually results in a change at rather frequent intervals. In the realm of extremely low temperatures, two winters stand out in the records for the State: 1937‐38 and 1948‐49. The lowest monthly mean temperatures on record occurred throughout the State in January 1949 and many stations registered the absolute lowest temperature on record during that month. 46
To a large extent the source of moisture for precipitation in Idaho is the Pacific Ocean. In summer there are some exceptions to this when moisture‐laden air is brought in from the south at high levels to produce thunderstorm activity, particularly in the eastern part of Idaho. The source of this moisture from the south is apparently the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region. The average precipitation map for Idaho is as complex as the physiographic representation of the State. Partly because of the greater moisture supply in the west winds over the northern part of the State, (less formidable barriers to the west) and partly because of the greater frequency of cyclonic activity in the north, the average valley precipitation is considerably greater than in southern sections. Thunderstorms do occur within Idaho affecting almost all counties, including Clearwater County, but usually are localized events. Their impacts are fairly limited and do not significantly affect the communities enough to declare a disaster. Thunderstorms are emphasized within the flood chapter of this Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4.2. Average Annual Precipitation in Idaho from 1961 to 1990.23 Snowfall distribution is affected both by availability of moisture and by elevation. Annual snowfall totals in Shoshone County have reached nearly 500 inches. The greatest long‐term (1942‐56) seasonal average was 182 inches at Mullan Pass, while the greatest snow depth (also 182 inches) was recorded at that station on February 20, 1954. The major mountain ranges of the State accumulate a deep snow cover during the winter months, and the release of water from the melting snow‐pack in late spring furnishes irrigation water for more than two million acres, mainly within the Snake River Basin above Weiser. Irrigation water supplies are nearly always plentiful, except on some of the smaller projects where storage facilities are inadequate. Electric power is generated by the waters of the many rivers of the State. Winter storms are a part of life in Idaho. They vary in degree and intensity and can occur at anytime, but are especially probable between September and May. These storms could be localized or could affect the entire state. They can last a matter of minutes or many days. Typically, winter storms are measured by the amounts of snow which accumulated during any given storm. Additionally, these storms could be measured by the accompanied wind or temperatures associated with each storm. 23
Western Regional Climate Center. Historical Climate Information. Precipitation Maps: 1961‐1990. Available online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/id.gif. 47
Figure 4.3. Idaho Average Wind Speed Map.24 Windstorms are not uncommon in Idaho, but the State has no destructive storms such as hurricanes, and an extremely small incidence of tornadoes. Windstorms associated with cyclonic systems, and their cold fronts, do some damage to trees each year, often causing temporary disruption of power and communication facilities, but only minor damage to structures in most instances. Storms of this type may occur at any time from October into July, while during the summer months strong winds almost invariably come with thunderstorms. Hail damage in Idaho is very small in comparison with damage in areas of the central part of the United States. Often the hail that occurs does not grow to a size larger than one‐half inch in diameter, and the areas affected are usually small. Quite often hail comes during early spring storms, when it is mostly of the small, soft variety with a limited damaging effect. Later when crops are more mature and more susceptible to serious damage, hail occurs in widely scattered spots in connection with summer thunderstorms. The incidence of summer thunderstorms is greatest in mountainous areas, where lightning often causes serious forest and range fires. Past weather patterns show that severe weather conditions are likely to happen in any part of Clearwater County in any given year. The topographical features of the county contribute greatly to the various weather conditions that occur. The following table lists the average weather/climate within Clearwater County: 24
True Wind Solutions. 2002. Map of approximate wind speeds in Idaho. Available online at www.windpowermaps.org. 48
Table 4.1. Weather and Climate for Clearwater County, Idaho. Temperature Degrees Month Lowest Average Daily Minimum Temperature 16.6 January Highest Average Daily Maximum Temperature 91.8 July Hottest Month July Coldest Month January Precipitation Average Annual Total Precipitation 35 inches Average Annual Snowfall 26 inches‐Orofino 110 inches‐Pierce Elevation 1,000Feet (Orofino) 8,000Feet (Bitterroot Mnts) Storms are naturally occurring atmospheric disturbances manifested in strong winds accompanied by rain, snow, or other precipitation, and often by thunder or lightning. All areas within this region are vulnerable to severe local storms. The affects are generally transportation problems and loss of utilities. When transportation accidents occur, motorists are stranded and schools and businesses close. The affects vary with the intensity of the storm, the level of preparation by local jurisdictions and residents, and the equipment and staff available to perform tasks to lessen the effects of severe local storms. There is no way to prevent severe storms. The weather forces and topography of Clearwater County will always dictate when and where severe storms will occur. Drought is an expected phase in the climactic cycle of almost any geographical region. Objective, quantitative definitions for drought exist but most authorities agree that, because of the many factors contributing to it and because its onset and relief are slow and indistinct, none is entirely satisfactory. According to the National Drought Mitigation Center, drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. What is clear is that a condition perceived as “drought” in a given location is the result of a significant decrease in water supply relative to what is “normal” in that area.25 It should be noted that water supply is not only controlled by precipitation (amount, frequency, and intensity), but also by other factors including evaporation (which is increased by higher than normal heat and winds), transpiration, and human use. Drought in Idaho is generally associated with a sustained period of low winter snowfall. This results from a temporary, yet significant, change in the large‐scale weather patterns in the western U.S. The limited snow packs result in reduced stream flows and ground water recharge. Idaho’s system of reservoirs and natural storage can buffer the effects of minor events over a few years, but a series of dry winters (or an especially pronounced single low snowfall event) will 25
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. 2010. U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought Information Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at http://www.drought.noaa.gov/index.html. 49
result in a shortage of available water. Extended periods of above‐average temperatures during the spring and summer can increase the impacts of low snow packs. Idaho Department of Water Resources reports that meteorological drought conditions (a period of low precipitation) existed in the State approximately 30% of the time during the period 1931‐1982. Principal drought in Idaho, indicated by stream flow records, occurred during 1929‐41, 1944‐45, 1959‐61, 1977, and 1987‐92.26 Hazard management of drought involves the long‐term reduction of the probable gap between water supply and demand. Supply can be addressed through the development of storage and delivery capacity (construction of reservoirs and associated facilities), improved operation of existing facilities, and weather modification. Demand can be addressed through various forms of conservation.27 26
Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2010. Idaho Drought Emergency Declarations. Available online at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/News/drought/drought.htm. 27
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2007. State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Mitigation Program. November 2007. Available online at http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw‐signatures.pdf. 50
Wildland Fire The original Clearwater County Wildfire Mitigation Plan was completed and adopted in April of 2005. A subsequent update was completed and adopted in August of 2007 As part of this planning process, a complete 5‐year update is also be conducted for the Wildland Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan. This chapter is an adaptation of the more comprehensive 2011 Clearwater County Wildfire Protection Plan. An informed discussion of fire mitigation is not complete until basic concepts that govern fire behavior are understood. In the broadest sense, wildland fire behavior describes how fires burn; the manner in which fuels ignite, how flames develop and how fire spreads across the landscape. The three major physical components that determine fire behavior are the fuels supporting the fire, topography in which the fire is burning, and the weather and atmospheric conditions during a fire event. At the landscape level, both topography and weather are beyond our control. We are powerless to control winds, temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric instability, slope, aspect, elevation, and landforms. It is beyond our control to alter these conditions, and thus, impossible to alter fire behavior through their manipulation. When we attempt to alter how fires burn, we are left with manipulating the third component of the fire environment; fuels which support the fire. By altering fuel loading and fuel continuity across the landscape, we have the best opportunity to determine how fires burn. A brief description of each of the fire environment elements follows in order to illustrate their effect on fire behavior. Weather Weather conditions contribute significantly to determining fire behavior. Wind, moisture, temperature, and relative humidity ultimately determine the rates at which fuels dry and vegetation cures, and whether fuel conditions become dry enough to sustain an ignition. Once conditions are capable of sustaining a fire, atmospheric stability and wind speed and direction can have a significant affect on fire behavior. Winds fan fires with oxygen, increasing the rate at which fire spreads across the landscape. Weather is the most unpredictable component governing fire behavior, constantly changing in time and across the landscape. Topography Fires burning in similar fuel conditions burn dramatically different under different topographic conditions. Topography alters heat transfer and localized weather conditions, which in turn influence vegetative growth and resulting fuels. Changes in slope and aspect can have significant influences on how fires burn. Generally speaking, north slopes tend to be cooler, wetter, more productive sites. This can lead to heavy fuel accumulations, with high fuel moistures, later curing of fuels, and lower rates of spread. In contrast, south and west slopes tend to receive more direct sun, and thus have the highest temperatures, lowest soil and fuel moistures, and lightest fuels. The combination of light fuels and dry sites lead to fires that typically display the highest rates of spread. These slopes also tend to be on the 51
windward side of mountains. Thus these slopes tend to be “available to burn” a greater portion of the year. Slope also plays a significant roll in fire spread, by allowing preheating of fuels upslope of the burning fire. As slope increases, rate of spread and flame lengths tend to increase. Therefore, we can expect the fastest rates of spread on steep, warm south and west slopes with fuels that are exposed to the wind. Fuels Fuel is any material that can ignite and burn. Fuels describe any organic material, dead or alive, found in the fire environment. Grasses, brush, branches, logs, logging slash, forest floor litter, conifer needles, and buildings are all examples. The physical properties and characteristics of fuels govern how fires burn. Fuel loading, size and shape, moisture content and continuity and arrangement all have an affect on fire behavior. Generally speaking, the smaller and finer the fuels, the faster the potential rate of fire spread. Small fuels such as grass, needle litter and other fuels less than a quarter inch in diameter are most responsible for fire spread. In fact, “fine” fuels, with high surface to volume ratios, are considered the primary carriers of surface fire. This is apparent to anyone who has ever witnessed the speed at which grass fires burn. As fuel size increases, the rate of spread tends to decrease, as surface to volume ratio decreases. Fires in large fuels generally burn at a slower rate, but release much more energy, burn with much greater intensity. This increased energy release, or intensity, makes these fires more difficult to control. Thus, it is much easier to control a fire burning in grass than to control a fire burning in timber. When burning under a forest canopy, the increased intensities can lead to torching (single trees becoming completely involved) and potentially development of crown fire (fire carried from tree crown to tree crown). That is, they release much more energy. Fuels are found in combinations of types, amounts, sizes, shapes, and arrangements. It is the unique combination of these factors, along with the topography and weather, which determine how fires will burn. The study of fire behavior recognizes the dramatic and often‐unexpected affect small changes in any single component has on how fires burn. It is impossible to speak in specific terms when predicting how a fire will burn under any given set of conditions. However, through countless observations and repeated research, some of the principles that govern fire behavior have been identified and are recognized. Wildfire Hazard Assessment Clearwater County, Idaho was analyzed using a variety of models, managed on a Geographic Information System (GIS) system. Physical features of the region including roads, streams, soils, elevation, and remotely sensed images were represented by data layers. Field visits were conducted by specialists from Northwest Management, Inc. and others. Discussions with area residents and local fire suppression professionals augmented field visits and provided insights into forest health issues and treatment options. This information was analyzed and combined to develop an objective assessment of wildland fire risk in the region. 52
Historic Fire Regime Historical variability in fire regime is a conservative indicator of ecosystem sustainability, and thus, understanding the natural role of fire in ecosystems is necessary for proper fire management. Fire is one of the dominant processes in terrestrial systems that constrain vegetation patterns, habitats, and ultimately, species composition. Land managers need to understand historical fire regimes, the fire return interval (frequency) and fire severity prior to settlement by Euro‐Americans, to be able to define ecologically appropriate goals and objectives for an area. Moreover, managers need spatially explicit knowledge of how historical fire regimes vary across the landscape. Many ecological assessments are enhanced by the characterization of the historical range of variability which helps managers understand: (1) how the driving ecosystem processes vary from site to site; (2) how these processes affected ecosystems in the past; and (3) how these processes might affect the ecosystems of today and the future. Historical fire regimes are a critical component for characterizing the historical range of variability in fire‐adapted ecosystems. Furthermore, understanding ecosystem departures provides the necessary context for managing sustainable ecosystems. Land managers need to understand how ecosystem processes and functions have changed prior to developing strategies to maintain or restore sustainable systems. In addition, the concept of departure is a key factor for assessing risks to ecosystem components. For example, the departure from historical fire regimes may serve as a useful proxy for the potential of severe fire effects from an ecological perspective. Table 4.2. Historic Fire Regimes in Clearwater County. Historic Fire Regime Description Acres Percent of Area Fire Regime Group I <= 35 Year Fire Return Interval, Low and Mixed Severity 8,025 1% Fire Regime Group II <= 35 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity 4,564 0% Fire Regime Group III 35 ‐ 200 Year Fire Return Interval, Low and Mixed Severity 1,158,725 74% Fire Regime Group IV 35 ‐ 200 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity 201,132 13% Fire Regime Group V > 200 Year Fire Return Interval, Any Severity 168,897 11% Water Water 14,729 1% Snow or Ice Snow or Ice 18 0% Barren Barren 13,936 1% Sparsely Vegetated Sparsely Vegetated 0 0% Indeterminate Fire Regime Characteristics Indeterminate Fire Regime Characteristics 5,014 0% The table above shows the amount of acreage in each defined fire regime in Clearwater County. The historic fire regime model in Clearwater County shows that much of the landscape throughout the County historically had an approximate 35‐200 year fire return interval and typically experienced low and mixed severity fires (Fire Regime Group III). The remote mountainous terrain found in the eastern portion of the County, however, contained areas where differing historic fire regimes were found adjacent to one another. In this area, historic fire regime groups indicated that a much longer fire 53
return interval with variable intensity fires was more common. In addition, fire regimes with shorter return intervals were present near the Clearwater River and along the western edge of the County. Figure 4.4. Clearwater County Historic Fire Regime. Fire Regime Condition Class A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning.28, 29
Coarse scale definitions for historic fire regimes have been developed by Hardy et al30 and Schmidt et al31 and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell. 28
Agee, J. K. Fire Ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon: Island Press. 1993. 29
Brown. J. K. “Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management.” Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention. Society of American Foresters. Washington, D.C. 1995. Pp 171‐178. 30
Hardy, C. C., et al. “Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management.” International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2001. Pp 353‐372. 31
Schmidt, K. M., et al. “Development of coarse scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management.” General Technical Report, RMRS‐
GTR‐87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 2002. 54
A fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a classification of the amount of departure from the historic regime. 32 The three classes are based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime.33,34 The central tendency is a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances. Low departure is considered to be within the natural (historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside. An analysis of Fire Regime Condition Classes in Clearwater County shows that a significant portion of the county (73%) that is not in agriculture is moderately departed from its historic fire regime and associated vegetation and fuel characteristics. In most scenarios, the more departed an area is from its natural fire regime, the higher the wildfire potential; however, this is not true 100% of the time. Table 4.3. Fire Regime Condition Classes in Clearwater County. Condition Class Fire Regime Condition Class I Fire Regime Condition Class II Fire Regime Condition Class III Water Snow or Ice Urban Barren Sparsely Vegetated Agriculture Acres Percent of Area 289,055 1,144,435 83,336 14,679 18 3,689 13,947 0 25,881 18% 73% 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% Most of the forestlands in Clearwater County are in Condition Class II likely due to aggressive fire suppression activities since the early 1900s. Much of the mountainous region in the eastern portion of the county is considered a Condition Class I. This area is primarily owned by the United States Forest Service. This area shows very little departure from its natural fire regime because of the longer historic fire return interval. 32
Hann, W. J. and D. L. Bunnell. “Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales.” International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2001. Pp 389‐403. 33
Hardy, C. C., et al. “Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management.” International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2001. Pp 353‐372. 34
Schmidt, K. M., et al. “Development of coarse scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management.” General Technical Report, RMRS‐
GTR‐87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 2002. 55
Figure 4.5. Clearwater County Fire Regime Condition Class. Wildland Urban Interface The wildland‐urban interface (WUI) has gained attention through efforts targeted at wildfire mitigation; however, this analysis technique is also useful when considering other hazards because the concept looks at where people and structures are concentrated in any particular region. A key component in meeting the underlying need for protection of people and structures is the protection and treatment of hazards in the wildland‐urban interface. The wildland‐urban interface refers to areas where wildland vegetation meets urban developments or where forest fuels meet urban fuels such as houses. The WUI encompasses not only the interface (areas immediately adjacent to urban development), but also the surrounding vegetation and topography. Reducing the hazard in the wildland‐urban interface requires the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies and private individuals.35 “The role of [most] federal agencies in the wildland‐urban interface includes wildland firefighting, hazard fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and education, and technical experience. Structural fire protection [during a wildfire] in the wildland‐urban interface is [largely] the responsibility of Tribal, state, and local governments”.36 The role of the federal agencies in Clearwater County is and will be much more limited. Property owners share a responsibility to protect their residences and 35
Norton, P. Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fire Hazard Reduction Project: Final Environmental Assessment. Fish and Wildlife Services, Bear Valley Wildlife Refuge. June 20, 2002. 36
USFS. 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wildland Urban Interface. Web page. Date accessed: 25 September 2001. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/fire/urbanint.html 56
businesses and minimize danger by creating defensible areas around them and taking other measures to minimize the risks to their structures.37 With treatment, a wildland‐urban interface can provide firefighters a defensible area from which to suppress wildland fires or defend communities against other hazard risks. In addition, a wildland‐urban interface that is properly treated will be less likely to sustain a crown fire that enters or originates within it. 38 By reducing hazardous fuel loads, ladder fuels, and tree densities, and creating new and reinforcing existing defensible space, landowners can protect the wildland‐urban interface, the biological resources of the management area, and adjacent property owners by: •
minimizing the potential of high‐severity ground or crown fires entering or leaving the area; •
reducing the potential for firebrands (embers carried by the wind in front of the wildfire) impacting the WUI. Research indicates that flying sparks and embers (firebrands) from a crown fire can ignite additional wildfires as far as 1¼ miles away during periods of extreme fire weather and fire behavior;39 •
improving defensible space in the immediate areas for suppression efforts in the event of wildland fire. Three wildland‐urban interface conditions have been identified (Federal Register 66(3), January 4, 2001) for use in wildfire control efforts. These include the Interface Condition, Intermix Condition, and Occluded Condition. Descriptions of each are as follows: •
Interface Condition – a situation where structures abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences. The development density for an interface condition is usually 3+ structures per acre; •
Intermix Condition – a situation where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is no clear line of demarcation; the wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres; and •
Occluded Condition – a situation, normally within a city, where structures abut an island of wildland fuels (park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads and fences. The development density for an occluded condition is usually similar to that found in the interface condition and the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size. In addition to these classifications detailed in the Federal Register, Clearwater County has included three additional classifications to augment these categories: 37
USFS. 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wildland Urban Interface. Web page. Date accessed: 25 September 2001. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/fire/urbanint.html 38
Norton, P. Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fire Hazard Reduction Project: Final Environmental Assessment. Fish and Wildlife Services, Bear Valley Wildlife Refuge. June 20, 2002. 39
McCoy, L. K., et all. Cerro Grand Fire Behavior Narrative. 2001. 57
•
Rural Condition – a situation where the scattered small clusters of structures (ranches, farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels. There may be miles between these clusters. •
High Density Urban Areas – those areas generally identified by the population density consistent with the location of incorporated cities, however, the boundary is not necessarily set by the location of city boundaries or urban growth boundaries; it is set by very high population densities (more than 7‐10 structures per acre). •
Non‐WUI Condition – a situation where the above definitions do not apply because of a lack of structures in an area or the absence of critical infrastructure. This classification is not considered part of the wildland‐urban interface. In summary, the designation of areas by the Clearwater County planning committee includes: •
Interface Condition: WUI •
Intermix Condition: WUI •
Occluded Condition: WUI •
Rural Condition: WUI •
High Density Urban Areas: WUI • Non‐WUI Condition: Not WUI, but present in Clearwater County Clearwater County’s wildland‐urban interface (WUI) is based on population density. Relative population density across the county was estimated using a GIS based kernel density population model that uses object locations to produce, through statistical analysis, concentric rings or areas of consistent density. To graphically identify relative population density across the county, structure locations are used as an estimate of population density. Aerial photography was used to identify structure locations in 2005. This existing structure layer was updated in 2010 using 2009 NAIP imagery for Clearwater County. The resulting output identified the extent and level of population density throughout the county. The updated and revised population density model output was adopted as the WUI for Clearwater County, Idaho. By evaluating structure density in this way, WUI areas can be identified on maps by using mathematical formulae and population density indexes. The resulting population density indexes create concentric circles showing high density areas, interface, and intermix condition WUI, as well as rural condition WUI (as defined above). This portion of the analysis allows us to “see” where the highest concentrations of structures are located in reference to relatively high risk landscapes, limiting infrastructure, and other points of concern. The WUI, as defined here, is unbiased and consistent, allows for edge matching with other counties, and most importantly – it addresses all of the county, not just federally identified communities at risk. It is a planning tool showing where homes and businesses are located and the density of those structures leading to identified WUI categories. It can be determined again in the future, using the same criteria, to show how the WUI has changed in response to increasing population densities. It uses a repeatable and reliable analysis process that is unbiased. 58
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act makes a clear designation that the location of the WUI is at the determination of the county or reservation when a formal and adopted Community Wildfire Protection Plan is in place. It further states that the federal agencies are obligated to use this WUI designation for all Healthy Forests Restoration Act purposes. The Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan planning committee evaluated a variety of different approaches to determining the WUI for the county and selected this approach and has adopted it for these purposes. In addition to a formal WUI map for use with the federal agencies, it is hoped that it will serve as a planning tool for the county, the IDL, and local fire districts. Figure 4.6. Wildland Urban Interface in Clearwater County, Idaho. 59
Extended Power Outages Power is supplied to the residents and businesses within Clearwater County by Avista Utilities and Clearwater Power Company. These companies have had a strong presence in the Inland Northwest for a number of years and as such, have developed an extensive power grid network that traverses throughout the region. Avista Utilities provides electricity to more than 340,000 customers in four western states (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana). Clearwater Power Company currently services eleven counties in three states (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). Figure 4.7. Avista Utilities Service Area. Power outages can be a serious and costly occurrence. Extended power outages can result in a collapse of community infrastructure and services. Traffic lights go off, telephone landlines quit working, gas pumps stop operating, businesses and schools close. Essential community functions such as hospitals, police and fire departments, airports, and critical care facilities should all be equipped with backup power generators to maintain their necessary functions. The length of time these essential services can stay operational is dependant upon how extensively they prepared for a disaster such as a power outage. An understanding of the primary causes of power failure is essential when preparing for power outages. In many instances, a basic understanding regarding the reason power outages occur can help focus planning efforts to minimize the effects power outages can have on a region. 60
Power outages can occur for a variety of reasons, but weather events, objects falling on power lines, catastrophic failure of power grid components, and grid overload (too much demand at one time) are the most common. Most power outages in Clearwater County typically result from weather related damage and/or from foreign objects falling onto power lines and power poles. Figure 4.8. Clearwater Power Company Service Area. Strong winds, freezing rain, and heavy snow are typical of significant weather events that commonly result in a loss of power. Strong winds can topple power lines and poles and blow limbs off of trees onto power lines. Freezing rain and heavy snow can accumulate on power lines and overwhelm the tension strength a power line is capable of supporting. When this occurs power lines collapse and fall to the ground creating power outages and a potential electrical hazard on the ground. Objects adjacent to power lines that have the ability to fall onto the power lines are potential hazards. The most common of these are typically trees and tree limbs but can also include street lights, signs, and low flying aircraft. When objects such as these fall onto power lines they often trap the line under them on the ground. This creates an additional hazard as the power line may electrically charge the downed object creating another hazard when trying to remove the obstruction. Catastrophic failure of power grid components includes all aspects of the power system such as underground high voltage feeder lines, shorts on power poles, malfunctioning substations, transformer failures, and conductor failure. In addition, power companies routinely shut off power for maintenance and repairs. When this occurs it is the responsibility of the power company to notify the affected area beforehand to ensure that proper precautions can be taken within the service area. 61
Grid overload can reduce the amount of available power to a service area. Typically this occurs during peak demand times such as during evenings when the majority of customers are at home and using power, and during cold weather periods when there is an increased demand for electricity used for home heating. Rolling blackouts, an intentionally‐engineered power outage, can occur if a higher than normal demand for power continues for a prolonged period of time. These blackouts are typically a last resort measure used by an electric utility company in order to avoid a total blackout of the power system and are usually in response to a situation where the demand for electricity exceeds the supply capability of the power network. These rolling blackouts may be localized to a specific part of the electricity network or may be more widespread and affect entire regions or countries. Rolling blackouts generally result from two causes: insufficient generation capacity or inadequate transmission infrastructure to deliver sufficient power where it is needed. There is no way to prevent all power outages from occurring. The power infrastructure of Clearwater County will always be prone to some level of power outages brought on by unforeseeable events. There are; however, mitigation actions that can be accomplished to help prevent outages in the first place as well as reduce the impacts when they do occur. For example, the juxtaposition between trees and power lines should be monitored with standards closely adhered to as identified by the power company. In areas where trees or tree branches have encroached upon a power lines’ right‐of‐way, a certified arborist or related professional should be used to reduce encroachment and eliminate the potential of it falling on the line. Routine inspections conducted by the power companies on its infrastructure should report any potential problems or hazards found to the County. This will allow the County to communicate with the residents should further action be necessary. Finally, a map of the power infrastructure within Clearwater County should be readily accessible to the public and other pertinent members of the community. Critical community institutions and offices such as hospitals, care facilities, police and fire departments, airports, and community utility services should all be capable of maintaining a “ready state” during times of power outages. At the county level, a focus towards public education regarding power outages should be made a priority. When extended periods of time pass between major power outages, both emergency response units and the public tend to forget to review plans and take necessary precautions Requiring building permits and compliance with building codes is a good foundation for avoiding damage to a community’s electrical infrastructure. Builders, future homeowners, and power companies should coordinate with one another so that all parties can be made aware of the potential risk of building near electrical infrastructure. Periodic publication of the highlights of these building codes can help to keep up public awareness. 62
Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are defined and regulated in the United States primarily by laws and regulations administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Each has its own definition of a "hazardous material." OSHA's definition includes any substance or chemical which is a "health hazard" or "physical hazard" including chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable‐reactive or water‐reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics. Full definitions can be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200. EPA incorporates the OSHA definition of hazardous materials and adds any item or chemical which can cause harm to people, plants, or animals when released by spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the environment. A list containing over 350 hazardous and extremely hazardous substances is available 40 CFR 355. The Department of Transportation defines a hazardous material as any item or chemical which, when being transported or moved, is a risk to public safety or the environment, and is regulated as such under the: Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100‐180); International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code; Dangerous Goods Regulations of the International Air Transport Association; Technical Instructions of the International Civil Aviation Organization; U.S. Air Force Joint Manual, Preparing Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipments.40 The presence of hazardous materials in Clearwater County typically occurs in two ways: 1) in stationary holding facilities and 2) transported in commerce. Stationary Holding Facilities Stationary holding facilities are designated locations where hazardous materials are stored. These facilities have to meet State and Federal regulations and undergo periodic assessments designed to ensure they meet baseline standards for the safety of the public and surrounding environment. Storage centers for hazardous materials are increasingly faced with greater public scrutiny and government regulations. This is in large part due to an increase in public knowledge regarding the potential impact these materials can have and the aging infrastructure of some storage facilities, many of which are not using the newest and most technologically advanced storage systems available. As a result, hazardous material storage facilities are constantly under pressure to maintain and update their storage systems to stay in compliance with strict government regulations and public scrutiny. 40
Institute of Hazardous Materials Management. 2010. “What is Hazardous Material?” Available online at http://www.ihmm.org/dspwhatishazmat.cfm. 63
Transported in Commerce Growing consumer and industrial demand for products that are; or are based on; flammable, poisonous, explosive, corrosive, or otherwise potentially harmful materials, has resulted in greater movements of these commodities on the nation’s highways. Increased transportation of hazardous materials has heightened concerns about the human and environmental consequences associated with the unintentional release of these materials. This heightened concern stems from several factors, including the increased number and quantity of materials shipped and an increased awareness on the part of elected officials and the public of the risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials.41 Contamination of the environment by hazardous materials can be a serious and costly occurrence. When water and air become contaminated with hazardous materials, it is often difficult and costly to remove the contaminants due to how quickly they can spread and/or react with the environment. Contamination can result in a collapse of community infrastructure and services. Hazardous material incidents can result in roads, businesses, and schools closing depending on the location of the contamination. Essential community functions such as hospitals, police and fire departments, airports, and critical care facilities should all be equipped with backup water to maintain their necessary functions. The length of time these essential services can stay operational is often dependant upon how extensively they prepared for this type of disaster. An understanding of the primary causes of hazardous material spills is essential for preparedness. In many instances, an inventory of hazardous materials in the area (stored and transported) and a basic awareness of the potential causes of spills can help focus planning efforts to minimize the effects this type of event can have on a region. Hazardous materials are routinely transported through and stored within Clearwater County. The most common of these include agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, gasoline, oil, and propane. All of these materials are a necessity for the residents of Clearwater County. These materials are used in everyday activity and play a large role in maintaining the regional economy. 41
National Highway Institute. 1996. Highway Routing of Hazardous Materials – Guidelines for Applying Criteria. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA‐HI‐97‐003. 64
Avalanche An avalanche is a rapid flow of snow down slope from either natural triggers or human activity. Typically occurring in mountainous terrain, an avalanche can mix air and water with the descending snow. Powerful avalanches have the capability to entrain ice, rocks, trees, and other material on the slope. Avalanches are primarily composed of flowing snow and are distinct from mudslides, rock slides, rock avalanches, and serac collapses on an icefall. In mountainous terrain, avalanches are among the most serious objective hazards to life and property, with their destructive capability resulting from their potential to carry an enormous mass of snow rapidly over large distances. There are two types of avalanches, loose and slab, and two types of slab avalanches, dry and wet. Although the most dangerous avalanche is the slab avalanche, loose slides can and do produce injury and death. Loose avalanches occur when grains of snow cannot hold onto a slope and begin sliding downhill, picking up more snow and fanning out in an inverted V. Slab avalanches occur when a cohesive mass of snow breaks away from the slope all at once. Most slides in the Northwest are slab avalanches. Dry slab avalanches occur when the stresses on a slab overcome the internal strength of the slab and its attachment to surrounding snow. A decrease in strength produced through warming, melting snow, or rain, or an increase in stress produced by the weight of additional snowfall, a skier or a snowmobile cause this type of avalanche. Dry slab avalanches can travel 60 to 80 miles per hour or more, reaching these speeds within five seconds after the fracture; they account for most avalanche fatalities. Wet slab avalanches occur when water percolating through the top slab weakens it and dissolves its bond with a lower layer, decreasing the ability of the weaker, lower layer to hold on to the top slab, as well as decreasing the slab’s strength. For a slope to generate an avalanche it must be simultaneously capable of retaining snow and allowing snow to accelerate once set in motion. The angle of the slope that can hold snow depends on the ductile and shear strength of the snow, which is determined by the temperature and moisture content. Drier and colder snow, with lower ductile and shear strength, will only bond to lower angle slopes; while wet and warm snow, with higher ductile and shear strength, can bind to very steep surfaces. Snow that has been water saturated to the point of slush can accelerate on shallow angled terrain; while a cohesive snow pack will not accelerate on steep slopes. A number of weather and terrain factors determine avalanche danger: Weather: •
Storms – A large percentage of all snow avalanches occur during and shortly after storms. •
Rate of snowfall – Snow falling at a rate of one inch or more per hour rapidly increases avalanche danger. •
Temperature – Storms starting with low temperatures and dry snow, followed by rising temperatures and wetter snow, are more likely to cause avalanches than storms that start warm and then cool with snowfall. 65
•
Wet snow – Rainstorms or spring weather with warm, moist winds and cloudy nights can warm the snow cover resulting in wet snow avalanches. Wet snow avalanches are more likely on sun‐exposed terrain (south‐facing slopes) and under exposed rocks or cliffs. Terrain: •
Ground cover – Large rocks, trees and heavy shrubs help anchor snow. •
Slope profile – Dangerous slab avalanches are more likely to occur on convex slopes. •
Slope aspect – Leeward slopes are dangerous because windblown snow adds depth and creates dense slabs. South facing slopes are more dangerous in the springtime. •
Slope steepness – Snow avalanches are most common on slopes of 30 to 45 degrees. Thousands of avalanches occur each winter throughout the mountains of Idaho. Idaho is among the top 10 states in the nation in the number of avalanche fatalities in the past 10 years, with an average of 3 fatalities each year. The avalanche season typically begins in November and continues until early summer for all mountain areas of the state. Within Clearwater County, most avalanches occur within the sparsely inhabited mountainous backcountry. This can be attributed to the region’s rugged terrain which consists of steep mountains and narrow canyons, and an annual snow pack typically exceeding 120 inches per year. The combination of topography and snow pack found within this area provides the basic elements necessary for avalanche activity. People most at risk are those who partake in winter recreation activities, particularly skiing and snowmobiling within the high snowfall mountainous regions of the County. 66
