Loading...
048-13RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2012 NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, Frederick County, Virginia, like any jurisdiction, is vulnerable to a variety of natural hazards that can result in loss of life and damages to public and private property; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to protect its citizens and property from the effects of natural hazards to the furthest extent possible; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors desires to seek ways to effectively reduce and mitigate the risk of these natural and human - caused hazards through participation with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and adjoining jurisdictions in the development and implementation of a regional hazard mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, it is also the intent of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to fulfill its obligation under Section 322: Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, to remain eligible to receive state and federal assistance in the event of a declared disaster affecting Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management have reviewed the said plan, inclusive of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors section prepared with input from appropriate local and state officials, and has approved the plan pending the completion of local adoption procedures; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 9th day of April 2013, that the Board adopts the 2012 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the proposed actions included in the Frederick County section of the Plan, effective this date. Adopted in Frederick County, Virginia, this 9tt, day of April, 2013 by the following recorded Vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye A COPY TES`fE: f John . .. ey, J . Clerk, oard of Supervisors County of Frederick, Virginia Resolution No: 048 -13 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director RE: Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan DATE: April 2, 2013 The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan must be updated and adopted every five years in order to remain eligible for funding opportunities from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in case of disasters and hazards. Utilizing a grant opportunity, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) has coordinated the development of the Plan amongst the 20 jurisdictions in the region. On October 9, 2012, the Public Safety Committee unanimously recommended the plan be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The Board approved the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan on November 14, 2012. NSVRC staff learned that the Board's action may have been premature. FEMA requires that it — FEMA - review the plan prior to the localities' adoption. In a letter date - stamped February 22, 2013, FEMA has stated that "the plan received a satisfactory rating for all required criteria and is approvable." Prior to the formal FEMA approval, FEMA requires each participating jurisdiction in the regional to now provide FEMA an adoption resolution. Once all of the localities approve the Plan, FEMA is prepared to formally approve the Plan. Staff would note that since the Board initially reviewed the plan in November, the plan has been revised to reflect that Frederick County contains 1 square mile of water, rather than 1 acre of water. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 21Page Frederick County Board of Supervisors RIE: Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan April 2, 2013 The participating jurisdictions in the region are now proceeding through the approval process. At this time, the Board of Supervisors is being requested to revisit the plan, and renew the Board's approval. Martha Shickle, Executive Director of the NSVRC, is available should the Board have questions regarding the plan, its development, or the adoption process. Thank you. Attachments: Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan FEMA letter to Virginia DEM, date - stamped February 22, 2013 Prepared Resolution for Adoption by the Board of Supervisors ERL /bad Mr. Michael M. Cline FEB 2 2 1 011 Director Virginia Department of Emergency Management 105D1 Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236 -3713. Dear Mr. Cline: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed our review of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, Virginia, Hazards Mitigation Plan, based on the starlxiards contained in 44 CFR, Part 201, as authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DNWK). These criteria address the planning process, hazard identification and risk assessment, mitigation strategy and plan maintenance requirements. Theplan received a "satisfactory" rating for all required criteria and is approvable. However prior to famal approval, each participating jurisdiction in the Planning District Commission is required to provide FEMA an adoption resolution. , We commend you for your dedication demonstrated in supporting the D"K and the County's commitment to reduce future disaster losses. If you have questions, please contact Tess Grubb at (215) 931 -5528. Sincerely, �cr Eugene K. Gruber Mitigation Division Director cc: Matthew Wall, Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Officer Dennis M. Morris, Chairman, Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission www.feEna.gov U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region 1I1 One Independence Mall, Sixth Floor 615 Chestnut street °i �Fa Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404 otc � C F E M A A � C.�PY�p ]yam 5 � ,Ff Mr. Michael M. Cline FEB 2 2 1 011 Director Virginia Department of Emergency Management 105D1 Trade Court Richmond, Virginia 23236 -3713. Dear Mr. Cline: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed our review of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, Virginia, Hazards Mitigation Plan, based on the starlxiards contained in 44 CFR, Part 201, as authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DNWK). These criteria address the planning process, hazard identification and risk assessment, mitigation strategy and plan maintenance requirements. Theplan received a "satisfactory" rating for all required criteria and is approvable. However prior to famal approval, each participating jurisdiction in the Planning District Commission is required to provide FEMA an adoption resolution. , We commend you for your dedication demonstrated in supporting the D"K and the County's commitment to reduce future disaster losses. If you have questions, please contact Tess Grubb at (215) 931 -5528. Sincerely, �cr Eugene K. Gruber Mitigation Division Director cc: Matthew Wall, Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Officer Dennis M. Morris, Chairman, Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission www.feEna.gov UPDATE of the NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGIONAL HAZARD. MITIGATION PLAN September 2012 prepared on behalf of the City of Winchester, Clarke County, Frederick County, Page County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, Berryville, Boyce, Edinburg, Front Royal, Luray, Middletown, Mt. Jackson, New Market, Town of Shenandoah, Stanley, Strasburg, Stephens City, Toms Brook, and Woodstock by the Regional Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee administered through the NSVRC Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Preliminary Approval Granted By FEMA on February 22, 2013) Table of Contents Chapter Chapter 1: Introduction ...................... Page Chapter 2: Planning Process ........................................................................ ..............................3 Plan requirements, description of the regional planning process, participants Chapter 3: Regional Setting ........................................................................ .............................13 Summary of the Northern Shenandoah Valley communities, population, infrastructure, natural characteristics of the region Chapter 4: Hazard Identification and Anal ysis ........................................... .............................26 Identification and description of historical hazards affecting the NSV region, description of the potential impacts from hazards, ranking of hazards and a vulnerability analysis assessing the hazards and impacts to the NSV region Chapter 5: Capability Assessment .............................................................. .............................74 Assessment of the locality's capability to implement mitigation strategies and to identify goals for hazard mitigation Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies ................................................................. .............................80 Regional and local strategies prioritized by localities to implement an improved response to hazards to mitigate ,adverse impacts Chapter 7: Plan Maintenance ........ .............................. ............................... ............................114 Overview of hazard mitigation planning efforts for the region throughout the five -year plan cycle and a procedure to review strategies to encourage their implementation APPENDICES Appendix A: Plan Adoption Resolutions Appendix B: Local Strategies in entirety (with strikes) Appendix C: Supporting Documentation (media advisories, etc.) Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 1: Introduction This 2012 . update to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan update) is intended to satisfy state mitigation planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) at 44 CFR §201.4 and Public Law 106 -390, signed into law October 10, 2000 which amends the 1988 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The Plan update is for the Northern Shenandoah Valley region, including the City of Winchester, the five Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren and the 14 Towns therein. Under the Act DMA2K, every locality recognized by the State Code that adopts a local or regional hazard mitigation plan every five years, remains eligible for the funding opportunities from hazards offered through the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, by adopting this Plan update, the localities included in this Plan update will remain eligible for (HMGP) funds and the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs which include Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant programs. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management's Emergency Operations Plan Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan, Support Annex 3 (Volume ID requires that each of Virginia's cities, counties, and towns "develop or take an active role in the development of a hazard mitigation plan for their respective areas. The PDCs are not required to develop a separate hazard mitigation plan for their regions, as they do not have the enforcement authority of the cities, counties and incorporated towns. However, as described in Section 63.5(d), it was the intent of the Commonwealth of Virginia to combine as many of the mitigation plans as possible into regional, multi jurisdictional plans using the PDCs as the planning agency for these efforts. " To assist our localities in meeting the requirements of DMA2K and the suggested guidance through VDEM, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) assisted the regional Steering Committee consisting of representatives from each of the participating localities in the preparation of this Plan update of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The VDEM, in guidance documentation, noted that regional hazard mitigation plans are more cost effective methods of developing hazard mitigation plans than on a local level stating: "With limited mitigation planning staff at the state level, it is important the local plans continue to remain regionalized to the extent possible. " Preparation of this Plan update was prepared under a funding planning grant opportunity through VDEM. Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update This Plan update is formatted as follows: Chapter 2: Regional Setting A description of the manmade and natural environmental characteristics of the Northern Shenandoah Valley. Chapter 3: The Planning Process A description of the planning process used to develop the plan. Chapter 4 - Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) A description of the natural hazards in the area and an evaluation of the risk assessments. Chapter 5 - Capability Assessment An evaluation of the capacity of a locality to respond to and recover from a natural disaster. Chapter G - Mitigation Strategy Outlines mitigation, goals, and strategies identified to reduce those risks identified in Chapter 3. Chapter 7 - Plan Maintenance, Implementation and Adoption A program strategy to update the Plan and implement strategies. Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 2: Planning Process DMA2K: ,§201.4(c)(1): Description of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how other agencies participated The Plan update represents a collaborative process that incorporated data and input from the twenty participating localities in the region and state agencies including the VDEM, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF), Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME). In addition, industries, colleges, universities, health professionals, and representatives from public and private entities were invited to participate throughout the planning process. The purpose of inviting various participants to share their perspectives is to assure the development of a comprehensive community plan to reduce the long term risk to natural and human - caused hazards. The update of the 2007 Plan was implemented through a process led by a steering committee that met monthly during the time between December 2011 through September 2012. Data and maps from the 2007 Plan were included as appropriate and updated as needed. NSVRC staff worked with locality staff to identify local critical facility data and strategies. The steering committee guided the process to integrate locality data and determined how it could be incorporated into the 2012 update. This Plan update has been expanded to include all twenty jurisdictions within the planning region including the City of Winchester, the Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren and the fourteen Towns therein. Due to limited staff resources of some localities, certain municipalities elected to report through the County where they are located, these include the Towns in Shenandoah County, Towns in Frederick County, and the Town of Boyce in Clarke County. The planning process included meetings held with the steering committee held at the dates listed below. The meetings were announced monthly in media releases and open to the general public. Hazard Mitigation Planning Meetings Jan. 20101 -3PM Dec. 8, 2012 10 -11:30 AM Jan. 19, 2012 9:30 -11:30 AM Feb. 22, 2012 10 -11:30 AM Mar. 13, 2012 10 -11:30 AM Apr. 18, 2012 10 -11:30 AM May 29, 2012 10 -11:30 AM Jul. 19, 2012 10 -11.30 AM Aug. 16, 2012 10 -11:30 AM Aug. 16, 2012 3 -8 PM Sep. 18, 2012 10 -11:30 am 3 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The public outreach efforts were designed to solicit community input prior to submittal to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and again, prior to adoption by a participating jurisdiction. In addition, the draft Plan 2012 update was available for review by soliciting surrounding localities, business, and other agencies for comment. The public was invited to participate in the Plan update. Media releases were issued in April, June, July, and August of 2012 to describe the status of the Plan update and inform the public of upcoming opportunities to give comment and participate in the planning process. A public outreach event was held on August 16, 2012 with two public meetings and an open house to encourage interested citizens to participate and comment on the Plan. The public meetings were advertised in local newspapers through the media advisory, television stations, and on a radio public service announcement. An electronic copy of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan