Loading...
Building Code EnforcementSOOZ ONI `S31i2OdObd OSIO Gw1SJ�]O8) alnpayoS 6ulpeaE) ssauanl}3043 apoo 6uiplln8 uo9�nIeA3 Z4OZIVzj6 f%3uGBV4uamGaqu3 OPc J Bu!plIns a!e18 aye. 10 nna�naa a� W04 suoq0a1as IB^31ua3 qmo WiplIng ! Table of Contents Tab Description Section 1 Executive Summary Section 2 Background Information Section 3 Code Adoption Section 4 Education, Training and Certification Section 5 Staffing Levels Section 6 BCEGSTM Point Analysis Section 7 Natural Hazards Appendix A Natural Hazard General Information ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Section 1 Executive Summary Not all communities have rigorous building codes, nor do all communities enforce their codes with equal commitment. Yet the effectiveness of local building codes can have a profound effect on how the structures in your community will fare in a hurricane, earthquake, or other natural disaster. Studies conducted following recent natural disasters concluded that total losses might have been as much as 50% less if all structures in the area had met current building codes. Building -code enforcement can have a major influence on the economic well -being of a municipality and the safety of its citizens. Insurance Services Office (ISO) helps distinguish amongst communities with effective building -code adoption and enforcement through a comprehensive program called the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGSTM) ISO is an independent statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves the property /casualty insurance industry. ISO collects information on a community's building -code adoption and enforcement services, analyzes the data, and then assigns a Building Code Effectiveness Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents exemplary commitment to building -code enforcement. The concept behind BCEGSTM is simple. Municipalities with well- enforced, up -to -date codes demonstrate better loss experience, and their citizens' insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of minimizing catastrophe - related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs gives communities an incentive to enforce their building codes rigorously. The following management report was created specifically for Blair based on a BCEGSTM survey conducted on 1/24/2012. This report can help you evaluate your community's building -code enforcement services utilizing benchmarking data collected throughout the country. The report is designed to give your management team an expanded prospective for dealing with the important issues surrounding effective building code enforcement. This is accomplished through comparisons of your code enforcement to that of others in your area and state. The analysis goes further to allow you to compare your jurisdiction to others across the country with similar permit, plan review and inspection activity. ISO thanks you for your participation and we encourage you to take advantage of the information contained in this report to assist in making decisions regarding the level of code enforcement best suited for Blair. The survey conducted has resulted in a BCEGSTM class of 4 for 1 and 2 family dwellings and a class 4 for all other construction. More information regarding how this recent survey compares to previous surveys is located in section 6 of this report. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 1 PAGE 1 OF 1 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Section 2 Background Information Introduction ISO collects information from communities in the United States on their adoption and enforcement of building codes. ISO analyzes the data using its Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGSTM) and then assigns a BCEGSTM Classification number to the community. The classification number —which ranges from 1 to 10— measures a jurisdiction's commitment to the adoption and enforcement of building codes affecting the construction of new buildings. Class 1 indicates the most favorable classification of commitment to the adoption and enforcement of building codes. ISO's commitment to polling each building code enforcement agency on a regular basis is important to the program – periodic surveying helps determine if a community has made any significant changes since its last field evaluation. This ongoing effort is designed to re- evaluate each community at approximate 5 -year intervals or sooner if changes indicate a potential revision to the classification number. The purpose of this report is fourfold: 1. To summarize a community's scoring under the criterion contained in the BCEGSTM TM program. 2. To identify opportunities for communities desiring to improve their BCEGSTM classification number. 3. To assist a community in understanding how other jurisdictions with similar needs address building code adoption and enforcement. 4. To provide hazard mapping information important in planning and developing a sustainable community. WOF Data Collection and Analysis ISO has evaluated over 7,000 building code enforcement agencies across the United States. In each of these communities, three elements of building code adoption and enforcement are reviewed. These three elements are the administration of codes, plan review and field inspection. Administration of Codes: ISO evaluates the administrative support for code enforcement within the jurisdiction -- the adopted building codes and the modifications of those codes through ordinance, code enforcer qualifications, experience and education, zoning provisions, contractor /builder licensing requirements, public awareness programs, the building department's participation in code development activities, and the administrative policies and procedures. This section represents 54% of the analysis in the BCEGSTM program. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 2 PAGE 1 OF 2 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Plan review division: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation schedules, and the level of review of construction documents for compliance with the adopted building code of the jurisdiction being graded. This section represents 23% of the analysis. Field inspection: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation schedules, and the level of the agency's review of building construction. This section also represents 23% of the analysis. The information necessary to determine the BCEGSTM classification number was collected from the community building officials through a combination of on -site interviews and completed questionnaires. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 2 PAGE 2 OF 2 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Recognizing that building codes are continually being reviewed and updated to reflect emerging technology and best practices, the BCEGSTM program encourages communities to make every effort to adopt the latest edition of one of the building codes without amendments. The program is sensitive to the reality that building code adoption is not always a local issue, nor do the wheels of progress turn rapidly all the time. To receive maximum BCEGSTM credit for this very important section a community must adopt and implement the revised code within two years of the publication of the building code. As detailed in Figure 3 -1 below, eight points are the maximum available for the adoption of a building code. The final calculation to determine a jurisdiction's BCEGSTM classification employs the ratio of the points possible and the points earned in the building code adoption section as a factor for all other points earned in the system. Therefore, a jurisdiction enforcing the latest building code will have a ratio of 1 and no adjustment will be made to the points earned. A department enforcing a building code that was published six years prior to the survey date would have a ratio of 6.88/8 or .86 so the jurisdiction would receive credit for 86% of the points earned throughout the evaluation process. Fig 3 -1 Criteria for Building Code Adoption Points If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential construction ........................................ ............................... 8.00 points If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential construction ........................................ ............................... 6.88 points If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential construction ........................................ ............................... 2.21 points If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential construction ........................................ ............................... 