Geological Hazards A geologic hazard is an extreme natural event in the crust of the earth that poses a threat to life and property. Geological hazards include internal earth processes, such as earthquakes, volcanic activity and emissions, and related geophysical processes such as mass movements, landslides, rockslides, surface collapses, and debris or mud flows. Geological hazards have the ability to disrupt community infrastructure and can result in the displacement of individuals and entire communities. Earthquakes An earthquake is trembling of the ground resulting from the sudden shifting of rock beneath the earth’s crust. Earthquakes may cause landslides and rupture dams. Severe earthquakes destroy power and telephone lines, gas, sewer, or water mains, which, in turn, may set off fires and/or hinder firefighting or rescue efforts. Earthquakes also may cause buildings and bridges to collapse. By far, earthquakes pose the largest single natural hazard exposure faced by Idaho. They may affect large areas, cause great damage to structures, cause injury, loss of life and alter the socioeconomic functioning of the communities involved. The hazard of earthquakes varies from place to place, dependent upon the regional and local geology. Figure 4.9. Seismicity in Idaho 1990‐2006. Earthquakes occur along faults, which are fractures or fracture zones in the earth across which there may be relative motion. If the rocks across a fault are forced to slide past one another, they do so in a stick‐slip fashion; that is, they accumulate strain energy for centuries or millennia, and then release it almost instantaneously. The energy released radiates outward from the source, or focus, as a series of waves ‐ an earthquake. The primary hazards of earthquakes are ground breaking, as the rocks slide past one another, and ground shaking by seismic waves. Secondary earthquake hazards result from distortion of the surface materials such as water, soil, or structures. Ground shaking may affect areas 65 miles or more from the epicenter (the point on the ground surface above the focus). As such, it is the greatest primary earthquake Depth Represented in Kilometers 67
hazard. Ground shaking may cause seiche, the rhythmic sloshing of water in lakes or bays. It may also trigger the failure of snow (avalanche) or earth materials (landslide). Ground shaking can change the mechanical properties of some fine grained, saturated soils, whereupon they liquefy and act as a fluid (liquefaction). The dramatic reduction in bearing strength of such soils can cause buried utilities to rupture and otherwise undamaged buildings to collapse. Ground shaking from earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, fires, and huge, destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil, or trailers and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes that follow the main shock and can cause further damage to weakened buildings. Aftershocks can occur in the first hours, days, weeks, or even months after the quake. Be aware that some earthquakes are actually foreshocks, and a larger earthquake might occur. Ground movement during an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of death or injury. Most earthquake‐related injuries result from collapsing walls, flying glass, and falling objects as a result of the ground shaking, or people trying to move more than a few feet during the shaking.42 Damaging Pacific Northwest earthquakes can arise from three distinct source zones: •
•
•
Deep earthquakes beneath the Puget Sound have damaged Seattle and Olympia Shallow faults can cause intense local shaking – urban areas are especially vulnerable An offshore subduction zone fault can cause strong shaking across the entire region.43 Geological and seismological studies show that earthquakes are likely to happen in any of several active zones in Idaho and adjacent states. Idaho is ranked fifth highest in the nation for earthquake hazard. Only California, Nevada, Utah, and Alaska have a greater overall hazard. Idaho has experienced several earthquakes over the last 100+ years. Two of the larger earthquakes were the 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake (M7.5) and the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake (M7.3). Both tremors caused fatalities and millions of dollars in damage. Earth scientists believe that most earthquakes are caused by slow movements inside the Earth that push against the Earth's brittle, relatively thin outer layer, causing the rocks to break suddenly. This outer layer is fragmented into a number of pieces, called plates. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries of these plates. 42
FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available online at www.fema.gov. September 2007. 43
USGS. “Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon Three Source Zones.” U.S. Geological Survey. The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Available online at http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/. August 2008. 68
Figure 4.10. USGS Probability of Earthquake Model. The majority of earthquakes in Idaho today are a result of Basin and Range extension and volcanism associated with the Yellowstone Hot Spot. The Lost River Range is one of several northwest trending mountain ranges in east central Idaho where the topography is typical of the Basin and Range Province. Ranges are separated by broad sediment filled valleys, and have range‐front faults on their southwest flanks. There is also a zone of seismic activity that surrounds the fringes of the Yellowstone Hot Spot track, which for Idaho is another major cause for earthquakes. We cannot predict precisely where, when, and how large the next destructive earthquake will be in Idaho, but seismological and geological evidence does support a 20‐30% possibility that a magnitude 5.0 (or greater) earthquake could occur within the Clearwater County region of North Idaho within the next 100 years. On average, approximately 33 earthquakes occur each year in Idaho. Within Clearwater County, historical earthquake activity is significantly below the Idaho state average, and is 69% smaller than the overall U.S. average. In the last 25 years only six earthquakes have been reported within or near Clearwater County, Idaho.44 44
City‐data.com. 2003. Clearwater County, Idaho. Available online at http://www.city‐
data.com/county/Clearwater_County‐ID.html. 69
•
•
•
•
•
•
December 12, 1998 a magnitude 4.7 earthquake was reported 97.6 miles away August 17, 1994 a magnitude 4.1 earthquake was reported 56.8 miles away January 20, 1998 a magnitude 4.0 earthquake was reported 97.6 miles away November 11, 1997 a magnitude 3.8 earthquake was reported 35 miles away June 25, 1998 a magnitude 3.8 earthquake was reported 49.9 miles away May 30, 1996 a magnitude 3.6 earthquake was reported 54.4 miles away The largest earthquake now considered a possibility in the Pacific Northwest is a shallow subduction‐
style earthquake similar to recent destructive earthquakes in Alaska and Mexico, which had magnitudes greater than 8. An earthquake this large would be expected to occur along the coast of Washington or Oregon. Although we have no record of such large earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest within the last 150 years, some scientists believe that rocks and sediments exposed along the coasts of Washington and Oregon show evidence that as many as eight such earthquakes have occurred in the last several thousand years. This evidence indicates an average interval of time between subduction earthquakes of several hundred years. A magnitude 8 subduction earthquake would not only cause widespread dangerous ground shaking but would also likely produce water waves capable of inundating coastal areas in a matter of minutes. Earthquake damage is primarily caused by ground shaking. However, wood frame houses, well attached to their foundations and built on firm ground, generally sustain little structural damage during earthquakes. In contrast, unreinforced brick buildings commonly suffer severe damage. Ground shaking may also displace and distort the non‐structural parts of a building including windows, ceiling tiles, partitions and furniture‐producing property damage and endangering life. Other hazards such as ground liquefaction are commonly triggered by strong ground shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey has gathered data and produced maps of the nation, depicting earthquake shaking hazards. This information is essential for creating and updating seismic design provisions of building codes in the United States. The USGS Shaking Hazard maps for the United States are based on current information about the rate at which earthquakes occur in different areas and on how far strong shaking extends from quake sources. The values shown on the map are "peak ground acceleration (PGA) in percent of g with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years". Therefore, the map represents longer‐
term likelihood of ground accelerations. The "2% probability of exceedance in 50 years" refers to the fact that earthquakes are somewhat random in occurrence. One can not predict exactly whether an earthquake of a given size will or will not occur in the next 50 years. The map takes the random nature of earthquakes into account. It was constructed so that there is a 2% chance (2 chances in 100) that the ground acceleration values shown on the map will be exceeded in a 50 year time period. This map is based on seismic activity and fault‐slip rates and takes into account the frequency of occurrence of earthquakes of various magnitudes.45 Locally, this hazard may be greater than that shown, because site geology may amplify ground motions. 45
Qamar, Anthony. “Earthquake Hazards in the Pacific Northwest.” Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup. University of Washington Geophysics. January 2008. 70
Figure 4.11. USGS Peak Ground Acceleration Map. The 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC), a nationwide industry standard, sets construction standards for different seismic zones in the nation. UBC seismic zone rankings for Idaho are among the highest in the nation. When buildings are built to these standards they have a better chance to withstand earthquakes. In 2002 the International Building Code (IBC) adopted the 1991 UBC earthquake standards. Clearwater County operates under the IBC and International Residential Code as adopted in 2005. For the counties risk level, this is adequate protection for all new construction. Studies of ground shaking in Idaho during previous earthquakes have led to better interpretations of the seismic threat to buildings. In areas of severe seismic shaking hazard, older buildings are especially vulnerable to damage. Older buildings are at risk even if their foundations are on solid bedrock. Areas shown on the map with high seismic shaking hazard can experience earthquakes with intensity VII where weaker soils exist. Most populated areas in Idaho are located on or near alluvial deposits which provide poorer building site conditions during earthquakes. Older buildings may suffer damage even in areas of moderate ground shaking hazards. 71
As seen in the following map Clearwater County, except for its eastern boundary which is classified as “high risk”, is primarily located in the area classified as “moderate” earthquake risk. Figure 4.12. Earthquake Risk Map for Idaho. Structures that are in compliance with the 1970 Uniform Building Codes (UBC), which are now replaced by the International Building Code, are generally less vulnerable to seismic damages because that was when the UBC started including seismic construction standards to be applied based on regional location. This stipulated that all structures be constructed to at least seismic risk Zone 2 Standards. The State of Idaho adopted the UBC as its state building code in 1972, so it is assumed that buildings built after that date were built in conformance with UBC seismic standards and have a lesser degree of vulnerability. Obviously, issues such as code enforcement and code compliance are factors that could impact this assumption. However, for planning purposes, establishing this line of demarcation can be an effective tool for estimating vulnerability. Future injuries and property losses from earthquake hazards can be reduced by considering these hazards when making decisions about land use, by designing structures that can undergo ground shaking without collapse, by securely attaching the non‐structural elements of a building, and by educating the public about what to do before, during, and after an earthquake to protect life and property.46 Volcanoes The Cascade Range of the Pacific Northwest has more than a dozen potentially active volcanoes. Cascade volcanoes tend to erupt explosively, and on average two eruptions occur per century—the most recent were at Mount St. Helens, Washington (1980–86 and 2004–8), and Lassen Peak, California (1914–17). On May 18, 1980, after 2 months of earthquakes and minor eruptions, Mount St. Helens, Washington, exploded in one of the most devastating volcanic eruptions of the 20th century. Although less than 0.1 cubic mile of molten rock (magma) was erupted, 57 people died, and damage exceeded $1 billion. Fortunately, most people in the area were able to evacuate safely before the eruption because public officials had been alerted to the danger by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other scientists. To help protect the Pacific Northwest’s rapidly expanding population, USGS scientists at the Cascades 46
Noson, Linda Lawrance, et al. Washington State Earthquake Hazards. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 85. Olympia, Washington. 1988. 72
Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, Washington, monitor and assess the hazards posed by the region’s volcanoes.47 There are no active volcanoes in north Idaho; however, Clearwater County could be directly affected by an eruption from any one of the Cascade volcanoes. During an eruption, such as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, northern Idaho is not likely to be directly affected by lava flows, pyroclastic flows, landslides, or lahars; however, this region may be indirectly impacted due to damming of waterways, reduced air and water quality, acid rain, and ash fallout. An explosive eruption blasts solid and molten rock fragments (tephra) and volcanic gases into the air with tremendous force. The largest rock fragments (bombs) usually fall back to the ground within 2 miles of the vent. Small fragments (less than about 0.1 inch across) of volcanic glass, minerals, and rock (ash) rise high into the air, forming a huge, billowing eruption column. Eruption columns can grow rapidly and reach more than 12 miles above a volcano in less than 30 minutes, forming an eruption cloud. The volcanic ash in the cloud can pose a serious hazard to aviation. During the past 15 years, about 80 commercial jets have been damaged by inadvertently flying into ash clouds, and several have nearly crashed because of engine failure. Large eruption clouds can extend hundreds of miles downwind, resulting in ash fall over enormous areas; the wind carries the smallest ash particles the farthest. Ash from the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington, fell over an area of 22,000 square miles in the Western United States. Heavy ash fall can collapse buildings, and even minor ash fall can damage crops, electronics, and machinery. Volcanoes emit gases during eruptions. Even when a volcano is not erupting, cracks in the ground allow gases to reach the surface through small openings called fumaroles. More than ninety percent of all gas emitted by volcanoes is water vapor (steam), most of which is heated ground water (underground water from rain fall and streams). Other common volcanic gases are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, and fluorine. Sulfur dioxide gas can react with water droplets in the atmosphere to create acid rain, which causes corrosion and harms vegetation. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and can be trapped in low areas in concentrations that are deadly to people and animals. Fluorine, which in high concentrations is toxic, can be adsorbed onto volcanic ash particles that later fall to the ground. The fluorine on the particles can poison livestock grazing on ash‐coated grass and also contaminate domestic water supplies.48 47
Dzurisim, Dan, et al. “Living with Volcanic Risk in the Cascades.” U.S. Geological Survey – Reducing the Risk from Volcano Hazards. USGS. Vancouver, Washington. 1997. 48
Myers, Bobbie, et al. “What are Volcano Hazards?” U.S. Geological Survey. Vancouver, Washington. July 2004. 73
Volcanoes of the Cascades49 The volcanoes of the Cascade Range, which stretches from northern California into British Columbia, have produced more than 100 eruptions, most of them explosive, in just the past few thousand years. However, individual Cascade volcanoes can lie dormant for many centuries between eruptions, and the great risk posed by volcanic activity in the region is therefore not always apparent. When Cascade volcanoes do erupt, high‐speed avalanches of hot ash and rock (pyroclastic flows), lava flows, and landslides can devastate areas 10 or more miles away; and huge mudflows of volcanic ash and debris, called lahars, can inundate valleys more than 50 miles downstream. Falling ash from explosive eruptions can disrupt human activities hundreds of miles downwind, and drifting clouds of fine ash can cause severe damage to jet aircraft even thousands of miles away. Erupting Cascade volcanoes are more prone than other U.S. volcanoes to explosive volcanic activity, resulting in pyroclastic flows. These are hot, often incandescent mixtures of volcanic fragments and gases that sweep along close to the ground at speeds up to 450 mph. Because the population of the Pacific Northwest is rapidly expanding, the volcanoes of the Cascade Range in Washington, Oregon, and northern California are some of the most dangerous in the United States. Although Cascade volcanoes do not often erupt (on average, about two erupt each century), they can be dangerous because of their violently explosive behavior, their permanent snow and ice cover that can fuel large volcanic debris flows (lahars), and their proximity to various critical infrastructure, air routes, and populated areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. 49
Dzurisim, Dan, et al. “Living with Volcanic Risk in the Cascades.” U.S. Geological Survey – Reducing the Risk from Volcano Hazards. USGS. Vancouver, Washington. 1997. 74
Figure 4.13. Cascade Volcano Eruptions. Of the 13 potentially active volcanoes in the Cascade Range, 11 have erupted in the past 4,000 years. More than 100 eruptions have occurred during that period, making the volcanoes of the Cascade Range some of the most hazardous in the U.S. Each eruption symbol in the diagram represents from one to several eruptions closely spaced in time at or near the named volcano. Washington Mount Baker erupted in the mid‐1800s for the first time in several thousand years. Activity at steam vents (fumaroles) in Sherman Crater, near the volcano’s summit, increased in 1975 and is still vigorous, but there is no evidence that an eruption is imminent. Glacier Peak has erupted at least six times in the past 4,000 years. About 13,000 years ago, an especially powerful series of eruptions deposited volcanic ash at least as far away as Wyoming. Mount Rainier has produced at least ten eruptions and numerous lahars in the past 4,000 years. It is capped by more glacier ice than the rest of the Cascade volcanoes combined, and parts of Rainier’s steep slopes have been weakened by hot, acidic volcanic gases and water. These factors make this volcano especially prone to landslides and lahars. Mount St. The red triangles are volcano locations. Dark Helens is the most frequently active volcano in the orange areas have a higher volcanic hazard; Cascades. During the past 4,000 years, it has produced light orange areas have a lower volcanic many lahars and a wide variety of eruptive activity, from hazard. Dark gray areas have a higher ash fall hazard; light‐gray areas have a lower ash fall relatively quiet outflows of lava to explosive eruptions hazard.1 much larger than that of May 18, 1980. Mount Adams has produced few eruptions during the past several thousand years. This volcano’s most recent activity was a series of small eruptions about 1,000 years ago. 75
Oregon Mount Hood last erupted about 200 years ago, producing pyroclastic flows, lahars, and a prominent lava dome (Crater Rock) near the volcano’s summit. Most recently, a series of steam blasts occurred between 1856 and 1865. Mount Jefferson last erupted more than 20,000 years ago. However, eruptions nearby have produced several lava flows and small volcanic cones in the past 10,000 years. Three Sisters Volcanic Center in central Oregon includes five large volcanoes—North Sister, Middle Sister, South Sister, Broken Top, and Mount Bachelor. About 2,000 years ago, eruptions occurred on South Sister, as well as from several small volcanoes north of North Sister. Since 1997, a broad area centered 3 miles west of South Sister has domed upward by more than 8 inches. Scientists think that this doming reflects the ongoing accumulation of magma at a depth of 3 to 4 miles. The outcome of this activity is uncertain, but there is no evidence that an eruption is imminent. The USGS and its partners have increased monitoring efforts in the area to detect any changes that might warrant more concern. Newberry Volcano, a broad shield covering more than 500 square miles, is capped by Newberry Crater, a large volcanic depression (caldera) 5 miles across. Its most recent eruption was about 1,300 years ago. Crater Lake occupies a 6‐mile‐wide caldera formed 7,700 years ago when the summit of an ancient volcano (referred to as Mount Mazama) collapsed during a huge explosive eruption. More than 10 cubic miles of magma was erupted, 10 times as much as in any other eruption in the Cascades during the past 10,000 years. Smaller eruptions ending about 5,000 years ago formed Wizard Island and several submerged cones and lava domes on the lake floor. Reducing the Risk After the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Congress provided increased funding that enabled the USGS to establish a volcano observatory for the Cascade Range. Located in Vancouver, Washington, the David A. Johnston Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) was named for a USGS scientist killed at a forward observation post by the May 18, 1980, eruption. Scientists at CVO quickly recognized that it was not economically feasible to fully monitor all potentially active Cascade volcanoes. To address this and similar problems elsewhere in the United States and abroad, the USGS developed a suite of portable volcano‐monitoring instruments—essentially, a portable volcano observatory. In the Pacific Northwest, when regional networks of earthquake sensors, operated in cooperation with the University of Washington’s Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, detect unusual seismic activity at a volcano, CVO staff will rapidly deploy this portable equipment to evaluate the hazard and, if needed, provide timely warnings to local officials and the public. CVO also uses remote sensing as an early‐detection tool. A technique called interferometric synthetic‐
aperture radar (InSAR) allows scientists to measure subtle movements of the ground surface, using radar images obtained by Earth‐orbiting satellites. The current ground doming at Three Sisters was first detected using this technique. 76
Dam Failure The Clearwater River watershed is the most dominant topographic feature in Clearwater with the main stem passing through the southwestern corner of the County. The Clearwater River is a free‐flowing waterway upstream of Ahsahka with several large contributing tributaries including Orofino Creek and Lolo Creek, and further upstream the South and Middle Forks of the Clearwater River. The North Fork of the Clearwater River, a large tributary almost fully contained in Clearwater County, was dammed to create the Dworshak Reservoir. Because this major watershed is regulated by the Dworshak Dam on the North Fork near its confluence at Ahsahka, potential flooding as a result of a malfunction or dam break is a serious, but unlikely concern for Clearwater County and the citizens of Ahsahka and Orofino as well as many other downstream communities. Dworshak Dam is a straight concrete gravity dam with a structural height of 717 feet and a crest length of 3,287 feet at elevation 1,613. The dam is located on the North Fork of the Clearwater River at River Mile 1.9. The dam is the highest straight‐axis concrete dam in the Western Hemisphere and the 22nd highest dam in the world. Only two other dams in the United States exceed it in height. Dam construction began on July 20, 1966 and the project became operational for flood control in June 1972. Power came online in March 1973. The Dworshak Reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 3,453,000 acre‐feet, of which 2,000,000 acre‐feet is used for local and regional flood control and for at‐site and downstream power generation. At elevation 1,600, the reservoir is 53 miles long, has a surface area of 19,824 acres, and extends into the Bitterroot Mountains. The reservoir provides substantial recreational and wildlife benefits.50 50
USACE. 1996. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir – Condition of Improvement. US Army Corp of Engineers, Walla Walla District. Available online at http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/pub/pi/flood/dworshak.htm. 77
Chapter 5 Jurisdictional Vulnerability Assessment
• Clearwater County Annex o City of Orofino Annex Chapter 5
Vulnerability Assessment IN THIS SECTION: o City of Elk River Annex o City of Pierce Annex o City of Weippe Annex 78
Chapter 5 – Jurisdictional Vulnerability Assessment Clearwater County Annex The Flood Mitigation Plan contained within this Multi – Hazard Mitigation Plan fulfills the requirements of a Flood Mitigation Plan as specified in 44 CFR 78.5 of the Federal Register describing the Flood Mitigation Assistance program. The purpose of this section is to prescribe actions, procedures, and requirements for administration of the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, authorized by Sections 1366 and 1367 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4104c and 4104d. The goal of FMA is to assist state and local governments in funding cost‐effective actions that reduce or eliminate the long term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other insurable structures. Flood All three types of flood events occur in Clearwater County. Riverine flooding occurs along all tributaries and the main stem of the Clearwater River. The mountainous terrain found throughout Clearwater County creates a flood‐prone environment. Rain‐on‐snow events can and do occur at almost all elevations across the county. These events often contain enough moisture to cause flooding on the Clearwater River and most of its major tributaries within the county. In general these flood events can be predicted 24 to 72 hours in advance of the rising waters. Emergency plans that are in place can be executed, before flood waters overtop the river channel, minimizing loss of life and business disruption. Clearwater County is a diverse combination of moderate to steep sloped forests, rolling prairie, and river and canyons. When rain‐on‐snow events occur in this area, the run off tends to come from the entire watershed at the same time, quickly filling all channels that flow from the area. Summer thunderstorms can result in flash flooding of specific smaller drainages. Often there is little time to react to the quickly rising waters. Due to the nature of the terrain within Clearwater County, localized flooding from thunderstorms tends to be more of a storm drainage problem for many communities. Short term blockage of roads is usually the biggest impact as drainage structures are overwhelmed by the amount of water. Ice/debris flows occur as part of riverine and flash flooding, usually exacerbating the effects of those types of flood events. In the event of a fire or other major disturbance, flash flooding can result from the loss of vegetation that usually intercepts some of the waters’ velocity as it flows downhill. In extreme cases, this can also lead to debris flows as the ground is saturated and soil and other materials is eroded and transported. 79
Figure 5.1. Clearwater County FEMA Floodplains. 80
Most of the structures in the FEMA‐identified floodplain for unincorporated areas of Clearwater County are located along the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek just outside the city limits of Orofino. The Ahsahka community is the largest concentration of structures in the floodplain in Clearwater County. The Clearwater River drainage is a collector watershed for the northern Rocky Mountains. Numerous small tributaries originating in and around Clearwater County drain into the Clearwater River. Some of the larger drainages include the North Fork, Orofino Creek, and Lolo Creek. These drainages have large, high elevation drainage areas; thus, are heavily influenced by rain‐on‐snow events. Nevertheless, several flash floods have also been recorded. Figure 5.2. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ahsahka. *Lighter blue color denotes 500 year floodplain. Dark blue is 100 year floodplain. A high level of sediment is prevalent during periods of runoff primarily from the abundance of agricultural fields. This sediment tends to cause a deteriorating condition in channel beds through erosion and deposition. Natural obstructions to flood waters include trees, brush, and other vegetation along the stream banks in the floodplain area. Debris can plug culverts and accumulate on bridge abutments at several locations. Several streets and road shoulders are prone to erosion during flood events. Many secondary routes are not paved, which results in gravel washing down‐slope potentially clogging drainage systems or directing water to places that were not intended. Sedimentation and accumulated debris and 81
vegetation are significantly increasing the flood risk throughout Clearwater County. Debris jams during high water events have caused considerable flood damage to adjacent properties. Clearwater County has experienced a long history of high magnitude floods since first recorded, typically by “50 and 100‐year” levels. The diverse landscape and weather patterns within Clearwater County are the triggers for those high magnitude floods. Rain‐
on‐snow events and above normal high spring temperatures are very typical throughout the county in the spring and late winter. The combination of the above two events are devastating and can cause extraordinary flooding events. Historically, flooding (in conjunction with mudslides) has had the greatest, negative financial impact on Clearwater County. Although the County experiences minor flooding in Elk River, Pierce, and Weippe, the most significant flood events have occurred in and around Orofino. Additionally, small scale high water events on Orofino Creek and other tributaries have also caused repetitive damages to existing residential development and infrastructural Evidence of Ice and Debris Jams on Orofino Creek (2005) components. For example, two residential structures on the Harmony Heights Road adjacent to Orofino Creek require repeated flood protection assistance during high water events. The action stage on Orofino Creek is 6 feet and flood stage is 8 feet of water; however, emergency flood assistance is needed at this location every time the creek reaches 4.5 feet of water. The frequency of these events was exacerbated following the construction of the new bridge upstream after the 1996‐97 flood events. Significant flood events occurred in Clearwater County in 1933, 1934, 1948, 1957, 1964, 1972, and most recently in 1996 and 1997. January thru February 1996 ‐ The third week of January 1996 brought large amounts of low elevation snow, especially in the Idaho Panhandle where weather stations measured an additional 10 inches of snow to the existing snow pack. By the end of January, sites in the north had as much as 2‐1/2 feet of snow on the ground. During the last week of January Noah’s Bridge 2003 temperatures dropped into the single digits for highs and below zero for lows. This caused ice to form on many of the rivers where low temperatures were in the 20 to 30 degree below zero range. On February 6, a warning was issued indicating that temperatures were warming up, that snow was becoming wet and dense, and that although the mainstream rivers were not showing a 82
response, there was still a good potential for flooding. By the 7th, the Boise National Weather Service began receiving reports of small stream flooding in the area east of Lewiston including small tributaries to the Clearwater River. Preliminary assessments indicated the most severe impacts were to infrastructure and housing, with approximately 708 family dwelling units affected. Damage to public property, not counting federal highways, was estimated at approximately $12.9 million. A Major Disaster declaration for Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Clearwater, Kootenai, Latah, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Shoshone Counties was signed by Governor Batt on February 10, 1996 and by President Clinton the following day. December 1996 thru February 1997 ‐ During the middle to late December 1996 and January and February of 1997, above normal snowfall occurred in northern and western Idaho. A warm, moist current of air from the subtropics (known locally as the “Pineapple Express”) arrived in Idaho, dumping warm rain on melting snow. The result was widespread flooding, power outages, landslides, road closures, and structure damage from crushing snow loads. Riverbank erosion and landslides filled the rivers with thick silt and debris. Large sections of the highway system were damaged or destroyed, isolating several communities for days. Mountain snow packs in the late winter were holding more than one and a half times the amount of water normally held at that time of year. Snowfall was well above average in Clearwater and other northern Idaho counties, sometimes exceeding twice the design snow loads of buildings. There was substantial damage to several schools and other public and private structures throughout the State. The aftermath resulted in over $7 million in damages and over $6 million in clean‐up, recovery, and restoration costs. Value of Resources at Risk Using the County Assessor’s data, it has been determined that there are approximately 357 parcels and 168 improvement within the FEMA‐identified floodplains (100‐ and 500‐year) in unincorporated areas of Clearwater County, yielding a total improvement value of $11.6 million. There is $6 million worth of improvements in the community of Ahsahka alone. There are currently no repetitive loss properties in Clearwater County. The average damage to structures was estimated based on the parcel’s location as either completely within or out of the flood zone. The estimated value of contents is ½ the value of the improvements equating to an additional $5.8 million in potential losses. In reality, the damages will most likely not be equally distributed between buildings based on building materials, building location, and flood location. However, these estimates provide a basic approximation. Critical infrastructure located within the identified floodplain for the unincorporated areas of the county include both the Idaho State and Dworshak Fish Hatcheries, a Clearwater Power substation, the Dent Bridge, the Ahsahka Bridge, the Clearwater‐Paper Timber Protective Association office in Headquarters, U.S. Highway 12, and the Highway 12 Bridges at Orofino and Greer. Clearwater County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program and has developed local ordinances to better regulate and direct development in floodplain areas. These local ordinances regulate planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of any works, structures, and improvements. Clearwater County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance also helps ensure that activities in the floodplain are properly planned, constructed, and maintained to avoid adversely influencing the stream or other body of water and the security of life, health, and property against damage by floodwater. Currently, the Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Department acts as the Clearwater County Floodplain Manager. 83
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and subsequent adoption of the Uniform Building Codes, or more stringent local building codes, provide basic guidelines to communities on how to regulate development. When a county participates in the NFIP it enables property owners in the county to insure against flood losses. By employing wise floodplain management, a participating county can protect its citizens against much of the devastating financial loss resulting from flood disasters. Careful local management of development in the floodplains results in construction practices that can reduce flood losses and the high costs associated with flood disasters to all levels of government. Table 5.1 provides a list of the communities within Clearwater County that currently participate in the NFIP.51 Table 5.1. Communities Participating in NFIP as of 2010. CID# Community Current Effective Map Date Floodplain Ordinance/Manager 160046 Clearwater County* 05/15/1980 Yes/Yes 160049 Weippe 12/4/1979 No/No 160047 Orofino 12/02/1980 Yes/Yes 08/29/1978 No/Yes 160048 Pierce * Unincorporated areas only. Clearwater County has no communities with identified special flood hazard areas that are not participating in the NFIP. Clearwater County has no communities under suspension or revocation of participation in the NFIP. An important part of being an NFIP community is the availability of low cost flood insurance for those homes and businesses within designated flood plains, or in areas that are subject to flooding, but that are not designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas. Participation by individuals and business within each community for 2010 is shown in the Table 5.2.52 Table 5.2. NFIP Policy Statistics As of 6/31/2010 in Clearwater County. Community Name Policies In‐Force in 2010 Insurance In‐
Force Written Premium In‐Force CRS Ranking Clearwater County* 14 $1,639,100 6,677 ‐ Weippe, City of 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ Orofino, City of 26 $4,829,100 22,483 ‐ Pierce, City of 3 $366,300 1,483 ‐ 51
Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2010. Floodplain Management. “Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Status Book Report. Available online at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/FloodPlainMgmt/PDFs/ID.pdf. 52
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2010. National Flood Insurance Policy Statistics Country‐Wide as of 03/31/2010. Available online at http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1011.htm#IDT. 84
*does not include policies in incorporated areas. Overall participation by individuals and businesses in the NFIP appears to be very low even though many communities have incurred flood damages on several recent occasions. Potential reasons for the lack of participation in the program are: -
A lack of knowledge about the existence of the availability of low cost flood insurance. -
Home and business owners unaware of their vulnerability to flood events. -
Current cost of insurance is prohibitive. The first two reasons can be addressed through public education. The third could be addressed by all communities in the county taking advantage of the Community Rating System (CRS). To encourage communities to go beyond the minimum requirements and further prevent and protect against flood damage, the NFIP established the Community Rating System (CRS). To qualify for CRS, communities can do things like make building codes more rigorous, maintain drainage systems, and inform residents of flood risk. In exchange for becoming more flood‐ready, the CRS community's residents are offered discounted premium rates. Based on your community's CRS ratings, you can qualify for up to a 45% discount of your annual flood insurance premium. Landslide Clearwater County has a long history of landslides and has completed extensive landslide identification and mapping. In general terms, there are some areas in Clearwater County that are prone to slides such as: •
•
•
•
•
On existing landslides, old or recent On or at the base or top of slopes In or at the base of minor drainage hollows At the base or top of an old fill slope At the base or top of a steep cut slope During the 1996‐97 and other flood events, small landslides and road slumps were common throughout Clearwater County due to saturated soils. Prolonged rainfall and saturated soils was also the primary cause of the flood and landslide events in the spring of 2011. Soil factors that increase the potential for landslide are soils developed from parent materials high in schist and granite, and soils that are less permeable containing a resistive or hardpan layer. These soils tend to exhibit higher landslide potential under saturated conditions than do well‐drained soils. To identify the high‐risk soils in Clearwater County, the NRCS State Soils Geographic Database (STATSGO) layer was used to identify the location and characteristics of all soils in the County. The specific characteristics of each major soil type within the County were reviewed. Soils information that suggested characteristics pertaining to very low permeability and/or Slump and Erosion of Fill Slope Along Camas Prairie Railroad in Orofino Creek 85
developed a hardpan layer and soils developed from schist and granite parent material were selected as soils with potential high landslide risk. High‐risk soils magnify the effect slope has on landslide potential. Soils identified as having high potential landslide risk are further identified only in areas with slopes between 14° and 30° (25‐60%). It is these areas that traditionally exhibit the highest landslide risk due to soil characteristics within a given landscape. To portray areas of probable landslide risk due to slope related factors, slope models were used to identify areas of low, moderate and high risk. This analysis identified the low risk areas as slopes in the range of 20°‐
25° (36‐46%), moderate as 26°‐30° (48‐60%) and high risk as slopes in the range of 31°‐60° (60‐173%). Slopes that exceeded 60° (173%) were considered low risk due to the fact that sliding most likely had already occurred relieving the area of the potential energy needed for a landslide. From the coverage created by these two methods, it is possible to depict areas of assumed risk and their proximity to development and human activity. With additional field reconnaissance the areas of high risk can be further defined by overlaying additional data points identifying actual slide locations, thus improving the resolution by specifically identifying the highest risk areas. This method of analysis is similar to a method developed by the Clearwater National Forest in north central Idaho.53 Table 5.3. Landslide Risk Due to Slopes, Geology, and Soils. Risk Due to Slopes and Geology Acres Percent Little or No Landslide Risk 854,339 54% Moderate Landslide Risk 258,002 16% High Landslide Risk 207,477 13% Extreme Landslide Risk 255,222 16% Clearwater County has a very high risk of experiencing landslides events as a result of instable soils, topography, and the location of roads and other human development in historic landslide areas. The majority of the highest risk landslide potential in Clearwater County occurs in the steep canyons along the Clearwater River and in mostly uninhabited mountainous areas. The canyons associated with the Clearwater River near Orofino have a high propensity for slides due primarily to the steep slopes. Wildfires and/or severe storms that saturate the soils could lead to major slide events in these areas. The probability of major, high velocity landslides, including those caused by severe local storms, is moderate. The 2007 Idaho State Hazard Mitigation Plan rates Clearwater County as having a high probability of landslides due the steep, mountainous terrain, weak soil/rock structure, previous history of events, high earthquake risk, soil destabilized by development or natural landscape changes, number of susceptible drainages, and history of heavy snowpack/flooding. The State Plan also shows that landslides in Clearwater County will have a medium impact because the transportation and utility corridors have minimal exposure and there are few state facilities in vulnerable areas.54 53
McClelland, D.E., et al. 1977. Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 floods and landslides on the Clearwater National Forest Part 1: Landslide Assessment. Northern Region U.S. Forest Service. December 1977. 54
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. State of Idaho Hazard Mitigation Plan. Boise, Idaho. November 2007. Available online at http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw‐signatures.pdf. 86
Figure 5.3. Landslide Prone Landscapes in Clearwater County. All communities are impacted by landslide because every primary access route in the county is vulnerable to the hazard. Ongoing landslide problems magnify the challenges of maintaining many of the roads in Clearwater County. It is often impossible to redirect traffic on these heavily traveled roads as alternate routes do not exist, and detours in steep terrain are difficult or impossible to construct. There is a moderate probability of small slides occurring on slopes ranging from 5‐35%, particularly in the Elk River, Pierce, and Ahsahka areas, where the soil types are also more prone to sliding. This type of slide is common on the eyebrows of hills, especially where there has been soil disturbance, and along roads. Generally, low angle slides will have a low velocity and will not impact structures or infrastructure. Much of the residential development on the slopes surrounding Orofino Greer Landslide Impact Zone and Ahsahka have a moderate to high risk of landslides from both slope angle and higher risk (unstable) soils. 87