was made available for public review and comment on the NSVRC website (www.NSVregion.org) and flyers were distributed to localities for posting on their websites as well as displaying during the National Night Out event at booths on August 7, 2012. Comments received on the Plan were reviewed by NSVRC and presented to the Steering Committee. In addition, the Plan update was announced for review directly for review and continent by the following: neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non -profit interests to be involved in the planning process. In addition, existing plans, reports and studies available were reviewed to provide information incorporated into this Plan update. This includes locality comprehensive plans, SHENAIR air duality initiatives (hazard capacity assessment on 1-81), community and development priorities, transportation plans, comprehensive plans, capital improvement projects, and other reports. Neighboring communities were invited to attend monthly meetings as well as to comment on the Plan update. The following were provided opportunities to review and comment on the Plan update were invited as participants to the meetings as well as given the chance to provide input and continent to affect the Plan's content: 1. Local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities (Amy Howard of VDEM and Scott Hudson of VDEM as well as all regional emergency response coordinators); 2. Agencies that have the authority to regulate development (each participating locality's planning staff and or designee along with elected officials; and 3. Neighboring communities and interested citizens. The following were notified of the planning process and invited to participate: Chief Administrative Offers (Town Managers, County Administrators, City Manager), regional emergency managers, Shenandoah University, Lord Fairfax Community College, Christendom College, Shenandoah National Park, George 'Washington National Service, Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Planning Commission, the City of Harrisonburg, steering committee members 4 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update on the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, along with additional organizations in the NSV region. The above were invited to participate in the kick off meeting of the Plan update through telephone calls and electronic communications distributed to each participating jurisdiction, various local businesses, agencies, hazard mitigation personnel on local and regional levels, academia, neighboring communities, and agencies from the state and federal government. Following the kick off meeting, the participating jurisdictions were communicated to electronically with updates regarding opportunities to participate, strategy update, and during the review process. The monthly steering committee and larger planning group meetings to update the plan were provided in the "NSVRC monthly media releases announcing each meeting location, time, and purpose to encourage involvement and participation from the community and interested citizens. Each of the twenty jurisdictions was also communicated with by telephone during the July and August 2012 review and comment period. Specific fliers and pamphlets were issued periodically throughout the Plan update process to continue to solicit input from neighboring communities and the public. These press releases and announcements are included in the appendix to this Plan. The Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed and incorporated into this Plan update, as referenced throughout. The FEMA guidance from October 2011 was reviewed and also helped guide this Plan update. Online searches referenced from various guidance documents were reviewed and included in this Plan update as appropriate, especially with regard to specific hazards, including state and federal hazard information, statistics, and trends. Hazard mitigation planning is the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks, and determining how to minimize or manage those risks. While this Plan update deals primarily with natural hazards, human- caused hazards were identified as an area for future mitigation planning efforts. A central theme of hazard mitigation is that pre- disaster planning will significantly reduce the demand for post - disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction and encourage locality resilience to disasters. The primary objective of the planning process is to identify strategies to reduce the impact of hazards. The strategies identify responsibility for each mitigation action, prioritization, and other mechanisms to encourage its implementation. Plan maintenance procedures (located in Chapter 7 of this Plan) are established to monitor progress, including the regular evaluation and enhancement of the Plan. The maintenance procedures ensure that the Plan remains a flexible tool to assist localities in the NSV region benefit from the following: saving lives and property; saving money; enhancing response time for recovery following disasters; reducing future vulnerability through planning; improving eligibility and facilitating the receipt of pre - disaster and post- disaster grant funding to localities; and demonstrating a firm commitment to community safety and health by reducing and mitigating adverse effects associated with natural disasters. 5 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Hazards were identified and ranked according to discussions during meetings and in an on -line survey issued to localities. The on -line survey was also available during the public meetings and open house events held August 16, 2012. Outcomes of the hazard evaluations included acknowledgement of the importance of winter ice storms as well as flooding as key natural hazards. Flooding was ranked as the number one natural hazard in terms of likelihood of highest damage. Survey Results: The hazards in the planning region were ranked from greatest threat (1) to least (10). Threat was defined as frequency or damage potential or both. Participants were invited to rank the top 10 hazards, but to add more, if interested. Community �a rd'Rankiu 2012 Hazard Ranking in order of 1 (most significant) to 10 (least Hazard Type significant). Flooding Riverine High 1 Including winter High (tie Winter Storm/ Ice / Extreme Cold storms, ice storms, ranki ng) and excessive cold High Wind/ Hurricane Hurricane High 2 (tie ranking) Tornado Tornado High 3 Lightning Storm. Moderate 4 Thunderstorm Moderate 5 Pipelines Pipelines 6 Mass Evacuation from Northern Mass Evacuation Virginia from Northern 6 Virginia Hazardous Moderate -- Hazardous materials Spills materials Spills all Human Caused 6 Wildfire Wildfire Moderate 7 Dam Failure Due to Flooding / Low bridges Dam Safety Moderate 8 Extreme Heat Heat Low 10 (tie ranking) Drought Heat Low 10 (tie rankin Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Earthquake Earthquake Low 11 Landslide /Steep Slope Landslide/Steep Low 12 Slope Hail Hail as part of Low 13 (tie Storm rankin Erosion Landslide/Steep Low 13 (tie Slope ranking) Land Subsidence / Karst Karst Low 14 This Plan update lists actions, including mitigation strategies, for local governments to achieve the goal of reducing impacts to life and property from natural disasters. The mitigation strategies listed in this Plan were identified through a process of breakout locality meetings based on a review of the strategies in the 2047 Plan and a determination of relevancy and status. Final Draft Review A draft of the plan was distributed to committee members in mid -July and to localities in early August of 2012. Following public input the Plan was submitted to the VDEM in September 2412. Upon approval, VDEM will forward the Plan to FEMA Region Ill office for review and approval. These groups provided review and comment and necessary changes were made to the final draft of the plan. This plan was prepared in accordance with the collaborative process outlined in Section 322 of the Stafford Act to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities. The identification of, and planning for, disaster response will reduce impacts from natural hazards and result in timely allocation of funds to reduce risks. The planning process took place with several groups; a larger planning group and a smaller steering committee. The steering committee met monthly to oversee the development and update of the Plan. In addition, a series of meetings with the localities occurred among the Counties' and Towns' staff representatives, or designees, to identify hazard mitigation strategies at the locality level. NSVRC staff met with the County -Town teams to document strategies. Members of VDEM have been instrumental throughout the planning process. The Plan was updated with the assistance of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission staff. Lamer Planning Group* (in alphabetical order of last name) Town Managers or designee David Ash, Clarke County, Emergency Management Coordinator Jeff Boyer, VDOT Bryan Chrisman, Town of Luray, Assistant Town Manager Angela Clem, Town of Woodstock Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Brandon Davis, Shenandoah County, Director, Community Development Christy Dunkle, Town of Berryville, Assistant Town Manager Any Howard, VDEM Scott Hudson, VDEM, Region 2 Jill Kcihn, NSVRC Chester Lauck, Frederick County, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator Eric Lawrence, Frederick County, Director of Planning Joe Lehnen, VDOF . Taryn Logan, Warren County, Director of Planning Lynn Miller, City of Winchester, Emergency Management Coordinator Charles Moore, Town Manager, Mount Jackson Terry Pettit, Town of Stanley, Town Manager Joan Roche, Chair Middletown Town Manager through June 30, 2012, Citizen Rep July - present Martha Shickle, NSVRC, Executive director Wes Shifflett, Page County Emergency Management Coordinator Doug Shrier, Lord Fairfax Community College David Spears, VA DMME Alison Teeter / Brandon Stidham, Clarke County Planning Jennifer Welcher, DEQ Gary Yew, Shenandoah County, Emergency Management Coordinator Tim Youmans, City of Winchester, Director of Planning Note The Larger Planning Group was apprised of meetings; however, the majority of meetings was staffed by the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee (listed below). Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Members (in alphabetical order) Christy Dunkle, Town of Berryville, Assistant Town Manager Scott Hudson, VDEM Amy Howard, VDEM Jill Keihn, NSVRC Chester Lauck, Frederick County, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator Taryn Logan, Warren County, Director of Planning Lynn Miller, City of Winchester, Emergency Management Coordinator Joan Roche, Chair, Middletown Town Manager through June 30, 2012, Citizen Representative Terry Pettit, Town of Stanley, Town Manager Wes Shifflett, Page County Emergency Management Coordinator David Spears, VA DMME The public was invited to participate at several points in the planning process through local media coverage as well as during regional public meetings. Media releases were issued in April 2012, June 2012, and July 2012 to describe the Plan update. A public outreach event was held in August 2012 to encourage interested citizens to participate and comment on the Plan update. The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update public meetings were advertised in local newspapers, on television, and through a radio public service announcement. An electronic copy of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan update was made available for public review and input through posting on the NSVRC website at www.NSVregion.org Locality adoption of this Plan update and approval from FEMA is required for localities to remain eligible for FEMA funding of Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs. The HMA programs provide funding opportunities to reduce the risk to individuals and property from natural hazards. Local governments are encouraged to apply for these HMA programs in both pre - and post- disaster timeframes. This Plan provides a prioritization of strategies for localities to consider for future funding opportunities that will lessen adverse impacts from natural (and human - induced) disasters. The HMA programs facilitate the reduction or elimination of potential losses through hazard mitigation planning and project grant funding. Each HMA program, authorized by separate legislative action, has a different scope but all have a common goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property due to natural hazards. Potential Future Funding of Strategies in this Plan: o Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) o Pre - Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) o Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) o Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC) o Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) If a grant is awarded by FEMA (often administered through VDEM), then the locality or NSVRC (on behalf of a locality) is a "sub- grantee" and is responsible for managing the sub -grant and complying with program requirements and other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. The steering committee requested these funding opportunities be clearly presented in this Plan as well as on the NSVRC website. To meet these requests, the following is a list of funding programs. • Overall Funding descriptions: The HMA Unified Guidance can be found on FEMA's websiteat: http://www.fema.go and at NSVRC website www.NSVre ion.org • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Localities with an adopted hazard mitigation plan (approved by FEMA) are eligible to qualify for oast- disaster mitigation funds. • Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program: Localities with an adopted hazard mitigation plan (approved by FEMA) are eligible to qualify for pre- disaster mitigation funds, local jurisdictions must adopt a mitigation Plan that is approved by FEMA. • Flood Mitigation Assistance Program: Localities with an adopted, FEMA- approved mitigation plan are eligible to qualify for funds to implement projects including acquisition or elevation of flood -prone structures. The plan must be prepared following 9 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update the process outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System. FEMA/NFIP Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC) Program. The RFC program, authorized by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, assists communities to reduce flood damages to properties that have. at least one NFIP claim payment. Funding includes acquisition, elevation, and flood- proofing of residential structures. FEMA/NFIP Severe Repetitive Loss Program: The SRL program funds projects that reduce or eliminate the long -term risk of flood damage to residential structures under the NFIP which have suffered repetitive losses. SRL properties have at least four NFIP claim payments (over $5,000 with at least two of the claims within a ten -year time period). Like RFC, SRL funds projects for residential properties and can include acquisition, elevation, and dry flood - proofing of residential structures. Eligible residential properties residential structures must have at least two separate claim payments made within a ten -year period with the cumulative amount of the building portion of the claims that exceed the total property value. Plan Adoption Following approval from FEMA, each participating jurisdiction will consider adoption of this Plan update. The resolutions for adoption will be presented as part of each City and Town Council and County Board of Supervisor meeting agendas during regularly scheduled meetings. These meetings are publicly advertised by law and will provide the public an additional opportunity to comment on this Plan update. The Steering Committee and or NSVRC staff is scheduled to present a summary of the Plan to each local elected body prior to their consideration of adoption. The 2007 NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan served as a springboard for the planning team and steering committee to determine a process to update this Plan. The steering committee discussed the organization of the Plan and reviewed strategies considered. There was consensus to include the regional information with locality- specific strategies presented separately for the City of Winchester and for each County with Towns as subsets to the County strategies. The committee meetings provided data review, evaluated data, ranked hazards, evaluated capacity to respond to disasters, identified / reviewed regional and local strategies, noted areas for improved regional emergency response coordination, articulated general training desires, and guided the outreach efforts (development of a regional website and a series of media advisories) for locality and public education to raise awareness of hazard mitigation and the Plan update. The need for training and workshops was identified for future planning efforts. Overall, the emergency response coordinators in the NSV region have cultivated excellent communication and cooperation in efforts to respond to disasters. This Plan update was designed to identify opportunities to encourage continued coordinated regional response to disasters and facilitate funding for projects and needs for the localities to reduce adverse impacts from natural disasters. 