November 21, 2016 Mr. Ron Walker, Director State Emergency
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region VII 9221 Ward Parkway, Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64114-3323 November 21, 2016 Mr. Ron Walker, Director State Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 116 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Subject: Review of the Warren County Hazard Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Walker: The purpose of this letter is to provide the status of the above referenced Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, pursuant to the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201 - Mitigation Planning and the Local Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool documents the Region’s review and compliance with all required elements of 44 CFR Part 201.6, as well as identifies the jurisdictions participating in the planning process. FEMA’s approval will be for a period of five years effective starting with the approval date indicated below. Prior to the expiration of the plan the community will be required to review and revise their plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding. Date Date Date of Plan Date of Plan Review Plan Name Submitted Approved Adoption Expiration Status Warren November 17, November 21, November 21, August 16, 2016 Approved County 2016 2016 2021 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Joe Chandler, Planning Team Lead, at (816) 283-7071. Sincerely, Michael R. Scott, Director Mitigation Division www.fema.gov HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL FEMA REGION VII WARREN COUNTY, MISSOURI UPDATE APPROVED 2ND REVIEW Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Warren County, MO Warren County Hazard Mitigation Plan November 2016 Update Local Point of Contact: Address: Ms. Krishnapriya Kunapareddy 111 Steinhagen Road Title: P.O. Box 429 Senior Planner Warrenton, MO 63383 Agency: Boonslick Regional Planning Commission Phone Number: E-Mail: 636-456-3473 [email protected] Funding Source: FEMA-DR-4200-MO-Project #0002 State Reviewer: Title: Date: Sam Kemp MO State Hazard Mitigation Specialist 10/18/2016 FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: Michelle Wolfe HM Community Planner 27 October 2016 (1st) Justin Sorg HM Community Planner 8 November 2016 (1ST); 21 November 2016 (2nd) Date Received in FEMA Region VII 19 October 2016 (1st); 17 November 2016 (2 nd) Plan Not Approved Returned for Technical Assistance 8 November 2016 Plan Approvable Pending Adoption Plan Approved 21 November 2016 NFIP Status* Only Plan Participating Jurisdiction(s): Y NP 1. Unincorporated Warren County (adopted 8/18/2016) 2. Innsbrook (adopted 9/13/2016) 3. Marthasville (adopted 8/17/2016) 4. Pendleton (adopted 9/12/2016) 5. Truesdale (adopted 8/24/2016) 6. Warrenton (adopted 8/16/2016) 7. Wright City (adopted 8/25/2016) 8. Washington School District (adopted 8/24/2016) 9. Gasconade County R-I School District (adopted 8/18/2016) 10. Warren County R-III School District (adopted 9/8/2016) 11. Wright City R-II School District (adopted 9/22/2016) * Notes: Y= Participating NP = Not Participating in NFIP S- Sanctioned R- Rescinded HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL FEMA REGION VII ST WARREN COUNTY, MISSOURI UPDATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 REVIEW SECTION 1: REGULATION CHECKLIST 1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan (section and/or Not Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) page number) Met Met ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was 1.3, 1.4, 1.4.1, prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? 1.4.2 (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the planning 1.2, 1.4, 1.4.1, process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) 1.4.2, A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, 1.2, 1.4.2, Table studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3)) 1.5, A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public 5.1.1, 5.1.2, participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) 5.1.3, 5.2, A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan 5.1.1, 5.1.2, current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5- 5.1.3, 5.2, year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)) 5.3 ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS None. Plan Strengths: • Inclusion of a variety of stakeholders and expertise on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Opportunities for Improvement: • Future plan updates could be improved by including a discussion on how, if any, public feedback was incorporated into the plan. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL FEMA REGION VII WARREN COUNTY, MISSOURI UPDATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1ST REVIEW 1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Not (section Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) and/or Met Met ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all 3.3.1 - 3.3.15 natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard 3.3.1 - 3.3.15 events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community 3.3.1 - 3.3.15 as well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that 3.3.5, Table 3.27, have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) Table ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS None. Plan Strengths: • Incorporation of climate change impacts. • Excellent use of maps to clearly depict hazard areas. • The format used for hazard profiles, risk assessment and vulnerability analysis flows extremely well and clearly and concisely communicates risk for each hazard. Opportunities for Improvement: • p. 3.14. It appears that the values in Table 3.6. should be multiplied by 1,000. • P. 3.28. Table 3.16 and the paragraph proceeding it should be reviewed for accuracy as they conflict with the mapped locations of regulated dams in figure 3.2. According to DNR’s website http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/wrc/dam- safety/Crystal_Reports/damsfty_state_nid_regulated.pdf there are 42 regulated dams in the county, 9 of which are Hazard Class 1. • p. 3.35 “Only one failure of a high hazard dam has been reported during the past 20 year period thereby making a calculation of the probability of future occurrence meaningless.” A five percent failure rate does have some significance and should not be dismissed as meaningless. • p. 3.103. It is not clear why tornado probability is being expressed as a monthly percentage. The annual probability (one tornado every four years) is a stronger planning tool as it would allow the reader to more easily compare probabilities across hazards. • Though not reviewed to meet requirements, the following are recommended to improve future analyses of technical hazards: o Probabilities for the technical hazards are identified using qualitative (low, likely, high, etc.) descriptors. These descriptors should be defined. o The hazardous materials profile could be improved by providing commodity flow information about the types and quantities of hazardous materials moving through the county. o The Nuclear Power Plant Radiation hazard description (p. 3.123) notes, “Commercial nuclear power reactors, a worst-case scenario involving a significant release of radioactive material could force the evacuation of the general population within a 10-mile radius of the facility. This would further contaminate food and water sources within a 50-mile radius.” As Warren County is inside the 50-mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone, and given the large-agriculture base of the county, there is significant potential vulnerability to a nuclear accident, though the probability of an occurrence is extremely low. • The use of problem statements is a good planning practice and highly commendable in this plan. For area-specific hazards, problem statements are most effective when discussed at the individual community level. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL FEMA REGION VII WARREN COUNTY, MISSOURI UPDATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1ST REVIEW 1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Not Met (section Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) and/or Met ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and Figure 4.2 improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement (Action Plan §201.6(c)(3)) Worksheets) C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP 3.3.5, Table and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? 3.27, Table (Requirement 3.28, Table 3.29 C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term 3.3.1-3.3.15, 4.1, vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i)) 4.2, 4.3, Figure 4.2 (Action Plan Worksheets) C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of 3.3.1-3.3.15, 4.1, specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being 4.2, 4.3, considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new Figure 4.2 (Action Plan and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) Mitigation Action Tracker Database.