Many of the populated areas in Clearwater County are at risk to flooding, which often results in damaging landslides. Flash floods typically carry large amounts of debris, silt, and rocks that are deposited in downstream floodplains. Additionally, soil saturation ensuing from prolonged periods of rain or flooding can lead to slope instability. Cut and fill slopes, even those well outside of the floodplain, are particularly at risk to slides and/or slumping as a result of soil saturation. The largest landslides typically occur where human development or disturbance has exposed landslide‐
prone sediments to steep topography. Today, initiation and reactivation of landslides is closely tied to unusual climatic events and land‐use changes. Even minor landslide activity on the upper slopes can transform into high‐energy debris flows that endanger roads, buildings, and people below. Landslide debris is highly unstable when modified through natural variations in precipitation, artificial cuts, fills, and changes to surface drainage and ground water.55 Fords Creek Landslide Impact Zone The Fords Creek, Grangemont, and Ahsahka Landslide Impact Zones encompass small population clusters that have an increased risk of landslides due to their location on or at the base of steep slopes. The soils in these areas are relatively stable; however, the steep angle of the slope in these areas could lead to high velocity slides. Additionally, rocks trees, or other debris rolling off of these slopes could cause serious damages due to structures and infrastructure. Ahsahka Landslide Impact Zone The Greer Landslide Impact Zone occurs along the eastern canyon wall of the Clearwater River. This area has a high risk of landslides due to the soil type as well as the instability introduced by the construction of State Route 11 (Greer Grade). This is also a very steep angled slope causing the highway to make numerous switchbacks as it makes it way up to the Weippe Prairie. Not only is the slope potentially unstable, but the cutbanks and fill slopes associated with the road are also prone to slumps and slides, particularly during wet weather. A major landslide in this area may even carry enough soil and debris to the bottom of the canyon to alter the flow of the 55
Weisz, D.W., et al. 2003. Surficial Geological Map of the Payette Quadrangle. Idaho and Lewis Counties, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey. 88
Clearwater River. This area likely has the highest landslide risk with damage potential in the County. The Gilbert Grade Landslide Impact Zone is located along the western slope of the Clearwater River canyon across from downtown Orofino. This area is considered a high risk zone due to both higher slide potential soils as well as steep slopes. The construction of the Gilbert Grade Road as well as several homesites has also likely introduced some slope instability. Slides within the Gilbert Grade Impact Zone would also likely have an impact on U.S. Highway 12 below. Debris across this roadway could cause serious damage to the roadway and would almost certainly cause traffic delays. Since there are few routes that could serve as an efficient detour, traffic delays in this area would have a significant impact on commuters Wildfires in theses impact zones could cause a Gilbert Grade Landslide Impact Zone domino effect of multiple hazards. Higher intensity fires not only remove most of the vegetation, but they also cause soils to become hydrophobic or water repellent for a period of time after the fire. This combination leads to unusually high runoff after rain showers or during the spring runoff season. As streams and rivers begin to reach and exceed flood stage, bank failures and channel migration are common. Road building and other soil disturbances tend to exacerbate this effect leading to even more severe land and soil slides. Clearwater County, city officials, local businesses, landowners, citizens and representatives from several state and federal agencies have been evaluating landslide mitigation needs in Clearwater County, Idaho since September 2001. This effort was sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through a program called Project Impact. Project Impact is a hazard mitigation planning and project Grangemont Landslide Impact Zone implementation program that emphasizes harnessing local effort to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Clearwater County Project Impact identified landslide hazards as a major threat to lives and property in Clearwater County and established “assessing landslide areas and producing landslide hazard maps of critical areas of the County” as its primary mitigation action. The Project Impact committee realized that Clearwater County needed growth and development, but also needed to reduce the risks of further development in high landslide risk areas. In order to assist with the recognition and categorization of high risk areas, Project Impact set aside funds for mapping landslide hazards. The purpose of the project was to produce maps of slope instability hazards. Idaho Geological Survey mapped the surficial geology and Terry Howard of Howard Consulting produced 89
the hazard map, which was finished in August 2003. A description of the hazard categories and the landslide hazard maps developed by Project Impact are included in the Appendices for reference, but are also available on the Clearwater County website.56 Figure 5.4. Chronic Landslide Areas. April 2011 Landslides ‐ Prolonged rainfall in the late winter and early spring of 2011 throughout central Idaho resulted in flooding activity and subsequent landslides. In the first week of April 2011, numerous local rivers and streams reached flood stage due to prolonged rainfall and rain‐on‐snow causing rapid melt off. Damages to culverts and other drainage structures were widespread. Furthermore, the April rain also resulted in saturated soils that eventually led to landslides and slumps. Most of the landslide damages occurred along existing roadways. A presidential disaster declaration was issued on May 20, 2011 for the flooding, landslides, and mudslides that occurred in Clearwater, Bonner, Idaho, Nez Perce, and Shoshone Counties and that affected the Nez Perce Tribe. A full summary of this event, including damages and community impacts, is included in the Appendices. Value of Resources at Risk Due to the moderate to high landslide risk throughout most of Clearwater County, a number of resources are directly at risk. The cost of cleanup and repairs resulting from small slides and slumps along roadways is 56
Clearwater County. Landslide Project webpage. Available online at http://www.clearwatercounty.org/?LandslideProject. Accessed May 2011. 90
difficult to estimate due to the variable circumstances with each incident including size of the slide, proximity to a State or County shop, and whether the slide occurred on the cut slope or the fill slope. Other factors that could affect the cost of the damage may include culverts, streams, and removal of debris. This type of information is impossible to anticipate; thus, no repair costs for damaged roadways have been estimated. Table 5.4. Landslide Impact Zones in Clearwater County. Number of Improvements Value of Structures at Risk Fords Creek 27 $3,157,656 Grangemont 31 $2,546,312 Ahsahka 78 $6,989,580 Greer 28 $2,433,891 Gilbert Grade 11 $1,251,386 Total 175 $16,378,825 Landslide Impact Zone Slides in the identified impact zones are more likely to be larger and more damaging as weaknesses in the underlying rock formations give way. Although infrequent, this type of slide has the potential to not only block, but destroy road corridors, dam waterways, and demolish structures. The highest risk areas in these impact zones are typically at the higher elevations where slopes exceed 25% grade. There are numerous homes in each of these impact zones; however, they are typically widely scattered. Thus, single slide events will not likely impact the entire population, but rather individual structures. Much of U.S. Highway 12, State Route 11, the Grangemont Road, Fords Creek Road, and County Road P1 could be at risk from slides initiating in these impact zones. Severe Weather Severe weather in Clearwater County ranges from the commonly occurring thunderstorms to hail, high winds, drought, dense fog, lightning, and rain and snow storms. All of Clearwater County is at risk to severe weather events and there is a high probability of their continued occurrence in this area. Due to topography and climatologic conditions, the higher mountainous areas are often the most exposed to the effects of these storms. Normally, the mountainous terrain and the north/south orientation of the Rockies tend to isolate severe storms into localized areas. For example, higher elevations will receive snowfall, while Orofino and other communities along the River may not. Periodically though, individual storms can generate enough force to impact the entire County at one time. From high winds to ice storms to freezing temperatures, there are all types of severe weather that take place during the course of any given year. Weather conditions, especially during the winter, can change very rapidly. It is not uncommon to have a snowstorm at night with sunshine the next day. Winter storms with heavy snow, high winds, and/or extreme cold can have a considerable impact on Clearwater County residents. Power outages and unplowed roads are a frequent occurrence throughout many parts of the County and can aggravate the extreme cold, leaving residents stranded in the cold and dark for days or threaten the safety of people dependent on electricity for needed medical equipment. Most residents, however, are well accustomed to the severe winter conditions in this part of Idaho. 91
Commonly, heavy snow accumulations cause disruptions to normal commuting activities (delays and inability to plow roads and driveways). When coupled with extreme cold weather, severe winter storms have a detrimental impact on residents in Clearwater County, particularly the senior population. Severe winter storms also have the potential to cause large losses among livestock and wildlife. Animal losses are usually the result of dehydration rather than cold or suffocation. February 2008 Winter Storm – Due to heavy snow falls in previous weeks and additional snowfall forecasted, Clearwater County declared a state of disaster in early February 2008 for the Elk River area. Clearwater County and several area communities were overwhelmed with snow removal from public facilities and streets. Snow loads on roofs, ice‐slides off of roofs onto vehicles or other buildings, and damaged frozen pipes are also potential hazards associated with winter weather. These events represent a significant hazard to public health and safety, a substantial disruption of economic activity, and a constant threat to structures during the winter months. An average of at least one severe winter storm is anticipated each winter in Clearwater County. Due to their relative frequency and minimal severity, severe thunderstorms are not well documented in Clearwater County. Their impacts are fairly limited and do not significantly affect the communities enough to declare a disaster. The secondary impacts of thunderstorms, floods, are emphasized within the flood chapter of this document. Areas most vulnerable to this type of storm are those subject to a strong southwesterly flow of moist, unstable air that generates strong, sometimes violent thunderstorms with one or more of the following characteristics: strong damaging winds, large hail, waterspouts, or tornados. Hail can occur in any strong thunderstorm, which means hail is a threat everywhere. Hail is precipitation that is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere. Large hail stones can fall at speeds faster than 100 miles per hour. Hail damage in Idaho is very small in comparison with damage in areas of the central part of the United States. Often the hail that occurs does not grow to a size larger than one‐half inch in diameter, and the areas affected are usually small. Quite often hail comes during early spring storms, when it is mostly of the small, soft variety with a limited damaging effect. Later, when crops are more mature and more susceptible to serious damage, hail occurs in widely scattered spots in connection with summer thunderstorms. The potential impacts of a severe hail storm in Clearwater County include crop damage, downed power lines, downed or damaged trees, broken windows, roof damage, and vehicle damage. Hail storms can, in extreme cases, cause death by exposure. The most common direct impact from ice storms to people is traffic accidents. Over 85% of ice storm deaths nationwide are caused by traffic accidents. Hail storms also have the potential to cause losses among livestock. The highest potential damage from hail storms in Clearwater County is the economic loss from crop damage. Even small hail can cause significant damage to young and tender plants. Trees can also be severely damaged by hail as was seen in the 1996 ice storm near Spokane, Washington. Windstorms are frequent in Clearwater County and they have been known to cause substantial damage. Under most conditions, the County’s highest winds come from the south or southwest. Even though agricultural in Clearwater County is not a large component of the economy, crop damage due to high winds can have serious impacts on private landowners. In the case of extremely high winds, some buildings may 92
be damaged or destroyed. Wind damages will generally be categorized into four groups: 1) structure damage to roofs, 2) structure damage from falling trees, 3) damage from wind blown dust on sensitive receptors, or 4) wind driven wildfires. Structural injury from damaged roofs is not uncommon in Clearwater County. Structural damage from falling trees is also relatively common. Many homeowners have planted ornamental trees for shade and windbreak protections. However, many of these trees are located near, and upwind of homes putting them at risk to falling trees which could cause substantial structural damage and potentially put lives at risk. Airborne particulate matter increases during high wind events. When this occurs, sensitive receptors including the elderly and those with asthma are at increased risk to complications. The National Weather Service defines high winds as sustained winds of 40 mph or gusts of 58 mph or greater that are not caused by thunderstorms and are expected to last for an hour or more. Areas most vulnerable to high winds are those affected by a strong pressure difference from deep storms originating over the Pacific Ocean; an outbreak of very cold, Arctic air originating over Canada; or air pressure differences between western Washington and the Idaho Panhandle. November 2010 Wind Storm – A severe wind event with gusts estimated at 70 miles per hour hit central Idaho in November of 2010 knocking down trees and power lines throughout Clearwater County. The Orofino area suffered the most damage, particularly in the Hidden Village Mobile Home Park west of Orofino. Downed trees caused major damages to approximately 20 homes, numerous vehicles, and transportation and utility infrastructure. The Clearwater County Road Department, Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protection Association, Clearwater Power, Avista Utilities, and law enforcement worked around the clock to clear roadways and restore power. An emergency shelter was opened to residents displaced from their homes and a disaster declaration was issued November 2010 Wind Storm Damage for Clearwater County as a result of this event. Clearwater County and the entire region are at increased risk to wildfires during high wind events. Ignitions can occur from a variety of sources including downed power lines, lightning, or arson. Once ignited, only wildfire mitigation efforts around the community and scattered homes will assist firefighters in controlling a blaze. A tornado is formed by the turbulent mixing of layers of air with contrasting temperature, moisture, density, and wind flow. This mixing accounts for most of the tornadoes occurring in April, May, and June, when cold, dry air from the north or northwest meets warm, moister air moving up from the south. If this scenario was to occur and a major tornado was to strike a populated area in Clearwater County, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period, and routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted. The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a violently rotating column of air that contacts the ground. Tornados usually develop from severe thunderstorms. 93
According to the Tornado Project57 there have been no tornadoes recorded in Clearwater County between 1880 and 2000. The Counties that border Clearwater County, however, have had tornadoes reported within the recent past. The most recent of these occurred in Nez Perce County on May 31, 1997 and Latah County on May 1, 1991 and June 1, 1991. All of these tornado events were reported as F0. No injuries or damage were reported in any of these events. During the May 1991 event strong winds did, however, blow branches off a tree that knocked out the power to the community of Troy. Drought can have a broad effect on Clearwater County as it generally affects the entire county. The region’s dependence on agriculture makes it economically vulnerable to drought. The economic impacts from drought may include: ¾ Losses from crop, livestock, timber, and fishery production and associated businesses. ¾ Losses from recreation providers and associated businesses. ¾ Losses from increased costs resulting from increased energy demand and from shortages caused by reduced hydroelectric generation capacity. ¾ Revenue losses to Federal, State, and local governments from reduced tax base and to financial institutions from defaults and postponed payments. ¾ Long‐term loss of economic growth and development. Drought in Clearwater County can also have significant impacts on the natural environment including: ¾ Damage to habitat, reduction of feed and drinking water, disease, increased vulnerability to predation for wildlife and fish. ¾ Wind and water erosion of soils. ¾ Damage to plant species. ¾ Reduction of water and air quality. ¾ Reduction of visual and landscape quality. ¾ Social impacts may include: ¾ Increased risks to public safety from forest and range fires. ¾ Increased conflicts between water users. ¾ Food shortages and increased health concerns. ¾ Decreased living conditions in rural areas and increased poverty. ¾ Reduced quality of life and social unrest. ¾ Increased population migration from rural to urban areas. Drought emergency declarations are issued by Idaho Department of Water Resources and are approved by the governor. Since 2009, Clearwater County has not been issued a Drought Emergency Declaration Order. 57
Tornado Project. 1999. St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Available online at http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/idtorn.htm. 94
According to the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Clearwater County last declared a drought disaster in October 5, 2007.58 The U.S. Drought Monitor is a synthesis of multiple drought indices and impacts that represent a consensus of federal and academic scientists. As of June 1, 2010, the Drought Monitor showed Clearwater County as experiencing moderate drought conditions on an improving trend since the beginning of the year.59 Figure 5.5. U.S. Drought Monitor for Western Region. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate the cost of potential winter storm damages to structures and the economy in Clearwater County. Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. In general, snow in this region tends to have low moisture content because of the low temperatures and arid environment. However, heavy snow is not uncommon. Frozen water pipes are the most common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones. Snow plowing in Clearwater County occurs from a variety of departments and agencies. The main highways are maintained by the Idaho Transportation Department. County roads are plowed by the County Road Department and city departments plow within their respective city limits. Private landowners are responsible for maintaining their own driveways or other private roads. Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two‐fold impact on Clearwater County residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces 58
Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2010. Idaho Drought Emergency Declarations. Available online at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/News/drought/drought.htm. 59
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. 2010. U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought Information Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at http://www.drought.noaa.gov/index.html. 95
and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population is at a disadvantage. Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications. The economic losses caused by severe winter storms may frequently be greater than structural damages. Employees may not be able to travel to work for several days and businesses may not open. Damages are seen in the form of structural repair and loss of economic activity. Clearwater County schools are occasionally closed during and right after a severe winter storm because of cold temperatures and snow covered roads. Thunderstorms do occur in Idaho affecting all counties, but usually are localized events. Their impacts are fairly limited and do not significantly affect the communities enough to declare a disaster. The loss potential from flooding that results from severe thunderstorms can be significant in Clearwater County. Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property as well as to the vast forestlands and extensive agricultural development in Clearwater County. The most significant losses are most clearly seen in the agriculture sectors of the County’s economy. Potential losses to agriculture can be disastrous. They can also be very localized; thus, individual farmers can have significant losses, but the event may not drastically affect the economy of the County. Furthermore, crop damage from hail will also be different depending on the time of year and the type of crop. Most farmers carry insurance on their crops to help mitigate the potential financial loss resulting from a localized hail storm. Federal and state aid is available for County’s with declared hail disasters resulting in significant loss to local farmers as well as the regional economy. Homeowners in Clearwater County rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles is not uncommon. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown. Additionally, most hail damage records are kept by various insurance agencies. It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Clearwater County due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds. We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows: •
3% of the buildings damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.) •
5% of the buildings received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof equaling $3,000) Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large scale wildfire event associated with high winds. Based on the data provided by the County, there are 2,287 total assessed improvements in unincorporated Clearwater County with a total value of approximately $183.3 million. Using the criteria outlined above, an estimate of the impact of high winds on in the County has been made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all improvements is estimated at approximately $5.5 million. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $342,000. 96
Power failure often accompanies severe storms. More rural parts of the County are sometimes better prepared to deal with power outages for a few days due to the frequent occurrence of such events; however, prolonged failure, especially during cold winter temperatures can have disastrous effects. All communities should be prepared to deal with power failures. Community shelters equipped with alternative power sources will help local residents stay warm and prepare food. The impacts of drought in Clearwater County will be primarily felt in the agricultural sector from the loss in production of crops. Clearwater County does not have a large agricultural component to their economy; however, there crops grown on the Weippe Prairie and for individual family use. Regardless, widespread crop loss, will impact local farmers directly and other residents through the increased cost of produce and other goods. Wildland Fire The Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan60 provides a comprehensive analysis of the wildland fire risks and recommended protection and mitigation measures for all jurisdictions in Clearwater County. The information in the “Wildland Fire” sections of this Chapter is excerpted from that more detailed document. Clearwater County is characterized by relatively mild winters and warm, dry summers. Although infrequent, fires in the forest fuel types present throughout much of the County have the potential to result in large, intense and damaging fires such as the 1910 Fire or the Sundance Fire. Past timber harvest operations have created a mosaic of stand conditions that is evident from almost any viewpoint. The fire risk associated with these activities is highly variable depending on a plethora of factors, some of which include the amount of timber volume removed (i.e. number and size of trees left standing), treatment of slash post‐harvest, reforestation success, use of equipment, and many site specific factors such as aspect. Generally, treatment of slash by prescribed burning or pile burning can significantly reduce the risk of intense wildfire by removing hazardous fuels in the understory. Clearwater County has been experiencing steady growth, particularly in and around Orofino. At the same time, the number and value of resources at risk is on the increase, as more and more homes are built in the midst of fire prone fuels. Human use is strongly correlated with fire frequency, with increasing numbers of fires as use increases. The combination of frequent ignitions and flammable vegetation has greatly increased the probability that incendiary devices will find a receptive fuel bed, resulting in increased fire frequency. Discarded cigarettes, tire fires, and hot catalytic converters have increased the number of fires experienced along roadways. Careless and unsupervised use of fireworks also contributes their fair share to unwanted and unexpected wildland fires. Further contributing to ignition sources are the debris burners and “sport burners” who use fire to rid ditches of weeds and other burnable materials. Vegetative structure and composition in Clearwater County is closely related to elevation, aspect and precipitation. Relatively mild and moist environments characterize the undulating topography of the region 60
King, Tera and V. Bloch. 2010. Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Northwest Management, Inc. Moscow, Idaho. 97
which transitions from the Palouse prairie plant communities of the northwest region to the forest ecosystems that characterize the vast majority of the land area in Clearwater County. These forest communities contain high fuel accumulations that have the potential to burn at moderate to high intensities. Highly variable topography coupled with dry, windy weather conditions typical of the region is likely to create extreme fire behavior. At higher elevation mountainous regions, moisture becomes less limiting due to a combination of higher precipitation and reduced solar radiation. Vegetative patterns shift toward forested communities dominated by ponderosa pine, western larch, grand fir, and Douglas‐fir at the lower and mid elevations, transitioning to lodgepole pine and subalpine fir at the higher elevations. Engelmann spruce and western red cedar are commonly found in moist draws and frost pockets. These forested conditions possess a greater quantity of both dead and down fuels as well as live fuels. Rates of fire spread tend to be lower than those in the grass and shrub lands, however, intensities can escalate dramatically, especially under the effect of slope and wind. These conditions can lead to control problems and potentially threaten lives, structures and other valued resources. As elevation and aspect increase available moisture, forest composition transitions to moister habitat types. Increases in moisture keep forest fuels unavailable to burn for longer periods during the summer. This increases the time between fire events, resulting in varying degrees of fuel accumulation. When these fuels do become available to burn, they typically burn in mosaic pattern at mid elevations, where accumulations of forest fuels result in either single or group tree torching, and in some instances, short crown fire runs. At the highest elevations, fire events are typically stand replacing, as years of fuel accumulation fuel large, intense wildfires. Many lower elevation forested areas throughout Clearwater County are highly valued for their scenic qualities as well as for their proximity to travel corridors. These attributes have led to increased recreational Eagle Nest Fire near Orofino
home development and residential home construction in and around forest fuel complexes. The juxtaposition of highly flammable forest types and rapid home development will continue to challenge the ability to manage wildland fires in the wildland‐urban interface. Fire suppression often depends on two important factors: availability of fire suppression resources and access. Fire suppression resources include firefighting personnel, equipment and apparatus as well as water and chemical fire suppressants. The greater the availability of fire suppression resources, the more likely it is that a given fire will be contained quickly. Fire suppression also depends on access. Fires in remote areas without ground access are more difficult to fight and thus harder to contain than are fires in roaded areas. Access and effective response is partially a function of land management objectives. Lands managed for natural conditions where roads have not been built or the existing roads have been obliterated tend to have a much poorer fire suppression response than commercial forestlands where road systems are maintained. 98
Because wildland fires are being effectively suppressed, the patterns and characteristics of fires are changing. Vegetation that historically would have been minimized by frequent fires has become more dominant. Over time, some species have also become more susceptible to disease and insect damage, which leads to an increase in mortality. The resulting accumulation of dead wood and debris creates the types of fuels that promote intense, rapidly spreading fires. Decades of logging and fire suppression have also changed the characteristics of forests, trending towards younger forest stands. Mature forests are typically less dense, and contain larger more fire‐resistant trees. Young forests are denser with larger numbers of small, less fire‐resistant trees. Younger trees have thinner bark and may sustain more economic damage than an older stand. Areas subject to wildland‐urban interface fires have very different fire hazard characteristics. The defining characteristic of the wildland‐urban interface area is that structures are built in areas with essentially continuous (and often high) vegetative fuel loads. When wildland fires occur in such areas, they tend to spread quickly and structures in these areas may, unfortunately, become little more than additional fuel sources for wildland fires. The placement of homes in wildland urban interface settings has also changed over time. Historically pioneering families built their homes in low lands, close to water and the fields they intended to work. Within the last 50 years, rural homes have increasingly been built in locations chosen because of the view or other amenities. Thus, many newer homes are in locations more difficult to defend against wildland fires. Fire risk to structures and occupants in wildland‐urban interface areas is high due to high vegetative fuel loads and limited fire suppression resources compared to urban or suburban areas. Homes in wildland‐
urban interface areas are most commonly on wells rather than on municipal water supplies, which limits the availability of water for fire suppression. Less availability of water resources makes it more likely that a small wildland fire or a single structure fire will spread before it can be extinguished. In many areas of Clearwater County, narrow winding roads, dead end driveways, and inadequate bridges impede access by firefighting apparatus. As with water supplies, the lower availability of firefighting personnel and apparatus and longer response times increase the probability that a small wildland fire or a single structure fire will spread. Developments in wildland‐urban interface areas often face high fire risk because of the combination of high fire hazard (high vegetative fuel loads) and limited fire suppression capabilities. Unfortunately, occupants in many wildland‐urban interface areas also face high safety risks, especially from large fires that may spread quickly. The safety risks in interface areas are often exacerbated by limited numbers of roads (in the worst case only one access road) that are often narrow and winding and subject to blockage by a wildland fire. Potential safety issues within interface areas are often increased by homeowners’ reluctance to evacuate homes quickly. Instead, homeowners often try to protect their homes with whatever fire suppression resources are available. Such efforts generally have very little effectiveness. Unfortunately, homeowners who delay evacuation often place themselves in jeopardy. Developments in rural wildland‐urban interface areas face a range of risk factors. Developments that have all or most of the following attributes are at the highest level of risk: 99
1) Location in or surrounded by heavy fuel loads with a high degree of continuity (i.e. few significant firebreaks). Risk may be particularly high if the fuel load is grass, brush, and smaller trees subject to low moisture levels in short duration drought periods. 2) Steep slopes, which cause fires to spread more rapidly. 3) Limited fire suppression capacity including limited water supply capacity for fire suppression purposes, limited firefighting personnel and apparatus, and typically long response times for fire alarms. 4) Limited access for firefighting apparatus and limited evacuation routes for residents at risk. 5) Construction of structures to less than fully fire‐safe practices, 6) Lack of maintenance of firebreaks and defensible zones around structures. Fire was once an integral function within the majority of ecosystems in Idaho. The seasonal cycling of fire across the landscape was as regular as the July, August and September lightning storms plying across the canyons and mountains. Depending on the plant community composition, structural configuration, and buildup of plant biomass, fire resulted from ignitions with varying intensities and extent across the landscape. Shorter return intervals between fire events often resulted in less dramatic changes in plant composition.61 The fires burned from 1 to 47 years apart, with most at 5‐ to 20‐year intervals.62 With infrequent return intervals, plant communities tended to burn more severely and be replaced by vegetation different in composition, structure, and age.63 Native plant communities in this region developed under the influence of fire, and adaptations to fire are evident at the species, community, and ecosystem levels. Fire history data (from fire scars and charcoal deposits) suggest fire has played an important role in shaping the vegetation throughout Clearwater County. Wildfires across the western part of the United States are on the increase. Although large fires of at least 250,000 acres have occurred in north central Idaho, Clearwater County has been successful with its initial attack through aggressive firefighting efforts from the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association, the Idaho Department of Lands, the U.S. Forest Service, and the rural fire districts. The largest recorded fire on U.S. Forest Service lands between the period of 1986 and 2008, occurred in 2003 and grew to just over 3,500 acres. The largest recorded fire on Idaho Department of Lands protected property during this period occurred in 1986 and grew to 427 acres. Both of these fires were started by lightning. 61
Johnson, C.G. 1998. Vegetation Response after Wildfires in National Forests of Northeastern Oregon. 128 pp. 62
Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest: the state of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW‐97. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 106 p. 63
Johnson, C.G.; Clausnitzer, R.R.; Mehringer, P.J.; Oliver, C.D. 1994. Biotic and Abiotic Processes of Eastside Ecosytems: the Effects of Management on Plant and Community Ecology, and on Stand and Landscape Vegetation Dynamics. Gen. Tech. Report PNW‐GTR‐322. USDA‐Forest Service. PNW Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 722pp. 100
1910 Fire ‐ In a brief 48‐hour span, fires carried by hurricane‐force winds burned more than 3 million acres, killed 85 persons, devastated the eastern part of Wallace, and destroyed between seven and eight billion board feet of timber. The hurricane force winds, which gave the big blowup its horror, came up from the southwest in the Nez Perce National Forest near Elk City. Nearly 2.5 million acres of the Clearwater River watershed, burning all of the River’s headwaters from Weitas Creek up through Kelly Creek and across the Bitterroot Range, were burned. Detailed records of fire ignition and extent have been compiled by the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), with records of fire ignitions dating back to 1983 and 1986, respectively. Using this data on past fire extents and fire ignition data, the occurrence of wildland fires in the region of Clearwater County has been evaluated. In interpreting these data, it is important to keep in mind that this information is for IDL or USFS protected lands only and does not include all fires in areas covered only by local fire departments. Additionally, much of the information in the datasets is redundant since both agencies likely responded to the many of the same fires. The IDL and USFS databases of wildfire ignitions used in this analysis include ignition and extent data from 1986 through 2008 within their jurisdiction. An analysis of the IDL reported wildfire ignitions in Clearwater County reveals that during this period approximately 1,936 ignitions resulted in 3,129 acres burned (average 1.6 acres per fire). The USFS database shows that 1,400 ignitions resulted in 29,736 acres burned (21.2 acres burned per fire). Some of the larger fires within the IDL’s protection area (including CPTPA) include the Gold Creek Reburn (427 acres), Deer Creek Fire (230 acres), Weitas Creek North Fire (154 acres), Heywood Logging Fire (128 acres), Cobbler’s Knob Fire (100 acres), and the Winter Creek #1 Fire (100 acres). Table 5.5. Summary of IDL and USFS databases 1986‐2008. General Cause Number of Ignitions Percent of Total Ignitions Acres Burned Percent of Total Acres IDL USFS IDL USFS IDL USFS IDL 35 ‐ 2% ‐ 12 ‐ 0% ‐ Lightning Arson Campfire Debris Burning Miscellaneous Equipment Use Juveniles Power Line Railroad Silvicultural Burning 1450 17 81 78 115 52 10 56 2 22 1,313 9 38 8 13 4 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 75% 1% 4% 4% 6% 3% 1% 3% 0% 1% 94% 1% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,057 19 39 127 231 338 5 129 0 147 28,586 125 656 232 73 62 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 66% 1% 1% 4% 7% 11% 0% 4% 0% 5% 96% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ Smoking 18 1,936 14 1,400 1% 100% 1% 100% 25 3,129 3 29,736 1% 100% 0% 100% Fireworks Total USFS According to both datasets, the vast majority of ignitions and acres burned were caused by lightning with debris burning, equipment use, and other miscellaneous causes the most common human causes. Fires started by these types of causes are usually suppressed quickly due to someone witnessing the event. 101
Overall, the threat of wildland fire appears moderate to high for Clearwater County. Communities at lower elevations are at risk from frequent lower intensity fires. The higher elevation communities are typically at risk from infrequent, but much more intense wildfires. Nevertheless, higher levels of rain and snowfall in these areas help minimize the period of time they are most susceptible to severe wildfires. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Clearwater County due to wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the right resources, but they can also be the most destructive. Ignition potential is high throughout the County. Recreational areas, major roadways, debris burning, and equipment use are typically the most likely human ignition sources. Lightning is by far the most common source of ignitions as well as the largest contributor to total acres burned in Clearwater County. Clearwater County is actively pursuing funds to help with wildland fire mitigation projects and public education programs. While mitigation efforts will significantly improve the probability of a structure’s survivability, no amount of mitigation will guarantee survival. Extended Power Outage Electrical power has become an indispensable part of modern day life. Clearwater County’s leisure, healthcare, government, economy, and livelihood depend on a constant supply of electrical power. Even a temporary stoppage of power can lead to relative chaos, monetary setbacks, and possible loss of life. The residents within Clearwater County require electricity to live on, and without a steady supply from the power grid, pandemonium could break loose. Power outages can be especially disastrous when it comes to life‐support systems in places like hospitals and nursing homes. Because Clearwater County is mostly rural and has no stop lights, traffic control issues would not likely be a large concern. Power failures are particularly critical at sites where the environment and public safety are at risk. Institutions such as hospitals, sewage treatment plants, schools, etc., should have backup power sources, such as standby generators, which will automatically start up when electrical power is lost. Other critical systems, such as telecommunications and emergency response should also have access to emergency power. Federal and State grants are in some instances made available to communities in need of support dollars for enhancing their backup power systems. An exploration of these grants should be made a priority by Clearwater County to ensure their functionality in the event of a long‐term power failure. Extended power outages also affect the County’s and most communities’ ability to provide government and other services such as trash pickup, street lights, municipal water, law enforcement, and fire and medical 102
services. Power outages may also impact the State medical facility as patients rely on their caretakers to provide food, warmth, and shelter. Severe weather events, particularly high winds and ice, are the most common cause of power outages. These types of outages are generally short‐term (2‐12 hours) and do not have a significant impact on residents. However, depending on the time of day, even short term outages can result in considerable lost revenues for local businesses. Outages also impact the power suppliers, Avista and Clearwater Power, due to lost revenues from use as well as response and repair costs. Short term outages can also affect emergency response as communication capabilities are Shooters shut down powerhouse at slowed and hospitals are running on backup power Dworshak Dam supplies. A long term outage in Clearwater County would have drastic economic impacts. Most communities in Clearwater County can provide potable water for 1‐3 days without electricity to run pumps. However, a backup power source would eventually be required to replenish storage tanks. Many communities do not have a standby generator to power sewer treatment facilities, which could lead to effluent being backed up and potential contamination of the water supply. Despite advances in computer technology, power outages are a major cause of personal computer and server downtime. An extended outage (defined as an outage lasting longer than the computers uninterruptible power supply) can prevent unprotected computers from initiating their required shutdown procedure. Computer and server operating systems are not designed to support abrupt losses of power known as “hard” shutdowns, but rather rely on a set of processes that prepare a computer for a shut down such as saving memory, stopping applications, etc. Hard shutdowns can result in lost or corrupted data and a lengthier time‐to‐
recovery after power returns. Life safety would also be at risk, particularly if the outage occurred during the winter months when many residents are relying on electricity for heating and cooking. Special needs populations would have the greatest risk during extended power outages due to reduced abilities to adapt to the situation; their dependence on life support systems, medication, or oxygen; and difficulties with transportation. Generally, power companies maintain a PORTLAND, Ore. ‐ For the third time in a year, shooters have damaged major transmission lines in the area of Dworshak Dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater River, this time causing a power outage. The FBI and the Latah County sheriff are investigating, and the Bonneville Power Administration is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the vandals. Two 500,000‐volt transmission lines and the powerhouse at Dworshak Dam were knocked out of service shortly after 3 p.m. on June 6. Shooters blasted away insulators at two towers about 26 miles northeast of Dworshak near the town of Bovill, Clearwater County, Idaho. No communities lost power because of the outages. Replacing the insulators cost BPA $9,200, but the greatest loss was 800 megawatts of generation at the powerhouse, which was worth about $140,000. In addition, once the generators were offline, water from the Dworshak reservoir flowed over the dam spillway instead of through turbines. The spilling water increased the dissolved gas levels in the river below the dam, seriously threatening migrating salmon. “Our line maintenance crews helped bypass the vandalized towers to keep power flowing. Then they replaced 35 insulators on the Dworshak‐Taft line,” Kler said. “Had those insulators failed completely, that line could have fallen. At the moment that live line touched the ground, people and animals in the area could have been seriously injured or killed by the electricity traveling through the ground.” Initially, the Dworshak‐Taft number 1 transmission line went out of service. That outage caused the Hatwai‐Dworshak line to go dead, which, in turn, shut down the Dworshak Dam powerhouse. In all, the lines were out of service for over 19 hours; the powerhouse was offline for nine hours. The lines and the powerhouse returned to service around 11a.m. on June 7. BPA News. June 12, 2002 103