0.85 point ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 1 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 For departments surveyed in 2007 the BCEGSTM program uses the following as the latest edition of Building codes available. Fig. 3 -2 Latest Edition Available Fig. 3 -3 Building Codes Adopted by Blair Publisher Publication Date Commercial Building Code ICC / NFPA 2006/2006 Residential Building Code ICC 2006 Fig. 3 -3 Building Codes Adopted by Blair The following is the first of many "Benchmarking Information" sections located in this report. The purpose of the benchmarking information is to provide data ISO has collected in the course of its evaluations of code enforcement departments throughout the country. The data should not be considered a standard but rather information which allows you to compare operations in your jurisdiction to those conducted by other jurisdictions with similar conditions. Benchmarking information will be distinguished from other information in this report by the letter B preceding the table or figure number and a green Benchmarking Information bar above the table or figure. ' • Mub • Table B 3 -4 BCEGSTM points awarded comparison Adopted Building Code Publisher Publication Date Adoption Date a. Adopted Commercial Building Code ICC 2009 2010 b. Adopted Residential Building Code ICC 2009 2010 The following is the first of many "Benchmarking Information" sections located in this report. The purpose of the benchmarking information is to provide data ISO has collected in the course of its evaluations of code enforcement departments throughout the country. The data should not be considered a standard but rather information which allows you to compare operations in your jurisdiction to those conducted by other jurisdictions with similar conditions. Benchmarking information will be distinguished from other information in this report by the letter B preceding the table or figure number and a green Benchmarking Information bar above the table or figure. ' • Mub • Table B 3 -4 BCEGSTM points awarded comparison Adopted Building Code BCEGSTM Points awarded BCEGSTM Points possible County Average State Average National Average Commercial Building 8 8.00 6.84 6.00 5.16 Residential Building 7.6 8.00 6.76 6.03 5.04 ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 2 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Item 108. Additional Code Adoptions: This section reviews the adoption and enforcement of electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, and wildland urban interface codes. Adopted codes are evaluated by year of publication including amendments and enforcement efforts. Table 3 -5 details the criteria for earning points under this section. Table 3 -5 Criteria for sub -code adoption points If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: 0.67 point for each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: 0.33 point for each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: 0.18 point for each of the five subcodes If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: 0.004 point for each of the five subcodes ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 3 O 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 For departments surveyed in 2007the BCEGSTM program uses the following as the latest edition of sub -codes available Table 3 -6 Latest edition of Sub -Codes Available Type of Code Publisher Publication Date Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2005 Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2005 Commercial Plumbing Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Residential Plumbing Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Commercial Mechanical Code ICC 2006 Residential Mechanical Code ICC 2006 Commercial Fuel Gas Code ICC / IAMPO 2006/2000 Residential Fuel Gas Code ICC 2006 Commercial Energy Code ICC / ASHRAE 2006/2001 Residential Energy Code ICC / ASHRAE 2006/2001 Commercial Wildland Urban Code ICC / NFPA 2006/2002 Residential Wildland Urban Code ICC / NFPA 2006/2002 ASHRAE — American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers ICC - International Code Council IAMPO — International Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Officials NFPA — National Fire Protection Association ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 4 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Table 3 -7 Sub Codes Adopted by Blair Type of Code Publisher Publication Date Adoption Date Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2011 2011 Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2011 2011 Commercial Plumbing Code ICC 2009 2010 Residential Plumbing Code ICC 2009 2010 Commercial Mechanical Code ICC 2009 2010 Residential Mechanical Code ICC 2009 2010 Commercial Fuel Gas Code ICC 2009 2010 Residential Fuel Gas Code ICC 2009 2010 Commercial Energy Code Residential Energy Code ICC ICC 2009 2009 2010 2010 Commercial Wildland Urban Code Residential Wildland Urban Code ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 5 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 enchmarking Informs Table B 3 -8 additional code adoption Type of Sub -Code BCEGSTM Points awarded BCEGSTM Points possible County Average State Average National Average Commercial Electrical 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.62 0.41 Residential Electrical 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.62 0.42 Commercial Plumbing 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.39 0.39 Residential Plumbing 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.39 0.39 Commercial Fuel Gas 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.34 0.36 Residential Fuel Gas 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.34 0.36 Commercial Mechanical 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.44 0.41 Residential Mechanical 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.45 0.40 Commercial Energy 0.67 0.67 0.54 0.32 0.35 Residential Energy 0.67 0.67 0.54 0.32 0.36 Commercial Urban Wildland 0 0.67 0.40 0.33 0.17 Residential Urban Wildland 0 0.67 0.40 0.33 0.17 Item 110. Modification to adopted codes The BCEGSTM program encourages timely and unmodified adoption of the latest edition available of the building code. It is not uncommon for a jurisdiction to adopt a code and then modify it in some way. The most common modifications are administrative, which the BCEGSTM program is not overly concerned with. Some jurisdictions, however, modify the structural aspects of the code. Modifications are viewed as favorable when the intention is to strengthen the code. Due to the difficulty and expense of finitely determining the effect on a code of a specific action which weakens the code, no partial credit is available for this section. Note, however, that due to the formula: (Points credited in section 105 x 0.125 x 4.0) the points awarded for this item are reduced if the latest building code is not adopted and enforced. There is a direct correlation between the points earned for the adopted building code and the points available for this section. When modification serves to ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 6 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 weaken the intent or effectiveness of the adopted building code relative to structural aspects or natural hazard mitigation features, no points will be awarded for this section. Table B 3 -9 Comparison of Points Earned for Section 110 BCEGSTM BCEGSTM BCEGSTM BCEGSTM Country State National Points Points Average Average Average awarded possible awarded possible Commercial 4 4 3.42 3.00 2.53 Residential 3.8 4 3.38 2.97 2.22 Item 112. Method of Adoption: Updating the adopted codes to the latest code published by a nationally recognized building code development and publication organization within 12 months of the publication of the code is beneficial for the jurisdiction. It provides the latest and most modern technology for natural hazard mitigation. This section allows the opportunity to recognize the timely un- amended adoption of a nationally promulgated building code Table B 3 -10 Points Earned for Timely (within one year of the publication date) Un- Amended Code Adoption ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 7 OF 7 BCEGSTM BCEGSTM County State National Points Points Average Average Average awarded possible Commercial Adoption Bonus 1 1 0.80 0.33 0.14 Residential Adoption Bonus 1 1 0.80 0.33 0.11 ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 3 PAGE 7 OF 7 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Section 4 Educ ation , Training and Certification The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule reviews the tools available to a building code department to determine what level of protection the jurisdiction has decided to offer. In this section we review the qualifications of the code enforcement personnel. By maintaining highly qualified, well trained staff the building code enforcement department is better equipped to encourage the construction of code compliant buildings. The BCEGSTM program