10 Northem Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan includes the City, five Counties, and fourteen incorporated Towns. To satisfy multi jurisdictional participation requirements, the City, Counties and local Towns were invited to participate in mitigation planning meetings, respond to Capability Assessment inquiries, rank hazards, review, evaluate and prioritize strategies and mitigation projects including County or Town -level goals and mitigation actions, and consider adoption of this Plan. Each locality participated at a level commensurate with staff capacities and each participating jurisdiction will consider adoption of this Regional Hazard Mitigation separately. The localities will commit to the plan maintenance procedures outlined in this Plan and will monitor and update their strategies on a regular basis. Annual updates of this Plan will occur at the end of each calendar year, beginning a year after the Plan is adopted or December 2013. The following table summarizes jurisdictional participation throughout the planning process. 11 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Locality Participation in! Development of Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 12 Hazard Critical Contact for Plan ranking Facilities HIPA Invited Meeting Board) Locality Review and Steering Additional invited to (invited to to Mitigation Plan Website Announcements Council Committee Contacts participate/ add data/ participate /pa Strategies Review Review Participation comments comments rticipated Received Scheduled recd received) Winchester Planning City Lynn Miller X Dept X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Clarke County Brandon Stid ham x X/X X/X X X/X X X X X Town of Berryville Christy Runkle X X/X X X X/X X X X X Town of Town Clerk,.Mayor Boyce Roberts X X X X X X X X Frederick Planning County Chester Lauck X Dept X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Town of Planning Middletown Joan Roche (thru 6 -12) X Dept X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Town of Stephens City Mike Kehoe X X X X X X X X Page Campbell, Page Fire & County WesShifflett X Rescue X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Town of Luray Bryan Chrisman X X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Fire & _ Town of Rescue, Shenandoah Larry Dovel Police X/X X/X X X/X X X X X Town of Stanley Terry Pettit X/X X/X X X/X X X X X Shenandoah Planning County Gary Yew X. Dept X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Town of Rep thru Edinburg Can Harshman County X X X X X X X X Town of Mt Rep thru Jackson Oark Draper County X X X X X X X X Town of Rep thru New Market Evan Vass County X X X X X X X X Town of Repthru Strasburg Jud Rex County X/X X/X X X/X X I X X X Town of Rep thru Tams Break Phil Fauber, mayor County X X X X X X X X Larry Bradford, Town of Rep thru Town Woodstock Angela Clem County Manager X/X X X X X X X X Fire & Warren Rescue, County Taryn Logan X Police X/X X/X X/X X/X X X X X Town of Steve Burke,Town Rep thru Planning Front Royal Manager County Dept X X X X/X X X X X 12 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 3: Regional Setting The localities in the Northern Shenandoah Valley (NSV) are described in this chapter in order to facilitate a better understanding of the natural and manmade settings that could be impacted in a disaster. Description of the Manmade Environment of the Northern Shenandoah Valley The area served by the NSVRC is located in the northern tip of Virginia, west of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The NSV planning region includes the City of Winchester; the five Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren; and the 14 Towns which are listed below based on the County in which they lie. Clarke County: Town of Berryville and Town of Boyce, Frederick County: Town of Middletown and Town of Stephens City Page County: Town of Luray, Town of Shenandoah, and Town of Stanley Shenandoah County: Town of Edinburg, Town of Mount Jackson, Town of New Market, Town of Strasburg, Town of Toms Brook, and Town of Woodstock Warren County: Town of Front Royal The population for the planning region over the 20 -year planning horizon to 2032 was presented in the regional Water Supply Plan, adopted by all 20 jurisdictions between June - October 2011. The NSV planning area lies about 70 miles west of Washington DC, with Clarke and Frederick Counties located on the northwest and northeast. The independent City of Winchester is surrounded by Frederick County. Warren County and Page County are located in the southeast of the planning region and Shenandoah County is located in the southwest. The total area of the planning region covers over one million acres. Table 3.1 and Figure 3 -1 illustrate the land area of each of the communities in the region as well as the populations in the communities and number of households. This information is a key component in determining the risk to communities from natural hazards. In addition, Table 3.2 provides housing data to further describe the communities in the region. 13 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Table 3.1 Northern Shenandoah Valley Region Population (US Census Bureau; 2011 Regional Water Supply Plan 2010 Locality Area 1990 2000 2010 2000 Pop Pop (Sq Mile) Pop Pop Pop per Sq Mile per Sq Mile Clarke County 178.07 12,101 12,652 14,034 71 79 Town ofBerryuille 1.35 3,097 2,963 4,185 2,195 3,100 Town of Boyce 0.34 520 426 589 1,253 1,732 Frederick County 415.78. 45,723 59,209 78,305 142 188 Town of Middletown 0.6 1,061 1,015 1,261 1,692 2,102 Town of Stephens City 1.44 1,186 1,146 1,825 796 1,267 Page County 314.09 21,690 23,177 24,042 74 77 Town of Luray 4.86 4,587 4,871 4,974 1,002 1,023 Town of Stanley 1.19 1,186 1,326 2,161 1,114 1,816 Town of Shenandoah 1.38 2,213 1,878 1,532 1,361 1,110 Shenandoah County 512.53 31,636 35,075 41,993 68 82 Town of Edinburg 0.7 860 813 1,050 1,161 1,500 Town of Mount Jackson 1.22 1,583 1,664 2,368 1,364 1,941 Town of New Market 1.51 1,435 1,637 2,570 1,084 1'702 .Town of Strasburg 2.01 3,762 4,017 7,660 1,999 125 Town of Toms Brook 2.01 3,762 4,017 252 1,999 125 Town of Woodstock 2.74 3,182 3,952 6,097 1,442 2,796 Warren County 216.31 26,142 31,584 37,439 146 174 Town of Front Royal 9.05 11,880 13,589 14,440 1,502 1,596 City of Winchester 9.2 21,947 23,585 26,203 2,525 2,805 14 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation plan Update The population located within the localities is broken down as housing stock in the profile below. The quantity and type of building units located within each jurisdiction is an important consideration in the , vulnerability analysis. 12: Profile of Housing. Units, # Median # # Avg Vacancy Rate Vacant Locality Housing Value Owner Home rental Household Owner I renter Housing Units Occupied Owner units Size (Town - Avg Units Units Owner /Rental Vacancy rate) Clarke $366,900( Count 6,185 Yr est ) 4,195 1,353 2.5212.42 2.2819.3 650 Berryville 1,920 $324,300 606 206 151 Boyce 252 $258,100 53 2.66 36 Frederick $240,900 (1- County 30,472 rest ) 22,495 6,063 2.5312.63 1.915.7 1,914 Middletown 501 $190,200 202 2.41 48 Stephens City 799 $204,200 340 2.46 92 Page County 11,500 $177,400 7,282 2,347 1 2.5312.32 2.1013.0 1,854 Luray Town 2,503 $178,100 760 2.23 215 Shenandoah Town 1,091 $143,300 272 2.51 108 Stanley Town 818 $160,100 284 2.40 74 Shenandoah County 20,416 $213,900 12,039 5,277 1 2.4412.28 2.816.5 3,100 Edinburg 595 $202,700 208 2.35 82 Mt Jackson 814 $161,900 289 2.93 102 New Market 1,047 $181,400 454 2.20 141 Strasburg 2,988 $207,100 1,167 2.41 253 Toms Brook 106 $175,000 30 3.07 16 Woodstock 2,696 $228,900 941 2.40 322 Warren County 15,722 $250,700 10,591 3,569 2.61 Z5 1.616.2 1,595 Front Royal 6,465 $227,700 2,288 2.52 623 Winchester - City , 11,792 $256,700 5,173 5,048 2.5612.29 2.2516.2 1,571 Source: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau: American Fact Finder, Towns: 2000 Census; Counties and City: 3 -yr Survey 2010 Census 15 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Similar data as above presented is provided below in an altered format to facilitate emergency responders to consider the profile of a community and best gauge response in a disaster. As presented in Table 3.2, above, the housing density is based on Census data for 2010 populations of the Counties and City. Housing Data Household Size Vacancy Rate Locality Total Housing Units Mobile Homes # Vacant Units # Home- Owner Units # Rental Units Avg HH Size for Home Owner Unit Avg. HH size for Rental Unit Home Owner Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate Clarke County 6,185 19 650 4,195 1,340 2.52 2.42 2.00 9.30 Frederick County 30,472 2,652 1,914 22,495 6,063 2.63 2.53 1.90 5.70 Page County 11,500 1,407 1,871 7,282 2,347 2.53 2.32 2.10 3.00 Shenandoah County 20,416 785 3,100 12,039 5,277 2.44 2.28 2.80 6.50 Warren County 15,755 461 1,595 10,591 1 3,569 2.61 2.50 1.60 6.20 Winchester 11,792 104 1,571 5,173 5,048 2.56 2.29 2.5 13.4 NSVRC County /City Total 96,120 5,428 10,701 61,775 23,644 16 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Northern Shenandoah Valley T i;;,`,nd Regional Commission i j Fwderirk Legend County NSVRC Town Sound.d. LtityQ f NSVRC Boundaries VL'uyKestCr ` Town of Townof Loudoun Stephens City BoYre county Two of Ct uim County Btiddlelown Slsite of WeSt Virrjnhi - Town of Slrasburg Town of Toms Br lk Tax n of Town of Front Royal Woodstock Fauquhi rCounty Count h Town rf Warner County Edinburg County Town of Page Mount Jackson county tidppabdnrRx k e work Trwnof w hfark uny COlmty Rurkingimm Counts Alf Town of \ slantey \ Town of llldf�i9lln r ndwh C<WAV Cul}w per County' Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Planning Area 4 2 4 8 1 Is N tarns 1 , ! C Scale! 1:725.000 i Protection. Geographic t Datum. NAD 1983 ' Figure 3.1 Northern Shenandoah Valley The table below provides a list of structure values for each community gathered from Commissioner of Revenues based on structural improvements for exempted and non- exempted real estate in the January 1, 2012 tax book. Assessed Structure Value includes all property 17 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Commercial, residential, institutional and excludes land value). This table should be reviewed and updated annually by the steering committee to reflect the most updated improvement values. Clarke County - County is located on the north eastern portion of the region and has a total area that covers 178 square miles including two square miles of water. The County seat is in the Town of Berryville. Frederick County — Frederick County is the northern most point in Commonwealth of Virginia. Frederick County lies in the most north western portion of Virginia. It is included in the 18 Total Property Values (Based on Locality (Counties Taxable Nontaxable Jan. 12012 Tax exclude Town Structures Structures Book in data) Commissioner of Reven u e of locality) Winchester City $1,688,187,500 $631,410,100 $2,319,597,600 Clarke County $100,433,600 $1,334,321 $101,767,921 Town of Berryville $321,625,500 Town of Boyce $43,555,800 Frederick County $4,818,580,400 $682,128,000 $5,500,708,400 Town of Middletown $47,206,900 Town of Stephens City $82,404,900 Page County $876,062,945 $114,710,700 $990,773,645 Town of Luray $336,678,500 $49,750,100 $386,428,600 Town of Shenandoah $120,398,300 $13,189,700 $133,588,000 Town of Stanley $73,582,400 $16,162,100 $89,744,500 Shenandoah County $1,667,765,100 $131,746,400 $1,799,511,500 Town of Edinburg $59,902,800 $10,060,200 $69,963,000 Town of Mt Jackson $104,433,100 $17,364,500 $121,797,600 Town of New Market $115,013,000 $14,243,700 $129,256,700 Town of Strasburg $361,050,700 $33,889,400 $394,940,100 Town of Toms Brook $9,105,400 $1,879,000 $10,984,400 Town of Woodstock $350,570,600 $99,347,000 $449,917,600 Warren County $1,765,325,200 $388,091,600 $2,153,416,800 Town of Front Royal $786,114,700 $255,284,700 $1,041,399,400 TOTAL in NSV region 2,460,591,521 Clarke County - County is located on the north eastern portion of the region and has a total area that covers 178 square miles including two square miles of water. The County seat is in the Town of Berryville. Frederick County — Frederick County is the northern most point in Commonwealth of Virginia. Frederick County lies in the most north western portion of Virginia. It is included in the 18 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Winchester, Virginia -West Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area and covers 416 square miles with one square mile of water. Its County seat is Winchester. Page County - Page County is located in the eastern portion of the planning region. Its County seat is Luray. The County has a total area of 314 square miles of which three square miles are water. Shenandoah County — The County seat is the Town of Woodstock. The County has a total area of 513 square miles. The Fort Valley and western slopes of the Massanutten Mountain are located within the County, Warren County — The County seat is in the Town of Front Royal and is considered to be a distant part of the Washington Metropolitan Area. The County has a total area of 216 square miles of which three square miles are water. Winchester City -- Winchester is surrounded by Frederick County. It is included in the Winchester, Virginia — West Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area. The City covers 9.2 square miles. Populations at Risk The eight factors to identify populations at risk included: I. Socio - economic status; 2. Wealth; 3. Elderly populations; 4. Female heads of Large Households in densely populated areas; 5. Rural areas; 6. Non- English proficient populations (English as a second language populations, etc.); 7. Female labor force; and S. Households living in Manufactured Housing. A challenge in emergency management and in all government support services is to include the immigrant population in the NSV region since these residents are not fully captured by traditional Census or this vulnerability analysis. English as the secondary language is a large portion of much of the Valley, especially for migrant workers in the poultry processing plants and orchard pickers. Special needs populations were not included in this update of the regional Plan but will be considered in future iterations of the plan. The factors that attract businesses and people to the area present the greatest challenges to regional Emergency Managers and cause significant hazard mitigation challenges including: growth, dense populations, over -taxed transportation routes, communication, and knowledge of how to mitigate E Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update vulnerable buildings and prepare for disasters. Urban Concentration Areas The City of Winchester which is surrounded by Frederick County and the 14 Towns, located within the five Counties of the region, are areas of urban concentration. Growth is estimated to continue to be concentrated in the City and Town urban areas throughout the 20 -year planning period to 2032. With the exception of the Frederick County Urban Development Area, the surrounding Counties are anticipated to continue to grow at a slower pace than the urbann centers, with smaller subdivisions and continuing