list of customers who may be more negatively affected or would require immediate assistance in the event of an outage. This type of information should also be shared with Clearwater County Emergency Management and local emergency responders in order to ensure these populations receive adequate support. Table 5.6. Record of Outages on Primary Transmission Lines in Weippe, Pierce, Jaype, and Headquarters (plus Orofino). Year # of Outages Average Outage Time Longest Outage Time 2004 3 (0) 4.7 (0) hours 6 (0) hours Jan (N/A) 2003 3 (1) 1.8 (2) hours 4 (2) hours Mar (Jan) 2002 2 (1) 1.4 (.16) hours 2.5 (.16) hours 2001 11 (1) 4.5 (3.5) hours 9.2 (3.5) hours 2000 3 (3) 3.3 (3.3) hours 7 (7) hours Apr (Aug) Mar, April, June, July, Sept (Mar) April, Sept (N/A) Month Clearwater County has experienced a long history of power outages. The diverse landscape, rural settings, and weather patterns within Clearwater County are the triggers for much of the power outages that occur. Rain‐on‐snow events and periods of extreme wind are very typical throughout the county in the spring and late winter. The combination of these types of events can cause significant power outages. Table 5.7. Record of Sub‐outages in Weippe, Pierce, Jaype, and Headquarters (plus Orofino). Year # of Outages Average Outage Time Longest Outage Time 2004 4 (87) 2.9 (5.6) hours 5.3 (N/A) hours 2003 4 (67) 5.1 (2.7) hours 7.8 (N/A) hours 2002 4(71) 2.4 (2.9) hours 2.7 (N/A) hours 2001 23 (97) 1.8 (4.6) hours 7 (N/A) hours 2000 4 (85) 3 (2.8) hours 7 (N/A) hours Month Jan,Dec (All Months) Mar,July (All Months) Apr, June, July, Oct (All Months) Jan, Mar, April,May, June, July, Aug, Sept (All Months) April,June,Sept (All Months) Wildland fires also have the potential to cause extended power outages. During a fire, power companies typically de‐energize sections of the power grid in order to prevent arcing from the smoke as well as to protect firefighters. The length of the outage and the damage caused to the power line would be dependent on the location and intensity of the fire. This type of outage could significantly impact communities and rural residents. In the summer months, an extended outage can cause food spoilage on an individual level (refrigerators and freezers) as well as in grocery and other stores. Value of Resources at Risk There is no reliable estimates regarding the total costs and losses that power outages create within Clearwater County, but these events are costly. Power outages disrupt emergency functions and commerce, as well as personal lives. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. 104
Sections of power line could be lost during a wildland fire in Clearwater County. This would cost the power companies millions to replace depending on the scale of the loss as well as have a dire impact on communities. This type of power outage would likely take weeks of repair and replacement work to become fully functional again. Computer and data systems such as medical records, assessor’s data, and client information may also be damaged or lost during an extended outage. Most computers have a backup power source; however, these sources are not designed to last for days. Corruption of data and files could have a long term effect on many local organizations and businesses. Additionally, as shown in the June 2002 vandalism of insulators at two towers near Bovill, power generation at Dworshak Dam can also be affected by outages. This type of outage resulted in over $9,000 in repair costs and about $140,000 worth of lost power generation during the downtime. There could have also been a life safety risk as well as an ecological risk to migrating salmon resulting from this incident. Avalanche There have been no reported damages or lives lost due to an avalanche in Clearwater County. The mountains in the eastern region of the County have a high propensity for avalanches; however, there are very few structures or infrastructure in these higher risk areas. Recreational activities such as skiing and snowmobiling have been increasing in these areas; thus, as these types of activities increase, so does the potential avalanche risk. There are currently no avalanche mitigation programs occurring in Clearwater County. Value of Resources at Risk Clearwater County has no assets at significant risk of avalanches due population centers and transportation infrastructure being located either in areas with lower snow accumulations (river bottom) or on flat prairies. Infrastructure that may be at minor to moderate risk to avalanches include some portions of State Routes 8 and 11 and the Grangemont Road. The highest potential risk would likely be the result of a skier, snowboarder, snowmobiler, or other recreationist becoming trapped in an avalanche in the backcountry. These areas are generally difficult to access; thus, a rescue attempt may also be difficult. The greatest potential impact of avalanches to Clearwater County would be the result of a slide along Highway 12 outside of the county. Several avalanches have occurred in the Lolo Pass area of neighboring Idaho County. The extremely steep slopes adjacent to Highway 12 in this area are conducive to high velocity snow slides. Not only could sudden slides cause traffic accidents, but removal of snow and other debris from the roadway could cause this major transportation route to close for several days. The disruption of supplies and other commerce entering Clearwater County along this route could cause economic hardships for residents and businesses. There is also a small possibility that an avalanche could cover a rural section of a Forest Service road, but this type of slide would not likely impact necessary travel routes. Actual damage to the road would likely be minimal. 105
Geological Hazard For the purposes of this document, earthquake and volcanic activities were consider together as low vulnerability, but high potential impact geologic hazards. Earthquake Based on historical records, Clearwater County has not experienced any seriously damaging earthquakes in recorded history. Nevertheless, due to the County’s juxtaposition to more earthquake prone regions within Idaho, it is possible that at some point in the future there could be earthquake events that affect the Clearwater County region. Communities in Clearwater County can expect some structural failure of older multistory unreinforced masonry buildings as a result of even lower intensity earthquakes. Cornices, frieze, and other heavy decorative portions of these types of structures may fail. The potential impacts of a substantial earthquake event are highly variable. Many of the structures and infrastructure throughout the county may not incur any damages at all; however, damage to roads, bridges, unreinforced masonry, chimneys, foundations, water lines, and many other components are at risk. Fires can also be a secondary hazard to structures sustaining earthquake damage. Because structural damage by earthquakes is typically not complete destruction, but rather tends to be subtle cracking or settling that undermines the stability of the structure. These types of repairs can be very costly. Additionally, changes to the water table or even the topography can significantly impact local municipal and private wells and could result in the loss of traditional land uses. There are numerous known inactive fault lines in Clearwater County, particularly in the mountain areas in the northern and eastern regions of the County. Peak ground acceleration (pga) in percent g is a measure of the ground motion, which decreases, the further you are from the earthquake. The USGS Shaking Hazard maps for the United States are based on current information about the rate at which earthquakes occur in different areas and on how far strong shaking extends from quake sources. Colors on the map show the levels of horizontal shaking that have a 1 in 10 chance of being exceeded in a 50‐year period. Shaking is expressed as a percentage of “g” (g is the acceleration of a falling object due to gravity). This map is based on seismic activity and fault‐slip rates and takes into account the frequency of occurrence of earthquakes of various magnitudes. Locally, this hazard may be greater than that shown, because site geology may amplify ground motions. As seen in Figure 5.5, the populated areas of Clearwater County have a 10% chance of exceeding a 5‐6% pga in the next 50 years. This probability trends upwards to a 6‐7% pga east into the mountains. No specific jurisdictions or special districts were identified as having differing issues or levels of risk associated with this hazard. 106
Figure 5.6. Earthquake Probability and Fault Lines. Past events suggest that an earthquake in the Clearwater County area would cause little to no damage. Nonetheless, severity can increase in areas that have softer soils, such as unconsolidated sediments. Damage would be negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well‐built ordinary structures; and considerable in poorly built, old, or badly designed structures. Volcanoes Clearwater County is not directly at risk of experiencing a volcano; however, there is a high probability that ash and other particulates from an eruption in western Washington or Oregon would be carried to and deposited within the County. The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 deposited several inches of ash causing widespread damages to vehicles and other equipment in Clearwater County. The airborne particulates can also cause respiratory problems for both people and animals. These affects are particularly notable for populations already dealing with respiratory illnesses. Local accounts of the 1980 eruption did not indicate that the ash deposition adversely affected crops or timber. In fact, some noted that the addition of volcanic ash increased the water retention properties of the soil. Value of Resources at Risk Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged in the event of an earthquake. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude 107
earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. There are no known publicly accessible unreinforced masonry buildings in the unincorporated areas of Clearwater County. The number and value of unreinforced masonry homes or homes with masonry chimneys throughout Clearwater County is also unknown. Clearwater County has no assets at direct risk of being impacted by a volcanic eruption. However, the secondary effects of ash and airborne particulates may have varying degrees of negative effects within the County. Damages to property will likely be limited to vehicles and cleanup costs. Additionally, residents of Clearwater County will be at risk to health problems associated with the respiratory effects of breathing airborne particulates. Hazardous Materials There have been no reported damages or lives lost due to hazardous materials in Clearwater County. Hazardous materials are present in relatively small quantities throughout Clearwater County. Many of these hazardous materials are commonly used by the residents of Clearwater County in their daily lives including gasoline, oil and propane, and fertilizers for agricultural applications are all commonly used throughout the region, and as such, are readily available to most residents. The infrastructure for transportation and storage of hazardous material is closely monitored by Federal and State agencies. These agencies have developed specific guidelines and implemented mandatory regulations regarding the movement and storage of all types of hazardous materials. Adherence to these regulations minimizes the potential threat hazardous materials may have on the public and the surrounding environment. Hazardous materials stored in Clearwater County are generally commonly used by residents including fuel (gas, diesel, and propane), other miscellaneous petroleum products, lead acid batteries, liquid glyphosphate, liquid imazapyr, mono ammonium phosphate sulfate, liquid atrazine, and compressed carbon dioxide. Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act in 1986 to establish requirements for federal, state and local governments, tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and "community right‐to‐know" reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The community right‐to‐know provisions help increase the public's knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities, working with facilities, can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. Hazardous material spills can occur for a variety of reasons; however, weather events, vehicle accidents, catastrophic failure of storage components, aging infrastructure, and equipment that does not meet Federal and State standards are the most common. Most hazardous chemical spills in Clearwater County result from accidents during the transportation of the material. Because most of the main transportation corridors parallel a major waterway such as the Clearwater River or Orofino Creek, even a small release of a hazardous material into the watershed can have serious ecological and domestic effects. 108
Table 5.8. Recent Hazardous Material Incidents in Clearwater County. Date Chemical Aug 16, 2006 Diesel Aug 31, 2007 Amount Released Injuries Exposures Threat Level Released Into Cause 10 gallons 2 0 Low Ground Fire Truck Rolled Explosive Material None 0 0 None N/A Found Explosive Material While Performing Consent Search Sept 30, 2008 Fertilizer 500‐700lbs 0 0 Moderate Ground USFS Found Dumped Along N. Fork Clearwater River Oct 3, 2008 Unknown‐
Possibly Oil 30 gallons‐
Estimated 0 0 None Water Possibly Turbine On Dworshak June 2, 2010 Engine Grease N/A 0 0 None Water Van Went Into River June 2, 2010 Hydraulic Fluid 1‐2 gallons 0 0 None Ground Water USFS Backhoe Fell Off Trailer Growing consumer and industrial demand for products that are, or are based on, flammable, poisonous, explosive, corrosive, or otherwise potentially harmful materials, has resulted in greater movements of these commodities on the nation’s highways. Increased transportation of hazardous materials has heightened concerns about the human and environmental consequences associated with the unintentional release of these materials. U.S. Highway 12, the primary east‐west travel corridor in north‐central Idaho, does support significant amounts of vehicle travel through Clearwater County. As a result, hazardous materials are routinely transported on this highway. The Clearwater River lies adjacent to Highway 12 in the southwestern portion of Clearwater County. This river passes through Orofino on its way towards its confluence with the Snake River in Lewiston. Due to the juxtaposition of Highway 12, the Clearwater River is extremely susceptible to hazardous material spills. It would be very difficult and extremely costly to control the spread and eradicate a hazardous material contamination of the Clearwater River. Contamination from hazardous materials is particularly critical at sites where the environment and public safety are at risk. Critical community institutions and offices such as hospitals, care facilities, police and fire departments, airports, schools, and community utility services should all be capable of maintaining a “ready state” during hazardous material incidents. It is impossible to prevent all hazardous material spills and contaminations from occurring. The infrastructure of Clearwater County will always be prone to some level of contamination brought on by unforeseeable events. There are; however, mitigation actions that can be accomplished to help prevent the release of these materials as well as reduce the impacts when they do occur. For example, the juxtaposition between storage facilities and waterways should be monitored with standards closely adhered to as identified by Federal regulations. In areas where storage facilities are located, a perimeter should be constructed that informs citizens of the potential threat and keeps non‐qualified individuals away from the storage infrastructure. Routine inspections of storage facilities conducted by qualified personnel should report any potential problems or hazards found to the County. This will allow the County to communicate with the residents should further action be necessary. Finally, a map showing the location of hazardous materials within Clearwater County should be readily accessible to County personnel and city officials. 109
Requiring building permits and compliance with building codes is a good foundation for avoiding damage to a community’s hazardous materials storage and transportation infrastructure. Builders, future homeowners, and storage facilities should coordinate with one another so that all parties can be made aware of the potential risk and take the necessary precautions during construction. Periodic publication of the highlights of these building codes can help to maintain public awareness. Value of Resources at Risk The consequences of hazardous materials accidents are largely dependent on the type and quantity of material released. There is no reliable estimate regarding the total costs and losses that contamination from a hazardous material could create within Clearwater County, but these events are costly. Hazardous material contaminations can disrupt emergency functions and commerce, personal lives, and damage the environment. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as rerouting transport vehicles, is impossible to quantify. The Clearwater River could become polluted by a hazardous material in Clearwater County. Depending on the amount and scale of the hazard, this could cost millions of dollars to clean and has the potential to affect a much broader region. This type of event would likely take weeks to clean and long term effects on wildlife habitat, vegetation, and/or human health could be devastating. Hazardous materials that become airborne or seep into the ground can prove especially challenging to control. Once in the air, gases and particles can travel great distances on air currents. As a result, the effect can be widespread contamination. Health risks from airborne particles can be associated with various respiratory effects. Hazardous materials that permeate the soil can also contaminate ground and drinking water supplies. Contaminated water can result in a loss of plant life and be detrimental to wildlife and livestock. In addition, the potential for crop failure from contaminated ground water, or water used for even small‐scale irrigation purposes is high. The contamination of public drinking water would be a costly and potentially dangerous occurrence. If detected, several additional filtration processes may be required to remove the contaminants. This could reduce the amount of available water and greatly increase the cost of maintaining the public water supply. Should the filtration process not be able to remove the hazardous material, a widespread drinking water shortage could occur. This could create a significant health and safety risk until outside assistance was obtained to meet the water demands of an area. Dam Failure According to the inundations maps included in the Dworshak Dam Flood Emergency Subplans64, a breach of Dworshak Dam would heavily impact the communities of Ahsahka, Riverside, and Orofino depending on the nature and extent of the failure. Ahsahka is an unincorporated community located only 2.1 miles downstream of the dam at the confluence of the North Fork of the Clearwater River with the main channel. 64
USACE. Flood Emergency Subplans for Notification and Inundations Maps – Dworshak Dam and Reservoir North Fork Clearwater River, Idaho. US Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District. Envirecord, Inc. Walla Walla, Washington. August 1982. 110
Most of the structures associated with the community lie directly adjacent to the shoreline. As the closest community to the dam, Ahsahka would experience catastrophic flooding if not complete inundation and devastation as a result of a dam break. There are also a number of structures across the River from Ahsahka that would be impacted as well. If flooding occurred without complete dam failure, it is estimated that approximately 70% of the structures in Ahsahka and the surrounding area would be inundated within 2 hours. If the dam failed completely, nearly all of the community would be inundated with floodwaters within approximately 30 minutes. Value of Resources at Risk There are approximately 180 structures associated with the Ahsahka community and the surrounding areas that are likely to be severely damaged or completely destroyed by floodwaters resulting from a dam failure. These structures have an approximate value of $4.3 million. Other resources and critical infrastructure within the County that are likely to be damaged by this type of flood event would include the Camas Prairie Rail Line, both the Dworshak and Idaho State Fish Hatcheries, County Road P1, Lewis and Clark Canoe Camp State Park, the Ahsahka Bridge, and U.S. Highway 12. Additionally, the Dworshak Dam and associated power grid would likely become inoperable for a considerable amount of time. Power generated at this site not only serves a large portion of Idaho communities, but it is also sent to communities in Oregon, Washington, and California. Loss of this infrastructure could have a huge economic impact on the western United States due a hike in rates for alternate energy sources. Clearwater County would also suffer additional economic hardships as revenues coming from the recreation and tourism industry produced by the Dworshak Reservoir were suddenly lost. Dworshak Dam has created a 53 mile long reservoir that offers diverse recreation opportunities. Camping, sailing, canoeing, waterskiing, fishing, hunting, and a variety of other outdoor recreation opportunities are available at Dworshak Reservoir. More than 47,000 acres of land and water are provided for public use. Primitive camping sites accessible only by boat, are located at isolated coves and creek inlets along the Reservoir’s 184 mile forested shoreline. Two fee campgrounds have been developed at Dent Acres and Freeman Creek. Between 1988 and 1992, well over 1 million people visited and recreated at Dworshak Reservoir. Nearly all of these visitors traveled through Orofino and Ahsahka. In the event that the recreation infrastructure provided by the Reservoir was lost due to a major water drawdown resulting from a dam break, the economy would be hugely impacted in Clearwater County. 111
This page was intentionally left blank. 112
City of Orofino Annex Flood The city of Orofino is located in north‐central Idaho thirty miles east of Lewiston along U.S. Highway 12. The city is situated in a steep canyon at the confluence of Orofino Creek and the Clearwater River, which are the two major floodplains affecting Orofino. The Clearwater River bisects the city of Orofino. Paralleling the Clearwater River, U.S. Highway 12 passes through the western edge of the downtown district and is the main thoroughfare through Riverside. Riverside is located on the southern shoreline of the River and somewhat separated from the main body of the community, but contains a large number of homes and businesses and is included within the city’s incorporated boundary. The downtown district is located on the eastern shoreline of the Clearwater River. A bridge crossing the Clearwater River connects Highway 12 to downtown Orofino. Residential areas are interspersed throughout Orofino on both sides of the Clearwater River and on the slopes and benches of the canyon. Figure 5.7. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Orofino. 113
Orofino sits along the bottom of the Clearwater River canyon. Orofino Creek runs down from the mountainous country to the north and east of the community bisecting Orofino’s downtown district before its confluence with the Clearwater River. The primary access into Orofino is by U.S. Highway 12, part of the Lewis and Clark Trail. This two lane highway follows the path of the Clearwater River and can be very narrow and winding. State Highway 7 enters Orofino from the south and is a narrow two lane highway that provides the quickest route to and from the Camas Prairie. The Grangemont Road enters Orofino from the north and is also a narrow two lane road that provides access to the communities in the northern portion of Clearwater County. Sections of these roadways are within the floodplains of the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek and could become impassable during a flood event. If the bridge across the Clearwater River from U.S. Highway 12 is compromised, then several secondary access routes may exist depending on the extent of flooding. Bridges, roads, and the city’s water and sewer treatment plants are the most affected infrastructure in Orofino during flood events. Restricted travel corridors can also affect the major industries and commerce within the community. Riverine flooding from the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek and ice jam floods on the Clearwater River have historically proven to be the most costly to the city of Orofino. Orofino has experienced extensive damage from the impact of frequent floods in the Clearwater River Basin. Damage from flooding on the Clearwater River in Orofino was recorded 1948 and 1964. In addition, significant floods in Orofino Creek occurred in 1933, 1934, 1948, 1957, 1964, and most recently in 1996 and 1997 when approximately $10 million in disaster relief funds were appropriated to Clearwater County for repairs to damaged infrastructure, aid in the cleanup efforts, and economic assistance to individuals. In addition to sustaining flood damage in 1996, Orofino Creek experienced extraordinary sediment loading that caused severe bank erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, and filing of important pool habitat features resulting in extensive changes in the meander pattern, channel cross section, bed profile, and available habitat of the Creek. 2008 Sandbagging in Orofino A departure from historical conditions exists in Orofino Creek as a result of several anthropogenic and natural impacts. Most of these impacts have caused impaired channel types that are not indicative of the geologic valley setting, hydrologic regime 2008 Flooding on Clearwater River
and sediment load of Orofino Creek. Moreover, the impaired channel types are less efficient at transporting flood flows and sediment than the historical stream type. Likely sources of impairment include: •
•
Loss of floodplain due to urban encroachment; Loss of floodplain due to the placement of fill; 114
•
•
•
•
•
Channel straightening, deepening and widening (channelization); Constrictions and debris jams caused by undersized bridges and railroad trestles; Loss of riparian vegetation/invasion of non‐riparian vegetation; Excessive sediment loading from eroding banks; and Extensive use of riprap bank stabilization. Due to these impairments, flood impacts have been exacerbated, and are most widespread in the urbanized lower watershed. Flood events in Orofino usually lead to extensive bank erosion, excessive sediment loading and property damage. The Orofino Business District is in the 100‐year flood plain of the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek. During flood events, a backwater effect from the Clearwater River extends approximately 1,000 feet up Orofino Creek. In an average year, peak discharges from the two watersheds are desynchronized, with Orofino Creek peaking in April and the Clearwater River peaking in June. If the two peaks are synchronized, excessive sediment deposition occurs in Orofino Creek and floodwaters threaten the Business District. The location of the town site at the junction of two large floodplains guarantees periodic flood impacts. The residents of Orofino and have long recognized their vulnerability to floods. Since the major flood events of 1996/1997, these communities have been involved in a very comprehensive and detailed evaluation of mitigation activities and flood preparedness called the Watershed Assessment and Master Plan for Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration on Lower Orofino Creek. The Master Plan is currently being used by Clearwater County and the city of Orofino as a guide for on‐the‐ground flood control projects. Some of the top ranked recommendations in the Plan are channel reconstruction at the confluence, channel reconstruction at Newman’s Corner, restoration upstream of the Forest Street Bridge, Brandt Mill bank stabilization, channel shaping at Noah’s Bridge, and a pump diversion at the Konkolville Lumber Mill.65 Value of Resources at Risk According the County Assessor’s data, there are 295 parcels and 135 improvements within the FEMA‐
identified floodplains (100‐ and 500‐year) in Orofino, yielding an estimated total improvement value of $22.7 million. There are currently no repetitive loss properties in Orofino. The average damage to structures was estimated based on the structure’s location as either completely within or out of the flood zone. The estimated value of contents is ½ the value of the improvements equating to an additional $11.3 million in potential losses. In reality, the damages will most likely not be equally distributed between buildings based on building materials, building location, and flood location. However, these estimates provide a basic approximation. There are currently only 26 NFIP policies in Orofino. Critical infrastructure located within the identified floodplain Orofino includes the city hall and police department, Idaho Job Service Center, the wastewater treatment plant, the Riverside sewer lagoons, the Clearwater Historical Museum, the Riverside water system, the Orofino Fire Station, the National Guard Armory, the Idaho Department of Lands office, the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association headquarters, the airport, the Idaho Transportation Department facility, the fairgrounds, the Frontier 65
Water Consulting, Inc. Watershed Assessment and Master Plan for Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration on Lower Orofino Creek. Clearwater County and CEDA. Orofino, Idaho. May 2003. 115
telephone central office, U.S. Highway 12, and the U.S. Highway 12 Bridge at Orofino. Additionally, the County’s Public Works office is located on the east bank of the Clearwater River in Orofino. The facility itself is not within the floodplain; however, the one‐way in, one‐way out access road may be affected by floodwaters. Landslide The city of Orofino has a high probability of experiencing damaging landslides. Orofino is located in the canyon of the Clearwater River at the mouth of Orofino Creek. The Clearwater River and Orofino Creek have cut deep canyons into the Camas Prairie and the basalt flows that underlie much of the area. Historic landslide deposits dominate the geology around Orofino, the result of the movement of sedimentary materials interbedded with the basalt flows. Landslide deposits occur where major sedimentary interbeds are exposed along the steep valley sides. The Orofino area has been an area of active landslide activity in the geologic past as well as in the present. The factors that lead to slope instability have been present in the area since ancient times. Although recent years have not seen the same level of activity that was typical historically, these characteristics remain. Many of the slopes and hillsides along the Clearwater River and in the vicinity of Orofino are comprised by material deposited by past landslides. The location of landslide deposits in canyons is controlled by the presence of sedimentary interbeds, the hydrologic regime, and the occurrence of basalt overlying clay‐rich weathered basement rocks. The largest landslides occur where canyon cutting has exposed landslide‐prone sediments to steep topography. Today, initiation and reactivation of landslides is closely tied to unusual climatic events and land‐use changes. Even small landslide activity on the upper parts of canyon slopes can transform into high‐energy debris flows that endanger roads, buildings, and people below. Landslide Orofino Landslide Impact Zone
debris is highly unstable when modified through 116
natural variations in precipitation, artificial cuts, fills, and changes to surface drainage and ground water.66 The Idaho Geological Survey has aggressively been mapping surface geologic features along the Clearwater River. These maps provide valuable information for planning of private and public land planning by identifying areas of unstable geologic formations. This work indicates that there are numerous visible landslides blocks on many of the steep slopes above the community of Orofino and in the Orofino Creek and Clearwater River areas. The presence of these landslide blocks is a strong indicator of possible landslide activity in the future. Poorly sorted material deposited during debris flow events is also present in alluvial fans in the Orofino area. These deposits are at the mouths of steep chutes and small canyons along the break‐lands of the Clearwater drainage. The presence of this material indicates the historic occurrence of high‐energy, short duration floods and debris flows in these chutes in response to severe climatic conditions, such as thunderstorms and rain‐on‐snow events. During these events, material present in the sedimentary layers was washed down the steep drainages and deposited at the mouth of the chutes, forming alluvial fans of varying sizes. These activities are historically infrequent, with recurrence cycles on the order of years to decades. However, these events can result in significant damage to buildings and infrastructure, disrupt travel, reduce water quality and jeopardize safety. Value of Resources at Risk The community of Orofino has a high risk for landslide activity. Homes and travel routes that have been located at the mouths of steep chutes and through alluvial deposits are at an increased risk of being affected by landslide activity. These historic deposits are a strong indicator of debris flows in the future. Furthermore, these deposits tend to be unstable and somewhat prone to movement. The following is a list of areas that are built in alluvial fans: •
The homes and infrastructure near the confluence of Orofino Creek and Whiskey Creek and the confluence of Whiskey Creek and Deer Creek. •
Homes and infrastructure along the canyon walls of Orofino Creek including the Harmony Heights area and homes and other structures along Walrath Avenue, Kalaspo Avenue, Brown Avenue, and Hollywood Street. •
Stretches of the Michigan Road and Grangemont Road. Debris flow activity and the resulting alluvial sediment deposition is associated with soil saturation and high precipitation events. As mentioned, landslide events are highly associated with significant precipitation events. The areas noted above are in locations with landslide characteristics. The probability of these events occurring during normal weather conditions is low. However during high levels of precipitation, residents and county representatives should monitor these areas for landslide activity. Evidence of 66
Weisz, D.W., et al. 2003. Surficial Geological Map of the Payette Quadrangle. Idaho and Lewis Counties, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey. 117
sedimentary deposits resulting from upstream slides and erosion are documented in the Watershed Assessment and Master Plan for Lower Orofino Creek.67 The cost of cleanup and repairs of roadways is difficult to estimate due to the variable circumstances with each incident including size of the slide and whether the slide occurred on the cut slope or the fill slope. Other factors that could affect the cost of the damage may include culverts, streams, and removal of debris. This type of information is impossible to anticipate; thus, no repair costs for damaged roadways have been estimated. There are currently 275 improvements located in the Orofino Impact Zone with a total estimated value of approximately $23.7 million. It is likely that single slide events will not likely impact the entire population, but rather individual structures. The potential for debris flows and landslides would dramatically escalate in the event of a large wildland fire event that denudes the steep canyon slopes of vegetative cover. The loss of the vegetative cover reduces slope stability by removing much of the organic matter that helps absorb and intercept precipitation and anchor the fragile soil to the canyon walls. Severe Weather The city of Orofino does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate the cost of potential winter storm damages to structures and the economy in Orofino. Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. Frozen water pipes are the most common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones. Snow plowing within the city limits is accomplished by the city’s public works department. Private landowners are responsible for maintaining Branch Blow Down in Downtown Orofino their own driveways or other private roads. Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two‐fold impact on residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population is at a disadvantage. Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications. The economic losses caused by severe winter storms may frequently be greater than structural damages. Employees may not be able to travel to work for several days and businesses may not 67
Water Consulting, Inc. Watershed Assessment and Master Plan for Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration on Lower Orofino Creek. Clearwater County and CEDA. Orofino, Idaho. May 2003. 118
open. Damages are seen in the form of structural repair and loss of economic activity. Orofino schools are occasionally closed during and right after a severe winter storm because of cold temperatures and snow covered roads. Thunderstorms are not likely to be severe enough in Orofino to cause significant damages. However, the loss potential from flooding which results from severe thunderstorms could be significant. Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property within Orofino. Homeowners in Orofino rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles is not uncommon. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown. Additionally, most hail damage records are kept by various insurance agencies. It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Orofino due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds. We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows: •
3% of the buildings damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.) •
5% of the buildings received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof equaling $3,000) Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large scale wildfire event associated with high winds. Based on the data provided by the County, there are 1,190 total assessed improvements in Orofino with a total value of approximately $106 million. Using the criteria outlined above, an estimate of the impact of high winds in Orofino has been made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all improvements is estimated at approximately $3.2 million. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $180,000. Power failure often accompanies severe storms. All communities should be prepared to deal with power failures. Community shelters equipped with alternative power sources will help local residents stay warm and prepare food. A community‐based system for monitoring and assisting elderly or disabled residents should also be developed. The city of Orofino does not have any assets or resources directly at risk to drought. However, the economy of the region may be affected by extended periods of drought due to the impacts on the agricultural sector including timber and recreation tourism. Severe draw downs on Dworshak Reservoir typically lower the number of visitors in the area. 119
Wildland Fire Orofino is situated in a steep canyon at the confluence of the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek. Although many residents of this community live near the town center, there are several smaller communities in all directions out of the canyon. Orofino is nestled on the toe of a very steep slope rising eastward toward the Weippe Prairie. These slopes are dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas‐fir and various grasses. The topography of the area surrounding Orofino consists of mostly southern and northern aspects. Much of the area surrounding the Orofino community is encompassed by the private ownership and the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. The surrounding areas have been broken up into several ownerships including some state land, industrial property, and privately owned parcels. Different land management techniques on these mixed ownerships have led to varied vegetation and fuel types. Much of the area surrounding Orofino is represented by ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir overstory and grass, ocean spray, and ninebark in the under‐story. Ponderosa pine and grass constitutes the southern aspects, and Douglas‐fir, ninebark, and ocean‐spray on the northern aspects. The ponderosa pine fuel type under normal weather conditions, fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. The Douglas‐fir fuel type supports higher intensity ground and surface fires, due to greater quantities of dead and down fuels. Occasional “jackpot” burning, crowning, spotting, and torching of individual trees also makes suppression efforts difficult and dangerous for firefighters. A mixture of various logging operations over many years constitutes a mixture of fuel types depending on the treatment of slash and the amount of volume left standing. Fires in one fuel type are rapidly spreading, high intensity surface and ground fires that are generally sustained until a fuel break or change in vegetation occurs, while other fuel types tend to support much less intense surface fires due to lighter fuel loading and a lack of volatile material. Fire Potential The primary fire risks to the community of Orofino lie within the smaller communities located up the small timbered canyons in all directions from Orofino. These small clusters of residences are commonly nestled into stands of timber on dead end secondary roads or driveways. The lack of a defensible space around homes increases its likelihood of ignition by oncoming wildfires. Residences throughout the area are frequently constructed with wood siding and decks; thus, further increasing their risk of ignition. Heavier fuel loading and steeper topography in these areas increases the chance of an uncontrolled wildfire endangering lives and property. Current logging and mining, recreational use, and active railroad system increase the risk of fire by contributing to potential ignition sources. The primary access into the area is from State Highway 12, a paved two‐lane highway that runs along the banks of the Clearwater River. To the east of Orofino is the Grangemont Road, which is a steep windy road traveling to the east up slope to the Weippe Prairie. There are very few additional escape routes on forest roads that lead away from this community. Most of these routes are located in areas at moderate to high fire risk due to the close proximity of continuous fuels along the roadway and steep funnel like canyons. In the event of a wildland fire, it is likely that one or more of the escape routes would become impassable. Signing of drivable alternate escape routes would reduce confusion and save time in a wildfire situation. Additionally, many homes are located on high risk one‐way in, one‐way out secondary roads and/or private 120
driveways that could become threatened by wildland fire. One‐way in, one‐way out access roads are not only dangerous for fire‐fighters; they also increase the likelihood of residents becoming trapped. Road names and house numbers are generally present throughout the area, yet many of the bridges in the vicinity of Orofino lack adequate signing and weight ratings. Most residences access water and power through personal wells or city water hook ups and above ground power lines. Fire Protection The Orofino City and Rural Fire Departments provide structural protection, while the surrounding areas are protected from wildfire by the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association and the Idaho Department of Lands. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Orofino from wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the right resources, but they can also be the most destructive. Homes along the perimeter of the community, particularly those located midslope, would have the highest risk due to their adjacency to flashy fuels and the probability that a fire would move rapidly uphill. Extended Power Outage The city of Orofino does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk There is no reliable estimate regarding the total costs and losses that power outages create within Orofino, but these events are costly. Power outages disrupt emergency functions, commerce and government, and health care facilities as well as personal lives. Additionally, the State mental hospital is located in Orofino and could be impacted by an extended outage. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. Sections of power line could be lost during a wildland fire in Clearwater County, which may affect residents and businesses in Orofino. This would cost the power companies millions to replace depending on the scale of the loss as well as have a dire impact on communities. This type of power outage would likely take weeks of repair and replacement work to become fully functional again. Computer and data systems such as medical records, assessor’s data, and client information may also be damaged or lost during an extended outage. Most computers have a backup power source; however, these 121