does not mandate any level of training certification or experience but it does recognize the technical and evolving nature of construction code enforcement. Therefore, 39% of the available points in the analysis are dependent on education, training and experience. The evaluation is much diversified. For instance, credit can be earned for hours of training taken, dollars spent on training, incentives for outside training, and hiring requirements. After review of this information a building code department may determine that a higher caliber employee or more incentives to current employees could assist them in performing their duties more efficiently and professionally. The number of personnel is an important factor when comparing and correlating education and training. To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full time. Therefore a department with two full time code enforcers the number of employees will be two. If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers each working twenty hours per week the department will show as eight and one half employees. Blair employs 1.38 code enforcement personnel. This staffing level is equal to one code enforcement personnel for each 5815.27 citizen or one code enforcement personnel for each 437.82 permits issued. If the jurisdiction was divided equally, each code enforcer would be responsible for an area of 4.00 square miles. Table 4 -1 displays the total and the average number of hours spent in training by code enforcement personnel in Blair. Training is broken down into four categories; a maximum of 1.25 points may be earned for the first 12 hours of training in administrative aspects of code enforcement, legal aspects of code enforcement, and being mentored in code enforcement. The first 60 hours of training in technical aspects of code enforcement may also earn maximum credit of 4.25 points. To receive the maximum available points in this area each employee must train a minimum of 96 hours per year and the subject must follow the details above. ISO has developed training logs to assist you in tracking the training of building code enforcers. The logs can be downloaded from our web site www.isomitigation.com. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 1 OF 5 ea' 1 Jurisdiction: Blair Survey Date: 1/24/2012 County: Washington Table 4 -1 Training hours for Blair Total hours for department Administrative 18 Legal 16 Mentoring 33 Technical 78 Average hours of training 13.09 11.64 24.00 56.73 joenchrrWking Informat Table B 4 -2 Comparison of average hours of training State: NE Building code enforcement departments may choose to emphasize their commitment to training and education through incentives, such as funding certification, exam fees, and continuing education or providing incentives for outside training. The following table is broken down for residential and commercial construction and indicates the incentives provided by Blair. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 2OF5 Your average hours of training Your County average hours of training Your State average hours of training National average hours of training Administrative 13.09 7.31 20.60 14.67 Legal 11.64 8.25 16.51 9.57 Mentoring 24.00 12.45 23.41 25.00 Technical 56.73 26.52 41.97 43.76 Building code enforcement departments may choose to emphasize their commitment to training and education through incentives, such as funding certification, exam fees, and continuing education or providing incentives for outside training. The following table is broken down for residential and commercial construction and indicates the incentives provided by Blair. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 2OF5 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Table 4 -3 BCEGSTM points earned by Blair for training incentives Benchmarking Information Table B 4 -4 Comparison of training incentive points Commercial Commercial Points earned I Residential Points earned Department pays for certifications and exam fees Yes 0.5 Yes 0.5 Provides incentive for outside training or certification No 0 No 0 Pays for continuing education Yes 0.5 Yes 0.5 Benchmarking Information Table B 4 -4 Comparison of training incentive points Commercial Residential County % State % National % County % State % National % % of Departments that pay for certifications and exam fees 83.33 74.48 68.22 66.67 54.48 44.90 % of Departments that provides incentive for outside training or certification 0.00 20.00 20.24 0.00 13.10 13.33 % of Departments that pays for continuing education 83.33 74.48 1 71.87 1 166.67 52.41 47.51 ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 3 OF 5 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Hiring only certified code enforcement employees or allowing a short probationary period for new hires to earn their certification are valued practices which elevate the quality and consistency of the code enforcement process. The following two charts compare your jurisdiction's policies regarding certification with those of other departments within your county, state and across the country. The charts represent the percent of plan reviewers and inspectors that held appropriate certification for the duties they performed at the time of the latest BCEGSTM survey. B4 -5 represents commercial work and 134 -6 represents residential work. 134 -5 Commercial Duties Performed 134 -6 Residential Duties Performed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% V 50% v 40% 30% a 20% 10% 0% © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 4 OF 5 Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas ❑Your Jurisdiction ❑ County ❑ State o National Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas ❑ Your Jurisdiction ❑ County ❑ State ® National 100% 90% . 80% 70% 60% V 50% 40% c� 30% a 9 20% 10% 0% 134 -6 Residential Duties Performed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% V 50% v 40% 30% a 20% 10% 0% © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 4 OF 5 Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas ❑Your Jurisdiction ❑ County ❑ State o National Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas ❑ Your Jurisdiction ❑ County ❑ State ® National I I Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Requiring certification as a condition of employment is an important factor. However, the evolving nature of the building technology and the wide variety of situations encountered by plan reviewers and inspectors dictate the need for continuing education. The following two charts are based on the period of time allowed to complete the required amount of continuing education requirements for building inspectors in order for them to renew their license / certification. Information in these charts represents data gathered across the country. 4 -7 Building Certification Renewal Period Commercial 4 -8 Building Certification Renewal Period Residential m Year 132 Years 133 Years ❑> 3 Years ■Not Required © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 5 OF 5 ■ 1 Year 132 Years 133 Years 13> 3 Years ■ Not Required Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 One of the most frequently asked questions from community administrators and building officials is: How many inspectors and plan reviewers do we need to supply the desired level of service to our community? This section will provide valuable information to assist in this vital decision. The BCEGS schedule uses the following benchmarks to calculate the staffing levels: • 10 inspections per day per full time inspector 1 commercial plan review per day per full time plan reviewer ® 2 residential plan reviews per day per full time plan reviewer These are average numbers of the entire department over the course of a year. Some inspectors because of the type of work they are assigned will exceed these benchmarks while others will not be able to reach them, the same is true of plan reviewers. The fact is that these benchmarks have proved to be realistic over the course of surveying 14,000 code enforcement departments. However, we realize that your community may have varying circumstances and may want to base staffing decision on other information. In the following set of charts we have scoured our database to find communities that are of similar size, and population to your community to provide data that may be helpful in your decision process. The next key element of staffing decision is the workload; again we queried our records to find communities with similar number of permits issued, inspections and plan reviews completed. This data can be useful in further defining your staffing levels. Realizing the some jurisdictions cover vast area while others are metropolitan we did some calculations and arrived at a unique category of permits per square mile. You may find that this category affords benchmarking opportunities that take into account workload