agriculture as the predominant land use in the outlying areas. The majority of the population in the region is distributed in clusters along the major transportation routes of I -81 and I -66, and along Routes 7, 50, 522, 11, and 340. There is little change in the use of those corridors over the past 20 years and the future transportation routes will likely be the same. More trucks travel I -81 rather than the narrow state route 340 corridors. Commerce and industry is distributed among the Counties in proportion to population, with the highest concentrations in Winchester and the surrounding portions of Frederick County. More of the population resides on the western side of the Massanutten Ridge, with less population residing on the eastern portion of the planning region (east of the Massanutten Ridge). Land Use Overview Federal agencies located within the planning region include the following: the U.S.D.A. Forest Service's George Washington National Forest located within the Counties of Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren; the U.S. Department of Interior's National Park Service's Shenandoah National Park located within the Counties of Page and Warren; the U.S. Department of Interior's Smithsonian Research and Biology Institute facility in Warren County; and the Department of Homeland Security facilities located in Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties. Two state agency -owned large land holdings in the planning region include the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Andy Guest State Park in Warren County and the Department of Forestry's Devil's Backbone in Shenandoah County. The total land area of the planning region is 1,647 square miles or 1,054,080 acres. Due to the valley's fertile soils, over half the Iand use in the region is agricultural, 45% is forested, and the remaining slightly less than 5% is urban. Details of the population distribution within the planning area is presented in the community development section; however, based on 2010 Census data, approximately 272,980 people live in the Northern Shenandoah Valley as of 2010. Transportation The two main transportation arteries in the region include I -81, running north / south through the Shenandoah Valley and I -66 which enters the region on the east, runs west and intersects 1 -81 in 20 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Strasburg, 66 miles west of Washington, DC. The planning region serves as a transportation hub and provides overnight access to 60% of U.S. industrial activities; and offers direct access to Canadian markets via I -81. The Virginia Inland Port provides intermodal ocean shipping and customs clearance, offering local industry worldwide trade reaches. The region is located next to the Washington - Arlington- Alexandria Metropolitan Areas, lies approximately 35 miles west of the Dulles International Airport, and 55 miles west of Washington, D.C., at the closest points. Other prominent roadways in the Shenandoah Valley that transverse north / south through the planning region and include State Route 340 running approximately 20 miles east of I -81, and U.S. Route 11. U.S. Route 340 connects many Town centers in Warren, Page, and Clarke Counties along the eastern part of the planning area. The historic Route 11 parallels I -81 on the western part of the Shenandoah Valley, which runs through Town centers in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties. Virginia Routes 7, 37, 42, 55, 263, and 277 all interconnect with the main roads. Historic railway lines run predominantly in north 1 south directions in both the western and eastern portions of the Valley. In addition, the region participates in a Commuter Ride Share program. This network of transportation connects population centers and brings a large population passing through the planning area. Other Land Uses There are three landfills in the planning region: Battle Creek landfill in Page County which accepts solid waste from Page and Warren Counties; Frederick County Regional Landfill (and Frederick County Construction & Demolition Debris landfill) both in Frederick County which accepts waste from the Counties of Clarke and Frederick and the City of Winchester; and the Shenandoah County Landfill, Employment Data and Analysis According to the Virginia Employment Commission, the top employers in the Northern Shenandoah Valley are listed below (in alphabetical order). These top employers are anticipated to continue to grow throughout the region through 2040 (per Virginia Employment Commission). • Berryville Graphics • Cracker Barrel Old Country Store • Food Lion • Frederick County • Frederick County School Board • George's Chicken, Inc. • The Horne Depot 21 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • Lowes' Home Centers, Inc. • Marshall's • Martin's Food Market • Page County School Board • Postal Service • Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC • Shenandoah County School Board • Shenandoah University • Target Corporation • U.S. Department of Homeland Defense • Valley Health System • VDOT • Wal Mart • 'Warren County School Board • Winchester City • Winchester City Public Schools These listed employers provide the largest percentage of employment within the Shenandoah Valley as categorized by industry with many serving in manufacturing, construction, retail trade, educational services, health care and social assistance, and accommodation and food services sectors. Description of the Natural Environment of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Geology and Hydrology The Shenandoah Valley is in the northwestern part of Virginia and is part of the Great Valley within the larger Appalachian Mountain chain. The Appalachian Mountains stretch from Georgia to Maine; the Great Valley stretches from Pennsylvania to Alabama. The headwaters for the Shenandoah River are in Augusta and Rockingham Counties, south of the planning region. The Shenandoah Valley is about 160 miles long, lies in a north -south direction, and is bounded between the Blue Ridge Mountains on the east and the Allegheny Mountains on the west. Water runoff has carved the mountains' distinctive alternating pattern of ridges and valleys. The soils include karst and non - karst features. 22 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The planning region, is located within Ridge and Valley geologic province, bounded by the Appalachian Mountains on the west and the Blue Ridge Mountains on the east. The Massanutten Mountain Range in the center divides the area into two major sub - valleys. There are four major geologic belts underlying the region: Appalachian Sandstone/Shale; the Valley Carbonates (containing mostly limestones and dolomites); Central Valley Shale; and the Blue Ridge Complex (containing granite, gneiss, and greenstone). The limestone, carbonates, and dolomite contain numerous karst features including seeps, springs, caves, caverns, and disappearing streams. Elevations vary from less than 400 feet above sea level to over 4,000 feet in the Blue Ridge Mountains. There are 20 major soil associations in the planning district. According to available local studies, approximately 55 percent of the total land area has slow permeability, shallow depth to bedrock, steep slopes, and seasonally high water table. Due to the constraints of slope, karst, and soil types, areas of generalized development are restricted to the Valley floor along the main roadways. The Shenandoah River runs through the valley and long ago carved out the Shenandoah Valley, dissolving the limestone and carrying the sediments north to the Potomac. The North Fork, South Fork, and Main Stem of the Shenandoah River flow through the Valley northward to join the Potomac River in harpers Ferry WV. The Shenandoah River (both North and South Forks) drains most of northwestern Virginia and has headwaters in localities south of the planning region. The South Fork of the Shenandoah River flows northward through Page County into Warren County. The North Fork of the River flows from Rockingham County north through Shenandoah County and eventually northeast to Warren County. The confluence of the North and South Forks occurs in the Town of Front Royal to form the Main Steen of the Shenandoah River which subsequently flows northward through Clarke County to drain into the Potomac River. The entire planning region lies within the Shenandoah River / Potomac watersheds that drain into the Chesapeake Bay and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. There are over 46,991 acres of wetlands in the planning region, based on National wetland Inventory Maps (U.S. Fish & Wildlife). The major watershed for the region is the Potomac / Shenandoah River Basin, Meteorology The climate of the Shenandoah Valley, particularly regarding precipitation, is strongly influenced by the surrounding mountains. When moist air flows toward Virginia from areas to the west and northwest, it encounters the high relief of the Allegheny Mountain system to the west of the Shenandoah Valley. As that air is forced to rise over the mountains (known as orographic lifting), it cools, moisture condenses out, and the bulk of the precipitation falls on the western slopes of the Alleghenies. This leaves comparatively drier air to descend into the Valley and produce less precipitation. Likewise, when moist air from the nearby Atlantic Ocean flows across Virginia from the east, it encounters the Blue Ridge Mountains to the east of the 23 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Shenandoah Valley. The same orographic lifting usually results in lower precipitation amounts in the Valley. This double "rain shadow" effect puts the Shenandoah Valley in the driest portion of Virginia and makes it one of the driest locations in the eastern United States. Typical annual precipitation amounts for nearby stations on the east- facing slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains run about ten inches higher than the Shenandoah Valley (around 48 inches as opposed to 38 inches). Statewide average annual precipitation is around 40 -44 inches. The general mechanisms for precipitation change throughout the course of the year. Larger -scale mid - latitude cyclones and associated frontal passages predominate the colder months and smaller -scale thunderstorm activity usually providing most of the rainfall in the warmer months. The Shenandoah Valley, along with the rest of Virginia, experiences no distinct "dry" or "wet" seasons with respect to precipitation. Nonetheless, the normally high rates of evapotranspiration in the summer months usually lead to an overall loss of moisture, while the colder months allow for the replenishment of deep soil and groundwater reserves. In addition, the varied height and orientation of the flanking mountains can create large differences in precipitation amounts at smaller scales. This is especially true during the summer months, when the primary source of rainfall in Virginia is the thunderstorm. 24 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The predominant flow of surface winds is generally up and down the roughly 160 -mile length of the Valley (northeasterly and southeasterly directional categories). Diurnal heating and cooling also gives rise to a mountain and valley breeze, which circulates air from higher surrounding elevations to the Valley floor and up again. Summer average temperatures in the Valley are in the mid -70's ff) and rarely reach the 100° mark, while winter temperatures average in the mid - 30's. The freeze -free growing season averages about six months, from mid -April to mid- October, though local microclimates and elevational differences can bring considerable variation. Rainfall is drained out of the Valley through a series of tributaries and streams that flow into the Shenandoah River, flowing northward to the Potomac River. According to the state climatologist also on the State Drought Task Force (Stenger, UVA), the following data was collected from 1971 to 2000 in the Towns of Berryville, Woodstock, and Luray, as well as Frederick County weather stations to characterize the climate of the region. The average annual precipitation in the region is 38.27 inches, the maximum average annual temperature is 65.48 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and minimum temperature average is 41.66 F. The season temperature variation ranges from annual averages for winter max /min is summarized in the chart below. While most of the Commonwealth receives an annual precipitation of 40 -44 inches a year, the Shenandoah Valley receives an average of about 33 -36 inches a year. The Blue Ridge Mountains on the eastern side of the Valley averaged 46 -58 inches (C°limatesource.com) Precipitation averaged more than 52 inches with a maximum area above 64 inches on the western sides and peaks of the Appalachian and Allegheny Mountains in West Virginia. Seasonal Regional Average Climatic Norms Regional Average Climatic Normals (1971 -2000) by Season Wintpr Snrina CnmmPr Fail Ar,I.,.a1 Total Precipitation (Inches) 7.80 10.03 10.74 10.01 38.58 Average Daily Max Temperature ( °F) 44.5 65.0 84.8 67.6 65.5 Average Daily Minimum Temperature ( °F) 23.3 40.0 60.5 42.7 41.7 Average Daily Mean Temperature ( °F) 3 3.9j 52.5 72.7 55.2 53.6 25 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Playa Update Chapter 4: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c) (2) (i): [The risk assessment shall include a description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences ofhazard events and on the prohahility offuture hazard events.] The localities in the NSV are prone to many natural and manmade hazards. Virginia has experienced thousands of hazard events, resulting in millions of dollars in losses and casualties, and Presidential disaster declarations. To meet the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, a Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) has been developed and included by the localities in this Hazard Mitigation Plan update. This Chapter is formatted as follows to comply with regulations: 1. Introduction to the HIRA process 2. Declared Disasters. (as updated from 2007 Plan) 3. Hazard Inventory (Flood, Nonrotational Hurricane Wind, Severe Thunderstorms and Lightning, Tornados, Wildfire, Drought, Extreme Heat, Winter Storms, Ice, Erosion, Dam Failures, Earthquakes, Karst (sinkholes), and Landslides) 4. Hazard Rankings Process and Results 5. Hazard Identification Risk Analysis (HIRA) Critical Facilities and vulnerability Introduction to the HIRA Process HIRA is a systematic way to identify and analyze hazards to determine their scope, impact and the vulnerability of the built environment to such hazards. The purpose of the HIRA is to: 1. Identify what hazards could affect the NSV 2. Profile hazard events and determine what areas and community assets are the most vulnerable to damage from these hazards 3. Estimate losses and prioritize the potential risks to the community The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment for the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency !Operations Plan Support Annex 3 - Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (by the University of Virginia Polytechnic Institute's Center for Geospatial Information Technology [CGIT]) was reviewed to identify natural disasters likely to be experienced in the NSV and formed the baseline for this update. Each of the hazards has been evaluated for its impact on the area to facilitate the ranking and analysis in this Plan update. FEMA guidelines emphasize using "best available data" for this plan. Data availability issues were compounded by the lack of standardization and records. Inadequate information about 26 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update local features such as critical facilities and infrastructure remain in this update and will be evaluated and revised annually during the Plan review process, as new information becomes available. To the degree data was available, this section will cover identifying hazards, ranking of hazard events, and assessing vulnerability to the NSV, estimating potential losses by jurisdiction, assessing vulnerability of critical facilities, and estimating potential losses of such facilities. The facility vulnerability assessment and loss estimation is discussed later in this chapter. Declared Disasters Hazard History of Major Disasters The 2007 Plan lists major disasters that have occurred in the planning region over the past seventy -five years, including Presidentially- declared disasters. Communities in the NSV have received 12 Presidential Disaster Declarations since 1972. Additional major disasters declared since the 2007 Plan include the following. When no community- specific description is available, the general description represents the entire planning area, Presidential Disasters declared in Virginia since the 2007 Plan-, Source: http: / /www.fema.gov /disasters Virginia Severe Storms and Straight -line Winds event June 29, 2012 to July 1, 2012; Major Disaster Declaration declared on July 27, 2012 (DR- 4072). Tropical Storm Lee event September 8, 2011 to September 9, 2011; Major Disaster Declaration declared on November 17, 2011 (DR- 4045). Virginia Earthquake event August 23, 2011 to October 25, 2011; Major Disaster Declaration declared on November 4, 2011 (DR- 4042). Virginia Hurricane Irene event August 26, 2011 to September 4, 2011; Emergency Declaration declared on August 26, 2011 (EM- 3329). Virginia Coffman Fire event February 19, 2011; Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on February 20, 2011 (FM- 2861). Virginia Smith Fire event February 19, 2011; Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on February 20, 2011 (FM-28 60). Virginia Severe Winter Storms and Snowstorms event February 5, 2010 to February 11, 2010; Major Disaster Declaration declared on April 27, 2010 (DR- 1905). 