sources are not designed to last for days. Corruption of data and files could have a long term effect on many local organizations and businesses. Avalanche The city of Orofino has very little risk of experiencing an avalanche. Very small slides occurring as snow accumulations sluff off cutbanks could occur on several rural roads accessing residential areas in the area. While these slides are not likely to cause damage or injury, they could temporarily cause traffic delays. Value of Resources at Risk Orofino has no assets at significant risk of avalanches. Geological Hazards There are no recorded occurrences of earthquakes significantly impacting the city of Orofino; however, some minimal shaking has been felt as a result of larger earthquakes elsewhere. Orofino has 10% chance of exceeding a 5‐6% pga in the next 50 years. The city of Orofino does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Orofino from geological hazards due to the unpredictability of this type of natural phenomenon. It is impossible to forecast the effect a distant volcanic eruption or earthquake could have on the town of Orofino, or what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged in the event of an earthquake. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. In Orofino, many of the downtown structures (approximately 30‐60) are assumed to be unreinforced masonry. The number and value of unreinforced masonry homes or homes with masonry chimneys in Orofino is unknown. Additionally, these types of events could temporarily reduce air quality and lead to a decrease in visibility due to high particulate matter in the air. This could contribute to unsafe travel conditions. High levels of ash accumulation from a volcano could potentially collapse roofs and add to the clean up creating additional strains on community budgets. Hazardous Materials There are several small fuel and other hazardous material (primarily agricultural fertilizer) storage facilities in Orofino that pose low to moderate risks to the community. Storage facilities, particularly those located near waterways or critical infrastructure, should be evaluated periodically and maintained in order to 122
ensure their integrity and public safety. In general, the city of Orofino does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. However, as the transportation and population hub in the County, the occurrence of spills or other incidents is most likely to occur within or near the city. Additionally, emergency response teams sent to contain and clean up a spill will likely be dispatched from Orofino. The city’s location at the confluence of the Clearwater River and Orofino Creek make these waterways more vulnerable to contamination. Containment of spills once they reach the River would be very difficult and expensive as well as potentially very damaging to the environment and public safety. It is likely that downstream communities such as Lewiston would also be affected. Value of Resources at Risk It is impossible to forecast the effect a hazardous material spill or leak could have on the town of Orofino, and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were attempted for this hazard. Dam Failure According to the inundations maps included in the Dworshak Dam Flood Emergency Subplans68, a breach of Dworshak Dam would heavily impact the communities of Ahsahka, Riverside, and Orofino depending on the nature and extent of the failure. Riverside is part of the incorporated community of Orofino, but is located along the southern shoreline of the Clearwater River just upstream of the confluence of the North Fork of the Clearwater River with the main channel. Riverside lies about 3.2 miles from the dam. If flooding occurred without complete dam failure, only a few structures located directly adjacent to the existing shoreline would be impacted within about 3 to 4 hours. If the dam failed completely, approximately 50% of the structures in the Riverside community would be inundated with floodwaters within approximately 30‐
45 minutes. The majority of the Orofino community, including the downtown district, is located at the confluence of Orofino Creek with the main stem of the Clearwater River. Orofino lies about 6.1 miles from the dam. If flooding occurred without complete dam failure, only a few structures located directly adjacent to the existing shoreline would be impacted within about 3.5 to 4.5 hours. If the dam failed completely, approximately 50% of the structures in downtown Orofino would be inundated with floodwaters within approximately 45 to 75 minutes. Value of Resources at Risk There are approximately 375 structures associated with Orofino and Riverside that are likely to be severely damaged or completely destroyed by floodwaters resulting from a dam failure. These structures have an approximate value of $31.1 million. Other resources and critical infrastructure within these communities that are likely to be damaged by this type of flood event would include the Camas Prairie Rail Line, U.S. 68
USACE. Flood Emergency Subplans for Notification and Inundations Maps – Dworshak Dam and Reservoir North Fork Clearwater River, Idaho. US Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District. Envirecord, Inc. Walla Walla, Washington. August 1982. 123
Highway 12, city hall, the wastewater treatment facility, the Riverside sewer lagoons, the Clearwater Historical Museum, the Riverside water system, Orofino Fire Station, the National Guard Armory, the Idaho Department of Lands office, the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association headquarters, the airport, the Idaho Transportation Department facility, the Fair Grounds, the Frontier telephone central office, and the Highway 12 Bridge.. Additionally, the Dworshak Dam and associated power grid would likely become inoperable for a considerable amount of time. Power generated at this site not only serves a large portion of Idaho communities, but it is also sent to communities in Oregon, Washington, and California. Loss of this infrastructure could have a huge economic impact on the western United States due a hike in rates for alternate energy sources. Orofino would also suffer additional economic hardships as revenues coming from the recreation and tourism industry produced by the Dworshak Reservoir were suddenly lost. Dworshak Dam has created a 53 mile long reservoir that offers diverse recreation opportunities. Camping, sailing, canoeing, waterskiing, fishing, hunting, and a variety of other outdoor recreation opportunities are available at Dworshak Reservoir. More than 47,000 acres of land and water are provided for public use. Primitive camping sites accessible only by boat, are located at isolated coves and creek inlets along the Reservoir’s 184 mile forested shoreline. Two fee campgrounds have been developed at Dent Acres and Freeman Creek. Between 1988 and 1992, well over 1 million people visited and recreated at Dworshak Reservoir. Nearly all of these visitors traveled through Orofino and Ahsahka. In the event that the recreation infrastructure provided by the Reservoir was lost due to a major water drawdown resulting from a dam break, the economy would be hugely impacted in Orofino. 124
City of Elk River Annex Flood The City of Elk River is located in the northwest corner of Clearwater County, seventeen miles southeast of Bovill, Idaho at the culmination of State Highway 8. The community is situated in a small valley created by Elk Creek and Partridge Creek. The topography around Elk River ranges from steep mountains in the headwaters of Elk Creek and Partridge Creek to broad, rounded and rolling valleys in the lower elevations of the drainages. Grasses and shrubs are the predominant native types of vegetation in the lower areas, while coniferous forests are found in the mountainous areas. Floods in the area are primarily the result of two different types of weather events, rain‐on‐snow and spring runoff that elevates Elk Creek. Rain‐on‐snow events that affect Elk River occur when significant snow pack exists within the hydrologic system of the two streams. Warm rains falling on the snow pack result in a significantly increased rate of snowmelt. Often this melting occurs while the ground is frozen and the water cannot be absorbed into the soil resulting in increased overland flows. Flood waters recede slowly as rain‐
on‐snow weather events tend to last for several days. Warm weather or rain after a heavy snowfall is responsible for high flows in these streams. A high level of sediment is prevalent during periods of runoff. This sediment tends to cause a deteriorating condition in streambeds and channels through deposition. Natural obstructions to flood waters include trees, brush, and other vegetation along the stream banks in the floodplain area. 125
Figure 5.8. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Elk River. Elk River can also be impacted by flooding in other areas of the County. For example, Dent Road, a community access route, has experienced damage as a result of flooding and landslides inhibiting traffic flow from Orofino to Elk River. Flood events have caused some minor damages to individual structures in Elk River, but there are no recorded events that caused significant damages to the community. Nevertheless, Elk River does occasionally deal with flooding caused by ice jams on Elk Creek at the reservoir. Ice builds up at the spillway causing water to backup. Once the ice breaks free, the problem is quickly alleviated Ice Jam 2008 – During the winter of 2008, an ice jam at the spillway of the Elk Creek dam caused water to fill the reservoir to capacity and threaten to flood the airstrip and sewer lagoons. The water pumps were shut off temporarily until the jam broke up. Most residents of the community are connected to the municipal water system or have drilled personal wells. City wells and the water systems are located outside of the floodplain. The city’s ability to provide clean drinking water during flood events will not likely be compromised by flooding, but as witnessed in 2008, may be impacted by ice jams on the Elk Creek Reservoir. 126
Value of Resources at Risk There are 7 parcels and 0 improvements within the FEMA‐identified floodplain (100‐ and 500‐year) in Elk River, yielding an estimated total improvement value of $0. There are currently no repetitive loss properties in Elk River. Elk River does not currently participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Portions of the Elk Creek Road along the Reservoir are located within the floodplain. Although a primary access route, this is not likely to cause damage or significantly impact the community. Landslide The city of Elk River has a very low probability of experiencing damaging landslides. While the soil types in this area may be more prone to slumps and sliding, the topography surrounding the community does not pose a high landslide risk. Small, low angle slumps may occur on the surrounding hills; however, these will be infrequent and likely the result of water saturation or a major disturbance such as an earthquake or road construction. It is also probable that small slides will continue to occur on the cut and fill slopes of some roads. This type of slide is generally small with little permanent damage to the road or other infrastructure; however, there is some risk of traffic on State Route 8 being delayed temporarily while road crews clear the debris and stabilize the bank. Value of Resources at Risk There are no structures directly at risk from landslides within the city of Elk River. Small slumps may occur along U.S. Highway 8, Dent Road, or other secondary roads. In some cases, this may cause temporary sediment delivery into nearby streams and plugged culverts. These types of events are cleaned up by the Idaho Transportation Department, the Clearwater Highway District, or by the city maintenance crew with little complications. Road slumps are generally reported as regular maintenance; thus, there are few records associated with these events. Severe Weather The city of Elk River does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole; however, this area does receive more snow than other areas of the County. The higher snow accumulations has helped the community become a winter recreation destination. February 2008 Winter Storm – Due to heavy snow falls in previous weeks and additional snowfall forecasted, Clearwater County declared a state of disaster for the Elk River area. Elk River recorded receiving approximately 7 feet of snow over the course of 5 weeks. Even though this area is accustomed to higher than average snowfall, the small community was overwhelmed with snow removal costs totaling over $18,000. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate the cost of potential winter storm damages to structures and the economy in Elk River. Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. Frozen water pipes are the most common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones. Snow plowing within the city limits is accomplished by the city’s maintenance crew. Private 127
landowners are responsible for maintaining their own driveways or other private roads. Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two‐fold impact on residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population is at a disadvantage. Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications. The economic losses caused by severe winter storms may frequently be greater than structural damages. Employees may not be able to travel to work for several days and businesses may not open. Damages are seen in the form of structural repair and loss of economic activity. The Elk River school is occasionally closed during and right after a severe winter storm because of cold temperatures and snow covered roads. Thunderstorms are not likely to be severe enough in Elk River to cause significant damages. However, the loss potential from flooding that result from severe thunderstorms could be significant. Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property within Elk River. Homeowners in Elk River rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles is not uncommon. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown. Additionally, most hail damage records are kept by various insurance agencies. It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Elk River due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds. 2008 Winter in Elk River We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows: •
3% of the buildings damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.) •
5% of the buildings received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof equaling $3,000) Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large scale wildfire event associated with high winds. Based on the data provided by the County, there are 154 total assessed improvements in Elk River with a total value of approximately $5.7 million. Using the criteria outlined above, an estimate of the impact of high winds in Elk River has been 128
made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all improvements is estimated at approximately $185,200. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $24,000. Power failure often accompanies severe storms. All communities should be prepared to deal with power failures. Community shelters equipped with alternative power sources will help local residents stay warm and prepare food. A community‐based system for monitoring and assisting elderly or disabled residents should also be developed. The city of Elk River does not have any assets or resources directly at risk to drought. However, the economy of the region may be affected by extended periods of drought due to the impacts on the tourism revenues during lower snow years. Wildland Fire The community of Elk River is located approximately 17 miles southeast of Bovill at the end of State Highway 8. Elk River is situated in the small valley created by Elk Creek, Partridge Creek, and several other smaller draws that are bordered by the Clearwater National Forest and Potlatch Corporation. Elk Creek, Partridge Creek, Elk Creek Reservoir, and several other small streams provide ample water resources. There are only about 100 residents that live year round within Elk River’s community, but there could be several hundred more loggers, hunters, campers, tourists, etc. during the summer months. Many of these homes in the area are nestled in or adjacent to stands of mixed conifer stands increasing their risk to fire. The topography of the surrounding forestland near Elk River consists of all aspects. Much of the area surrounding the Elk River community is encompassed by the Clearwater National Forest and Potlatch Corporation. Grand fir, lodgepole pine, western red cedar, Douglas‐fir, and other conifer species dominate the vegetative structure of the landscape. The surrounding areas are broken up into several ownerships including state land, federal land, industrial property, and privately owned parcels. Different land management techniques on these mixed ownerships have led to varied vegetation and fuel types. Much of the area surrounding Elk River is represented by a thick over‐story and multi‐level under‐story creating ladder fuels. Furthermore, there is a layer of dead and down fuels that greatly increases the risk of higher intensity ground and surface fires. Occasional “jackpot” burning, crowning, spotting, and torching of individual trees also makes suppression efforts difficult and dangerous for firefighters. A mixture of various logging operations over many years constitutes several different fuel types depending on the treatment of slash and the amount of volume left standing. Fires in these fuel types tend to spread rapidly, creating high intensity surface and ground fires that are generally sustained until a fuel break or change in vegetation occurs. Furthermore, these fuel types tend to support much less intense surface fires due to lighter fuel loading and a lack of volatile material. Fire Potential The primary fire risks to the community of Elk River lie within escape routes and the several residents located along timbered forest routes leading into the mountains and directly adjacent to forest land. These clusters of residences are commonly nestled into stands of timber on dead end secondary roads or driveways. The lack of a defensible space around homes increases its likelihood of ignition by oncoming wildfires. Residences throughout the area are frequently constructed with wood siding and decks; thus, 129
further increasing their risk of ignition. Heavier fuel loading and steeper topography in these areas increases the chance of an uncontrolled wildfire endangering lives and property. Current logging, mining, and recreational use increase the risk of fire by contributing to potential ignition sources. The primary access into the area is from State Highway 8, a paved two‐lane highway that ends at Elk River. To the east, south, and north of Elk River is primarily logging roads that are two and one lane gravel roads with turnouts. There are several additional escape routes on forest roads that lead away from these communities in all directions; however, some may be restricted throughout parts of the year. Most of these forest routes are located in areas at moderate to high fire risk due to the close proximity of continuous fuels along the roadway. In the event of a wildland fire, it is likely that one or more of the escape routes would become impassable. Signing of drivable alternate escape routes would reduce confusion and save time in a wildfire situation. Additionally, many homes are located on high risk one‐way in, one‐way out secondary roads and/or private driveways that could become threatened by wildland fire. One‐way in, one‐
way out access roads are not only dangerous for fire‐fighters; they also increase the likelihood of residents becoming trapped. Road names and house numbers are generally present throughout the area, yet many of the bridges in the vicinity of Elk River lack adequate signing and weight ratings. Most residences access water and power through personal wells or city water hook ups and above ground power lines. Fire Protection This community and surrounding areas are protected from wildfire by the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Agency. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Elk River from wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the right resources, but they can also be the most destructive. Homes along the perimeter of the community would have the highest risk due to their adjacency to wildland fuels. Extended Power Outage The city of Elk River does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. 130
Value of Resources at Risk There is no reliable estimate regarding the total costs and losses that power outages create within Elk River, but these events are costly. Power outages disrupt emergency functions, commerce and government, and health care facilities as well as personal lives. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. Sections of power line could be lost during a wildland fire in Clearwater County, which may affect residents and businesses in Elk River. This would cost the power companies millions to replace depending on the scale of the loss as well as have a dire impact on communities. This type of power outage would likely take weeks of repair and replacement work to become fully functional again. Computer and data systems such as medical records, assessor’s data, and client information may also be damaged or lost during an extended outage. Most computers have a backup power source; however, these sources are not designed to last for days. Corruption of data and files could have a long term effect on many local organizations and businesses. Avalanche The city of Elk River has very little risk of experiencing an avalanche within the city limits. However, slides can and do occur in the surrounding mountains. Due to the intense winter recreational activities in these backcountry areas, it is likely that a skier or snowmobiler could trigger an avalanche. While there are very few structures or infrastructure in these areas, this type of avalanche can be deadly for any people or animals in its path. Smaller slides could also occur along State Route 8, which is the sole winter access into the community. While these slides are not likely to cause damage or injury, they could temporarily cause traffic delays. Value of Resources at Risk Elk River has no assets at significant risk of avalanches. The highest potential risk would likely be the result of a skier, snowboarder, snowmobiler, or other recreationist becoming trapped in an avalanche in the backcountry. These areas are generally difficult to access; thus, a rescue attempt may also be difficult. There is a small possibility that an avalanche could cover a rural section of a Forest Service road, but this type of slide would not likely impact necessary travel routes. Actual damage to the road would likely be minimal. Geological Hazards There are no recorded occurrences of earthquakes significantly impacting the city of Elk River; however, some minimal shaking has been felt as a result of larger earthquakes elsewhere. Elk River has 10% chance of exceeding a 5‐6% pga in the next 50 years. The city of Elk River does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. 131
Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Elk River from geological hazards due to the unpredictability of this type of natural phenomenon. It is impossible to forecast the effect a distant volcanic eruption or earthquake could have on the town, or what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged in the event of an earthquake. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. In Elk River, only a few of the downtown structures (approximately 2‐5 ) are assumed to be unreinforced masonry. The number and value of unreinforced masonry homes or homes with masonry chimneys in Elk River is unknown. Additionally, these types of events could temporarily reduce air quality and lead to a decrease in visibility due to high particulate matter in the air. This could contribute to unsafe travel conditions. High levels of ash accumulation from a volcano could potentially collapse roofs and add to the clean up creating additional strains on community budgets. Hazardous Materials There are several small fuel storage facilities in Elk River that pose low level risks to the community. However, the city of Elk River does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Small scale spills may occur as a result of vehicle or recreational vehicle accidents, but they are unlikely to have a serious impact on the community. Although not used as a public water source, the Elk River Reservoir is located adjacent to the main travel corridor between Elk River and Orofino and is also a primary recreational destination for the area. Spills that contaminate the Reservoir would not only affect local ecosystems, but will also flow downstream and eventually contaminate the Dworshak Reservoir. Value of Resources at Risk It is impossible to forecast the effect a hazardous material spill or leak could have on the town of Elk River, and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were attempted for this hazard. Dam Failure The city of Elk River is not at risk to dam failure. In the event that the Elk Creek dam creating the Elk River Reservoir was breached, flooding would occur downstream of the community. 132
Value of Resources at Risk Failure of the Elk Creek dam would cause moderate flooding within the confines of the Elk Creek drainage. There is very few structures or infrastructure in this rural area; however, there could be ecological damage. Just downstream of the dam, the Elk River Road does cross Elk Creek. It is possible that this culvert would be overwhelmed depending on the rate of water flow out of the Reservoir. As a secondary access to Elk River and the shortest route between Elk River and Orofino, the loss of this route would have a moderate impact on the community. Additionally, logging activity in this area may be adversely impacted a detour on the Elk River Road. The dollar value of these losses and the extent of damage caused would be dependent on the nature of the dam failure and the rate at which water flowed from the Reservoir. 133
This page was intentionally left blank. 134
City of Pierce Annex Flood Pierce is located along State Highway 11 approximately 10 miles northeast of Weippe, Idaho and thirty miles northeast of access to U.S. Highway12. Pierce is in a small, forested valley created by Orofino Creek, which through the center of town. The city of Pierce experiences flood events due to high water flows in Orofino Creek and Canal Gulch. The topography around Pierce ranges from steep mountains to broad, rounded and rolling valleys. Grasses and shrubs are the predominant native types of vegetation in the lower valley areas, while coniferous forests are found throughout the surrounding mountains. Several businesses, home sites, and city streets are located within the floodplain. Floods in the area are primarily the result of two different types of weather events, rain‐on‐snow and spring runoff that elevates water levels on Orofino Creek and Canal Gulch. Rain‐on‐snow events that affect Pierce occur when significant snow pack exists within the hydrologic system. Warm rains falling on the snow pack result in a significantly increased rate of snowmelt. Often this melting occurs while the ground is frozen and the water cannot be absorbed into the soil, resulting in increased overland flows. Flood waters recede slowly as rain‐on‐snow weather events tend to last for several days. A high level of sediment is prevalent during periods of runoff. This sediment tends to cause a deteriorating condition in streambeds and channels through deposition. Natural obstructions to flood waters include trees, brush, and other vegetation along the stream banks in the floodplain area. 135
Figure 5.9. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pierce. Pierce can also be impacted by flooding outside of the city. For example, State Route 11, the primary access route, crosses Orofino Creek in several locations. Damage at one of these crossings could inhibit travel and commerce to and from the area. Most residents of the community are connected to the municipal water system or have drilled personal wells. City wells and the water systems are located outside of the floodplain. The city’s ability to provide clean drinking water during flood events will not likely be compromised by flooding. Value of Resources at Risk Based on the County Assessor’s data, there are 20 parcels and 12 improvements within the FEMA‐identified floodplain (100‐ and 500‐year) in Pierce, yielding an estimated total improvement value of $439,752. There are currently no repetitive loss properties in Pierce. The average damage to structures was estimated based on the structure’s location as either completely within or out of the flood zone. The estimated value of contents is ½ the value of the improvements equating to an additional $219,876 in potential losses. In reality, the damages will most likely not be equally distributed between buildings based on building materials, building location, and flood location. However, these estimates provide a basic approximation. There are currently 3 NFIP policies in Pierce. 136
Critical infrastructure located within the identified floodplain for Pierce includes the sewer treatment system and the community center and health clinic. Landslide The city of Pierce has a very low to moderate probability of experiencing damaging landslides. The majority of the community will not likely be affected by landslides in the area; however, the Pines Addition north of town is situated on the west slope of Canal Gulch and may have some added risk. While the soils in this area are relatively stable, the construction of the subdivision and road network may have introduced some instability. While small, low angle slumps may occur on the surrounding hills, these will be infrequent and likely the result of water saturation or a major disturbance such as an earthquake or road construction. It is also probable that small slides will continue to occur on the cut and fill slopes of State Route 11 and the Grangemont Road. This type of slide is generally small with little permanent damage to the road or other infrastructure; however, there is some risk of traffic as these are delayed temporarily while road crews clear the debris and stabilize the bank. Value of Resources at Risk There are no known structures directly at risk from landslides within the city of Pierce. However, the City’s access routes, Highway 11 and Grangemont Road, are vulnerable to landslide. Ongoing landslide problems magnify the challenges of maintaining these roads. It is often impossible to redirect traffic on these heavily traveled roads as alternate routes do not exist and detours in steep terrain are difficult or impossible to construct. The last major landslide events impacting these access routes occurred during 1996 and 1997. Typically, however, most of the landslides affecting travel corridors are small in size and are cleaned up by the Idaho Transportation Department, the Clearwater Highway District, or by the city maintenance crew with little complications. Road slumps are generally reported as regular maintenance; thus, there are few records associated with these smaller events. Severe Weather The city of Pierce does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole; however, this area does receive more snow than some areas of the County. The higher snow accumulations have helped the community become a winter recreation destination, particularly for snowmobilers. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate the cost of potential winter storm damages to structures and the economy in Pierce. Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. Frozen water pipes are the most common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones. Snow plowing within the city limits is accomplished by the city’s maintenance crew. Private landowners are responsible for maintaining their own driveways or other private roads. Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two‐fold impact on residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population 137
is at a disadvantage. Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications. The economic losses caused by severe winter storms may frequently be greater than structural damages. Employees may not be able to travel to work for several days and businesses may not open. Damages are seen in the form of structural repair and loss of economic activity. The Timberline schools are occasionally closed during and right after a severe winter storm because of cold temperatures and snow covered roads. Thunderstorms are not likely to be severe enough in Pierce to cause significant damages. However, the loss potential from flooding that result from severe thunderstorms could be significant. Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property within Pierce. Homeowners in Pierce rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles is not uncommon. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown. Additionally, most hail damage records are kept by various insurance agencies. It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Pierce due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds. We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows: •
3% of the buildings damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.) •
5% of the buildings received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof equaling $3,000) Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large scale wildfire event associated with high winds. Based on the data provided by the County, there are 302 total assessed improvements in Pierce with a total value of approximately $13.2 million. Using the criteria outlined above, an estimate of the impact of high winds in Pierce has been made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all improvements is estimated at approximately $394,409. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $45,000. Power failure often accompanies severe storms. All communities should be prepared to deal with power failures. Community shelters equipped with alternative power sources will help local residents stay warm and prepare food. A community‐based system for monitoring and assisting elderly or disabled residents should also be developed. The city of Pierce does not have any assets or resources directly at risk to drought. However, the economy of the region may be affected by extended periods of drought due to the impacts on the tourism revenues during lower snow years. 138
Wildland Fire The community of Pierce is located approximately 10 miles northeast of Weippe on State Highway 11. Pierce is situated in the small valley created by Orofino Creek, which is bordered by the Potlatch Corporation lands on all sides. Orofino Creek, Rhodes Creek, Jim Brown Creek, and several other small streams provide ample water resources. Although many residents of these communities live near the town center, there are several small clusters of homes along forest roads in outlying areas. Many of these homes are nestled into stands of lodgepole pine, grand fir, and Douglas‐fir or other fuels increasing their risk to fire. The topography of the surrounding forested land near Pierce consists of all aspects. Grand fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas‐fir, and other conifer species dominate the vegetative structure of the landscape. The surrounding areas has been broken up into several ownerships including some state land, industrial property, federal, and privately owned parcels. Different land management techniques on these mixed ownerships have led to varied vegetation and fuel types. Much of the area surrounding Pierce is represented by Douglas‐fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine, and other conifer species in the overstory and mixed brush species in the understory, which under normal weather conditions tend to support higher intensity ground and surface fires due to greater quantities of dead and down fuels. Occasional “jackpot” burning, crowning, spotting, and torching of individual trees also makes suppression efforts difficult and dangerous for firefighters. A mixture of various logging operations over many years constitutes different fuel types depending on the treatment of slash and the amount of volume left standing. Fires in these fuel types are rapidly spreading, high intensity surface and ground fires that are generally sustained until a fuel break or change in vegetation occurs. Other fuel types within the area tend to support much less intense surface fires due to lighter fuel loading and a lack of volatile material. Fire Potential The primary fire risks to the community of Pierce lie within the residential areas located along timbered forest routes leading into the mountains. These clusters of residences are commonly nestled into stands of timber on dead end secondary roads or driveways. The lack of a defensible space around homes increases its likelihood of ignition by oncoming wildfires. Residences throughout the area are frequently constructed with wood siding and decks; thus, further increasing their risk of ignition. Heavier fuel loading and steeper topography in these areas increases the chance of an uncontrolled wildfire endangering lives and property. Current logging and mining, recreational use, and active railroad system increase the risk of fire by contributing to potential ignition sources. The primary access into the area is from State Highway 11, a paved two‐lane highway that extends to the north and south. There are several additional escape routes on forest roads that lead away from these communities in all directions; however, some may be restricted throughout parts of the year. Most of these forest routes are located in areas at moderate to high fire risk due to the close proximity of continuous fuels along the roadway. In the event of a wildland fire, it is likely that one or more of the escape routes would become impassable. Signing of drivable alternate escape routes would reduce confusion and save time in a wildfire situation. Additionally, many homes are located on high risk one‐way in, one‐way out secondary roads and/or private driveways that could become threatened by wildland fire. One‐way in, one‐
139
way out access roads are not only dangerous for fire fighters, they also increase the likelihood of residents becoming trapped. Road names and house numbers are generally present throughout the area, yet many of the bridges in the vicinity of Pierce lack adequate signing and weight ratings. Most residences access water and power through personal wells or city water hook ups and above ground power lines. Fire Protection Structural protection in Pierce is provided by the Pierce Fire Department while the Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association and the USDA Forest Service provide wildland fire protection. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Pierce from wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the right resources, but they can also be the most destructive. Homes along the perimeter of the community would have the highest risk due to their adjacency to wildland fuels. Extended Power Outage The city of Pierce does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk There is no reliable estimate regarding the total costs and losses that power outages create within Pierce, but these events are costly. Power outages disrupt emergency functions, commerce and government, and health care facilities as well as personal lives. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. Sections of power line could be lost during a wildland fire in Clearwater County, which may affect residents and businesses in Pierce. This would cost the power companies millions to replace depending on the scale of the loss as well as have a dire impact on communities. This type of power outage would likely take weeks of repair and replacement work to become fully functional again. Computer and data systems such as medical records, assessor’s data, and client information may also be damaged or lost during an extended outage. Most computers have a backup power source; however, these sources are not designed to last for days. Corruption of data and files could have a long term effect on many local organizations and businesses. 140
Avalanche The city of Pierce has very little risk of experiencing an avalanche within the city limits. However, slides can and do occur in the surrounding mountains. Due to the intense winter recreational activities in these backcountry areas, it is likely that a skier or snowmobiler could trigger an avalanche. While there are very few structures or infrastructure in these areas, this type of avalanche can be deadly for any people or animals in its path. Smaller slides could also occur along State Route 11, which is the sole winter access into the community. While these slides are not likely to cause damage or injury, they could temporarily cause traffic delays. Value of Resources at Risk Pierce has no assets at significant risk of avalanches. The highest potential risk would likely be the result of a skier, snowboarder, snowmobiler, or other recreationist becoming trapped in an avalanche in the backcountry. These areas are generally difficult to access; thus, a rescue attempt may also be difficult. There is a small possibility that an avalanche could cover a rural section of a Forest Service road, but this type of slide would not likely impact necessary travel routes. Actual damage to the road would likely be minimal. Geological Hazards There are no recorded occurrences of earthquakes significantly impacting the city of Pierce; however, some minimal shaking has been felt as a result of larger earthquakes elsewhere. Pierce has 10% chance of exceeding a 5‐6% pga in the next 50 years. The city of Pierce does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Pierce from geological hazards due to the unpredictability of this type of natural phenomenon. It is impossible to forecast the effect a distant volcanic eruption or earthquake could have on the town of Pierce, or what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged in the event of an earthquake. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. In Pierce, only a few of the downtown structures (approximately 5‐10) are assumed to be unreinforced masonry. The number and value of unreinforced masonry homes or homes with masonry chimneys in Pierce is unknown. 141
Additionally, these types of events could temporarily reduce air quality and lead to a decrease in visibility due to high particulate matter in the air. This could contribute to unsafe travel conditions. High levels of ash accumulation from a volcano could potentially collapse roofs and add to the clean up creating additional strains on community budgets. Hazardous Materials There are several small fuel storage facilities in Pierce that pose low level risks to the community. However, the city of Pierce does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Small scale spills may occur as a result of vehicle or recreational vehicle accidents, but they are unlikely to have a serious impact on the community. Value of Resources at Risk It is impossible to forecast the effect a hazardous material spill or leak could have on the town of Pierce, and what type of assets and resource, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were attempted for this hazard. Dam Failure There are no dams in the vicinity of Pierce that pose a threat to the community in the event of a failure. Value of Resources at Risk There are no resources at risk from dam failure in Pierce. 142
City of Weippe Annex Flood The City of Weippe, Idaho is located nineteen miles east of the western border of Clearwater County and 17 miles east of Greer along State Highway 11. Although located in a relatively flat agricultural and timber area of the Weippe Prairie, the city is surrounded by very steep canyons and gorges. Jim Ford Creek passes through the southwest corner of town with a north/south orientation. Grasshopper Creek passes through the north section of town and flows into Jim Ford Creek near the sewer lagoons. Figure 5.10. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Weippe. Floods in the area are primarily the result of two different types of weather events, rain‐on‐snow and spring runoff that elevates water levels on Jim Ford and Grasshopper Creek. Rain‐on‐snow events that affect Weippe occur when significant snow pack exists within the hydrologic system. Warm rains falling on the snow pack result in a significantly increased rate of snowmelt. Often this melting occurs while the ground is frozen and the water cannot be absorbed into the soil, resulting in increased overland flows. Flood waters recede slowly as rain‐on‐snow weather events tend to last for several days. A high level of sediment is prevalent during periods of runoff. This sediment tends to cause a deteriorating condition in streambeds and channels through deposition. Natural obstructions to flood waters include 143