and travel time for your inspecting staff. Table 5 -1 Your communitv falls into the followina ranaes Population 5,001 - 10,000 Square Miles 3.1 -7.0 Permits Issued 501 -1,000 Number of inspections conducted 1,001 - 2,200 Plan reviews conducted 50-150 Permits per Square Mile > 17.00 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 1 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair Survey Date: 1/24/2012 County Washington State: NE The information in Charts 135 -3 through 135 -14 depicts the staffing levels of your jurisdiction along with the average staffing levels of all the communities that fall within the range for each category as defined in Table 5 -1. To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full time equivalents. Therefore, in a department with two full time employees the number of personnel will be two. If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers each working twenty hours per week the department is considered to have eight and one half full time employees. The data is further broken down by the responsibilities of each code enforcer. For example a department may allocate time as follows: Table 5 -2 Time Allocation Example Commercial Plan Review Residential Plan Review Commercial Inspection Residential Inspection Time allocation Time allocation Time allocation Total calculated employee #1 employee #2 employee #3 employees Fi ill times m hr-q nPr wPPk 20 hrs ner week 2.25 40% 5% 0% 0.44 20% 5% 0% 0.24 35% 80% 10% 0.95 5% 10% 90% 0.56 The calculations used to make up the graphs for the example above would be the number of commercial plan reviews conducted in your jurisdiction divided by .44 (the number of commercial plan reviewers employed by your jurisdiction). Similarly assuming 732 residential inspections divided by the number of residential inspectors (.56) returns a workload of 1307 inspections per full time inspector per year. The calculation for the control group is the same except that the results are averaged. © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 2 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington Survey Date: 1/24/2012 State: NE Chart 135 -3 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Populations 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 13 Similar Communities 49.57 360.61 ■Your Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -4 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Populations 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Residential Inspector 13 Similar Communities 707.02 2141.51 ■Your Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 3 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Chart 135 -5 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Square Miles 400 350 300 250 ; 200 150 100 50 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Reviewer 13 Similar Communities 44.56 290.02 ■Your Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -6 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Square Miles 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspectors Residential Inspectors E3 Similar Communities 799.68 2263.84 ■Your Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 4 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair Survey Date: 1/24/2012 County: Washington State: NE Chart 135 -7 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits 400 fTF, - 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 ]AIIIii Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Reviewer 13 Similar Communities 50.49 347.09 oYour Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -8 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 I Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspectors Residential Inspectors ❑ Similar Communities 745.05 2072.79 oYour Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 5 OF 8 I I Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Chart 135 -9 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Inspections 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Reviewer o Similar Communities 89.88 325.55 ■Your Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -10 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Inspections 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 13 Similar Communities 1133.65 1875.17 ■Your Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 6 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Chart 135 -11 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Reviewer E3 Similar Communities 88.2 299.55 ■Your Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -12 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ion was Ems e� Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Residential Inspector 13 Similar Communities 1614.72 2386.4 ®Your Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 7OF8 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Chart 135 -13 Plan Reviewer Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Per Square Mile 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Residential Plan Reviewer 13 Similar Communities 71.91 442.68 ®Your Jurisdiction 400 230 Chart 135 -14 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Per Square Mile 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 - ANEL 0 -6 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Residential Inspector ❑ Similar Communities 1111.1 3074.03 ®Your Jurisdiction 2906.67 2608 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 8 OF 8 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 ISO has been surveying and evaluating building code adoption and enforcement in communities around the country since 1995. To maintain relevant information the BCEGSTM program is designed to conduct surveys on a 5 year cycle. The information in this section will give you some insight to trends in your jurisdiction, your state and across the country. Table 6 -1 details the points your department earned during the most recent survey as well as the points earned in the previous survey including a comparison of the two. This information may be used to track local trends or pin -point improvement target areas. Table 6 -1 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Point Comparison © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 1 OF 6 Point Totals Current Grading Yr: Maximum Previous Grading Yr: Points Difference 2012 2005 Possible Com Res Com Res Com Res Section I - Administration 37.65 37.05 39.21 39.18 -1.56 -2.13 of Codes Section 105 - Adopted 8 7.6 8.00 8 8 0 -0.4 Building Codes Section 108 - Additional 3.35 3.35 4.00 3.35 3.35 0 0 Adopted Codes Section 110 - Modification to 4 3.8 4.00 4 4 0 -0.2 Adopted Codes Section 112 - Method of 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 0 Adoption Section 115 - Training 7.14 7.14 13.00 6.99 6.99 0.15 0.15 Section 120 - Certification 8.82 8.82 12.00 9.23 9.2 -0.41 -0.38 Section 125 - Building Official's Qualification / Exp / 2.35 2.35 4.00 2.15 2.15 0.2 0.2 Education Section 130 - Selection Procedure for Building 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 Official Section 135 - Design 0 0 2.00 0 0 0 0 Professionals Section 140 - Zoning 0 0 1.00 1 1 -1 -1 Provisions Section 145 - Contractor / 0.24 0.24 1.00 0.34 0.34 -0.1 -0.1 Builder Licensing & Bonding Section 150 - Designer 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 Licensing Violation Reporting Section 155 - Public 2.15 2.15 2.50 2.5 2.5 -0.35 -0.35 Awareness Programs Section 160 - Participation in 0.5 0.5 0.50 0.5 0.5 0 0 Code Development Activities Section 165 - Administrative 0.1 0.1 0.50 0.15 0.15 -0.05 -0.05 Policies & Procedures © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 1 OF 6 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Buildina Code Effectiveness Gradina Point Comparison (continued) Charts B6 -1 through B6 -4 compared the points earned by your department to the points earned by other departments in your state and across the country. The charts are broken down by commercial and residential as well as by section. You may use Table 6 -1 as a guide for how points are earned in each section. © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 6 Point Totals Current Grading Yr: Maximum Previous Grading Yr: Points Difference 2012 2005 Possible Com Res Com Res Com Res Section II - Plan Review 16.85 17.15 15.14 13.31 1.71 3.84 Section 205 - Existing 4.47 6.65 9.00 3.9 2.07 0.57 4.58 Staffing Section 210 - Experience of 1.5 1.5 1.50 0.24 0.24 1.26 1.26 Personnel Section 215 - Detail of Plan 10.38 8.5 11.50 10.5 10.5 -0.12 -2 Review Section 220 - Performance 0.5 0.5 1.00 0.5 0.5 0 0 Evaluation for Quality Section III - Field 17.36 18.69 18.55 15.23 -1.19 3.46 Inspection Section 305 - Existing 5.76 7.59 9.00 7.56 4.24 -1.8 3.35 Staffing Section 310 - Experience of 2.8 2.8 3.00 2.69 2.69 0.11 0.11 Personnel Section 315 - Manage Inspection and Re- inspection 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 