27 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Virginia Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm event December 18, 2009 to December 20, 2009; Major Disaster Declaration declared on February 16, 2010 (DR- 1874). Virginia Severe Storms and Flooding Associated with Tropical Depression Ida and a Nor'easter event November 11, 2009 to November 16, 2009; Major Disaster Declaration declared on December 9, 2009 (DR- 1862). Virginia Severe Storms and Flooding, Including Severe Storms and Flooding Associated with Tropical Depression Ernesto event August 29, 2006 to September 7, 2006; Major Disaster Declaration declared on September 22, 2006 (DR- 1661). Hazard Inventory This section provides a description of the natural hazards that threaten the planning region Throughout the United States, communities are vulnerable to a variety of natural hazards that threaten life and property. This Plan identifies and discusses the following Natural Hazards: .o Flood a Hurricanes and Coastal Storms o Severe Thunderstorms o Tornados o Wildfire o Drought /Extreme Heat a Winter Storms o Ice o Hail o Erosion o Dann Failure a Earthquakes © Karst (Sinkholes) o Landslides Some hazards are interrelated while others are unique distinct events. For example, hurricanes are often associated with flooding; severe thunderstorms can include lightning, flooding, and landslides, and hail occurs during thunderstorms, winter storms, and tornados. For the purposes of this Plan, man -made hazards such as dispersal of chemical or biological agents are not included in this discussion. The steering committee requested hail be included with other events. In accordance with FEMA guidance for hazard mitigation planning, this Chapter addresses the hazards in the following sections: 28 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • Hazard Extent - a broad characterization describing the extent in terms of strength, duration and or magnitude. General types of impacts are presented in this section. • Community ranking of Hazards — numeric and qualitative ranking of hazards in the NSV region by the steering committee, localities, and the public. • Location of Hazards -- the geographic areas affected by natural hazards. • Impacts from Hazards — a description of the types of effects on the community, population, structures, and future losses, as data is available and as guided by the steering committee. • Probability of Occurrence — an evaluation using historic occurrences, committee experience, and the best available information to determine the likelihood of future occurrences (statistical data and qualitative rankings by the committee as low, medium, or high). Unless otherwise specified, the hazards, location, extent, and future probability remain the same throughout the planning region. Floods Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United States. Nationally, about 150 people are killed in floods each year. Nearly ninety percent of Presidential Disaster declarations result from natural events in which flooding is a major component. Historically, Virginia's most significant floods have been associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. Usually the result of excessive precipitation, floods may be classified as general floods, characterized by prolonged precipitation over a specific watershed, or flash floods, the product of heavy, localized precipitation of short duration. Watersheds for the region are presented in the previous Chapter 3, on Figure 3.2. For the most part, the severity of a flooding event is determined by a combination of the topography of the region, the type and duration of the precipitation event, percent slope, soil type, existing soil moisture, and the extent and type of vegetative cover. According to the Society for Wetland Scientists, vegetation and wetlands in particular are known for abating the severity of a flood event absorbing a wall of water and like a sponge, slowly releasing the water downstream several days or weeks after a flooding event, Flooding is also likely within wetland areas due to high groundwater tables to the surface. The acres of wetlands are presented below for each County within the region. The wetland types are palustrine freshwater habitats. These were mapped using GIS layers of a National Wetland Inventory available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as listed below for each locality. Page County has the highest percentage of land in wetlands, with over I I% of the total land area in wetlands. Over 7% of the total land in Warren County is wetlands and more than 3.5% of Clarke County's total land is in wetlands. In Shenandoah County just over 2.6% of the land area is 29 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update wetland. Less than one percent of the land area in both Frederick County and the City of Winchester is wetlands. Locality Locality Size (Sq Mi) Locality Size (Ac) Wetland Acreage (Estimated from NWI maps) Clarke County 178 113,920 1 4,086 Frederick County 416 266,240 1,914 Page County 314 200,960 22,550 Shenandoah County 513 328,320 8,693 Warren County 216 138,240 9,736 Winchester City 9 5,952 12 In Virginia, usually floods extend from several days of steady rainfall and can include river, flash, and coastal floods. River floods and flash floods are the most significant and most likely to occur in the NSV region. Excessive rain and surface water runoff in large quantities result in river flooding. Often flash flooding is initiated with a series of several small storms, or a large event that causes streams to swell due to excessive precipitation and runoff within watersheds (see watershed in Figure 4 -1, below). The intense rainfall event exceeds surface absorption capacity and streams spillover their bankfull depth. Flash floods are often associated with slow moving thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tropical storms. The immediate release of water can also occur from an ice jam moved or a breech in a dam or levee. During a flash flood, mountain headwaters and downstream waterways quickly exceed their bankfull depth. This is further exacerbated in urban areas where there are more impervious surfaces resulting in immediate runoff diverted to adjacent waterways. Pervious grounds provide a higher degree of precipitation infiltration. Rapidly moving water from floods can result in damage to buildings, bridges, and roads. Coastal floods are usually caused by storm surges, waves created by strong winds, and heavy rains associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, nor'easters and other large storm systems. Nationally the unadjusted damage from floods is reported by McGraw Hill Construction Engineering News Record in calculations of Construction Cost Indices (CCIs). The CCIs for losses from flooding due to Hurricane Katrina have not been fully realized but exceed $42 billion. Other national flood losses for the time between 1985 through 2010 range from $750 million to $16 billion annually (with the exception of Hurricane Katrina). Nonrotational Wind Hurricanes and Nor'Easters The rotational movement of winds (counterclockwise north of the Equator) around a center of low pressure are often manifested as hurricanes, tropical storms, and nor'easters. These cyclonic 30 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update events often precede a series of other events (flooding and severe thunderstorms). Tropical cyclones form over tropical waters and carry heat and heavy moisture with high damaging winds, heavy precipitation, and often, tornados. The heavy wind forces create wind- driven waves, storm surges, and tidal flooding along coastal areas and inland. The full impacts of coastal flooding were not detailed in this Plan update. Many hurricanes and tropical storms form over the Atlantic Ocean and warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean waters between June through November, and travel north, northeast often snaking landfall in Virginia. An average of six storms a year reach hurricane status, and one a year (on the average) reaches Virginia, according to the National Weather Service. As a hurricane is forming, barometric pressure in its center drops while winds outside the center increase. If winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour (mph) the systems is designated a tropical storm, assigned an alpha -name, and tracked by the NOAA National Hurricane Center in Florida. If the winds are sustained at or above 74 mph, the storm is upgraded in severity to a hurricane and classed by categories according to the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale at the National Hurricane Center. Hurricanes can be categorized as 1 (least severe) to 5 (most damaging intensity) as listed below. Hurricanes are often precursors to flooding from all the heavy rainfalls that occur for days before, during, and after the event has travelled north. 31 Saffir-Si H urr i cane Damag Hurricane Sustained Winds Damage lle�cript�an Category (mph) Potential Minimal damage to unanchored mobile homes along with 1 74-95 Minimal shrubbery and trees. There may be pier damage and coastal road flooding, with storm surge 4 -5 feet about average. Moderate damage potential to mobile homes and piers, as well as significant damage to shrubbery and tress with some damages to 2 96-110 Moderate roofs, doors and windows. Impacts include flooding 2 -4 hours before arrival of the hurricane in coastal and low lying areas. Storm sure can be 6 -8 feet above average. Extensive damage potential. There will be structural damage to small residences and utility buildings. Extensive damage is to mobile homes and trees and shrubbery. Impacts include flooding 3 -5 hours before the arrival of the hurricane cutting off the low 3 111-130 Extensive lying escape routes. Coastal flooding has the potential to destroy the small structures, with significant damage to larger structures as a result of the floating debris. Land that is lower than 5 feet below mean sea level can be flooded 8 or more miles inland. Storm sure can be 6 -12 feet above average. Extreme damage potential. Curtain wall failure as well as roof 4 131-155 structure failure. Major damage to lower floors near the Extreme shoreline. Storm surge generally reaches 13 -18 feet above average Severe damage potential. Complete roof failure on residence and 5 > 155 industrial structures, with complete destruction of mobile homes. Catastrophic All shrubs, trees and utility lines blown down. Storm surge is enroll neater than 18 feet above average. 31 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Nor'easters are cyclonic winter storms that develop when two air pressure systems interact over the Atlantic Ocean; with a counterclockwise rotating air pressure system combining with a high pressure clockwise air system that results in intense moisture from the northeast. Damages associated with nor'easters include erosion, ice and heavy snow. Nor'easters typically occur between November through April. Climate Chanize Impacts The area has a moderate climate. Average temperatures are approximately 50 degrees, and range from January lows in the mid -20s to July highs in the high -80s. Annual rainfall averages above 40 inches and is supplemented with approximately 14 inches of snow. Climate change is future threat that could exacerbate and magnify existing hazards. Extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 40 to 50 years and this trend is projected to continue. Rising sea levels, coupled with potentially higher hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, flooding streams, and (coastal) storm surges are expected to have a significant impact on communities, more directly to coastal communities and secondary impacts are anticipated to affect the NSV. More intense heat waves may mean more heat - related illnesses, droughts, and wildfires. As climate science evolves and improves, future updates to this Plan might consider including climate change as a parameter in the ranking or scoring of natural hazards as recommended by the steering committee. Severe Thunderstorms, Lightning, Hail According to the National Weather Service (NWS), more than 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year; however, only about 10 percent are classified as severe. Although thunderstorms generally affect only a small area, the extent of their impact is often enhanced by their ability to generate tornados, hailstorms, strong winds, damaging lightning, and flash floods. Thunderstorms occur in all regions of the United States and are very common in the NSV region. Thunderstorms form when moist, unstable air is lifted vertically into the atmosphere and the rising air cools, condenses, and forms thunder clouds cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. Thunderstorms may occur singly, in lines, or in clusters and may move through an area very quickly or linger in place for several hours. Lightning is the discharge of electrical energy resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm. The lightning flash occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes but the surrounding air cools following the bolt. This rapid heating and cooling of the surrounding air causes thunder. On average, 89 people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the United States and according to National Severe Storms Laboratory, under NOAA, in Virginia most lightning strikes occur under trees and second in open spaces. Lightning often results in power outages 32 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update across wide areas. Hail can be associated with severe thunderstorms, tornados, and winter storms. Hail can cause damage to roofs and flat metal surfaces such as cars. Hail is often experienced for a short duration, however its impacts can be destructive. As noted on the National Weather Service NOAA - NWS -NCEP Storm Prediction Center website, derecho winds are the product of what meteorologists call downbursts. A downburst is a concentrated area of strong wind produced by a convective downdraft. A typical derecho consists of numerous downburst clusters ( "families of downburst clusters ") that are, in turn, comprised of many smaller downbursts, microbursts, and burst swaths. Tornados Tornados are windstorms characterized by funnel clouds extending to the ground from the clouds. Tornados can be spawned by hurricanes and other intense low pressure systems. Wind speeds range from 40 to 300 miles per hour. Damage from high winds, flying debris, lightning and hail is often extreme. Often hail accompanies tornados and can cause damage in addition to the gusting winds. On average, there are about 1,200 tornados with 80 storm- related deaths and 1,500 injuries reported across the United States annually. Tornado season runs from late winter to mid - summer, primarily in the southeast. Tornado wind speeds