trees, brush, and other vegetation along the stream banks in the floodplain area. Most residents of the community are connected to the municipal water system or have drilled personal wells. City wells and the water systems are located outside of the floodplain. The city’s ability to provide clean drinking water during flood events will not likely be compromised by flooding. Value of Resources at Risk Based on the County Assessor’s data, there are 26 parcels and 15 improvements within the FEMA‐identified floodplain (100‐ and 500‐year) in Weippe, yielding an estimated total improvement value of $322,309. There are currently no repetitive loss properties in Weippe. The average damage to structures was estimated based on the structure’s location as either completely within or out of the flood zone. The estimated value of contents is ½ the value of the improvements equating to an additional $161,154 in potential losses. In reality, the damages will most likely not be equally distributed between buildings based on building materials, building location, and flood location. However, these estimates provide a basic approximation. There are currently 0 NFIP policies in Weippe. The Weippe city council believes that the current Flood Insurance Rate Map for Weippe is an overestimation of the floodplain. The stream channel and topography of the floodplain has changed since the FIRM was completed in 1979. There are currently very few stormwater drainage or flooding issues within the community. A small section of State Route 11 is the only critical infrastructure located within the floodplain at Weippe. Landslide The city of Weippe has no risk of being directly impacted by a landslide. Slopes in and around the community are generally less than 5%. While small, low angle slumps may occur on eyebrows of the surrounding hills, these will be infrequent and likely the result of water saturation or a major disturbance such as an earthquake or road construction. It is also probable that small slides will continue to occur on the cut and fill slopes of some access roads, particularly State Route 11. The impact of a slide on State Route 11 will depend on the location and magnitude of the event. A major slope failure could result in the primary access route for this community being cutoff for an extended period of time. Smaller slides are likely to cause temporary traffic delays while road crews clear the debris and stabilize the bank. Value of Resources at Risk There are no structures directly at risk from landslides within the city of Weippe. Small slumps may occur along Highway 11 or other secondary roads. In many cases, this will cause temporary sediment delivery into nearby streams and plugged culverts. These types of events are cleaned up by the Idaho Transportation Department, the Clearwater Highway District, or by the city maintenance crew with little complications. Road slumps are generally reported as regular maintenance; thus, there are few records associated with these events. Severe Weather The city of Weippe does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole; however, this area does receive more snow than some areas of the County. The higher 144
snow accumulations have helped the community become a winter recreation destination, particularly for snowmobilers. Additionally, it is common for storms to funnel up the Lolo Creek canyon. Severe wind, hail, and precipitation events have been recorded in the Weippe area as a result of this pattern. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate the cost of potential winter storm damages to structures and the economy in Weippe. Damage to roofs by heavy snow accumulations depends on the moisture content of the snow and the structural characteristics of the buildings. Frozen water pipes are the most common damage to residential and business structures. Older homes tend to be at a higher risk to frozen water pipes than newer ones. Snow plowing within the city limits is accomplished by the city’s maintenance crew. Private landowners are responsible for maintaining their own driveways or other private roads. Utility supplies are impacted during severe winter storms as power is lost on a regional basis. This has a two‐fold impact on residents as not only is power cut to homes and businesses, but primary heating is lost for many residents. Gas furnaces and wood stoves supplement electrical heating, but with wood heating the senior population is at a disadvantage. Emergency response to severe winter storms includes site visits by police or fire department personnel, opening of shelters, or assistance with shopping, medical attention, and communications. The economic losses caused by severe winter storms may frequently be greater than structural damages. Employees may not be able to travel to work for several days and businesses may not open. Damages are seen in the form of structural repair and loss of economic activity. Weippe schools are occasionally closed during and right after a severe winter storm because of cold temperatures and snow covered roads. Thunderstorms are not likely to be severe enough in Weippe to cause significant damages. However, the loss potential from flooding that result from severe thunderstorms could be significant. Although the financial impacts of hail can be substantial and extended, accurately quantifying these impacts is problematic. Hail typically causes direct losses to structures and other personal property within Weippe. Homeowners in Weippe rarely incur severe damage to structures (roofs); however, hail damage to vehicles is not uncommon. The damage to vehicles is difficult to estimate because the number of vehicles impacted by a specific ice storm is unknown. Additionally, most hail damage records are kept by various insurance agencies. It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Weippe due to windstorms and tornadoes. Construction throughout the County has been implemented in the presence of high wind events, and therefore, the community is at a higher level of preparedness to high wind events than many other areas experiencing lower average wind speeds. We have estimated losses based on wind and tornado damage as follows: •
3% of the buildings damaged causing 50% of value loss (loss could be from downed or damaged trees, damaged outbuildings, damaged fences/poles, damage to siding, damaged landscaping etc.) •
5% of the buildings received damage to roof (requiring replacement of roof equaling $3,000) 145
Damages associated with sensitive receptor irritation have not been estimated. We have also not estimated the potential for a large scale wildfire event associated with high winds. Based on the data provided by the County, there are 253 total assessed improvements in Weippe with a total value of approximately $9.2 million. Using the criteria outlined above, an estimate of the impact of high winds in Weippe has been made. The potential wind and tornado damage to all improvements is estimated at approximately $290,062. The estimated damage to roofs is approximately $39,000. Power failure often accompanies severe storms. More rural parts of the County are sometimes better prepared to deal with power outages for a few days due to the frequent occurrence of such events; however, prolonged failure, especially during cold winter temperatures can have disastrous effects. All communities should be prepared to deal with power failures. Community shelters equipped with alternative power sources will help local residents stay warm and prepare food. A community‐based system for monitoring and assisting elderly or disabled residents should also be developed. The city of Weippe does not have any assets or resources directly at risk to drought. . However, the economy of the region may be affected by extended periods of drought due to the impacts on the tourism revenues during lower snow years. Wildland Fire Weippe is a small community on the Weippe Prairie near the Clearwater National Forest and located approximately 17 miles east of Greer along Highway 11. There are many residences located near the community center; however, many homes, farms, and ranches are scattered throughout the area for several miles. Many of these are larger landowners are located in the flatter regions known as the Weippe Prairie. Somewhat isolated islands of forest land separate these areas. Ponderosa pine, Douglas‐fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine and other conifers are dominant on the slopes. Some landowners have built homes on the lower slopes abutting or mingling with these wildland fuels. Although the very small drainages of Ford Creek, Grasshopper Creek, and Winter Creek provide some water resources, the closest large water body is the Clearwater River approximately 17 miles to the east. Weippe is characterized as an interface condition by the wildland urban interface classification system. The topography of Weippe is relatively flat. The topography changes drastically though in all directions to very steep canyons and gorges. The majority of the regions fuel types are a mixture of agricultural, pasture land, and mixed conifer forests. Fires tend to support varying degrees of intensity, which under normal weather conditions tend to support higher intensity ground and surface fires due to greater quantities of dead and down fuels. Occasional “jackpot” burning, crowning, spotting, and torching of individual trees also makes suppression efforts difficult and dangerous for firefighters. The rate of fire spread in fuel model 1 tends to be governed by the amount of continuous herbaceous fuels that have cured or are nearly cured. These fires are generally fast‐moving surface fires. Mixtures of various logging operations over the forested area for many years have left a variety of fuel types depending on the treatment of slash and the amount of volume left standing. Fires in the dense timber types are rapidly spreading, high intensity surface and ground fires that are generally sustained until a fuel break or change in vegetation occurs. Other fuel types tend to support much less intense surface fires due to lighter fuel loading and a lack of volatile material. Developed agriculture and livestock grazing in the flat, grassy valleys creates the conditions for another fuel 146
type, which tend to support low intensity, fast‐moving surface fires. This lower risk area provides not only a fuel break, but also a safety zone for firefighters and residents of Weippe. Fire Potential Although the flatter areas provide buffers for many residents against uncontrolled wildfire, the conditions for potentially severe, high intensity fires such as heavy continuous fuels, steep slopes, and up slope winds are all present near the Weippe Prairie. Furthermore, numerous logging operations, annual field burning, and recreational activities in the area increase potential ignition sources. Many homes in Weippe and surrounding areas have been built using wood siding, roofing, and decking, which is unfavorable for protection against wildfire. Also, some homeowners stack firewood under decks or against other structures. Homes built within the grassy valley bottoms generally have an adequate defensible space; however, those in more mountainous areas are commonly adjacent to or within heavier fuels. Additionally, many residences are located on long, one‐way in, one‐way out roads or private drives. The primary access into the area is on Highway 11 which is a paved two lane road. Three Mile Road, Musselshell Road, and various other roads offer additional escape routes traveling in all directions away from the community. Most of these roads are located in areas at low risk of wildland fire due to agricultural development. Road names are generally present throughout the area, yet bridges on many access roads lack adequate signing and weight ratings. Also, house numbers in some areas seem to be missing or difficult to see. Most residences access water or city water hook ups and power through personal wells and above ground power lines. Fire Protection The Weippe Rural Fire Department provides structural protection and Clearwater‐Potlatch Timber Protective Association and the USDA Forest Service provide wildland fire protection in the surrounding area. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Weippe from wildland fire due to the unpredictability of wildfire behavior and the nature of ignition sources. It is impossible to forecast the path a wildfire will take and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Typically, structures located in forested areas without an adequate defensible space or fire resistant landscaping have the highest risk of loss. Nevertheless, homes and other structures located in the grasslands or agricultural regions are not without wildfire risk. Grass fires are often the most dangerous due to high rates of spread. Fires in this fuel type are considered somewhat easier to suppress given the right resources, but they can also be the most destructive. Homes along the perimeter of the community would have the highest risk due to their adjacency to wildland fuels. 147
Extended Power Outage The city of Weippe does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk There is no reliable estimate regarding the total costs and losses that power outages create within Weippe, but these events are costly. Power outages disrupt emergency functions, commerce and government, and health care facilities as well as personal lives. Some of these impacts can be quantitatively measured (e.g., lost business) while others, such as disruption of families, is impossible to quantify. Sections of power line could be lost during a wildland fire in Clearwater County, which may affect residents and businesses in Weippe. This would cost the power companies millions to replace depending on the scale of the loss as well as have a dire impact on communities. This type of power outage would likely take weeks of repair and replacement work to become fully functional again. Computer and data systems such as medical records, assessor’s data, and client information may also be damaged or lost during an extended outage. Most computers have a backup power source; however, these sources are not designed to last for days. Corruption of data and files could have a long term effect on many local organizations and businesses. Avalanche The city of Weippe has very little risk of experiencing an avalanche within the city limits. However, slides can and do occur in the surrounding mountains. Due to the intense winter recreational activities in these backcountry areas, it is likely that a skier or snowmobiler could trigger an avalanche. While there are very few structures or infrastructure in these areas, this type of avalanche can be deadly for any people or animals in its path. Smaller slides could also occur along State Route 11, which is the sole winter access into the community. While these slides are not likely to cause damage or injury, they could temporarily cause traffic delays. Value of Resources at Risk Weippe has no assets at significant risk of avalanches. The highest potential risk would likely be the result of a skier, snowboarder, snowmobiler, or other recreationist becoming trapped in an avalanche in the backcountry. These areas are generally difficult to access; thus, a rescue attempt may also be difficult. There is a small possibility that an avalanche could cover a rural section of a Forest Service road, but this type of slide would not likely impact necessary travel routes. Actual damage to the road would likely be minimal. Geological Hazards There are no recorded occurrences of earthquakes significantly impacting the city of Weippe; however, some minimal shaking has been felt as a result of larger earthquakes elsewhere. Weippe has 10% chance of exceeding a 5‐6% pga in the next 50 years. 148
The city of Weippe does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Value of Resources at Risk It is difficult to estimate potential losses in Weippe from geological hazards due to the unpredictability of this type of natural phenomenon. It is impossible to forecast the effect a distant volcanic eruption or earthquake could have on the town of Weippe, or what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were made for this hazard. Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures and unreinforced chimneys of homes will likely be damaged in the event of an earthquake. Damaged or collapsed chimneys could result in the secondary hazard of fire. Nonstructural damage caused by falling and swinging objects may be considerable after any magnitude earthquake. Damage to some older, more fragile bridges and land failure causing minor slides along roadways may isolate some residents. In Weippe, only a few of the downtown structures (approximately 5‐10) are assumed to be unreinforced masonry. The number and value of unreinforced masonry homes or homes with masonry chimneys in Weippe is unknown. Additionally, these types of events could temporarily reduce air quality and lead to a decrease in visibility due to high particulate matter in the air. This could contribute to unsafe travel conditions. High levels of ash accumulation from a volcano could potentially collapse roofs and add to the clean up creating additional strains on community budgets. Hazardous Materials There are several small fuel storage facilities in Weippe that pose low level risks to the community. However, the city of Weippe does not have any differing levels of risk associated with this hazard than Clearwater County as a whole. Small scale spills may occur as a result of vehicle or recreational vehicle accidents, but they are unlikely to have a serious impact on the community. Value of Resources at Risk It is impossible to forecast the effect a hazardous material spill or leak could have on the town of Weippe, and what type of assets and resources, manmade and ecological, will be at risk. Thus, no value estimates were attempted for this hazard. Dam Failure There are no dams in the vicinity of Weippe that pose a threat to the community in the event of a failure. Value of Resources at Risk There are no resources at risk from dam failure in Weippe. 149
This page was intentionally left blank. 150
Chapter 6 Mitigation Strategy IN THIS SECTION: • Clearwater County Annex o City of Elk River o City of Pierce o City of Weippe Chapter 6
Mitigation Strategy o City of Orofino 151
Chapter 6 – Mitigation Strategy Administration and Implementation of Action Items Critical to the implementation of this Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan will be the identification of, and implementation of, an integrated schedule of action items targeted at achieving an elimination of lives lost and reduction in structures destroyed, infrastructure compromised, and unique ecosystems damaged that serve to sustain the way‐of‐life and economy of Clearwater County, Idaho. Since there are many management agencies and thousands of private landowners in this area, it is reasonable to expect that differing schedules of adoption will be made and varying degrees of compliance will be observed across all ownerships. Clearwater County and the incorporated cities encourage the philosophy of instilling disaster resistance in normal day‐to‐day operations. By implementing plan activities through existing programs and resources, the cost of mitigation is often a small portion of the overall cost of a project’s design or program. Through their resolution of adoption as well as their participation on the planning committees, each jurisdiction is aware of, and committed to, incorporating the risk assessments and mitigation strategies contained herein. It is anticipated that the research, local knowledge, and documentation of hazard conditions coalesced in this document will continue to serve as a tool for decision‐makers as new policies, plans, and projects are evaluated. All risk assessments were made based on the conditions existing during 2010, thus, the recommendations in this section have been made in light of those conditions. However, the components of risk and the preparedness of the Counties’ resources are not static. It will be necessary to fine‐tune this Plan’s recommendations annually to adjust for changes in the components of risk, population density changes, infrastructure modifications, and other factors. Plan Monitoring and Maintenance As part of the policy of Clearwater County, in relation to this planning document, this entire Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan should be reviewed annually (from date of adoption) at a special meeting of a joint planning committee, open to the public and involving all jurisdictions, where action items, priorities, budgets, and modifications can be made or confirmed. Clearwater County Emergency Management (or an official designee) is responsible for the scheduling, publicizing, and leadership of the annual review meeting. During this meeting, participating jurisdictions will report on their respective projects and identify needed changes and updates to the existing Plan. Maintenance to the Plan should be detailed at this meeting, documented, and attached to the formal plan as an amendment to the Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan. Re‐evaluation of this plan should be made on the 5th anniversary of its acceptance, and every 5‐year period following. 152
Annual Review Agenda The focus of the planning committee at the annual review meeting should include at least the following topics: •
Update historical events record based on any events in the past year. •
Review county profile and individual community assessments for each hazard and note any major changes or mitigation projects that have altered the vulnerability of each entity. •
Update the Resources and Capabilities information as necessary for each emergency response organization. •
Add a section to note accomplishments or current mitigation projects. •
All action items in Chapter 6 will need updated as projects are completed and as new needs or issues are identified. •
Address Emergency Operations Plans – how can we dovetail the two plans to make them work for each other? Specifically, how do we incorporate the County’s EOP into the action items for the regional MHMP? •
Address Updated County Comprehensive Land Use Plans – how can we dovetail the two plans to make them work for each other? Specifically, how do we incorporate Clearwater County’s revised Comprehensive Plan into the action items for the regional MHMP? •
Incorporate additional hazard chapters as funding allows. All meeting minutes, press releases, and other documentation of revisions should be kept on record by Clearwater County Disaster Services. Five Year Re­evaluation Agenda The focus of the planning committee at the five year re‐evaluation should include all of the topics suggested for the annual review in addition to the following items: •
Update County demographic and socioeconomic data. •
Address any new planning documents, ordinances, codes, etc. that have been developed by the County or cities. •
Review listed communication sites. •
Review municipal water sources, particularly those in the floodplain or landslide impact areas. •
Redo risk analysis models incorporating new information such as an updated County parcel master database, new construction projects, development trends, population vulnerabilities, changing risk potential, etc. •
Update county risk profiles and individual community assessments based on new information reflected in the updated models. 153
All meeting minutes, press releases, and other documentation of revisions should be kept on record by Clearwater County Disaster Services. Prioritization of Action Items The prioritization process will include a special emphasis on benefit‐cost analysis review. The process will reflect that a key component in funding decision is a determination that the project will provide an equivalent or more in benefits over the life of the project when compared with the costs. Projects will be administered by County and local jurisdictions with overall coordination provided by the Clearwater County Disaster Services. County Commissioners and the elected officials of all jurisdictions will evaluate opportunities and establish their own unique priorities to accomplish mitigation activities where existing funds and resources are available and there is community interest in implementing mitigation measures. If no federal funding is used in these situations, the prioritization process may be less formal. Often the types of projects that each county can afford to do on their own are in relation to improved codes and standards, department planning and preparedness, and education. These types of projects may not meet the traditional project model, selection criteria, and benefit‐cost model. Clearwater County will consider all pre‐disaster mitigation proposals brought before the Board of Commissioners by department heads, city officials, fire districts, and local civic groups. When federal or state funding is available for hazard mitigation, there are usually requirements that establish a rigorous benefit‐cost analysis as a guiding criterion in establishing project priorities. Clearwater County will understand the basic federal grant program criteria which will drive the identification, selection, and funding of the most competitive and worthy mitigation projects. FEMA’s three grant programs (the Post‐Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Pre‐Disaster Flood Mitigation Assistance and Pre‐Disaster Mitigation grant programs) that offer federal mitigation funding to state and local governments all include the benefit‐cost and repetitive loss selection criteria. The prioritization of new projects and deletion of completed projects will occur annually and be facilitated by Clearwater County Disaster Services and the joint planning committee. All mitigation activities, recommendations, and action items mentioned in this document are dependent on available funding and staffing. Prioritization Scheme All of the action item and project recommendations made in this MHMP were prioritized by the planning committee using one of two prioritization schemes. The city of Orofino prioritized their individual list of projects and mitigation measures through a group discussion and voting process referred to as Scheme One. All of the remaining jurisdictions prioritized their mitigation strategies using a numerical scoring system referred to as Scheme Two. Prioritization Scheme Two is made up of nine scoring criteria for non‐planning projects and four criteria for planning‐related projects. 154
Scheme One Each jurisdiction using Prioritization Scheme One chose to rank their mitigation strategy recommendations through a group discussion, informal benefit/cost review, and voting process. Projects in these sections are rated on a “High”, “Moderate”, or “Low” scale. Scheme Two A numerical scoring system is used to prioritize projects. This prioritization serves as a guide for the County when developing mitigation activities. This project prioritization scheme has been designed to rank projects on a case by case basis. In many cases, a very good project in a lower priority category could outrank a mediocre project in a higher priority. Clearwater County does not want to restrict funding to only those projects that meet the high priorities because what may be a high priority for a specific community may not be a high priority at the County level. Regardless, the project may be just what the community needs to mitigate disaster. The flexibility to fund a variety of diverse projects based on varying reasons and criteria is a necessity for a functional mitigation program at the County and community level. To implement this case by case concept, a more detailed process for evaluating and prioritizing projects has been developed. Any type of project, whether County or site specific, will be prioritized in this more formal manner. To prioritize projects, a general scoring system has been developed. This prioritization scheme has been used in statewide hazard mitigations plans. These factors range from benefit‐cost ratios to details on the hazard being mitigated to environmental impacts. Since planning projects are somewhat different than non‐planning projects when it comes to reviewing them, different criteria will be considered, depending on the type of project. The factors for the non‐planning projects include: • Benefit/Cost • Population Benefit • Property Benefit • Economic Benefit • Project Feasibility (environmentally, politically, socially) • Hazard Magnitude/Frequency • Potential for repetitive loss reduction • Potential to mitigate hazards to future development • Potential project effectiveness and sustainability The factors for the planning projects include: • Benefit/Cost • Vulnerability of the community or communities • Potential for repetitive loss reduction • Potential to mitigate hazards to future development 155
Since some factors are considered more critical than others, two ranking scales have been developed. A scale of 1‐10, 10 being the best, has been used for cost, population benefit, property benefit, economic benefit, and vulnerability of the community. Project feasibility, hazard magnitude/frequency, potential for repetitive loss reduction, potential to mitigate hazards to future development, and potential project effectiveness and sustainability are all rated on a 1‐5 scale, with 5 being the best. The highest possible score for a non‐planning project is 65 and for a planning project is 30. The guidelines for each category are as follows: Benefit / Cost (BC) The analysis process will include summaries as appropriate for each project as well as benefit / cost analysis results. Projects with a negative BC analysis result will be ranked as a 0. Projects with a positive BC analysis will receive a score equal to the projects BC analysis results divided by 30. Therefore a project with a BC ratio of 180:1 would receive 6 points, a project with a BC ratio of 300:1 (or higher) would receive the maximum points of 10. FEMA Requirement §201.4(c)(4)(iii) details criteria for prioritizing communities and local jurisdictions that would receive planning and project grants under available funding programs, which should include consideration for communities with the highest risks, repetitive loss properties, and most intense development pressures. Further, the requirement states that for non‐planning grants, a principal criterion for prioritizing grants shall be the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a BC review of proposed projects and their associated costs. For many of the initiatives identified in this plan, the County may seek financial assistance under FEMA’s HMGP or PDM programs. Both of these programs require detailed BC analysis as part of the FEMA award process. Clearwater County is committed to implementing mitigation strategies with benefits which exceed costs. For projects which do not require financial assistance from grant programs that require this type of analysis, the County reserves the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that would otherwise be considered subjective, while still meeting the needs and goals of the plan. Population Benefit Population benefit relates to the ability of the project to prevent the loss of life or injuries. A ranking of 10 has the potential to impact 100 percent of the identified target population. A ranking of 5 has the potential to impact 50 percent of the identified target population, and a ranking of 0 will not impact the population. In some cases, a project may not directly provide population benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly effects the population, but should not be considered to have no population benefit. Property Benefit Property benefit relates to the prevention of physical losses to structures, infrastructure, and personal property. These losses can be attributed to potential dollar losses. Similar to cost, a ranking of 10 has the potential to save $400,000,000 or more in losses. Property benefit of less than $400,000,000 will receive 156
a score of the benefit divided by $400,000,000 times 10. Therefore, a property benefit of $80,000,000 would receive a score of 2 ([80,000,000÷400,000,000] x 10 = 2). In some cases, a project may not directly provide property benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly effects property, but should not be considered to have no property benefit. Economic Benefit Economic benefit is related to the savings from mitigation to the economy. This benefit includes reduction of losses in revenues, jobs, and facility shut downs. Since this benefit can be difficult to evaluate, a ranking of 10 would prevent a total economic collapse, a ranking of 5 could prevent losses to about half the economy, and a ranking of 1 would not prevent any economic losses. In some cases, a project may not directly provide economic benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly affects the economy, but should not be considered to have no economic benefit. Vulnerability of the Community For planning projects, the vulnerability of the community is considered. A community that has a high vulnerability with respect to other jurisdictions to the hazard or hazards being studied or planned for will receive a higher score. To promote planning participation by the smaller or less vulnerable communities in the state, the score will be based on the other communities being considered for planning grants. A community that is the most vulnerable will receive a score of 10, and one that is the least, a score of 1. Project Feasibility (Environmentally, Politically & Socially) Project feasibility relates to the likelihood that such a project could be completed. Projects with low feasibility would include projects with significant environmental concerns or public opposition. A project with high feasibility has public and political support without environmental concerns. Those projects with very high feasibility would receive a ranking of 5 and those with very low would receive a ranking of 1. Hazard Magnitude/Frequency The hazard magnitude/frequency rating is a combination of the recurrence period and magnitude of a hazard. The severity of the hazard being mitigated and the frequency of that event must both be considered. For example, a project mitigating a 10‐year event that causes significant damage would receive a higher rating than one that mitigates a 500‐year event that causes minimal damage. For a ranking of 5, the project mitigates a high frequency, high magnitude event. A 1 ranking is for a low frequency, low magnitude event. Note that only the damages being mitigated should be considered here, not the entire losses from that event. 157
Potential for repetitive loss reduction Those projects that mitigate repetitive losses receive priority consideration here. Common sense dictates that losses that occur frequently will continue to do so until the hazard is mitigated. Projects that will reduce losses that have occurred more than three times receive a rating of 5. Those that do not address repetitive losses receive a rating of 1. Potential to mitigate hazards to future development Proposed actions that can have a direct impact on the vulnerability of future development are given additional consideration. If hazards can be mitigated on the onset of the development, the County will be less vulnerable in the future. Projects that will have a significant effect on all future development receive a rating of 5. Those that do not affect development should receive a rating of 1. Potential project effectiveness and sustainability Two important aspects of all projects are effectiveness and sustainability. For a project to be worthwhile, it needs to be effective and actually mitigate the hazard. A project that is questionable in its effectiveness will score lower in this category. Sustainability is the ability for the project to be maintained. Can the project sustain itself after grant funding is spent? Is maintenance required? If so, are or will the resources be in place to maintain the project. An action that is highly effective and sustainable will receive a ranking of 5. A project with effectiveness that is highly questionable and not easily sustained should receive a ranking of 1. Final ranking Upon ranking a project in each of these categories, a total score can be derived by adding together each of the scores. The project can then be ranked high, medium, or low based on the thresholds of: Project Ranking Priority Score Non‐Planning Projects • High 40‐65 • Medium 25‐39 • Low 1‐24 Project Ranking Priority Score Planning Projects • High 18‐30 • Medium 12‐17 • Low 1‐11 158
Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategies Clearwater County Annex Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Hazard Addressed Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Action Item Collaborating Organization Clearwater County Emergency Management Hazard Management Goal #2 Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Sheriff’s Department/FEMA/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater Ambulance/Clearwater Valley Hospital/Fire Districts/Neighboring Counties Clearwater County Economic Development Association Clearwater County LEPC /city jurisdictions/emergency service providers Goal #2 and 10 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 10 Assess emergency response processes and procedures. Determine training needs. Conduct ongoing training and mock disaster drills to ensure effective response to a mass disaster. Annual Assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state and federal emergency responders and between incident command and the public. Establish written protocol for radio communication between counties, within counties, and interagency and a plan for communicate emergency information to the public. 5 years Coordinate future telecommunications projects to meet planning goals. Ongoing Ongoing $500/year Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking All Hazards Project Deadline In progress Unknown In progress Unknown Priority Ranking: High 159
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Infrastructure Goal #2, 4, and 5 LEPC/cities Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Mapping and Analysis Goal #1 and 2 Clearwater County GIS Wildland Fire Fire Chief Association Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Goal #2 and 5 Goal #2, 5, 6, and 7 Fire Chief’s Association Clearwater County LEPC /State Agencies Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Various Partners Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Work with local communities to establish whether or not they have a backup generator and transfer switch on their water system. If needed, purchase and install the necessary equipment. 2 years Assess mapping capability, determine mapping needs, and complete mapping needed to provide the county planning and zoning department with the tools needed to regulate development within floodplains, urban interface areas, and geologic hazard areas. 1 year 90% complete Continue the ongoing training program provided through Clearwater Fire Chiefs Association and coordinate training with CPTPA and IDL. Utilize Lewis‐Clark State College as much as possible. Continue to increase number of certified firefighters by continual yearly training program and keep rural fire districts informed of class dates and times. Annual Ongoing Continue to work on action items and proposed projects outlined in the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan including the development and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction and community protection projects. Annual Provide information to those areas lacking in fire protection, provide information on cost and gain benefits to the public, utilize knowledgeable people from existing fire districts to help in the development of new fire districts, and develop funding source to pay for start up costs. 10 years New project $10,000‐$45,000 $1,250/yr. In progress Variable In progress $5,000 to $7,500 start up cost per district not including cost for equipment 160
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Idaho Department of Lands/Fire Chief’s Association Public Education Goal #2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 Clearwater County LEPC CPTPA Idaho Department of Lands/Fire Districts/ Clearwater County LEPC Preparedness Goal #2, 4, and 5 CPTPA Idaho Department of Lands/Fire Districts/ Clearwater County LEPC LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Goal #2 and 5 LEPC CPTPA/Idaho Department of Lands/and Fire Districts Goal #2, 5, and 6 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2, 5, 6, and 7 Priority Ranking: Moderate Infrastructure Priority Ranking: Moderate Infrastructure Priority Ranking: Moderate Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Update brochures regarding burning permits, provide public announcements, and work with Fire Districts to post burning permit restrictions at district boundary locations. Annual Ongoing $1,500/year Map the location of water sources (both pond and hydrant), provide maps to all fire agencies and Emergency Management, and update as needed. Bi‐annual Utilize maps to determine where water supplies are needed, work with landowners to develop water sources, and develop funding source for development of rural water supplies. Annual Assess each community to ascertain if they have backup power for their water system, develop inventory of systems needs, and obtain funding for backup power generation where needed. 2 years Take steps to create ‘defensible space” around communities by inventorying high risk areas, developing priorities for communities, gathering public input for issues, and obtaining funding for hazardous fuels and other projects in identified areas. Ongoing In progress $500/year In progress $5,000‐$10,000 $10,000‐$25,000 $75,000‐$100,000 per community Deferred due to lack of funds Several projects completed with more planned. 161
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Fire Districts Landslide Preparedness Goal #2, 4, and 5 State Agencies/Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC LEPC Public Education Goal #2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 Clearwater Highway District Hazard Management Clearwater County Planning & Zoning Department/Commissioners Goal #1, 2, and 8 Clearwater County Planning & Zoning/Commissioners Goal #1, 2, and 8 Priority Ranking: High Regulatory Clearwater Highway District Ongoing Develop timelines for public service announcements between agencies and work with local media to make spot announcements. Annual Ongoing Participate in the completion of a multi‐jurisdictional transportation plan. 3 years $10,000 Deferred due to lack of funds Complete the revision of Planning and Zoning Regulations to incorporate the use of existing landslide risk maps. Consider if the utilization of “overlay zones” through a Natural Hazard Mitigation Ordinance will sufficiently resolve the landslide risk posed by development. 2 years In progress Develop an infrastructure protection ordinance that includes road beds, approaches, and bridge abutments. Establish excavation setback distances in areas where road infrastructure is at risk from soil instability as allowed by Idaho Statute for the protection of public infrastructure. 3 years $1,000/year Priority Ranking: High Regulatory Clearwater County GIS Priority Ranking: High Goal #2 and 8 Develop countywide equipment capabilities listing with Annual prioritized list for future upgrades. No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Clearwater County/Idaho Department of Lands/US Forest Service/US Corp of Engineers Clearwater County Commissioners 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Priority Ranking: High No cost No cost Deferred due to lack of funds 162
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Clearwater County Commissioners/GIS Department Hazard Management Goal # Clearwater County Commission/Road Department Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Goal #2 and 8 Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Goal #2, 3, and 8 Goal #2, 3, and 8 Clearwater County Emergency Management Priority Ranking: High Preparedness Goal #2, 4, and 8 Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Information Clearwater Highway District Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Information Priority Ranking: High Infrastructure 2 and 8 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Gather and inventory existing data that is possessed by numerous jurisdictions including the U.S. Forest Service, Potlatch Corporation, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Idaho Department of Lands, and any other organization with information regarding landslide risk assessment, road inventories, storm water, and construction methodology. 5 years Inventory, prioritize, and correct known landslide hazards impacting the county road system, specifically on Gilbert Grade, Greer Grade, Lower Fords Creek Road, Upper Fords Creek Road, the Hope to Ahsahka Road, Old Ahsahka Road, Dent Bridge Road, and Grangemont Road. 1 year Develop a public education plan and sustain a process of multiple‐media communication with the public on landslide risk and homeowners mitigation techniques. Information should be disseminated through informational articles, website, radio spots, and pamphlets. Annual Provide the public with landslide, road construction methods, and culvert installation information prior to construction during the building permit process. Annual Develop a section to the county’s Emergency Management Plan that specifically addresses how to respond to landslide incidents. 1 year In progress No cost In progress Unknown Ongoing $1,500/yr Ongoing $500/yr In progress No cost 163
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Public Education Goal #2, 3, and 9 Clearwater County LEPC Flood Clearwater County Commission/Emergency Management Hazard Management City of Orofino/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater County Public Works City of Orofino/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Public Works City of Orofino/Clearwater County LEPC Develop a multi‐media, public education program to disseminate winter storm hazard information to county residents. Run an annual media campaign that informs people of weather hazards what they can do to prepare for storm events. 2 years $1,500 Deferred due to lack of funds Keep up‐to‐date with the Jaype Rail Line Abandonment Process. 2 years Determine a course of action if railroad structures are not $500,000 removed during the salvage process. Pursue the use of the abandoned rail line as a “Rails to Trails” project. New project Assess the culvert crossing at U.S. Highway 12 and 115th Street in Orofino and develop an engineered solution to alleviate chronic flooding and damage issues associated with high water events on the Clearwater River. New project 1 year $3,000 Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #2 and 11 City of Orofino Priority Ranking: Moderate 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Severe Weather Project Deadline Priority Ranking: High Restore 3,400 ft. of channel and realign Newman’s Corner: Convert existing overwide braided channel to a single thread bankfull channel, convert excess channel to floodplain and tie to existing high banks, reconstruct 90 degree bend by excavating south bank, replace bridge and access road, and re‐vegetate. 5 years Replace Forest Street Bridge and reshape channel upstream: Replace 56’ bridge with 70’ bridge, construct three instream structures to center channel through the bridge, shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions and re‐vegetate. 5 years $740,000 $340,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Deferred due to lack of funds. 164