0 activity Section 320 - Inspection 0.5 0 2.00 0 0 0.5 0 Checklist Section 325 - Special 0.8 0.8 1.00 0.8 0.8 0 0 Instructions Section 330 - Inspections for 1.5 1.5 1.50 1.5 1.5 0 0 Natural Hazard Mitigation Section 335 - Final 2.5 2.5 2.50 2.5 2.5 0 0 Inspections Section 340 - Certificate of 2 2 2.00 2 2 0 0 Occupancy Section 345 - Performance Evaluation for Quality 0.5 0.5 1.00 0.5 0.5 0 0 Assurance Subtotal: 71.86 72.89 100.00 72.90 67.72 -1.04 5.17 The final score is determined by a relationship between Item 105 and the balance of the scoring. Final Score: 71.86 1 69.63 1 100.00 1 72.90 1 67.72 1 -1.04 1.91 Charts B6 -1 through B6 -4 compared the points earned by your department to the points earned by other departments in your state and across the country. The charts are broken down by commercial and residential as well as by section. You may use Table 6 -1 as a guide for how points are earned in each section. © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 6 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 66 -1 Commercial Points Scored Compared to Your State 40 30 20 10 0 136 -2 Commercial Points Scored Compared Nationwide 40 30 20 10 0 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 3 OF 6 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 ❑Your Jurisdiction ®State Jurisdictions Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 ❑Your Jurisdiction ■ Nationwide Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 136 -3 Residential Points Scored Compared to Your State 40 30 20 10 0 136 -4 Residential Points Scored Compared Nationwide 40 30 20 10 0 © ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 4 OF 6 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 []Your Jurisdiction ■State Jurisdictions Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 ❑ Your Jurisdiction ®Nationwide Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 The following four charts represent the variation of classifications uncovered during the many BCEGSTM surveys ISO conducts each year. The charts compare the classification a community received in its previous evaluation to the evaluations conducted during the year indicated. Classifications are broken down by personal (residential) class, and commercial class. The results are grouped so that the first two charts (6 -5 & 6 -6) represent regions where seismic concerns are the major issue; while the second pair of charts represents regions where hurricane concerns represent the most prevalent natural hazard potential. Chart 6 -5 residential classification variations in the seismic region ECEGS Pers Class Changes 100 0 8 0% w 60% w 0 4) 40 %�t, V G. 20% 0% 2004 Pers 2000 Pers 2002 Pers 2001 Pers 2000 Pers 10 trip rove ■ Regress © Same Chart 6 -6 commercial classification variations in the seismic region BCEGS Coml Class Changes 1n0'o n n;' 8 _� 'm �5 40% 0 ro 2004 Cord 2000 Coml 2002 Corral 2001 Coml 2000 Coml u Improve ❑ Regress ❑ Same ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 5 OF 6 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Chart 6 -7 residential classification variation in the hurricane region Chart 6 -8 commercial classification variation in the hurricane region BCEGS Pers Class Changes BCEGS Corbel Class Chances 100% --I 90% � u a) 80 % r l c 70 % -- Z 60 ° Ia a Improve 0 50% -- a Regress `- ;, 40% a Same - 30% S C6 20% I I 10% ; 0% 2004 Pers 2003 Pers 2002 Pers 2001 Pers 2000 Per's 2004 Coral 2003 Coml 2002 Coml 2001 Coml 2000 Coml Chart 6 -8 commercial classification variation in the hurricane region ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 6 OF 6 BCEGS Corbel Class Chances 100% --I QO°..fo � u 80% r l c 70 % -- r a 60% A ' ■ Improve 0 50 % - - - -- ® Regress 40% ■ Same 2 'y 30% Q6 20% I I 10% ; 0% 2004 Coral 2003 Coml 2002 Coml 2001 Coml 2000 Coml ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 6 PAGE 6 OF 6 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 Different parts of the country are subject to a variety of potential natural hazards. The map below is an overview of those potentials: Map 7 -1 Earthqu Lc %v Mc ci um High Risk Risk Risk Tcrnacces Scm c Extreme Ris k Risk Hu rric a nc s WAMNW- Som a Extrem e Ris k Ri sk Other Vcicanc Tsunami Risk Risk In cooperation with AIR (an ISO company) we have prepared the following hazard report using the municipal building address you supplied during the survey meeting. A full explanation of how to read and interpret the following profiles can be found in Appendix A. VSO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 7 PAGE 1 OF 8 AIR WORLDWIDE Single Location Hazard Profile Location Name: Entered Address: 218 South 16th Street, Blair, NE 68008 Latitude: 41.542621 North Longitude: - 96.136009 East Catastrophe Hazard Information Matched Address: 218 S 16TH ST, BLAIR, WASHINGTON County, NE 68008 Geocode Match: Exact Address Latitude: 41.542621' North Longitude: - 96.136009 East More Maps: -- select a map -- Vie' Map Disclaimer Google"' Earth ell 1Y � AIRMapServeCl" i Park St ~ `, r 4 e� ka St Z to T t `ti �- mouth St 93 Rhoadef Park r� CO 'S4 , r i�.jjVer S1 02009, AIR Worldwide Corp. 04 M 4. i C 1 I I r-F d-+ 0 (r) 1 1 1 CD I fr 1, A Hurricane Profile is not available. Severe Thunderstorm Profile II 1 I, 1 E t 1 Zoom In 7 OUt Risk (Percentage Loss) 0% as 40 45 a 0014 100 -year loss level:' 250 -year loss level: Average Annual Loss: 0.1 % Relative Risk (Percentile) U ^•, art 3U : SU ^ : 611 - -. ■J , within county: within state: �■� ,'� Hazard Information Tornado: Hail Storm: Straight -line Wind: Very High Hi h /Moderate /Low /Very Low Very High VHigh /Moderate /Low Nery Low Very High VHigh /Moderate /Low Nery Low Nearest Historical Tornadoes Distance Date Distance Intensity Average Wind Speed (mi) (Fujita Scale) May 6, 1975 19.11 4 July 15, 1950 19.56 4 April 25, 1957 25.65 4 June 26, 1976 28.46 4 August 13, 1952 32.04 4 Nearest Historical Hail Storms Date Distance Intensity by (mi) Average Hail Size (in) April 27, 1989 22.40 > =4.0 June 12, 1987 26.35 > =4.0 July 16, 1965 29.93 > =4.0 April 27, 1989 35.49 > =4.0 June 26, 1993 46.55 > =4.0 Nearest Historical Straight -Line Wind Storms Date Distance Intensity by (mi) Average Wind Speed (mph) October 1, 2002 8.67 80 -90 September 4, 1989 27.76 80 -90 July 8, 1993 33.56 80 -90 April 19, 1985 36.31 80 -90 July 14, 1981 38.13 80 -90 Winter Storm Profile Risk (Percentage Loss) 1.171 _ j 2 F 3c a5 qd as 100% 100 -year loss level: AN__ 250 -year loss level: WOM— Average Annual Loss: <0.1 % Relative Risk (Percentile) u _ _ :i0 3L, 41� so 60 70 so 40 100% within county: ��Vww_ ..A���— within state: Maw Hazard Information Wind Frequency: Very High / High / Moderate / Low / Ve Low Snow Frequency: Very High / High / Moderate /FL—owl / Very Low Earthquake Profile Risk (Percentage Loss) 1; 25 ]: .s 4_ <, 1uU v 100 -year loss level: - Am 250 -year loss level: L A Average Annual Loss: <0.1 % Relative Risk (Percentile) �,�., _ _ �� ;�, = so _ -C, so io 1-30% within county: ■�■■�- — J.J within state: Earthquake Information CA DOI Zone: Not Applicable Liquefaction Potential: Data Not Available Landslide Zone: Alquist - Priolo Fault Zone: Not Applicable Soil Type: Stiff clay and Sandy soil(firm soil) Intensity by Probability of Exceedance (PE): Modified Mercalli Intensity VI VII VIII IX X XI Xll 30 Year PE 0.10% 0.05% 0.01% 0% 0% 0% 0% Intensity by Return Period: Return Period 100 Year 200 Year 250 Year 475 Year Modified Mercalli Intensity 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fault Information No significant active fault has been mapped within a 200 mile radius of the address. Historical Earthquakes No significant historical earthquake has been recorded within a 200 mile radius of the address. Flood Profile No Flood Zone Information Available. Terrorism Profile Terrorism Information Distance To Nearest Target: Target Type: Z 4 0.7802 miles MEDICAL N AIRMapServer m ❑+ Blair Holy Grass Gem l • h . a `�} Rhaade Park GLyPa rk 1 75 @ 2009, A] R '-.- arld e%-ide Corp. Zoom In This illustration is an aid to understanding the terrorism report information and does not provide an actual representation of the property. Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 AI RProfiler is designed to provide users with vital, peril- specific characteristics of the property location, such as storm surge potential and distance to nearest active fault, as well as risk scores, which are quick measures of the risk and relative risk associated with the property. This release of AI RProfiler includes hurricane profiles for all states in the continental U.S. at risk from hurricanes, as well as earthquake, severe thunderstorm and flood profiles for the forty -eight contiguous states. • The Address Profile displays important information regarding the accuracy of the look -up for the entered address, the geocode of that address and a street map. The Hurricane Profile provides hurricane risk information for the location as well as other related hazards including storm surge potential and distance to nearest historical hurricane track. • The Earthquake Profile, in addition to showing risk level and ranking, shows susceptibility of the location to different hazards. Those hazards include liquefaction, landslide potential, and fault zone information. • The Flood Profile provides the proximity of a location to one of five flood zone categories as well as the location's distance to various flood plain boundaries based on FEMA Digital Q3 flood data. • The Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides information about risk from tornado, hail, and straight -line windstorms for a given location, including distance to nearest historical storms and annual frequency. Based on the address information provided, AI RProfiler' displays the corrected and standardized address following USPS rules and guidelines, as well as the geocode (latitude and longitude), county, and ZIP Code of the location. AIRProfiler performs a look -up in the LOCATIONTm database. The hazard is then assessed based on an exact address or ZIP Code match. AIR's geocoding algorithm, based on the TIGER geographical database, is used to convert the location address entered by the user into the corresponding latitude and longitude. Depending on the address match, either the exact geocode, or the geocode of the appropriate ZIP Code centroid, is used for assessing the risk. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 1 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 The Address Profile also provides a street map of the location. Given a location, the loss potential from specific perils is represented by various risk scores. Risk scores are determined by performing a loss analysis on a typical residential building at that location. The analysis is performed using AIR's state -of -the -art modeling technologies. Note that content and time element (loss of use) calculations are excluded from the analysis. Based on this analysis of the location, AI RProfiler provides two sets of scores: Risk Scores. The user can obtain indications of risk based on three measures of potential loss: the 100 -year loss level, the 250 -year loss level, and the average annual loss. These levels represent, respectively, the loss likely to occur in one year out of every 100 years, one in every 250 years, and every year on average over a period of many years. The resulting risk scores are expressed in percentage terms, as below: Very High Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Risk <5% 1 5 -10% 1 10 -15% 1 15 -20% 1 20 -25% 1 25 -30% 1 30 -35% 1 35 -40% 1 40 -45% 1 >45% Relative Risk Scores. In addition to the risk score of a given location, AI RProfiler also displays the location's relative risk by county and state. Relative risk ranks the loss potential of a location with respect to the loss potential of other locations in the county or state. The format of the ranking is based on percentile values from 10% to 100% percent. The AI RProfilet Hurricane Profile provides users with information about the hurricane risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 100 -year, 250 -year and annual average losses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following hurricane risk information: • Storm surge potential • Distance to coast • Elevation • Terrain /Land use • Intensity and nearest distance to historical storm track for nearest historical hurricanes In addition to strong winds and tides, storm surge can pose significant danger to life and property during hurricanes. Storm surge is caused by winds pushing water toward the shore. When combined with high tide, storm surge can cause an increase in the mean water level and so result in severe flooding and substantial property loss. The densely populated Atlantic and Gulf coastlines that lie less than ten feet above mean sea level are particularly vulnerable to storm surge. The AI RProfilet Hurricane Report indicates whether or not the property is at risk from storm surge. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 2 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 The AI RProfilet' Earthquake Profile provides users with information about the earthquake risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 100 -year, 250 -year and average annual losses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following risk information: • The California Department of Insurance (DOI) zone • Liquefaction potential • Landslide zone • Earthquake fault (Alquist- Priolo) zone • Soil type • Seismicity • Fault information • Historical earthquakes When seismic waves pass through water - saturated, loosely packed sandy soils, contact pressure between the individual grains is lost. The grains become more densely configured, causing pore pressure to increase. If drainage is inadequate, what was once solid ground now behaves as a dense fluid, incapable of supporting buildings. Structures that may have survived the effects of shaking can deform, tilt or sink. They may remain structurally intact, but have become unusable and unsalvageable. Liquefaction risk at a given site is represented by that site's potential to experience damage resulting from liquefaction. Liquefaction potential is a measure of a soil's susceptibility to liquefaction combined with a location's level of earthquake risk. AIR applies standard methodologies used by the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), United States Geological Survey (USGS), to calculate liquefaction potential. The AIRProfiler Earthquake Profile describes a location's liquefaction potential by one of five levels: very high, high, moderate, low, or very low. The underlying soil type may have a determining effect on potential earthquake damage to structures. Certain types of soils, such as soft soils, are capable of amplifying seismic waves, hence causing more severe damage. Also, some types of soil, such as bay mud, sandy soil, and stiff to soft soil, are also more susceptible to liquefaction. Soil is classified according to its mechanical properties. The AI RProfiler Earthquake Profile for a particular location uses ten soil type classifications: • Hard rock • Rock • Very dense soil • Stiff soil • Soft soil • Rock to very dense soil • Very dense to stiff soil • Stiff to soft soil • Bay mud Water ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 3 OF 11 r r Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 One measure of earthquake intensity is the level of ground shaking at any particular location. Over the years, several intensity scales have been proposed, but the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most commonly used, especially in the United States. The MMI scale describes the intensity of an earthquake based on human reaction and observed damage to natural and man- made structures. This is useful because it allows for an attribution of intensity to events that occurred prior to the advent of modern measuring devices, as well as in instances in modern times where those devices were not available. The drawback to this standard of measure is that the MMI scale is highly subjective. The following table lists the MMI scales and definitions. MMI Definition I. People do not feel any movement. II. A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and /or on the upper floors of tall buildings. III. Many people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing back and forth. People outdoors might not realize that an earthquake is occurring. IV. Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing. Dishes, windows and doors rattle. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hitting the walls. A few people outdoors may feel movement. Parked cars rock. V. Almost everyone feels movement. Sleeping people are awakened. Doors swing open or close. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of open containers. VI. Everyone feels movement. People have trouble walking. Objects fall from shelves. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls might crack. Trees and bushes shake. Damage is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural damage. VII. People have difficulty standing. Drivers feel their cars shaking. Some furniture breaks. Loose bricks fall from buildings. Damage is slight to moderate in well -built buildings; considerable in poorly built buildings. VIII. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that are not bolted down might shift on their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and chimneys might twist and fall. Well -built buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe damage. Tree branches break. Hillsides might crack if the ground is wet. Water levels in wells might change. IX. Well -built buildings suffer considerable damage. Houses that are not bolted down move off their foundations. Some underground pipes are broken. The ground cracks. Reservoirs suffer serious damage. X. Most buildings and their foundations are destroyed. Some bridges are destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. Large landslides occur. Water is thrown on the banks of canals, rivers, lakes. The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are bent slightly. XI. Most buildings collapse. Some bridges are destroyed. Large cracks appear in the ground. Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad tracks are badly bent. XII. Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 4 OF 11 awl Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 The data presented in AI RProfil& is developed by calculating MMI values for each location. It incorporates all potential seismic sources, the distance of those sources from the location of interest, and local site conditions. Because MMI is considered as a measure of what the ground is doing during an earthquake, rather than an index of damage to structures, damageability of building at the site is not included in the calculation. Those who are more interested in damage estimation should refer to 100- and 250 -year loss levels. The MMI values are represented in two ways in the Earthquake Profile: • Intensity by PE (probability of exceedance) • Intensity by Return Period The first representation, defined by probability of exceedance, is the probability that at least one event of that MMI will occur within 30 years. The second representation, based on return period, depicts the maximum intensity of an event that is likely to occur within the designated return period; that is, the intensity corresponds to the maximum event that is likely to occur within the return period displayed. Proximity to an active fault is an important indication of seismicity for a specific location. The AI RProfiler Earthquake Profile displays the property's distance to the nearest known active faults. Important characteristics of these faults are displayed, including fault length, and the magnitude and frequency of the "characteristic" event associated with that fault. (Scientists believe that many faults tend to produce earthquakes of a particular size, or magnitude, that is "characteristic" of that particular fault, and that occur with a particular frequency, or recurrence rate). ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 5 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 The AI RProfil& Flood Profile provides users with information about the flood risk potential for a specific location. Each location is characterized by its proximity to one of five flood zone categories as follows: • Water body: Includes large lakes and rivers • 100 -year flood plain: Areas where there is 1 % chance of being flooded • 500 -year flood plain: Areas where there is 0.2% chance of being flooded • Outside flood plain: Areas outside of water body, 100- and 500 -year flood plains No data: Areas where there is no data available The proximity of the location to FEMA defined flood zones is also provided: FEMA Description Zone V An area inundated by 100 -year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action); no BFE *s have been determined. VE An area inundated by 100 -year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action); BFEs have been determined. A An area inundated by 100 -year flooding, for which no BFEs have been determined. AE An area inundated by 100 -year flooding, for which BFEs have been determined. AO An area inundated by 100 -year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain), for which average depths have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. AOVEL An alluvial fan inundated by 100 -year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain), for which average flood depths and velocities have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. AH An area inundated by 100 -year flooding (usually an area of ponding), for which BFEs have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. A99 An area inundated by 100 -year flooding, for which no BFEs have been determined. This is an area to be protected from the 100 -year flood by a Federal flood protection system under construction. D An area of undetermined but possible flood hazards. AR An area inundated by flooding, for which BFEs or average depths have been determined. This is an area that was previously, and will again, be protected from the 100 -year flood by a Federal flood protection system whose restoration is federally funded and underway. X500 An area inundated by 500 -year flooding; an area inundated by 100 -year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100 -year flooding. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500 -year floodplains. 1001C An area where the 100 -year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale. An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. BFE are not s hown in this area, al though they may be reflected on the ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 6 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair Survey Date: 1/24/2012 County: Washington State: NE The Flood Profile provides the shortest distance of the location to the various flood plain boundaries. Three types of distance measurement is provided: • Shortest distance to the boundary of water body • Shortest distance to the boundary of 100 -year flood plain • Shortest distance to the boundary of 500 -year flood plain ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 7 OF 11 corresponding profile. 5001C An area where the 500 -year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale. An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. FWIC An area where the floodway is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale. An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. BFEs are not shown in this area, although they may be reflected on the corresponding profile. FPQ An area designated as a "Flood Prone Area" on a map prepared by USGS and the Federal Insurance Administration. This area has been delineated based on available information on past floods. This is an area inundated by 100 -year flooding for which no BFEs have been determined. IN An area designated as within a "Special Flood Hazard Area" (or SFHA) on a FIRM. This is an area inundated by 100 -year flooding for which BFEs or velocity may have been determined. No distinctions are made between the different flood hazard zones that may be included within the SFHA. These may include Zones A, AE, AO, AH, A99, AR, V, or VE. OUT An area designated as outside a "Special Flood Hazard Area "(or SFHA) on a FIRM. This is an area inundated by 500 -year flooding; an area inundated by 100 -year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; an area protected by levees from 100 -year flooding; or an area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500 -year floodplains. No distinctions are made between these different conditions. These may include both shaded and unshaded areas of Zone X. ANI An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM. UNDES A body of open water, such as a pond, lake, ocean, etc., located within a community's jurisdictional limits, that has n defined fl ood hazard. *BFE = Base Flood Elevation The Flood Profile provides the shortest distance of the location to the various flood plain boundaries. Three types of distance measurement is provided: • Shortest distance to the boundary of water body • Shortest distance to the boundary of 100 -year flood plain • Shortest distance to the boundary of 500 -year flood plain ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 7 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair Survey Date: 1/24/2012 County: Washington State: NE The following map illustrates the way distance from flood plain boundaries are calculated: �t � waler Body �+ 1 00 Year Flood Plain Boundary � 500 Year Flood Plain Boundary rt t i r r' The AI RProfilee Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides users with information about the severe thunderstorm risk potential for a specific location. The Severe Thunderstorm Profile includes risks due to tornado, hail, and straight -line wind. Risk scores for 100 -year, 250 -year and annual average losses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following risk information: Annual Frequency This field represents the annual frequency of occurrence for tornado, hail, and straight -line windstorms. A qualitative description of the frequency (very high, high, moderate, low, or very low) is displayed. Historical Severe Thunderstorms In this section of the Severe Thunderstorm Profile, AI RProfiler identifies information on the five most severe tornado, hail, and straight -line wind events within 50 miles of the given location. The following characteristics are displayed: year, date, distance from location, and intensity. The description of intensity varies by peril. For tornadoes, the Fujita scale is used. The intensity of hailstorms is measured by average hailstone size and the intensity of straight -line windstorms is derived from a measurement of maximum wind speed. ©2005 AIR Worldwide Corporation. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part on any medium without the express written permission of AIR Worldwide Corporation. Send questions or comments about this web site to airprofiler @air- worldwide.com Version 2.2.1.20040326 AIR Worldwide Corporation Privacy Policy I Conditions of Use (6) ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 8 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 A description of the listed hazards follows: A. Brush and Forest Fires: Areas with heavy vegetation and a dry season can be subject to forest and brush fires. Local building and zoning regulations address this hazard in some areas of the country. Buffer zones which are free from brush and other fuel sources, as well as the use of fire resistive exterior siding and roofing can be utilized to mitigate this hazard. B. Earthquake: Earthquakes are caused by a tension release from the earth's tectonic plates that causes the ground to shake or vibrate. Most casualties associated with earthquakes are caused by structural failures in buildings and fires caused from electrical shorts and gas leaks. All of the model codes have seismic zones where buildings should be constructed to withstand at least a moderate earthquake. The codes are currently geared towards avoiding a structural collapse. This is a life safety issue and a building can still sustain enough physical damage to render it unusable after the earthquake occurs. Since 1900 earthquakes have occurred in 39 states and caused damage in all 50. �i C. Floods: Floods are one of the most common disasters in the United States, and cause damage to thousands of structures annually. Floodplain construction is addressed in most building codes and many zoning regulations. Flood mitigation is addressed through the National Flood Insurance Program which provides insurance credit incentives for complying with FEMA regulations. Flood as a hazard falls outside the scope of the BCEGS program. D. Hail: Consists of icy pellets of various sizes that are usually associated with thunderstorms or tornadic activity. Large hail can cause substantial damage to roof surfaces. In a typical year the insurance industry pays out $1.5 Billion in hail damage claims. In rare cases hail has caused structural damage and building collapses. Building codes usually do not address potential damage from hail. E. High Winds: High strait line winds can occur anywhere in the United States and are caused by pressure and temperature variances in the Earth's atmosphere. High strait line winds are common in thunder storms, in the open plains were there are no obstructions to slow down the wind, in mountainous areas from upslope and downslope wind effects, on the East Coast from "Northeasters ", and on the Pacific Coast from Santa Anna winds. Model Code groups have formulated maps based on 50 year mean recurrence intervals. The model codes currently apply the concept of "fastest wind speed" which is determined by an anemometer 33 ft. above the ground in open terrain. The anemometer measures the time it takes for one mile of air to pass its location. Wind maps are not based on potential maximum wind gust, but on "fastest wind speed," which has created confusion in media coverage of storms. F. Hurricane: This is a tropical low pressure system with a circular wind rotation of 74 mph or greater usually accompanied by rain, lightning, and sometimes tornadoes. These storms have the ability to travel inland for hundreds of miles, maintaining hurricane force winds. G. The Saffir- Simpson scale is used to rate the strength of a hurricane from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most severe. The Saffir- Simpson scale uses wind speed and storm surge to rate the hurricane's strength and potential for devastation. Model codes have addressed the probability of hurricanes by creating wind zones that range from 110 mph on barrier islands to 70mph inland. Structures must be designed and built to compensate for the potential ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 9 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 additional stress placed on structures by the wind in these zones. The structural designs must take into account both Positive and Negative Wind Loads. Roof systems must be anchored to the wall systems to resist the wind loads. The wall systems must also be strapped or bolted to the foundation and footing system to create a continuous resistive system. Building codes also address the potential storm surge for coastal construction, by requiring structures to be elevated on pilings. H. Lands lide /mudflow /debris flow: This hazard is more common in, but not limited to mountainous areas. Earthquakes and heavy rains cause landslides. Mudflows and debris flows can be caused by heavy rains as well as volcanic eruptions in areas with snow and ice present. This is usually a localized occurrence, and is more of a zoning than a building code issue. I. Lightning: All states are subject to lightning in varying degrees. Lightning rods can be installed on structures in high probability areas, but most building codes do not address when lightning rods are required. In a typical year the insurance industry pays out over $1 Billion in residential lightning damage claims. J. Snow Loads: This is a concern in snow belt areas in northern states and in mountainous areas. There are snow load maps created by the model code groups that address this situation. Some areas require a minimum roof pitch and higher design factors to compensate for the additional weight imposed on roofs by snow. K. Soil Liquefaction: This is a seismic concern. There are some soil types which, in the presence of a high enough water table, will take on the physical properties of a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Buildings constructed in areas subject to liquefaction need to be designed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of uneven settling or tilting during an earthquake. L. Soil Subsidence: This is the shrinking or settling of soil due to its composition. Some soils compact or shrink excessively and this could cause foundation failure if not compensated for by foundation reinforcement. Some areas are subject to sink holes. These are typically caused by lime deposits being dissolved by underground water. M. Swelling Soils: This is common in clay based soils that do not drain well and needs to be compensated for by foundation reinforcement. Footings or foundations placed on or within expansive soils need to be designed to resist differential volume changes to prevent structural damage to the supported structure. As an alternative to special design the soil can be removed and replaced or stabilized. N. Tornado: Tornadoes are formed from mesocyclones or supercell thunderstorms. Tornadoes can strike in many places in the United States, but the greatest probability of tornadic activity is in a corridor from Texas to Wisconsin known as tornado alley. They occur usually in the spring or fall of the year during the late afternoon when the atmosphere is least stable. Tornadoes are measured by the Fujita Scale (F- SCALE), which measures the wind speed and damage potential. The scale ranges from FO to F5 with F5 being the most severe storm. Damages from a direct hit by the strongest tornadoes cannot be mitigated, but the ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 10 OF 11 Jurisdiction: Blair County: Washington State: NE Survey Date: 1/24/2012 collateral damages that occur in surrounding areas can be reduced. The wind provisions of the model codes can help to limit damages from the most common, weaker tornadoes. O. Tsunamis: (tidal wave) These are large sea waves usually caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, and are most common in the Pacific Ocean. The potential devastation of a Tsunami is enormous, but little is being done to mitigate this hazard. Several Pacific Coast States have enacted zoning regulations to prevent schools and hospitals from being built in low areas subject to tsunamis. P. Volcanoes: There are numerous dormant and active volcanoes in the Western United States, and the potential danger is catastrophic near these volcanoes. Collateral damage could occur for hundreds of miles. Building codes can do little to address this danger, but some areas require additional roof structure design to compensate for volcanic ash load. Zoning restrictions are a more viable means of mitigation. ©ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 APPENDIX A PAGE 11 OF 11