vary and surface impact from a brief touch down to a more severe extended surface contact. The Fujita Scale, as modified in 2007 by findings in the Building Assessment Report, Midwest Tornados of May 3, 1999, uses damage caused by a tornado and relates the damage to the fastest 114 -mile wind at the height of a damaged structure (NWS, 2012 website). The modified Enhanced Fujita scale (EF scale) is based on damage from 28 indicators and a finding of a degree of damage. The degree of damage is based on estimate of wind speed, a lower bound of wind speed and an upper bound of wind speed, building material and density of structures. FO (Gale) F1 (Weak) F2 (Strong) F3 (Severe) F4 (Devastating) F5 (Incredible) July is the most common month for tornados in Virginia with an average of FO to F1 storms (Storm Prediction Center, National Weather Service).. Wildfire The U.S. Forest Service estimates an average of 5 million acres burns every year in the United States, resulting in millions of dollars in damage. Once a fire begins, it can spread at a rate of up to 14.3 miles per hour. Wildfire can be sparked by sun or lightning. A fire requires fuel to burn, air to supply oxygen, and a heat source to bring the fuel up to ignition temperature. Heat, oxygen and fuel form the fire triangle. Controlling any wildfire involves affecting one of the three sides 33 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update of the triangle. How quickly a wildfire can spread depends on fuel, weather and topography, according to the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF). When relative humidity is low and high winds are coupled with a dry forest floor (brush., grasses, leaf litter), wildfires may easily ignite. Years of drought can lead to environmental conditions that promote wildfires. Accidental or intentional setting of fires by humans is the largest contributor to wildfires. Residential areas or "woodland communities" that expand into areas of low development also increase the risk of wildfire threats. Spring (March and April) and fall (October and November) are the two primary seasons for wildfires, though they can occur year - round. Secondary effects from wildfires can pose a significant threat to the communities surrounding the hazard. During a wildfire, the removal of groundcover that serves to stabilize soil can lead to hazards such as landslides, mudslides, and flooding. In addition, the leftover scorched and barren land may take years to recover, posing severe erosion and decreased water duality impacts, Each year, about 1,600 wildfires consume a total of 8,000- 10,000 acres of forest and grassland in Virginia. During the fall drought of 2001, Virginia lost more than 13,000 acres to wildfires. Records indicate that most of Virginia's wildfires are caused by people. As Virginia's population continues to grow, so does the use of forests for recreation and residential development, thereby increasing the risk of wildfires. Since the 2007 Plan, there have been two Declarations for Fire Management Assistance. These were in and near the planning region. See below: • Virginia for Virginia Coffman Fire on February 19, 2011 in Rockingham County south of the planning region. Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on February 20, 2011 (FM- 2861); and • Virginia Smith Fire on February 19, 2011 in Warren County. Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on Sunday, February 20, 2011 (FM- 2860). In addition, during the summer of June and July 2012, there were three significant wildfires in the planning region on both Shenandoah National Park Iand and U.S. Forest Service's George Washington National Forest lands. The final acreages burned remain unofficial at this time; however, estimates of over 800 acres burned in the Shenandoah National Park in Warren and Page Counties has been reported; and the U.S. Forestry Service's Massanutten Mountain fire covered over 1,162 acres in the national forests Lee Ranger District's parts of Warren and Shenandoah Counties, The Forest Service said there were 700 lightning strikes counted in the forest during late June 2012 and lightning was the cause. In addition, the Forest Service also reported the Neighbor Mountain fire east of Page County that began with lightning burned over 2,163 acres. Several trails in the Shenandoah National Park, Massanutten Mountain, and Neighborhood Mountain were temporarily closed due to fires. 34 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Drought Meteorological droughts are precipitation deficits compared to average, or normal, amounts of precipitation over a given period. Crop and livestock needs, soil moisture and groundwater presence affect agricultural droughts, while hydrological drought is directly related to the effect of precipitation shortfalls on surface water and groundwater supplies. Socio- economic drought results from precipitation shortages that limit the ability to supply water dependent products to the marketplace. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality maintains a drought map monitoring the Shenandoah Valley. Due to the topography of the Valley and the rain shadow of the mountains, the NSV region is prone to droughts if precipitation is low. Where other locations in Virginia might experience low precipitation, the NSV region may experience a drought watch or warning. The State Climatologist listed the Shenandoah Valley as the driest area in Virginia, with New River region also dry. The localities of the planning region prepared and adopted a regional Water Supply Plan that was submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on November 2, 2011. The regional Water Supply Plan identified a protocol for addressing and broadcasting droughts in the event of a climatic condition and methodology to disseminate information. The 'Water Supply Plan includes drought triggers for each locality and references a drought ordinance to be implemented in the event of a drought watch, warning, and emergency including voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures. The DEQ has a daily drought website for the NSV region based on precipitation, river flow, water well elevations, and soil moisture ( hgp: / /www.deq.vir ig nia. og v/Programs/ Water /WaterSupplyWaterOuantity /Drou hg t.aspx) Extreme Heat An extreme heat event is characterized by a prolonged period of temperatures 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature accompanied by high humidity. Under normal conditions, perspiration produced in response to elevated temperatures evaporates, cooling the body. High humidity, however, slows the evaporation process, resulting in discomfort and a greater challenge to the body to maintain normal temperatures. Elderly persons, young children, persons with respiratory difficulties, persons with special needs, and those who are sick or overweight are more likely to become victims of extreme heat. Studies indicate that a significant rise in heat - related illness occurs when excessive heat persists for more than two days. Extreme heat in urban areas can create health concerns when stagnant atmospheric conditions trap pollutants, resulting in overall poor air quality. In addition, the urban heat island effect can produce significantly higher nighttime temperatures than those in surrounding suburbs. (http: / /www. economics,noaa.gov/ ?goal= weather &file= events /temp) 35 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Flan Update Winter Storms, lee Winter storms vary from moderate, short durations of snowfalls to full -blown blizzards lasting several days. Winter storms may include snow, sleet, hail, and freezing rain to a mix of all. Sleet hits the ground as a frozen solid, accumulating like snow and causing slippery conditions for pedestrians and motorists. Freezing rain occurs when surface temperatures fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit and the rain freezes on contact and creates hazardous glazed surfaces. Freezing rain can glaze trees, adhering to limbs and power lines, causing them to potentially snap under the weight of the ice. Winter storms and heavy snows have long term impacts on the planning region including ancillary effects of loss of electricity, loss of access to important/critical facilities (hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, groceries, fueling stations), as well as loss of access to needed supplies like food, medications, water, sewer, and fuels. Hail sometimes occurs during severe winter storms causing additional impacts to glass windows, roofs, and cars. Erosion Erosion is the transport of top soil by water, wind, ice and gravity. The breakdown of rock produces loose particles that can slough off such that the soil and rock debris is transported. Moving water is the primary agent transporting Earth's material and wind is the second cause of transporting materials. Channel scouring and stream bank destabilization may follow a rain event. Erosion potential is generally determined by a number of factors including vegetative cover, topography, soil, slope, weather, and climate. Loose materials on steep slopes with no vegetative cover are more likely to erode than compacted particles on vegetated low lying areas.. Dann Failure Failure of even small structures can result in loss of life and significant property damage. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Darn Safety updated its safety regulations as of December 2010 and is in the process of evaluating the many dams constructed with or without proper permits throughout the Commonwealth. Of particular concern are the many aging impoundments that have not been properly maintained and lie upstream of developed properties. Earthquakes An earthquake is the movement of Earth's surface in response to radiated seismic energy resulting from volcanic or magmatic activity, slippage or buckling along tectonic plates or other sudden adjustments of subsurface stresses. Earth's areas of greatest instability occur along the perimeters of its tectonic plates. Earthquake hazards include ground shaking, landslides, faulting, 36 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update ground liquefaction, tectonic deformation and tsunamis. Earthquakes can result in widespread, extensive damage to the built environment, severe injury and loss of life, and the disruption of the social and economic fabric of the affected area. Most property damage, injuries and deaths result from structural failure and collapse. The amount and type of damage relates directly to the amplitude and duration of motion which vary according to the size of the quake, its depth, location and regional geology. Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is expressed by reference to the Richter Scale, an open -ended logarithmic scale that describes the energy released through a measure of shock wave amplitude. Karst, Sinkholes Karst is a landform feature created from the dissolved rocks that can take the form of caves, caverns, sinkholes, seeps, springs, disappearing streams, and ponures. Sinkholes are common in areas characterized by soluble bedrock including limestone or other carbonates, salt beds, or any rock that can be dissolved naturally by circulating ground water. As rock dissolves, spaces and caverns develop underground. When the weight of the overlying land mass exceeds subsurface support, a sudden collapse may occur. The degree of susceptibility varies with the extent and character of the soluble rock, its location with regard to the water table and local climate conditions. According to FEMA, insurance claims for damage resulting from sinkhole formation have increased 1,200% from 1987 to 1991, costing nearly $100 million. Landslides A landslide is the mass movement of earth material down a slope. The process is driven by gravity and may occur instantaneously with a sudden rush of rock and debris or imperceptibly as a very slow movement over time. Landslides may be triggered by natural events such as heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, stream incision, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. (United States Geological Survey http: // pubs. usgs.gov /pp /n1183 /t)latel.html. Given the steep slopes throughout the planning region, the probability for landslides are high. The Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy is currently evaluating the vulnerability of the planning region to landslides, with a study of Page County. Community Hazard Raking Process and Results Identifying and Ranking Hazards The first step, hazard identification presented above, identifies all the natural hazards that might affect the planning area. The hazards were subsequently ranked by the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee to determine what hazards are most likely to impact the communities of NSV Regional Commission. The hazards that are determined to have significant impact are 37 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update analyzed in the greatest detail to determine the magnitude of future events and the vulnerability of the community and its critical facilities. Hazards that receive a moderate or Iimited impact ranking are analyzed at a less detailed level consistent with risk, available data and vulnerability methodology. The risk assessment requirements mandate an overview of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the planning region. The potential hazards likely to occur in the NSV pose impacts equally to the communities, businesses, governments, and environment are due to the geographical setting of the Valley making vulnerability fairly ubiquitous throughout the region. To determine the hazards that pose the greatest threat, the following data sets were reviewed and evaluated: the Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan; historical data on events that have occurred both regionally and throughout Virginia; the 2007 NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan data; data collected from collaboration with various agencies (including Department of Mines Minerals and Energy and Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Quality, and Department of Forestry); hazards identified in guidance materials provided by FEMA Region III; and other regional mitigation plans of jurisdictions located within Virginia. The approved updates were used to assess the impacts of the hazards. A list of hazards was identified by the steering committee for an assessment and ranking of hazard in terms of threats to recovery as well as capacity to respond to a hazard. The ranking methodology included a survey poll issued to the localities and responses collected by NSVRC staff and summaries reviewed by the steering committee. Although any type of disaster is possible for any given area in the United States, the most likely natural hazards that could potentially affect the communities in the NSV, based on past incidence and the knowledge of the Steering Committee, the Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the 2007 NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, include the following as the most likely hazards posing threat to the NSV region: • Droughts • Flooding • Hurricanes • Tornados • Wildfires • Winter Storms • Severe thunderstorms and lightning • Landslides The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee expressed a desire to also include an assessment of the man -made or human - caused hazards that could affect the planning area in future planning 38 Norther Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update efforts. While human - induced disasters were not fully characterized within the scope of this Plan update, this type of hazard was noted. One strategy in this Plan update includes a full assessment of human - induced disasters in future hazard mitigation plan iterations. The human - caused hazards briefly mentioned in this Plan as well as referred to in the 2007 Plan include: • Hazardous Material Spills • Pipelines Eruptions 1 Explosions • Mass Evacuation from Northern Virginia • Terrorist activities Hazards were ranked by the Steering Committee and the public to determine what hazards were judged to have the largest impact on their communities and capacity to respond. The results are summarized in Table 4 -1 below. The level of hazard was determined by response from the committee members, local jurisdictions, and the public. Based on the