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Public Works City of Orofino/Clearwater County LEPC /landowner Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater County Public Works City of Orofino/Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater County Public Works Konkolville Lumber/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management City of Orofino/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Complete bank stabilization on the Brandt Mill site: Reduce bank erosion by placing root wads, cedar logs, rock and vegetations; construct cross vane structure at pump diversion; lower opposite bank to floodplain elevations and re‐vegetate. 10 years Complete channel shaping at Noah’s Bridge: Shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions, convert excess channel to floodplain, construct cross vane control structure to center the flow through the bridge, and re‐vegetate. 5 years Complete Konkolville Mill Pump Diversion: Shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions, construct W‐weir cross vane control structure, construct pool at diversion intake, and re‐
vegetate. 5 years Restore 1800’ Channel in Reach Six: Convert existing overwide, braided channel to a single thread bankfull channel, convert excess channel to floodplain and tie to existing high banks, construct debris jams at inlets to cut off channels, and re‐
vegetate. 5 years $175,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Promote a consistent methodology for on‐the‐ground bank stabilization/stream restoration projects along Orofino Creek. Annual In progress $58,000 $45,000 $40,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Deferred due to lack of funds. Deferred due to lack of funds. $500/year Priority Ranking: High 165
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County LEPC /Potlatch Corp/Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County Planning and Zoning / Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County Planning and Zoning/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County Sheriff’s Department/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #2, 3, and 11 Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #2, 3, and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Complete assessment of the upper Orofino Creek watershed and develop a strategic plan for protecting and restoring fish habitat and water quality within the streams, compile a road/transportation inventory report and show resource problem areas, identify resource problem areas within the inventory reports, and determine culvert removal and/or replacement and landslide stabilization efforts. 5 years $65,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Provide public information on landscaping techniques and drainage methods that can minimize flood impact. Ensure public information on homeowner flood mitigation and emergency measures is clear, easy to understand and timely. Distribute information through multiple medias. Annual Ongoing Put a mechanism in place for ongoing information opportunities for the public to know about the National Flood Insurance Program and encourage participation. 1 year $1,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Promote communication and cooperation for flood mitigation, response and recovery actions with the city jurisdictions in Clearwater County, Idaho County, and Lewis County as well as state and federal agencies. Annual In progress $1,000/yr No cost 166
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Clearwater Highway District Clearwater County Commissioners Infrastructure Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater Highway District Clearwater County Commissioners Infrastructure Goal #2 and 11 Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Fix the culvert at milepost 12.825 and improve pipes/downspouts on culverts from milepost 9.50 to the Dent Bridge. 3 years $500,000 Deferred due to lack of funds. Complete a hydrological study at Anderson bridge, design and realign the road on the south side of the bridge and remove current abutments and install pipe or cattle pass. 2 years In progress Coordinate with adjacent communities to ensure that floodplain management practices do not shift the flood hazard to adjacent communities. Establish a committee of community representatives to discuss flood management practices. Annual $100,000 Ongoing No cost 167
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security/FEMA Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Hazard Management Goal #4 and 11 Hazard Management Clearwater County Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Preparedness Goal #2, 4, and 11 Clearwater County LEPC 3 years Collaborate to update existing floodplain maps. 5 years New Project $200,000 Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds. Continue efforts to assess the establishment of “Flood Hazard” districts or other policy for the purpose of controlling growth and mitigating a flood concern. 3 years In progress Disseminate information to the public regarding the location and availability of sandbags. Determine the best means of filling sandbags and purchase equipment if necessary. 2 years Priority Ranking: High Clearwater County Emergency Management Obtain funding to purchase properties located in the floodplain at 246 and 278 Harmony Heights Road in order to prevent further costs associated with emergency flood assistance and repetitive damages from high water events on Orofino Creek. Goal #2 and 11 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers/City of Orofino/City of Pierce Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Priority Ranking: Moderate No cost New project No cost 168
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County LEPC /Avista Corp/Clearwater Power Company Clearwater County Emergency Management/Clearwater Power Public Education Goal #2, 3, and 12 Hazard Management Goal #2 and 4 Clearwater County LEPC Avista Corp/Clearwater Power Company Priority Ranking: High Preparedness Goal #2 and 4 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Extended Power Outage Project Deadline Coordinate with the electrical companies to expand efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information to the public by developing a multi‐media, public education program to disseminate information on the loss of electrical power. Use utility information or develop information to include in All Hazard Mitigation folders that are provided to people seeking building permits or available at county government buildings, real estate offices, etc. Include information on rural living and the reality of losing electrical power. Promote the company’s program of “red flagging” residents who depend medically on electrical power so that they can be contacted immediately by the companies when loss of power occurs and kept informed of estimated time without power. Annual Improve the power line right‐of‐way along the Greer line by removing hazardous fuels and other hazard trees that may fall on the line. 1 year Install below‐ground power lines as funding is available. Ongoing Ongoing $1,500/yr New project $15,000 Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds. Priority Ranking: High 169
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Clearwater County Emergency Management Clearwater County Planning and Zoning/Weippe City Council/Pierce City Council/Elk River City Council/ Clearwater County LEPC Regulatory Goal #2 and 12 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Geologic Project Deadline Coordinate with the county and the city jurisdictions and establish a solution to the city’s inability to financial afford building inspection services. 1 year In progress Unknown Since the original document was written in 2005, Clearwater County has completed several of its identified action items including: 1. Clearwater County has appointed a full time administrator to ensure the implementation of short, intermediate, and long term mitigation goals. 2. Clearwater County converted the Project Impact Public Awareness committee into a function of the LEPC. 3. Clearwater County has developed a rural addressing system and provided new signage for all roads with address ranges. 4. Clearwater County has developed a mapping system to assist county departments in guiding development in hazard prone areas as well as for other purposes. 5. Clearwater County and its partners have completed a section in the County’s Emergency Operations Plan that specifically addresses response to landslide incidents. 6. Clearwater County completed a stream bank re‐vegetation project at the confluence of Orofino Creek and the Clearwater River as well as constructed a crossvane above the Main Street Bridge. 7. Clearwater County conducted an assessment of its sandbag cache and equipment and identified a storage facility for these resources. 8. Clearwater County provides local power companies with information and updates to its rural addressing system. 9. In 2005‐06, Clearwater County installed a stream gauge and early warning system on Orofino Creek. 10. In 2006, Clearwater County replaced 4 large culverts along the Deer Creek drainage. 170
This page was intentionally left blank. 171
City of Orofino Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking All Hazards City Council Clearwater County Commissioners Hazard Management Goal #1 and 7 City Administrator Public Education Goal #7 Clearwater County Emergency Management/Project Impact Public Awareness Committee City Administrator Hazard Management Clearwater County Emergency Management City Council/City Administrator Clearwater County Economic Development/ Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: Low Goal #2 and 7 Priority Ranking: Moderate Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 12 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Support the appointment of a full‐time administrator for the purpose of follow through of short, intermediate and long‐term mitigation goals and objectives. Duties shall include accountability for action items, the development of time schedules for county actions, the research of outside funding for mitigation actions. 1 year Support the conversion of the existing Project Impact Public Awareness Committee to the LEPC Public Awareness Subcommittee. 1 year Coordinate with the County to assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state and federal emergency responders and between incident command and the public. 2 years Participate in a local stakeholder group that is representative of all service providers, local economic development professionals, emergency preparedness professionals, local business representatives and interested citizens to plan for improving existing telecommunication capabilities that is county‐wide. 2 years In progress No Cost In progress No cost In progress Unknown In progress Unknown 172
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Clearwater County Economic Development Clearwater County LEPC /Clearwater Unlimited Wildland Fire Orofino Fire Department Hazard Management Goal #2 and 7 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #3 and 12 Orofino Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/LEPC Hazard Management Goal #3 and 12 Clearwater County Emergency Management Goal #3, 6, 11, and 12 City Council/City Administrator Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Various Partners Priority Ranking: Low Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #4, 6, and 12 2011 Status Participate in a strategic planning process that includes the: -
Identification of existing telecommunication capabilities. -
Current and future telecommunication needs in terms of emergency preparedness and economic development. -
Action plan to reach identified goals and objectives. 2 years In progress Unknown Participate in training and public education programs offered by the North Central Idaho Fire Prevention Cooperative, the Fire Chief’s Association, the Clearwater County LEPC, and others. Annual Participate with the Fire Chief Association and the LEPC to conduct public education programs directed towards the recruitment and retention of firefighters. Annual Continue to work on action items and proposed projects identified in the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan including hazardous fuels reduction projects. Annual Continue to organize and conduct an annual community “clean up” day. Annual Ongoing $1,000 per year Ongoing No Cost Ongoing Unknown Ongoing No Cost Priority Ranking: High 173
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking City Public Works Orofino Fire Department/ Clearwater County LEPC Infrastructure Goal #11 City Public Works Orofino Fire Department Orofino Fire Department City Council Goal #5 and 11 Orofino Fire Department Clearwater County LEPC Landslide City Council/City Public Works Clearwater County Commissioners/Emergency Management Priority Ranking: Low Hazard Management Goal #3 and 12 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #6 and 11 Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #11 and 12 Participate in the development of a countywide equipment inventory and prioritized listing of future upgrades. Secure direct access to federal surplus equipment. Annual Ongoing No Cost Infrastructure Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Priority Ranking: Moderate Locate and purchase a backup generator for the community 2 years water system and install a transfer switch. $10,000 to $25,000 Deferred due to lack of funds Increase certified firefighters by supporting training and keeping firefighter informing volunteers about upcoming training opportunities. Ongoing Annual No cost Identify safety zones during property inspections, contact 2 years landowner to determine if area can be used without a contract, No cost map safety zones, and provide map to all agencies and County Emergency Management. Identify, map and sign known evacuation routes. Develop EAS to notify residents of designated routes. Deferred due to lack of funding Support the development of a process for collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions in planning actions to reduce the negative impact of landslide. In progress 1 year No Cost 174
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Public Works Clearwater Highway District/Clearwater County Commissioners Hazard Management Goal #7 Priority Ranking: Low 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Participate in the completion of a multi‐jurisdictional transportation plan. 3 years No Cost Deferred due to lack of funds Support the County’s revision of Planning and Zoning Regulations to incorporate the use of existing landslide risk maps. 2 years In progress Evaluate the Wixson Heights Road to determine a course of action to reduce landslide risk. 1 year Support the development of a public education plan and sustain a process of multiple‐media communication with the public on landslide risk and homeowners mitigation techniques. Annual $500 per year Deferred due to lack of funds Participate on the LEPC subcommittee to further efforts to reduce negative impact of winter storm. Annual Ongoing City Planning and Zoning Clearwater County Planning & Zoning/Commissioners/GIS City Planning and Zoning/City Public Works Regulatory Goal #7 and 11 Priority Ranking: High Infrastructure Goal #11 City Council Clearwater County LEPC/Planning and Zoning Severe Weather City Administrator Clearwater County LEPC Goal #12 Priority Ranking: Moderate Preparedness Goal #11 Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds Priority Ranking: High Public Education No cost No Cost Priority Ranking: High 175
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Administrator/Public Works Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #8, 10, and 11 City Council Clearwater County LEPC City Administrator/Public Works Clearwater County LEPC Goal #8, 9, 10, and 11 City Council Clearwater County LEPC /landowners Goal #8, 10, and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #8, 9, 10, and 11 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Collaborate with stakeholders to complete Confluence Project: Construct cross‐vane above Main Street Bridge. 3 years Support the restoration of 3,400 ft. of channel and realign Newman’s Corner: Convert existing overwide braided channel to a single thread bankfull channel, convert excess channel to floodplain and tie to existing high banks, reconstruct 90 degree bend by excavating south bank, replace bridge and access road, and revegetate. 5 years In progress $20,000 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Flood Project Deadline Priority Ranking: High Pending. $740,000 Collaborate with stakeholders to replace Forest Street Bridge and reshape channel upstream: Replace 56’ bridge with 70’ bridge, construct three instream structures to center channel through the bridge, shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions and revegetate. 5 years Support Clearwater County in the completion of bank stabilization project on the Brandt Mill site: Reduce bank erosion by placing rootwads, cedar logs, rock and vegetations; construct cross vane structure at pump diversion; lower opposite bank to floodplain elevations and revegetate. 3 years Pending. $340,000 In progress $58,000 176
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Hazard Management Clearwater County LEPC Goal # and 11 City Council Clearwater County/Konkolville Lumber/Clearwater County LEPC Goal # and 11 Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Clearwater County LEPC Goal # and 11 City Administrator Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC 8, 9, 10, Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal # and 11 8, 10, City Council Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management 8, 10, 8, 9, 10, 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Support Clearwater County in the completion of channel shaping at Noah’s Bridge: Shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions, convert excess channel to floodplain, construct cross vane control structure to center the flow through the bridge, and revegetate. 3 years Support Clearwater County in the completion of the Konkolville Mill Pump Diversion: Shape channel to appropriate bankfull dimensions, construct W‐weir cross vane control structure, construct pool at diversion intake, and revegetate. 3 years Support Clearwater County in the restoration of 1800’ Channel in Reach Six: Convert existing overwide, braided channel to a single thread bankfull channel, convert excess channel to floodplain and tie to existing high banks, construct debris jams at inlets to cut off channels, and revegetate. 5 years $175,000 Deferred due to lack of funds Promote a consistent methodology for on‐the‐ground bank stabilization/stream restoration projects along Orofino Creek. 1 year In progress $45,000 $40,000 Deferred due to lack of funds Deferred due to lack of funds $500 per year Priority Ranking: High 177
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council/City Administrator City Council/City Administrator Hazard Management City Council/City Planning and Zoning/City Public Works Goal #8, 9, 10, and 11 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC /Idaho Soil Conservation Commission/Missoula Weather Service Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC /Potlatch Corp/Nez Perce Tribe Hazard Management Goal #8, 9, 10, and 11 Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Goal #8, 9, 10, and 12 Priority Ranking: Moderate Clearwater County Emergency Management/Planning and Zoning Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council Public Education Clearwater County Planning and Zoning/ Clearwater County LEPC Goal #7, 8, 10, and 12 Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: Moderate 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Support Clearwater County in the development of a permanent, on going mechanism for collecting and interpreting data on Orofino Creek. Establish a flood “early warning” system based on appropriate data. 2 years Support Clearwater County in the completion of an assessment of the upper Orofino Creek watershed and develop a strategic plan for protecting and restoring fish habitat and water quality within the streams, compile a road/transportation inventory report and show resource problem areas, and determine culvert removal and/or replacement and hillside stabilization efforts. 5 years Provide public information on landscaping techniques and drainage methods that can minimize flood impact. Ensure public information on homeowner flood mitigation and emergency measures is clear, easy to understand, and timely. Distribute information through multiple medias. Annual Support the development of a mechanism where there are ongoing informational opportunities for the public to know about the National Flood Insurance Program and encourage participation. Annual In progress Unknown In progress $65,000 Ongoing No Cost Ongoing $1,000 per yr 178
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking City Administrator Clearwater County LEPC /Clearwater County Emergency Management Hazard Management Goal #8 and 10 City Administrator Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #8, 9, and 10 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC City Administrator/City Public Works Infrastructure Priority Ranking: High Goal #8, 9, 10, and 11 City Planning and Zoning Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Hazard Management Goal #7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 City Administrator Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Department/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #8 and 10 2011 Status Promote communication and cooperation for flood mitigation, response and recovery actions with the city jurisdictions in Clearwater County, Idaho County, and Lewis County as well as state and federal agencies. Annual Ongoing No cost Identify storage areas for sandbags and disseminate information 1 year to the public. Assess city’s sand bag cache and determine if No cost additional sandbags are needed. In progress Develop an action plan for managing storm water and prioritize projects, especially in the Riverside community and area impacted by Nezperce Tribe logging activities. 1 year Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds Coordinate with adjacent communities to ensure that floodplain management practices do not shift the flood hazard to adjacent communities. Collaborate to establish a committee of community representatives to discuss flood management practices. 2 years Ongoing Collaborate to update existing floodplain maps. No cost 1 year Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds Priority Ranking: High 179
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Administrator Public Education Goal #12 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC /Avista Corporation Avista Corporation Hazard Preparedness City Council Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC Work through the LEPC to coordinate with the electrical companies to expand efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information. 1 year Install underground power lines as funding is available. 5 years Goal #11 Geologic Priority Ranking: Moderate In progress No Cost Unknown Deferred due to lack of funds 2 years In progress Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #12 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Extended Power Outage Project Deadline Support the LEPC in developing a multi‐media, public education program to disseminate earthquake hazard information. No Cost Priority Ranking: Low Since the original document was written in 2005, the city of Orofino has completed several of its identified action items including: 1. The city of Orofino routinely provides incident reports to the Clearwater County Emergency Manager including a brief summary, number of people and properties affected, and an estimate of damages. 2. The city of Orofino has worked with Clearwater County Emergency Management to conduct annual training and mock disaster drills to ensure an effective response to a disaster. 3. The city of Orofino assists Clearwater County with assessments and mapping related to planning and zoning in order to help regulate development within floodplains, wildland urban interface areas, and geologic hazard area. 4. The city of Orofino holds a citywide clean up day and bar‐b‐que in the Park every spring. 180
5. The city of Orofino has established an alternative route for Wixson Heights Road due to the landslide risk. 6. The city of Orofino has completed a project to re‐vegetate and stabilize the river banks at the confluence of Orofino Creek and the Clearwater River. 7. The city of Orofino has begun the process of constructing a cross‐vane above Main Street Bridge. 8. The city of Orofino has supported the development of a Clearwater County Local Emergency Planning Committee and participates as an active member. 181
City of Elk River Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council/City Clerk Clearwater County Emergency Management Hazard Management Goal #1 and 10 City Mayor/City Clerk Hazard Management Goal #1, 6, and 10 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC City Mayor Hazard Management Clearwater County Emergency Management City Council Priority Ranking: High Goal #1, 6, and 9 Priority Ranking: Moderate Priority Ranking: High Regulatory Goal #1 and 2 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking All Hazards Project Deadline Provide ongoing data to Clearwater County Emergency Management as hazard events occur. Information shall include a summary of the hazard, number of people and property affected, and an estimate of cost. Annual Coordinate with the County Emergency Management Department to assess emergency response processes and procedures, determine training needs, and conduct ongoing training and mock disaster drills to ensure effective response to a mass disaster. Annual Coordinate with the County to assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state and federal emergency responders and between incident command and the public. 2 years Consult with the County Planning and Zoning in its consideration of Incentive Zoning Provisions in the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. In exchange for providing certain features or facilities such as open spaces for floodplains or fire breaks, a developer would be entitled to alter the zoning regulations affecting the subdivision (ie: setbacks, developmental densities). 1 year Ongoing No Cost Ongoing Unknown In progress Unknown In progress No Cost 182
Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Hazard Management Participate in training and public education programs offered by the North Central Idaho Fire Prevention Cooperative, the Fire Chief’s Association, the Clearwater County LEPC, and others. Annual Participate with the Fire Chief Association and the LEPC to conduct public education programs directed towards the recruitment and retention of firefighters. Annual Continue to work on action items and proposed projects identified in the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Annual Public Education Support the development of a FIREWISE Committee. 2 years Goal #4 and 5 No Cost Goal #1 and 3 Priority Ranking: High Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #1 and 3 Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Hazard Management City Council Goal #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/IDL Priority Ranking: High City Council Priority Ranking: High Goal #1, 2, and 4 Ongoing $1,000 per year Ongoing $500 per year Ongoing Unknown Priority Ranking: High Regulatory 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Wildland Fire Project Deadline Priority Ranking: High In progress. Consider adoption of more stringent building codes designed to specifically address wildland urban interface issues for both subdivisions and single structure construction. 5 years Revised project No Cost 183
Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Infrastructure Goal #1, 3, and 6 Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Goal #1 and 3 Elk River Volunteer Fire Department City Council Chamber of Commerce Goal #4, 5, and 10 Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Goal #4 and 5 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Annual Ongoing No Cost Increase certified firefighters by supporting training and keeping firefighter informing volunteers about upcoming training opportunities. Annual Ongoing No Cost Identify safety zones during property inspections, contact 2 years landowner to determine if area can be used without a contract, $5,000 map safety zones, and provide map to all agencies and County Emergency Management. Identify, map and sign known evacuation routes. Develop EAS to notify residents of designated routes. In progress Continue organizing an annual community clean up day. Ongoing Annual No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate City Council/Elk River Volunteer Fire Department Hazard Management CPTPA/Idaho Department of Lands/ Clearwater County LEPC /private landowners Priority Ranking: High Goal #4 and 5 Develop a prioritized list of future firefighting equipment upgrades. Secure direct access to federal surplus equipment. Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management 2011 Status Establish a community stakeholder group to discuss and create 1 year defensible space and other fuels mitigation projects in and $25,000 around the city. In progress 184
Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Severe Weather City Council Hazard Management Goal #1 and 7 Clearwater Highway District/Clearwater County Commissioners City Council Public Education Clearwater County LEPC Flood City Council Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Goal #11 County Planning and Zoning Department/Clearwater County LEPC City Council Hazard Management Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #1, 2, 9, and 11 Clearwater County Emergency Management/Sheriff’s Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Maintenance Infrastructure Priority Ranking: High Goal #6, 10, and 11 Participate in the completion of a multi‐jurisdictional transportation plan. 2 years In progress Support the development of a multi‐media, county‐wide public education materials and programs to disseminate storm hazard information to county residents. 2 years $1,000 Deferred due to lack of funds Support the LEPC in providing public information on landscaping techniques and drainage methods that can minimize flood impact. Annual In progress Promote communication and cooperation for flood mitigation, response, and recovery actions with the other city jurisdictions, Clearwater County, and other state and federal agencies. Annual Assess storm water system and make improvements to areas of the city impacted by runoff and high flows in the Elk Creek drainage. 2 years No Cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #8 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Landslide Project Deadline Priority Ranking: Low No Cost Ongoing No cost Revised project Unknown 185
Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Extended Power Outage Hazard Management Goal # City Council Public Education Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal # 7 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC /Avista Avista Hazard Preparedness Goal # 10 Dam Failure 1 and 11 Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Department/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers City Council/City Maintenance Clearwater County Emergency Management Priority Ranking: Moderate Work with FEMA and Clearwater County to update existing floodplain maps in Clearwater County and complete a Flood Insurance Rate Map for Elk River. 5 years Participate with the LEPC to coordinate with the electrical companies to expand efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information. Annual Install underground power lines as funding is available. Ongoing Revised project Unknown Ongoing No Cost In progress No cost 6, 7, and Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Preparedness Goal # and 11 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline 6, 10, Develop a solution to prevent ice dams at the Elk River dam spillway in order to avoid potential failure of the dam and flooding. 3 years New project Unknown Priority Ranking: High Since the original document was written in 2005, the city of Elk River has completed several of its identified action items including: 1. Elk River supported Clearwater County in converting the 2005 hazard mitigation planning committee into an active and effective Clearwater County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). 186
2. Elk River has identified the city building as their Emergency Incident Command Center and assessed site’s equipment needs and management operations. 3. Elk River as formally identified the City Shop as a community emergency shelter and provided a generator and other necessary provisions. 4. In 2009‐10, Elk River worked with Clearwater County to address response processes and determine needs as part of the Emergency Operations Plan update process. 5. In 2009, Elk River partnered with Clearwater County and other entities to assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state, and federal responders. 6. Elk River supports and participates in the Clearwater Economic Development Association, which is a multi‐stakeholder group representing economic and other interests in Clearwater County. 7. Elk River organizes an annual community‐wide “Clean Up Day” as part of a wildfire prevention and education program. 8. Elk River has purchased a backup generator to power their community water system during outages. 9. Elk River consistently enforces their adopted Uniform Building Codes. 187
City of Pierce Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Pierce Fire Department/City Council Clearwater County Emergency Management/Sheriff’s Office Hazard Management Goal #2, 3, 7, and 10 City Council/Pierce Fire Department Hazard Management Goal #2, 3, and 7 Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council/Pierce Fire Department Hazard Management Clearwater County Emergency Management Pierce Fire Department Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2 and 4 Priority Ranking: High Goal #2, 3, 7, and 10 Wildland Fire Priority Ranking: Moderate Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking All Hazards Project Deadline Assess the facility needs necessary for the City’s Emergency Incident Command Center and secure an adequate facility for emergency management operations during a disaster. 1 year No Cost Deferred due to lack of funds Coordinate with the County Emergency Management Department to assess emergency response processes and procedures, determine training needs, and conduct ongoing training and mock disaster drills to ensure effective response to a mass disaster. Annual Ongoing Coordinate with the County to assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state and federal emergency responders and between incident command and the public. 2 years Participate in training and public education programs offered by the North Central Idaho Fire Prevention Cooperative, the Fire Chief’s Association, the Clearwater County LEPC, and others. Annual Unknown In progress Unknown Ongoing $1,000 per year 188
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Pierce Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #2 and 4 City Mayor Pierce Fire Department Infrastructure Ongoing Public Education Support the development of a FIREWISE Committee. 2 years Goal #1, 5, and 6 No Cost City Council Goal #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 Pierce Fire Department City Council Unknown Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: High Infrastructure Goal #2, 4, 7, and 10 $500 per year Annual Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Fire Chief’s Association/Idaho Department of Lands Ongoing Continue to work on action items and proposed projects identified in the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Goal #7 Pierce Fire Department Pierce Fire Department Annual Deferred due to lack of funds Participate with the Fire Chief Association and the LEPC to conduct public education programs directed towards the recruitment and retention of firefighters. Locate and purchase a backup generator for the community 2 years water system and install a transfer switch. $10,000 to $25,000 Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Priority Ranking: Moderate In progress. Develop a prioritized list of future firefighting equipment upgrades. Secure direct access to federal surplus equipment. Annual Ongoing No Cost 189
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Pierce Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #2 and 4 Pierce Fire Department Hazard Management Goal #2, 5, 6, and 10 City Council Chamber of Commerce Pierce Volunteer Fire Department CPTPA/Idaho Department of Lands/ Clearwater County LEPC /private landowners Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Goal #1, 5, and 6 Priority Ranking: High Increase certified firefighters by supporting training and keeping firefighter informing volunteers about upcoming training opportunities. Annual Ongoing No Cost Identify safety zones during property inspections, contact 2 years landowner to determine if area can be used without a contract, $5,000 map safety zones, and provide map to all agencies and County Emergency Management. Identify, map and sign known evacuation routes. Develop EAS to notify residents of designated routes. In progress Continue organizing an annual community clean up day. Ongoing Annual No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #2, 5, 6, and 10 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Implement a hazardous fuels reduction project around the city 1 year including the Pines Addition. $75,000 Revised project Priority Ranking: High 190
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Pierce Volunteer Fire Department/ CPTPA/Idaho Department of Lands/ Clearwater County LEPC /private landowners Landslide City Mayor Hazard Management Goal #2 and 6 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #2, 8, and 10 Clearwater Highway District/Clearwater County Commissioners City Council Hazard Management Severe Weather City Council LEPC In progress Participate in the completion of a multi‐jurisdictional transportation plan. 2 years In progress Develop a land development and management policy to regulate landfills in the City that pose landslide risk to the community. 2 years Support the development of a multi‐media, countywide public education materials and programs to disseminate storm hazard information to county residents. 2 years No Cost No Cost Deferred due to lack of funds Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #1 and 9 Establish a community stakeholder group to discuss and create 1 year defensible space and other fuels mitigation projects in and $25,000 around the city. Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #2, 8, and 10 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Priority Ranking: Moderate $1,000 Deferred due to lack of funds 191
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Hazard Addressed Action Type Responsible Organization Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Public Education Goal #1 and 11 County Planning and Zoning Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council Public Education Goal #1 and 11 County Planning and Zoning Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council Hazard Management Goal #2, 10, and 11 City Maintenance Infrastructure City Council Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Department/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Priority Ranking: High Goal #2, 10, and 11 Priority Ranking: High Clearwater County Emergency Management/Sheriff’s Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #2 and 11 Priority Ranking: Moderate 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Flood Project Deadline Support the LEPC in providing public information on landscaping techniques and drainage methods that can minimize flood impact. Annual In progress Support the development of a mechanism to provide ongoing public information regarding the availability of low cost insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program and encourage participation. Annual No Cost Deferred due to lack of funds Promote communication and cooperation for flood mitigation, response, and recovery actions with the other city jurisdictions, Clearwater County, and other state and federal agencies. Annual Ongoing Assess storm water system and make improvements to areas of the city impacted by runoff and high flows in the Orofino Creek and Canal Gulch drainage. 2 years Work with FEMA and Clearwater County to update existing floodplain maps in Clearwater County and complete a Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pierce. 5 years No Cost No cost Revised project Unknown Revised project Unknown 192
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Public Education Goal #1 and 12 Clearwater County Emergency Management/Avista / Clearwater County LEPC Avista Hazard Preparedness City Council City Council Goal #2 and 8 City Council Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: Low Preparedness Goal #2, 8, and 10 Annual Install underground power lines as funding is available. Ongoing Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #1 and 8 Ongoing No Cost In progress No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Preparedness Participate with the LEPC to coordinate with the electrical companies to expand efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information. Goal #2, 10, and 12 Geologic Priority Ranking: Moderate 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Extended Power Outage Project Deadline Review any existing ordinance and building code regulations that apply to earthquake hazards and revise city policy if needed. 1 year Coordinate with Clearwater County and other city jurisdictions to determine a solution regarding the cities’ inability to financial afford building inspection services. 1 year Support the LEPC in developing a multi‐media, public education program to disseminate earthquake hazard information. Annual No Cost No Cost No cost Deferred due to lack of funds Deferred due to lack of funds Deferred due to lack of funds Priority Ranking: Low 193
City of Weippe Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed All Hazards Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization City Council Hazard Management Goal #1, 4, 6, and 8 City Mayor Hazard Management Goal #8 and 10 City Council Clearwater County Emergency Management Weippe Rural Fire Department Goal #1, 4, 6, and 8 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Goal #1 and 2 Priority Ranking: High Hazard Management Wildland Fire Priority Ranking: High Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC Clearwater County Commissioners Action Item Project Deadline Coordinate with the County Emergency Management Department to assess emergency response processes and procedures, determine training needs, and conduct ongoing training and mock disaster drills to ensure effective response to a mass disaster. Annual Review work completed by the Wellhead Protection Committee in 1997. Make revisions and seek County cooperation on developing a County ordinance to restrict the use of agricultural chemicals within 300 feet of the city’s wellheads. 1 year Coordinate with the County to assess emergency response communication capabilities between local, regional, state and federal emergency responders and between incident command and the public. 2 years Participate in training and public education programs offered by the North Central Idaho Fire Prevention Cooperative, the Fire Chief’s Association, the Clearwater County LEPC, and others. Annual Ongoing Unknown In progress Unknown In progress Unknown Ongoing $1,000 per year 194
Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Project Deadline Action Item Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Weippe Rural Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #1 and 2 Weippe Rural Fire Department Hazard Management City Council Goal #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 City Council Weippe Rural Fire Department Weippe Rural Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/Idaho Department of Lands Goal #1, 2, and 4 Weippe Rural Fire Department Annual Continue to work on action items and proposed projects identified in the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Annual Ongoing $500 per year Ongoing Unknown Purchase and install permanent backup generators for the 2 years community water system and install a transfer switch. $50,000 to $60,000 In progress Support the development of a FIREWISE Committee. In progress Goal #3 2 years No Cost Priority Ranking: High Infrastructure Goal #1, 2, and 4 Priority Ranking: High Public Education Participate with the Fire Chief Association and the LEPC to conduct public education programs directed towards the recruitment and retention of firefighters. Priority Ranking: High Infrastructure Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Priority Ranking: Moderate Develop a prioritized list of future firefighting equipment upgrades. Secure direct access to federal surplus equipment. Annual Ongoing No Cost 195
Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Weippe Rural Fire Department Fire Chief’s Association/ Clearwater County LEPC Hazard Management Goal #1, 2, and 3 Weippe Rural Fire Department Hazard Management Goal #1, 3, and 8 City Council Chamber of Commerce Severe Weather City Council/City Maintenance Increase certified firefighters by supporting training and keeping firefighter informing volunteers about upcoming training opportunities. Ongoing No Cost Identify safety zones during property inspections, contact 2 years landowner to determine if area can be used without a contract, $5,000 map safety zones, and provide map to all agencies and County Emergency Management. Identify, map and sign known evacuation routes. Develop EAS to notify residents of designated routes. In progress Continue organizing an annual community clean up day. Ongoing Annual No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Hazard Management Goal #5 and 8 City Council Public Education Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #7 Annual Goal #3 Clearwater Highway District/Clearwater County Commissioners Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education Landslide Priority Ranking: High 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Priority Ranking: Moderate Use the Clearwater County Transportation Plan updated in 2009 to identify and implement road improvement projects. However, due to inaccuracies in the cost estimates made in the Plan, Weippe will develop their own cost estimates when assembling project specifications and funding applications. 2 years Support the development of a multi‐media, countywide public education materials and programs to disseminate storm hazard information to county residents. 2 years In progress No Cost $1,000 Deferred due to lack of funds 196
Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item City Council Preparedness Goal #7 Flood City Council Goal #9 County Planning and Zoning Department/ Clearwater County LEPC City Council/City Maintenance Infrastructure Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #1 , 2, and 4 City Council Extended Power Outage Hazard Management Goal #1 and 9 City Council Public Education Priority Ranking: Moderate Goal #5 1 year No cost Deferred due to lack of funds Support the LEPC in providing public information on landscaping techniques and drainage methods that can minimize flood impact. Annual In progress th
Replace the culvert crossing on Grasshopper Creek at 8 Avenue with a larger structure. 2 years Work with FEMA and Clearwater County to update existing floodplain maps in Clearwater County and complete a Flood Insurance Rate Map for Weippe. 5 years Participate with the LEPC to coordinate with the electrical companies to expand efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information. Annual No Cost New project $20,000 Priority Ranking: High Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Department/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Clearwater County Emergency Management/Clearwater County LEPC /Avista/Clearwater Power Review any existing ordinance and building code regulations that apply to high wind hazards and revise city policy if needed. Priority Ranking: Moderate Public Education 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Priority Ranking: Moderate Revised project Unknown Ongoing No Cost 197
Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies. Action Type Responsible Organization Hazard Addressed Goals Addressed Collaborating Organization Action Item Avista and Clearwater Power Hazard Preparedness Geologic City Council City Council Goal #5 City Council Clearwater County Emergency Management/ Clearwater County LEPC Priority Ranking: Low Preparedness Goal #1, 5, and 8 Priority Ranking: High Public Education Goal #5 Ongoing In progress No cost Priority Ranking: Moderate Preparedness Install underground power lines as funding is available. Goal #5 and 8 2011 Status Estimated Cost Priority Ranking Project Deadline Review any existing ordinance and building code regulations that apply to earthquake hazards and revise city policy if needed. 1 year Coordinate with Clearwater County and other city jurisdictions to determine a solution regarding the cities’ inability to financial afford building inspection services. 1 year Support the LEPC in developing a multi‐media, public education program to disseminate earthquake hazard information. Annual No Cost No Cost No cost Deferred due to lack of funds Deferred due to lack of funds Deferred due to lack of funds Priority Ranking: Low Since the original document was written in 2005, the city of Weippe has completed several of its identified action items including: 1. The city of Weippe contracts with the Weippe Rural Fire Protection District to provide structural protection within the city limits. Since 2005, the Weippe Rural Fire District has constructed a new fire station and updated much of its personal protective equipment. They have also enhanced their firefighter training program. 198
This page was intentionally left blank. 199
Chapter 7 Appendices IN THIS SECTION: • List of Tables • List of Figures • Local Resolutions of Adoption • Planning Committee Minutes • Public Meeting Slideshow Chapter 7
Appendices • Summary of 2011 Revisions • Potential Funding Sources 200
Chapter 7 – Appendices Supporting Information List of Tables Table 3.1. Selected Demographic Statistics......................................................................................................24
Table 3.2. Poverty Status Statistics in 1999......................................................................................................25
Table 3.3. Occupation and Industry..................................................................................................................26
Table 3.4. Vegetative Cover Types. ..................................................................................................................27
Table 3.5. Ownership Categories......................................................................................................................30
Table 4.1. Weather and Climate for Clearwater County, Idaho. ......................................................................49
Table 4.2. Historic Fire Regimes in Clearwater County. ...................................................................................53
Table 4.3. Fire Regime Condition Classes in Clearwater County. .....................................................................55
Table 5.1. Communities Participating in NFIP as of 2010.................................................................................84
Table 5.2. NFIP Policy Statistics As of 6/31/2010 in Clearwater County. .........................................................84
Table 5.3. Landslide Risk Due to Slopes, Geology, and Soils. ...........................................................................86
Table 5.4. Landslide Impact Zones in Clearwater County. ...............................................................................91
Table 5.5. Summary of IDL and USFS databases 1986‐2008. .........................................................................101
Table 5.6. Record of Outages on Primary Transmission Lines in Weippe, Pierce, Jaype, and Headquarters (plus Orofino)..................................................................................................................................................104
Table 5.7. Record of Sub‐outages in Weippe, Pierce, Jaype, and Headquarters (plus Orofino). ..................104
Table 5.8. Recent Hazardous Material Incidents in Clearwater County.........................................................109
Table 6.1. Clearwater County Mitigation Strategies. .....................................................................................159
Table 6.2. City of Orofino Mitigation Strategies.............................................................................................172
Table 6.3. City of Elk River Mitigation Strategies. ..........................................................................................182
Table 6.4. City of Pierce Mitigation Strategies. ..............................................................................................188
Table 6.5. City of Weippe Mitigation Strategies.............................................................................................194
201
List of Figures Figure 3.1. Land ownership map for Clearwater County..................................................................................31
Figure 3.2. Summary of SHELDUS Hazard Profile. ...........................................................................................34
Figure 4.1. State Landslide Disaster Declarations 1976‐2000. .........................................................................44
Figure 4.2. Average Annual Precipitation in Idaho from 1961 to 1990...........................................................47
Figure 4.3. Idaho Average Wind Speed Map. ...................................................................................................48
Figure 4.4. Clearwater County Historic Fire Regime.........................................................................................54
Figure 4.5. Clearwater County Fire Regime Condition Class. ...........................................................................56
Figure 4.6. Wildland Urban Interface in Clearwater County, Idaho. ................................................................59
Figure 4.7. Avista Utilities Service Area. ...........................................................................................................60
Figure 4.8. Clearwater Power Company Service Area. ....................................................................................61
Figure 4.9. Seismicity in Idaho 1990‐2006........................................................................................................67
Figure 4.10. USGS Probability of Earthquake Model. ......................................................................................69
Figure 4.11. USGS Peak Ground Acceleration Map. .........................................................................................71
Figure 4.12. Earthquake Risk Map for Idaho. ...................................................................................................72
Figure 4.13. Cascade Volcano Eruptions. .........................................................................................................75
Figure 5.1. Clearwater County FEMA Floodplains. ...........................................................................................80
Figure 5.2. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ahsahka. ..............................................................................81
Figure 5.3. Landslide Prone Landscapes in Clearwater County........................................................................87
Figure 5.4. Chronic Landslide Areas..................................................................................................................90
Figure 5.5. U.S. Drought Monitor for Western Region.....................................................................................95
Figure 5.6. Earthquake Probability and Fault Lines. ......................................................................................107
Figure 5.7. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Orofino. .............................................................................113
Figure 5.8. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Elk River. ............................................................................126
Figure 5.9. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pierce.................................................................................136
Figure 5.10. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Weippe. ..........................................................................143
202
2011 Landslide Activity Amendment Many landslides in Idaho occur during or shortly after intense storms that cause flooding. These include thunderstorms in the summer or autumn, and heavy winter rains falling over prolonged periods. Prolonged rainfall in the late winter and early spring of 2011 throughout central Idaho resulted in flooding activity and subsequent landslides in Clearwater County. Due to the widespread damages caused by these events, this amendment was added to the Clearwater County Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan in May of 2011 in order to record the characteristics of the weather events, the damages caused, the impact on local communities, the resulting costs of cleanup, and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent future slides, particularly in weakened areas. A presidential disaster declaration was issued on May 20, 2011 for the flooding, landslides, and mudslides that occurred in Clearwater, Bonner, Idaho, Nez Perce, and Shoshone Counties and that affected the Nez Perce Tribe. th
Dent Bridge Road on April 8 , 2011. Summary of 2011 Events April 2nd, 2011 ‐ On April 2nd over one inch of rain fell on already saturated ground in and around Clearwater County. Following the storm, Orofino Creek reached flood action stage of 6.5 feet and a number of landslides were reported. A disaster declaration was issued by Clearwater County and Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security was informed at approximately 1200 hours. The following list summarizes the major impacts resulting from this storm. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sandbagging around 4 homes in 3 different areas along Orofino Creek. Sandbagging to protect the Huckleberry Butte Bridge. Plugged culvert and road washed out at the Old Peck Grade (milepost 1.25). Havelock Road surface washed out. Mudslide on Harmony Heights Road (milepost 7.4) Road slumping on Harmony Heights Road (milepost 5.2) Road slumping on the Grangemont Road (milepost 4.75) Slide on Dent Bridge Road (milepost 1). Sunnyside Road culvert loss and loss of road base (milepost 0.1). Newman Road washed out (milepost 1). Slide on Huckleberry Butte Road (milepost 0.2). April 5th, 2011 ‐ On April 5th another storm dropped approximately one inch of rain in and around Clearwater County. The impact of this storm compounded existing flood and landslide issues. 203
April 8th, 2011 ‐ On April 8th a major landslide occurred on the Dent Bridge Road at mile marker 13. The slide happened in a horseshoe‐shaped bend; thus, the slide damage two sections of the roadway. It is estimated that over 50,000 cubic feet of debris moved during this slide closing the road to all traffic. Dent Bridge Road is the main connector between the cities of Orofino and Elk River. The road was built by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the late 1960’s early 1970’s and eventually deeded to Clearwater County. Just north of the slide in the Dent community, 61 homes are impacted by the loss of the road. Emergency services to this area have been greatly affected with the only ambulance service 40 minutes away in Elk River via a gravel road or by helicopter. There is only one ambulance in Elk River with a limited volunteer crew; thus, a call to Dent would leave the community of Elk River vulnerable. Additionally, school bus service has been stopped to the Dent community and fire suppression and law enforcement services must travel approximately one hour and forty minutes to reach Dent. A revised declaration was sent to Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security, to include Dent Bridge Road, on April 8, 2011. The next day an estimate to build a temporary road around the slide and to remove debris was approved by the Board of Commissioners and work began. Damage Estimates The preliminary damage estimate for the landslide areas as wells additional flood damages to roads and culverts included 10 individual sites totaling over $2.3 million. The Dent Bridge Road landslide resulted in $1.37 million in damages. On the Old Peck Grade, a 36 inch culvert was plugged causing approximately $25,000 in damages due to the loss of road surface and base. On Havelock Road another plugged culvert caused an estimated $10,000 in road damages. Approximately $35,000 in damages were caused by a mudslide and slumps along the Harmony Heights Road. A section of the Grangemont Road is showing signs of sub‐base movement through a large area of the road prism causing an estimated $800,000 in damages. A plugged culvert caused a portion of Sunnyside Road and a private driveway to be washed away causing an estimated $7,000 in damages. Approximately $5,000 in damages was caused when flood waters overwhelmed drainage infrastructure on Newman Road. A nearly vertical landslide on Huckleberry Butte Road resulted in $50,000 in damages and will require an extensive MSE wall to Dent Bridge Road Landslide on April 8th, 2011. prevent further slide activity. 204
Landside Mapping – Project Impact Clearwater County Project Impact identified landslide hazards as a major threat to lives and property in Clearwater County and established “assessing landslide areas and producing landslide hazard maps of critical areas of the County” as its primary mitigation action. Project Impact set aside funds for the landslide hazard mapping project. The purpose of the project was to produce map(s) of slope instability hazards at a scale 1:24,000. The Idaho Geologic Survey mapped the surficial geology. These maps are also included. A complete description of the Geotechnical Terrain Units (GTU) can be found at http://www.clearwatercounty.org/Content/Assets/CCo%20GTUs%20Definitions%2012‐15‐02.pdf. A summary of the designated GTU’s is as follows: GTU 1 ‐ Terrain Unit 1 generally lies along the north and south slopes of the Clearwater River and the North Fork of the Clearwater. There are many natural landslides in this geologic unit, particularly on the north side of the Clearwater River. This indicates that landsliding is associated with the soil and geology of this unit and is likely to occur with improper site development. Slopes range from 10% to vertical. Landslide potential is high because the colluvium is subject to landsliding and the creek bottoms are avalanche chutes. Natural landslides generally occur toward the top of the steep hillsides. Talus slopes should be avoided. Debris flow chutes are common and require special attention, particularly toward the end of the chute where development may occur. GTU 2 ‐ The relatively flat portions of the County are generally covered by silty and clayey loess. In general loess is a fine‐grain wind deposited sandy, silty, clayey soil with a low dry density. It has clay cementation that makes it strong and stable when dry. However, the soil is highly compressible due to it’s low density and unstable when wet. It can become wet naturally generally resulting in landslides. Development can also cause the soil to become wet or saturated resulting in large settlements under applied loads and/or loss of bearing capacity. Natural landslides occur on slopes steeper that about 20% and under high moisture contents, generally higher that 18%. Erosion potential is high on both natural and made ground. Erosion potential is high on both natural and made ground. Loess has poor road support capabilities. GTU 3 ‐ This unit includes Quaternary alluvial channel and flood plain deposits of the Clearwater River and tributaries to the Clearwater River. Alluvium along the Clearwater River is composed of well‐sorted and rounded sandy gravel derived from the granites upstream. The side‐stream alluvium tends to be subrounded to rounded pebbles, cobbles and boulders of basalt. The slope in this unit vary from flat (0‐
10%) to sloping (10‐20%). Natural slopes are relatively flat and stable. This unit, except for pockets of silt and clay, will support roadways. Some frost heaving may occur because of high ground water and fine grain soil. GTU 4 ‐ The Clearwater Gravel is primarily mainstream channel gravels and sands that form a dissected terrace. These gravels are topped in areas by the Missoula Flood Gravels. The Missoula floods deposited basalt rich gravel and coarse sand. The Bonneville Flood gravels are basaltic gravels and sandy gravels deposited along the Snake River. These gravels form the Lewiston bench and are cemented. The slope is flat (0‐10%) for the most part but there are some local areas that are sloping (10‐20%). The gravels on the Lewiston bench are cemented and the other gravels are coarse grained so erosion is limited to the silty and sandy portions. These soils are relatively strong and on flat slopes so the potential for natural landslides is small. These soils make excellent sub‐grade for roads. When compacted as structural fill the soil is good base course material. 205
GTU 5 ‐ This unit is made up of landslide areas (Qls), alluvial fans below debris chutes (Qad) and made ground or fills (m). The inherent instability of a landslide mass will adversely affect any development and, generally, landslides should not be developed in any manner. Earthwork on or around landslide masses may increase instability and the potential for new landsliding. Land up‐slope and down‐slope from landslides could be affected. Alluvial fan deposits are formed at the end of debris chutes off of steep hillsides. These chutes are marked in red on the geology maps. They are formed from high‐energy events that have the ability to destroy any site improvements on the fan. The slope of landslides vary from sloping (10 to 20%) to step (20 to 50%). The slope of fills varies from flat to over 50%. Generally the top of the fill is flat and the sides slope at some angle. Fans slope 10 to 20% and are therefore favorable building sites; however, they are dangerous sites. Erosion potential in landslide soil is moderate to high. Most fresh, loose and unconsolidated slide masses are erosion prone. Erosion potential depends on the type of soil in the fill and the ground slope. Fans have low erosion potential. This unit includes old landslides that are inherently unstable and any disturbance to the slide mass or the drainage may re‐activate the slide. Fills, or made ground (m), are stable if they have been compacted and tested. Landslides will not support roads. Some made ground has been constructed for road embankments and has been placed properly. Any development in this GTU can induce slope instability. GTU 6 ‐ Granitic and metamorphic rocks (Qcg) are exposed along the Clearwater River. These rocks are covered with colluvium that varies in thickness but generally is thicker at the base of the slope. It is primarily poorly sorted muddy gravel composed of angular and subangular pebbles cobbles and boulders in a matrix of sand, silt and clay. Slope varies from 50% to near vertical. The fine grain portion of this soil is erosion prone. Landslide potential is high. The colluvium is subject to landsliding because of the steep slopes. Talus slopes should be avoided. Debris flow chutes are common and require special attention, particularly toward the end of the chute where development may occur. These soils will provide an adequate foundation for roads. Cuts and fills will be required on the steep hillsides.
206
Project Impact Mapping Products Cavendish Area 207
Dent Bridge Area 208
Fords Creek Area 209
Gilbert Grade Area 210
Greer Area 211
Orofino Area 212
Sunnyside Area 213
Wells Bench Area 214
Idaho Geological Survey Surficial Geology Maps Orofino East 215
Orofino West 216
Ahsahka 217
Dent 218
Southwick 219
Planning Committee Minutes June 16th, 2010 – Clearwater County Courthouse Agenda Item #1 – Project Introduction: Don Gardner invited all of the potential committee members and community representatives to a meeting with Northwest Management, Inc. to introduce the Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan project. He began the meeting by explaining some of the background for the project as well as the need for an update. NMI gave the group a brief presentation going over the basic update process, committee responsibilities, and information needed. Tera handed out and explained the goals statements and critical facilities checklist to each county and city representative. NMI also led the group through the Phase I hazard assessment exercise. This meeting laid the ground work for the project. Several of the community leaders identified representatives to serve on the committee as a liaison. The next meeting of the core group was scheduled for July 8th. This meeting will be a work meeting at the Coon Building. July 8th, 2010 – Coon Building, Orofino Agenda Item #1 – Introduction: Don Gardner began the meeting by explaining the background of the Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan Update project and asking for introductions. Agenda Item #2 – Project Purpose and Scope: Tera gave a brief background of the process and explained the purpose of the Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan update and the integration of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Both documents will be updated, but remain separate. Critical sections of the CWPP will be included in the MHMP to satisfy new requirements. Also, the updated plan will include the hazards of flood, severe weather, landslides, wildland fire, extended power outage, geologic, dam failure, hazardous materials, avalanche, and terrorism/civil unrest (separate document). Agenda Item #3 – Old Business: Goals Statement – Tera asked if any of the cities or the county had completed the “goals statement” at the last meeting. She reiterated the need for this exercise and asked that each entity send the information as soon as possible. Fire District Summaries – The summary documents were given to each of the fire departments at their last joint meeting. Tera asked that these documents be filled out and returned as soon as possible as well. Critical Facilities list – Tera handed out the existing critical facilities list and asked that each entity review the information and let NMI know if there are changes needed. 220
Existing Documents – As a reminder from the last meeting, Tera asked that committee members send any pertinent planning documents, ordinances, etc. that may affect the recommendations or assessments included in the Plan. Hazard Photos/Recent Events: Tera noted that NMI didn’t have many good photos of hazard events in Clearwater County. She asked committee members to send some photos as well as any records of events that had occurred since 2005. Agenda Item #4 – Draft Review: Tera handed out the preliminary chapters 1‐3 of the Plan. Tera and Vaiden walked the committee through each chapter explaining what was included and where information would be filled in. Any edits to these chapters need to be submitted to NMI by July 23rd. Agenda Item #5– Flood Hazard: NMI is working on developing the analysis for the flood hazard. Tera asked if there were any repetitive loss structures in the County and whether or not each entity participated in the NFIP. Vaiden explained the floodplain maps and how the information was derived from the FEMA FIRMs (Flood Insurance Rate Maps). Tera asked that the committee review the maps, mark areas where problems had occurred, and identify project ideas/action items for inclusion in the mitigation strategy. Agenda Item #6 – Landslide Hazard: Vaiden explained the Landslide Prone Landscapes map. As with the flood information, Tera asked that the committee review the map and mark where chronic issues were occurring as well as any potential project areas or action items. Agenda Item #7 – Wildland Fire Hazard: NMI provided an aerial overview map of the County. Tera asked that the committee identify planned or upcoming wildland fire project areas and the intent of the project. During the break and individual group sessions, committee members gathered around the aerial map, flood zone map, and landslide map to discussed current and past projects, mark project areas, and identify areas of concern. NMI will digitize this information on new maps to show at the next committee meeting and at the public meetings in August. Agenda Item #8 – Public Involvement: NMI handed out a draft press release and public meeting flyer announcing the initiation of the planning process as well as the dates of the public meetings. After discussing the options, the committee decided on the following public meeting schedule: August 3rd at 6pm in the Elk River Community Center August 4th at 6pm in Orofino Coon Building August 5th at 6pm in Timberline High School Representatives from these communities will work on confirming these dates. Tera asked that the committee send revisions to the press release and public meeting flyer by July 14th. 221
Agenda Item #9 – Mitigation Strategies: Tera handed out the existing mitigation strategy for each jurisdiction. NMI had added a column to the chart to show what the current status of the project is for 2010. She explained the committee representatives needed to review the action items, update the list with a status report, delete completed or unwanted items, and add any new projects. Completed action items will be highlighted in another section of the plan. Tera asked that the committee return the update lists by July 23rd for inclusion in the next draft. Agenda Item #10 – Task List: **Information can be sent to Tera King at king@consulting‐foresters.com .*** 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Send NMI fire district survey asap– Fire Departments and Agencies Complete/Revise Goals Statements asap– County and Cities Send committee electronic copies of handouts – Tera Send NMI updated mitigation strategy by July 23rd – County and cities Send NMI updated critical facilities lists asap– County and cities Send NMI edits to Chapters 1‐3 by July 23rd ‐ committee Agenda Item #11 – Adjournment: The Clearwater County MHMP update planning committee meeting was adjourned at 2 pm. The next meeting will be held on August 5th at 1pm in the Coon Building. August 5th, 2010 – Orofino Fire Department Agenda Item #1 – Old Business: Tera began by reviewing several items of old business including the goals statements, fire district summaries, critical facilities list, and hazard event information. The agenda notes the entities that NMI is still missing information from. Agenda Item #2 – Draft Review: Tera handed out copies of the draft Chapter 4. The committee briefly reviewed the content and made some corrections. Tera asked that members review the document and submit revisions to NMI by August 20th. Agenda Item #3 – Earthquake Hazard: Tera reviewed the hazard information available for earthquakes in the area. She asked that the committee provide an estimate of unreinforced masonry structures in each jurisdiction by August 20th. Agenda Item #4 – Wildland Fire Hazard: Tera handed out copies of the original CWPP community assessments and asked the committee to provide revisions by August 27th. Agenda Item #5– Dam Failure Hazard: Tera explained that most of the information on dam failure would come out of the USACE Emergency Plans and inundation maps. 222
Agenda Item #6 – Avalanche Hazard: The committee agreed that there were no known avalanche areas in critical areas or impact zones within Clearwater County. No action items for this hazard were noted. Agenda Item #7 – Power Outage Hazard: The committee discussed some of the ramifications of a long‐term power outage. Several areas were noted for experiencing short‐term outage, usually due to weather events, on a regular basis. Agenda Item #8 – Terrorism/Civil Unrest Hazard: Tera handed out the draft Terrorism and Civil Unrest Supplement for the committee’s review. The committee also spent some time filling out the facility vulnerability forms. The scores from these forms will be tabulated and presented in Chapter 3 of the Supplement. Agenda Item #9 – Hazardous Materials Hazard: Tera reviewed the information available so far regarding hazardous material storage and transport in Clearwater County. The committee noted that spills and other hazard occurrences related to hazardous materials were relatively uncommon. Agenda Item #10 – Mitigation Strategies: Tera handed out the revised mitigation strategy lists for each jurisdiction. Numerous formatting changes and edits had been made based on committee comments. Tera asked that the committee review the lists and provide any additional revisions by August 20th. Agenda Item #11 – Task List: **Information can be sent to Tera King at king@consulting‐foresters.com .*** 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Send NMI fire district survey asap– Fire Departments and Agencies Complete/Revise Goals Statements asap– County and Cities Send NMI updated mitigation strategy by August 20th – County and cities Send NMI edits to Chapter 4 by August 20th –Committee Send NMI unreinforced masonry structure estimates by August 20th – Committee Send NMI edits to the CWPP community assessments by August 27th – Committee Send NMI edits to the Terrorism Supplement by August 27th ‐ Committee Agenda Item #12 – Adjournment: The Clearwater County MHMP update planning committee meeting was adjourned at 3 pm. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for September 10th. October 20th, 2010 – Weippe City Hall, Pierce City Hall In order to ensure the accuracy of the data presented in the draft MHMP and to garner additional input from the smaller jurisdictions, Clearwater County Emergency Manager, Don Gardner, and NMI Project Manager, Tera King, traveled to Weippe and Pierce to meet individually with the mayor of each community. At these meetings, the jurisdictions’ specific annexes were reviewed for accuracy. Additionally, the existing mitigation strategies were reviewed with action items marked as completed, ongoing, or added as new projects. 223
Summary of 2011 Revisions Overall Changes 1. The entire Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) was reorganized and reformatted to improve overall readability, make specific information easier to find for each jurisdiction, and to make the document more conducive to periodic updates. The original plan was very large and cumbersome; thus, one goal of the planning committee was to streamline the information without reducing the quality of the document. 2. Rather than incorporating the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan as one chapter, but a separate document, the 2011 MHMP includes a full section on the wildfire hazard within the document. The information is based on the existing Community Wildfire Protection Plan, but repeated in the 2011 MHMP for ease of access to the information. 3. Originally, the Clearwater County MHMP contained individual MHMPs for each participating jurisdiction. The 2011 MHMP has combined all of the information including the jurisdiction specific information into one document. Chapter 1 1. The planning committee conducted a new Phase I assessment which resulted in the addition of 4 new hazards addressed in the 2011 Plan. 2. As an addition to Chapter 1, the 2011 MHMP included a review of existing planning mechanisms that may affect the recommendations made in this Plan or could be dovetailed with the hazard mitigation planning process and outcomes. 3. Much of the information previously contained in Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the 2005 MHMP was summarized and updated in Chapter 1 of the 2011 MHMP. Chapter 2 1. Much of the information previously contained in Sections 3, 4, 5, and the Public Information Activity Summary of the 2005 MHMP was summarized and updated in Chapter 2 of the 2011 MHMP. 2. The public meeting slideshow was moved to Chapter 7 to improve readability. Chapter 3 1. Much of the information in Chapter 3 was added to the Plan or summarized from sections of the 2005 Individual Jurisdiction Plans. Chapter 4 and 5 1. The individual jurisdiction’s vulnerability assessments from the 2005 Plan and the Clearwater County Community Wildfire Protection Plan were combined and updated in Chapters 4 and 5 of the 224
2011 MHMP. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of each hazard rather than repeating this information for each jurisdiction. Chapter 5 provides jurisdiction‐specific information regarding each hazard. Vulnerability and risk assessments were added to Chapters 4 and 5 for the hazards of dam failure, terrorism and civil unrest, hazardous materials, and avalanche. 2. In addition to incorporating the majority of the 2005 MHMP’s information into Chapters 4 and 5 of the 2011 MHMP, each jurisdiction provided new information to add to the risk and vulnerability assessment narratives. Additional or new information was also incorporated or updated as was necessary to accurately reflect the current situation. Chapter 6 1. The mitigation strategies previously contained within each jurisdiction’s individual Plan in the 2005 MHMP, were incorporated into Chapter 6 of the 2011 MHMP. Although the presentation format for each jurisdiction is similar to the 2005 format, more information and a 2011 “project status” column was added. The planning committee believes that this format will make tracking progress and updating the Plan much easier to facilitate. 2. A summary of accomplishments since 2005 for each jurisdiction was included in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 1. Much of the information in chapter 7 is either new or taken from various sections of the 2005 MHMP. The resolutions of adoption were moved to the Foreword of the 2011 document and the cited literature is included as footnotes in each section. 2. The 2011 MHMP added a summary of revisions, public meeting slideshow, and a list of potential funding sources. 225
Public Meeting Slideshow Slide 2 Slide 1 Slide 4 Slide 3 Slide 6 Slide 5 Slide 8 Slide 7 226
Slide 10 Slide 9 Slide 12 Slide 11 Slide 14 Slide 13 Slide 16 Slide 15 227
Slide 18 Slide 17 Slide 20 Slide 19 Slide 22 Slide 21 Slide 24 Slide 23 228
Slide 26 Slide 25 Slide 27 229
Potential Funding Sources Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Rural Fire Assistance Bureau of Land Management BLM provides funds to rural fire departments for wildfire fighting; also provides wildland fire equipment, training and/or prevention materials. BLM RFA Coordinator at 208‐373‐3861 Communities at Risk Bureau of Land Management Assistance to communities for hazardous fuels reduction projects in the wildland urban interface; includes funding for assessments and mitigation planning. Idaho BLM at 208‐373‐3854 State Fire Assistance US Forest Service USFS grants to state foresters through state and private grants, under authority of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. Grant objectives are to maintain and improve protection efficiency and effectiveness on non‐federal lands, training, equipment, preparedness, prevention and education. www.fireplan.gov and www.fs.fed.us and Idaho Department of Lands 208‐769‐1525 State Fire Assistance Hazard Mitigation Program National Fire Plan These special state Fire Assistance funds are targeted at hazard fuels treatment in the wildland‐urban interface. Recipients include state forestry organizations, local fire services, county emergency planning committees and private landowners. www.fireplan.gov and www.fs.fed.us and Idaho Department of Lands 208‐769‐1525 Volunteer Fire Assistance US Forest Service Provides funding and technical assistance to local and volunteer fire departments for organizing, training and equipment to enable them to effectively meet their structure and wildland protection responsibilities. US Forest Service grants provided to state foresters through state and private grants under the authority of Coop Forestry Assistance Act. www.fs.fed.us/fire/partners/vfa or Idaho Department of Lands at 208‐666‐8650 230
Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Forest Land Enhancement Program US Forest Service The 2002 Farm Bill repealed the Forestry Incentives Program (authorized in 1978) and Stewardship Incentive Program (1990) cost share programs and replaced it with a new Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). FLEP purposes include 1) Enhance the productivity of timber, fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality, wetland, recreational resources, and aesthetic values of forest land through landowner cost share assistance, and 2) Establish a coordinated, cooperative federal, state and local sustainable forestry program to establish, manage, maintain, enhance and restore forests on non‐industrial private forest land. www.usda.gov/farmbill Federal Excess Property US Forest Service Provides assistance to state, county and local governments by providing excess federal property (equipment, supplies, tools) for wildland and rural community fire response. Idaho Department of Lands at 208‐666‐8664 Economic Action Program US Forest Service A USFS, state and private program with involvement from local Forest Service offices to help identify projects. Addresses long‐term economic and social health of rural areas; assists the development of enterprises through diversified uses of forest products, marketing assistance, and utilization of hazardous fuel byproducts. Idaho Department of Commerce at 800‐842‐5858 Forest Stewardship Program US Forest Service Funding helps enable preparation of management plans on state, private and tribal lands to ensure effective and efficient hazardous fuel treatment. Idaho Department of Lands at 208‐666‐8626 Community Planning US Forest Service USFS provides funds to recipients with involvement of local Forest Service offices for the development of community strategic action and fire risk management plans to increase community resiliency and capacity. Idaho Department of Commerce at 800‐842‐5858 231
Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: Firefighters Assistance Federal Emergency Management Agency and US Fire Administration Program Financial assistance to help improve fire‐fighting operations, services and provide equipment. www.fema.gov More info: Pre‐Disaster Mitigation Program Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency management assistance to local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans. Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security at 208‐334‐3460 Program: Source: Description: More info: Idaho Forestry Assistance Program Idaho Department of Lands Funding available to assist with organizing, training, and purchasing fire fighting equipment. Idaho Department of Lands at 208‐666‐8650 Program: Source: Description: Community Facilities Loans and Grants Rural Housing Service (RHS) U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Provides grants (and loans) to cities, counties, states and other public entities to improve community facilities for essential services to rural residents. Projects can include fire and rescue services; funds have been provided to purchase fire‐fighting equipment for rural areas. No match is required. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov or local county Rural Development office. More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Sale of Federal Surplus Personal Property General Services Administration This program sells property no longer needed by the federal government. The program provides individuals, businesses and organizations the opportunity to enter competitive bids for purchase of a wide variety of personal property and equipment. Normally, there is no use restrictions on the property purchased. www.gsa.gov Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property U. S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency Program provides reimbursement to fire service organizations that have engaged in firefighting operations on federal land. Payments can be for direct expenses and direct losses. www.fema.gov 232
Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Program: Source: Description: More info: Fire Management Assistance Grant Program Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate, FEMA Program provides grants to states, tribal governments and local governments for the mitigation, management and control of any fire burning on publicly (nonfederal) or privately owned forest or grassland that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The grants are made in the form of cost sharing with the federal share being 75 percent of total eligible costs. Grant approvals are made within 1 to 72 hours from time of request. www.fema.gov Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA Provides states and local governments with financial assistance to implement measures to reduce or eliminate damage and losses from natural hazards. Funded projects have included vegetation management projects. It is each State’s responsibility to identify and select hazard mitigation projects. www.fema.gov Boise State University Wildland Fire Academy. Partnership between BSU and SWIFT (Southwest Idaho Fire Training, a group including the BLM, Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of Lands). Provides a full range of fire training classes during one week in June at the Selland College of Technology on the BSU campus. Tuition is required. Open to federal, state, local fire fighters, contractors, and the public. Housing is available on campus. (Separate from, but in conjunction with, this academy, BSU recently began offering an associate degree program in fire science.) BLM training officer at 208‐384‐3403 or BSU’s Selland College at 208‐426‐1974. 233
Local Resolutions of Adoption Clearwater County Resolution of Adoption City of Elk River Resolution of Adoption City of Orofino Resolution of Adoption City of Pierce Resolution of Adoption City of Weippe Resolution of Adoption 234
This plan was developed by Northwest Management, Inc. under contract with Clearwater County. Funding for the project was provided by the Board of County Commissioners and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Copies of this document are available through the Clearwater County Emergency Management office at 208‐476‐4064. Citation of this work: King, Tera R. and V. Bloch. Lead Authors. Clearwater County, Idaho Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2011 Revision. Northwest Management, Inc., Moscow, Idaho. 2011. Pp 235. King, Tera R. and V. Bloch. Lead Authors. Clearwater County, Idaho Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan Terrorism and Civil Unrest Supplement. 2011 Revision. Northwest Management, Inc., Moscow, Idaho. 2011. Pp 45. Northwest Management, Inc. 233 East Palouse River Drive PO Box 9748 Moscow ID 83843 208‐883‐4488 Telephone 208‐883‐1098 Fax NWManage@consulting‐foresters.com http://www.Consulting‐Foresters.com/ 235