input of committee members the hazard rankings were numerical then divided into four distinct categories (High, Moderate, Low, or None) which represent the level of ranking during this planning process. In order to focus on the most critical, the committee determined hazards assigned a level of Significant 1 High or Moderate received the most extensive attention in the remainder of the planning process, while those with a Low ranking were assessed in more general terms. Earthquakes were not addressed in the 2007 Plan; however, since the 2011 earthquake (Presidential Declaration), earthquakes have been included in this update of the PIan. It was interesting to note the rankings for man -made hazards ranked higher than wildfires, dam failures, extreme heat, drought, and earthquakes. Table 4.1 Hazard Rankings 2012 Hazard Ranking in order of 1 (most significant) to 10 (least Hazard 'Type significant) Flooding Riverine High 1 Including winter Winter Storm/ Ice / Extreme Cold m storms, ice storms, (tie and excessive cold ranking) ranki ng) High Wind/ Hurricane Hurricane High 2 (tie ranking) Tornado Tornado High 3 Lightning Storm Moderate 4 39 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Thunderstorm Moderate 5 Pipelines Pipelines 6 Mass Evacuation from Northern Mass Evacuation Virginia from Northern 6 Virginia Hazardous. Moderate — Hazardous materials Spills all Human materials Spills Caused 6 Wildfire Wildfire Moderate 7 Dam Failure Due to Flooding J Low bridges Dam Safety Moderate 8 Extreme Heat Heat Low 10 (tie ranking) Drought Heat Low 10 (tie ranking) Earthquake Earthquake Low 11 Landslide /Steep Slope Landslide /Steep Law 12 Slope Hail Hail as part of Low 13 (tie Storm ranking) Erosion Landslide/Steep Low 13 (tie Sloe ranking) Land Subsidence / Karst Karst Low 14 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION RISK ASSESSMENT (HIM The mandated hazard identification risk assessment (HIRA) section of this chapter was conducted using various methods based on available data. The HIRA is listed separately for each hazard type and includes an assessment of impacts on critical facilities, estimated losses to facilities, and vulnerability to the hazard based on the history of such hazards. The 2007 PIan served as a baseline for the HIRA and is updated herein. The risk assessment includes a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards identified, including a summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Unless otherwise stated, each hazard is anticipated to affect the region with the same likelihood of impact and each locality is considered to be equally vulnerable to the natural hazard. Vulnerability includes the following based on availability of data and guidance from the hazard mitigation steering committee: • The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; • An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. E,X Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • An estimate of the likelihood of risk to a locality from a hazard based on the general description of land uses and development trends within the community. As noted above, if a specific locality's risk varies from that of the region in this multijurisdictional risk assessment, the specific jurisdictional risk is noted. The information for analysis and data used for each of the hazard varies. Critical Facilities According to FEMA a critical facility is defined as a facility, in either the public or private sector, that provides essential products and services to the general public, is otherwise necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in the jurisdiction, or fulfills important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. Critical facilities for the planning region were derived from a variety of sources in the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan. This updated list was based on input from localities to the 2007 Plan with known facilities from other NSV regional Commission Plans (2012 Solid Waste Plan, 2011 Regional Water Supply Plan, 2012 Regional TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan, and other regional strategic plans. This list of critical facilities will be reviewed annually and updated during accordingly as additional facilities are identified. The 2007 list of critical facilities was supplemented with ESRI data as well as geocoded facilities completed by the Virginia Tech Center for Geospatial Information Technology (CGIT). Critical facilities include fire /rescue stations, police stations, government /administrative centers, schools, and churches. Analysis for the region was completed using the best available data. Census blocks were used to assess the area's vulnerability to specific hazards such as winter storm and wind. The flooding analysis was conducted primarily using floodplain, tax parcel and building footprint data provided by the communities and NSVRC. For some communities, structure points were determined using Virginia Base Mapping imagery, which was then intersected with the floodplain data for the region. Structure value was established using average house value in the 2010 Census data. The 2010 Census data for average structure value per block was used as a replacement cost in the event of a disaster. This value can serve as a guide in assessing the impacts of various hazards in future analyses. Inadequate information posed a problem for developing loss estimates for most of the identified hazards. The primary limiting factor was that the hazard mapping precision is at only a relatively large scale (i.e., the County or jurisdiction level) as opposed to precision at a smaller scale such as census block or parcel. In addition, many of the hazards, such as winter storm and wildfire, do not have defined damage estimate criteria, limiting the ability to perform a quantitative loss estimate. The FEMA guidelines emphasize using "best available" data for this plan, therefore, a variety of methodologies were used based on the type of data that was available. The 2007 Plan used data from the NSV Regional Commission and member jurisdictions including tax parcels, zoning, street mapping, some utilities, building footprints (where available), and critical facility 41 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update information which was updated herein. All other data were derived from existing sources or created by the Virginia Tech Center for Geospatial Information Technology, as updated from the 2007 Plan. Critical facilities, residential and industrial buildings within the 100 year floodplain were identified for quantitative damage analysis. The Hazards US - Multi - Hazard (HAZUS -MH) model was used to estimate dollar damages from hurricanes in the NSV region. This cost amount was increased S% since the 2007 where cost justification was not available. Flooding A flood occurs when an area that is normally dry becomes inundated with water. Floods may result from the overflow of surface waters, overflow of inland and tidal waters, or mudflows. Flooding can occur at any time of the year, with peak times in the late winter and early spring. Snowmelt and ice jam breakaway contribute to winter flooding, while seasonal rain patterns contribute to spring flooding. Torrential rains from hurricanes and tropical systems are more likely in late summer. Development of flood -prone areas tends to increase the frequency and degree of flooding. Floods typically are characterized by frequency such as the "1 %- annual chance flood," commonly referred to as the "100- year" flood. While more frequent floods do occur, as well as larger events that have lower probabilities of occurrence, the 1 %- percent annual chance flood is used for most regulatory and hazard identification purposes. Floods pick up chemicals, sewage and toxins from roads, factories, and farms. Property affected by the flood may be contaminated with hazardous materials. Debris from vegetation and man- made structures also may become hazardous following the occurrence of a flood. In addition, floods may threaten water supplies and water quality, as well as initiate power outages. Flooding can pose significant secondary impacts to the area where the event has taken place. Some of the impacts include infrastructure and utility failure, as well as impacts to roadways, water service and wastewater treatment. These impacts can affect the entire planning district, limiting the availability of emergency services in the impacted area. Detailed data was available as "Q3 flood maps" exist for all of the Counties in the planning area, as indicated in the 2007 Plan; however, several Towns are missing Q3 maps. The Q3 flood maps are digital versions of the FEMA paper Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) that have been georectified and digitized. These maps were utilized to determine the risk and vulnerability of flooding in the planning area compared in 2007 Plan to recent conditions. The 2007 Plan mapped all floodplains in the region and the data has not changed for this Plan update. County, City and Town - specific maps are included in locality EOPs. It should be noted that no FEMA floodplain map exists for the Towns of Boyce and Toms Brook; therefore maps for these Town are not 42 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Flan. Update included in their County/ Town ECI' at this time. The £loodplains and flood zones are presented on Figure 4 -1 from the FEMA FIRMS database. 43 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Figure 4 -1. NSV Floodplains and Flood Zones Northern Shenandoah Valley RC FEMA Designated Flood Zones Legend FEMA Fload zones Major Water Bodies Streams & Rivets NSPDC Town Boundaries NSVRC Boundaries Stall- of West Virginia Shenabdoah -� C�nunty _ 7°own o(., _Mount Jpr RNx Count% SLite of �:...s Tbwp oF.. - v- �=r f�1 ur3y . r.Tnwn of ..�rSt5nley. '. n anaoan.... Pd£ ,�1'tdllihlln iC'i() of Cotutty G ,'H�jn.ts� tarp Rappulianntx L Cntrettp NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Source FEMA FIRMS, 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan F °� baseline, updated Ca iu►t9 '' she ter W1 Tgwn of ' ' Tqsvn Town of -` - of Luirtit3Un SEe¢!t¢ns ity - aogoe - . Count) _ - `r"FyZvIt�OC C&Tke C010t)' r Strss6xtr� - �" Town oL, Toms Brook . ° - not Front Royal �,n Krnek v Feuyuii r_t,Ur,15 1 Waurrt Cnunty �:...s Tbwp oF.. - v- �=r f�1 ur3y . r.Tnwn of ..�rSt5nley. '. n anaoan.... Pd£ ,�1'tdllihlln iC'i() of Cotutty G ,'H�jn.ts� tarp Rappulianntx L Cntrettp NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Source FEMA FIRMS, 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan F °� baseline, updated Cull- fwr County 02 4 E 72 IF ntii� Scale: 1'725.000 Projection: Geographic Datum: NAD 1983 44 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Flood Hazard History The 2007 Plan included descriptions of major flood events in Appendix C that occurred in the Northern Shenandoah Region. Events have been categorized by the date of occurrence and where available, by individual community descriptions. When no community- specific description is available, the general description represents the entire planning area. Updated events since the 2007 were included in the beginning of this chapter. Vulnerability Analysis Specific areas that are susceptible to flooding were determined by using the FEMA floodplain data and the information collected during the project kick -off meeting. Flooding in the region tends to be riverine in nature along the tributaries of the Shenandoah River. Localized flooding also can occur in the narrow valleys throughout the area and in the more urbanized areas where impervious surfaces exacerbate flood conditions. Flooding in the NSV has some variation due to drainage areas. For many of the upland areas along the slopes of the Blue Ridge, there are steep narrow valleys that flood during localized precipitation events. In some urban areas there exists a combination of small drainage areas and an undersized stormwater drainage system that can cause localized flooding. For the Towns in the region that are located along the North or South forks of the Shenandoah River, the flood warning time is slightly greater, but events like Hurricane Isabel can quickly cause flooding along the many meanders of the rivers. It is important to note that the Counties and Towns are currently assessing stormwater detention basins and evaluating their effectiveness. The stormwater detention basins evaluated are those located within County jurisdictions through a regional Chesapeake Bay TMDL grant. The grant will assist localities by identifying flood retention capacity of basins. The results are anticipated in 2013 and will be used to prioritize future flood control actions. Many factors contribute to the relative vulnerabilities of areas within the floodplain. Some of these factors include development or the presence of people and property in the floodplain, flood depth, flood velocity, elevation, construction type, and flood duration. The current list of repetitive loss properties is presented in Appendix C, supporting documentation. A majority of the repetitive loss structures in the region are single family homes, though the structures with the highest claims are non - residential. The total amount paid on the repetitive loss structures for the region is more than six million dollars. The impact of flooding on structures was estimated based on best available data for floodplains and structures for each community. Table 4 -2 shows the sources for the structure values used for the flood loss analysis. The average structural value per census block updated from the HAZUS- MH in the 2007 Plan was used. The impact of flooding on structures was estimated based on best available data from the U.S. 2010 Census Bureau, the Weldon Cooper Center, and NSV Regional Jobs Assessment Report, jointly compiled by the Front Royal — Warren County 45 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Economic Development Agency and Shenandoah University, 2012. For many communities, tax parcel databases provided the lot improvement value which related to the structural replacement value. When this data was not available, structure locations from the 2007 Plan and aerial photography were used for analysis. Table 4-2. Northern Shenandoah .. Data Availability Ccsminuni Structural and Property Data Clarke County GIS building footprints and from County tax parcel database. *Town ofBerry;4I]e GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 2007 HAZUS -MH with 2010 census blocks. Town ofBoyce No mapped floodplains. GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using Frederick County 2007 HAZUS GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using *Town ofMr'ddletown 2007 HAZUS GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using *Town ofStepheras City 2007 HAZUS Page County Digitized floodplain building locations from aerial photography. Average building value per census block from FEMA HAZUS -MH. Town ofZuray Digitized floodplain building locations from aerial photography. Average building value derived from HAZUS -MH census blocks. 'Town ofStanley Digitized floodplain building locations from aerial photography. Average building value derived from HAZUS -MH census blocks. *Town of Shenandoah Digitized floodplain building locations from aerial photography. Average building value derived from HAZUS -MH census blocks. Shenandoah County GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 2007 HAZUS -MH with 2010 census blocks. GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 'T awn ofEdrnburg 2007 HAZUS GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 'Town ofMount Jackson 2007 HAZUS GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using *Town ofNew Market 2007 HAZUS *Town of Strasburg GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 2007 HAZUS -MH with 2010 census blocks. *Town of Toms Brook GIS building footprints without values. Building value from County tax parcel database. `Town of Woodstock GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 2007 HAZUS 46 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update Table 4-2. Northem Shenandoah .. Data Availability Cqmmuni y Struauml and Property Data GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using Warren County 2007 HAZUS Clarke Count GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using 'Town oFFront Rayal 2007 HAZUS *Town ofBerryville GIS building footprints. Average building value derived from updates using City of Winchester $144,224,812 *Town ofBo ce 2007 HAZUS The flood vulnerability was determined for each locality based on the intersection of floodplain map and the digitized 1 mapped point locations. This varied by locality based on the available data. Table 4 -3 lists the total replacement value of structures vulnerable to flooding (both partially and entirely within the floodplain) in each community. These replacement values for structures were calculated as 15% greater from the 2007 HAZUS -NM based on data from Weldon Cooper Center and the 2010 U.S. Census block average values were used. These values are likely to be underestimates, especially for any non- residential structures in the floodplain. Estimates of the losses presented in the 2007 Plan using Benefit Cost Analysis were revised in this 2012 Plan update due to a limitation of the analysis with an estimated underestimated loss to higher -valued structures, such as businesses and critical facilities. When this method was used for these multi - million dollar structures, the loss estimates were unrealistic, since many of these structures in the vicinity of the floodplain may be elevated or have floodproofing measures in place which would reduce damages. Therefore, the maximum amount of damage for individual structures was capped at $400,000 from a 100 -year storm event (which translates into $10,000 as an annualized loss). The values in Table 4 -3 reflect this assumption. Table 4-3. Structure Value Vulnerability Comrnunit3r Total Structure Value Vulnerabili $14,419,443 Clarke Count $0 *Town ofBerryville $144,224,812 *Town ofBo ce $1,378,724 Frederick Coun $621,242 *Town of Middleto wn $4208,526 *Town ofStephens City $22,389,488 Page County 47 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Table 4-3. Structure Value Vulnerability Community Total Structure Value Vulnerabili $730,538 *Town ofLura $204,930 *Town of.Stanley $71,518,408 'Town of,Shenandoah $4,810,450 Shenandoah County $767,510 *Town of Edinburg $500,000 (estimated) *Town ofMountjackson $3,577,075 *Town ofNewMarket $1,000,000 (Town estimate) *Town of.Strashur $228,322 'Town of Toms Brook $625,715 *Town of Woodstock $161,910,375 Warren Coun $14,019,443 *Town ofFront Royal $139,425,829 City of Winchester $876,845,291 Total *Denotes Town values that are also included in totals for the respective County Table 4 -4 shows the annualized loss estimate for damage to structures and contents, broken down by community. Some of the highest losses are in the City of Winchester, and in the Towns of Berryville, Front Royal, and Luray. This trend is consistent with the 2007 Plan. 48 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation plan Update Table 4-4. Annualized Stmaure a Contents Loss $277,836 CoII111 uni $102,488 Clarke CouE $0 *Town ofBer 71e $1,162,476 *Town of Boyce $10,981 Fredexick County $5,111 *Town ofMidd(etown $229,219 "Town of Steph ens City $132,876 Page Count $4,335 *Town ofLuray $1,216 Town ofStanle $424,235 *Town ofShenandoah $28,337 Shenandoah Coun $4,555 *Town ofEdinbur $0 *Town ofMount)ackson $21,229 *Town ofNew Market $1,562 *Torun of Strasburg $1,355,047 *Town of Toms Brook $3,714 *Town of Woodstock $960,903 Warren Count $895,84$ *Town of Fron tRo al $5,621,971 City of Winchester $277,836 Totals .Denotes Town values that are also included in totals for the respective County 49 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Critical Facilities The impacts of flooding on critical facilities can significantly increase the overall effect of a flood event on a community. It should be noted that these facilities have been determined to be in the floodplain using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and that this analysis should be used only as a planning tool. In order to accurately determine if a structure is actually in the floodplain, site - specific information must be available. These critical facilities have been identified as being in the floodplain (Table 4-5). Table 4-5. Critical Facility Name Facilities in Type the Floodplain Jurisdiction F&M Bank Educational Center School Town of Berryville (Clarke County) Keystone Christian Academy School Town of Berryville (Clarke County) Duncan Memorial United Church Town of Berryville (Clarke County) Water Treatment Plant Public Utility Town of Berryville/Clarke Coun New Hope Baptist Church Church Frederick Coun Meadowbrook Freewill Baptist Church Town of Middletown (Frederick County) Strasburg Town Hall Government Town of Strasburg (Shenandoah County) Strasburg Public Works Facility Public Utility Shenandoah County / Town of Strasbur Burnshire Dam Public Utility Town of Woodstock Woodstock Water and Waste Water Treatment Plants Public Utility Town of Woodstock Edinburg Pump Station Public Utility Town of Edinbur New Market Water and Waste Water Treatment plants Public Utility Town of New Market Stoney Creek Dams Public Utility Shenandoah Coun Melkite Greek Catholic Church Church Warren Coun Warren County Administration Building Government Town of Front Royal (Warren County) Front Royal Fire Department Fire & Rescue Town of Front Royal (Warren Coun ) _Dynamic life Praise and Worship Church Town of Front Royal (Warren County) Public Safe Building Government Warren Coun Skyline High School School Town of Front Royal (Warren County) Front Royal Water Treatment Plant Public Utility Town of Front Royal Shenandoah University School City of Winch ester Mt Carmel Baptist Church Church City of Winchester Winchester - Frederick SPCA (Animal Shelter) Government City of Winchester / Frederick Coun Winchester City Hall Government City of Winchester Reuss Fire Company Fire & Rescue City of Winchester Winchester Water Treatment Plant Public Utility Shenandoah / Warren Counties 50 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Calvary Baptist Church Church City of Winchester Celebration Fellowship Church City of Winchester Christ Episcopal Church Church City of Winchester First Presbyterian Church Church City of Winchester Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church Church City of Winchester John Mann United Methodist Church Church City of Winchester Market Street United Methodist Church City of Winchester United Methodist Church Church Town of Lura Luray Water and Waste Water Treatment Plants Public Utility Town of Lura Shenandoah Water and Waste Water Treatment Plants Public Utility Town of Shenandoah Shenandoah Town Hall Government Town of Shenandoah Stanley Water and Waste Water Treatment Plants Public Utility Town of Stanle Dams at White House I Public Utility I Page County NFIP Repetitive Loss The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Strategy is a combined effort between FEMA's Mitigation Directorate and the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) that identifies properties most at risk for repeat flooding, and to reduce their flood exposure through targeted acquisition, relocation, and or elevation. A repetitive loss building is defined as one that has had at least two insured losses in any 10 -year period since 1478. The VDEM provided a list of repetitive Joss properties in the NSV region. Many of these repetitive loss properties are not currently insured, some have already had structural or non - structural mitigation (acquired and removed, elevated, or flood proofed), and others may have dropped insurance coverage for economic or coverage reasons. Nationally, these buildings are projected to cost the NFIP $200 million per year. Additionally, new repetitive loss properties are identified each year. FEMA has identified target buildings that are currently insured and have the greatest risk. There are 8,753 buildings with four or more losses, and 1,160 buildings with two or three losses that exceed building value. Although most target buildings are single - family residences, 25 percent of the dollar losses are to non - residential buildings. FEMA regional offices are making this information available to VDEM and NSVRC. According to FEMA, these properties will cost an estimated average of $57,500 to acquire, relocate, or floodproof (Federal share is $43,125 at a 75125 cost share). The projected mitigation costs assume that half the buildings will be acquired or relocated and half will be elevated or floodproofed. FEMA will continue to work with VDEM as a partner to effectively use HMGP funds to mitigate target properties. To assist in remediating these properties FEMA has developed the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS) that assigns credits 51 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting of floodprone properties with bonuses added for addressing repetitive loss buildings. Communities that have 10 or more repetitive loss properties are required to address these and other at -risk structures for mitigation options in a floodplain management plan. VDEM provided NSVRC with a list of repetitive loss properties located within the planning region (Appendix A). The steering committee was provided with copies of the repetitive loss properties. As a regional strategy, all participating jurisdictions have prioritized mitigating repetitive loss properties by acquisition and relocation or elevations and other structural improvements. All jurisdictions with the exception of the Town of Boyce participate in NFIP and plan to continue compliance with NFIP requirements. The Town of Boyce will seek full participation as staff and flood maps are available and continue compliance with NFIP requirements through Clarke County. The CRS provides premium discounts in communities that exceed NFIP minimum requirements. FEMA is working with Project Impact communities with large numbers of repetitive losses to include strategies to address those losses in their Memorandums of Agreement. Many Project Impact communities already have initiatives underway to address repetitive losses. The hazard mitigation steering committee has identified CRS as an important resource and is working to better understand how localities can participate. The September 2012 monthly hazard mitigation steering committee included a presentation by the Virginia CRS coordinator. Under recommendation from the steering committee, NSVRC will advance the CRS program information to planning directors and chief administrative offers of to encourage the jurisdictions to consider participation in the CRS program. Hurricane (Nonrotational Winds) and Coastal Storms The 2007 Plan included major hurricanes, thunderstornn.s, and high wind events in the NSV region_ Events since the 2007 . Plan include Hurricane Irene in 2001 that passed east of the NSV region but left a swatch of high wind damages, flooding, and power outages. The Commonwealth of Virginia's Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan includes hurricane tracks in Virginia based on a historical representation of occurrences in the Northern Shenandoah region. Two hurricanes are known to have tracked through the NSV since 1851. In 1893, an unnamed hurricane tracked through Shenandoah County. In 1895, an unnamed hurricane tracked through the Counties of Page, Warren, Frederick and the City of Winchester. Hurricanes that have not tracked through the region still have had a considerable impact on the region. Notably, secondary impacts have caused loss of life, injury, property damage and widespread infrastructure damage (i.e. power and phone disruptions). An unnamed hurricane in 1893 tracked to the southeast of the region, as well as Hurricane Hazel in 1951. Hurricane Isabel in 2003 tracked to the southwest of the region in Rockingham County as a Category 1 hurricane and eventually weakened to a tropical storm. Hurricane Isabel impacted the Shenandoah National Forest from Page County through Front Royal's Big Meadows. Skyline Drive and 52 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard ]Mitigation Plan Update several trails were closed one night and the park employees were evacuated to a shelter. Damage throughout the greater Shenandoah Valley from Isabel total about $29 -34 million (2008 USD estimates). The flooding from the hurricane killed 25 -30 head of livestock in the Valley. The likelihood of a hurricane affecting the NSV region is low based the history of occurrences, However, in the event a hurricane passes through the planning region, each locality likely to be affected equally. Based on the date of occurrences and where available, by individual community descriptions, the following community- specific impacts are anticipated in the event a hurricane hits the planning region. The 2007 Plan presented a detailed vulnerability analysis using HAZUS-MH for wind analysis for vulnerability and loss estimates. The HAZUS -MH used historical hurricane tracks and computer modeling to identify the probable tracks of a range of hurricane events. The results of the 2007 Plan were determined to continue to be most reflective of the vulnerability analysis with highest wind speeds over the next 50 years (see Appendix F, 2007 Plan). The results were probabilistic wind speeds (50 -, 100 - and 1,000- -year return period peak gust in miles per hour) predicted by the FEMA HAZUS-MH model for the NSV region as shown on the 50 -year probabilistic wind event map, the northern portions of Frederick, Clarke and Warren Counties and City of Winchester are dominated by wind speeds less than 50 mph. The central and southern portions of the planning area were found to be dominated by 50 to 60 mph winds. The 100 -year probabilistic wind event map is uniform throughout the region with 60 to 70 mph winds. As with the 50 -year wind event, the 1,000 -year wind event follows the same trend, with 80 to 90 mph winds in the northern portions and 90 to 100 mph winds in the central and southern portions of the region. The impacts of these various events are combined to create a total annualized loss or the expected value of loss in any given year. The table 4.6 below presents the probabilistic building stock exposure by building type, based on the data from the 2007 Plan. The committee determined this probability was not anticipated to change although the dollar values of each community will be reflected in the total community assessed structure value in the following table. Based on the 2007 vulnerability assessment, the greatest wind damage would be to wood -frame buildings (63% of housing stock, based on 2010 Census data). For the NSV region, wood -frame buildings account for a large percentage of the building stock (63 %). From the analysis in the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, similar proportion of building stock applies including an estimate of 84% of the building stock for the NSV region is considered residential, and approximately 13% of the building stock is commercial and /or industrial. The smallest unit of analysis in the HAZUS-MH hurricane model is the U.S. Census track level, which is larger than most of the Towns in the region. Town exposure has been estimated as a percentage of the total housing units in the County. The County totals include the Town subtotals. 53 Northem Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Table 4.6. Building a Exposure (from from 2007 Plan Community Wood Masonry Concrete Steel MH Total $578,050.00 $223,135.00 $17,610.00 $53,189.00 $2,340.00 $874,324.40 Clarke County *Town of .$135,374.81 $52,256.48 $4,124.13 $12,456.45 $548.01 $204,759.88 Ber 'lle $19,463.27 $7,513.08 $592.94 $1,790.90 $78.79 $29,438.98 'Yawn afBa ce $2,166,860.00 $847,795.00 $64,943.00 $224,323.00 $76,388,00 $3,380,309.00 Frederick County *Town of $37145.75 $14,533.46 .51, 113.30 $3,84549 $1,309.49 $57,94750 Middletown *Town of $41,939.93 $16,409.21 $1,256.98 $4,341.81 $1,478.50 $65,426.44 Ste hens city $889,633.00 $347,719.00 $29,089.00 $83,45100 $42,447.00 $1,392,341.00 Pa e County $186,969.94 $73,078.45 $6113.50 $17,538.92 $8,920.88 $292,621.69 'Town ofLura $50897.59 $19,893.66 $166424 $4,774.50 $1428.47 $79,658.46 *Town ofStanley *Town of $72,085.72 $28,175.19 $2,357.04 $6,762.08 $3,439.42 $112,819.45 Shenandoah $1,531,930.00 $625,151.00 $64,553.00 $202,988.00 $27,513.00 $2,452,135.00 Shenandoah County *Town of $35,508.46 $14,49031 $1,496.27 $4,705.04 $637.72 $56,837.80 Edinburg *Town &Mount $72,67659 $29,657,91 $3,062.47 $9,629.99 $1,305.25 $116,332.22 Jackson *Town ofNew $71,49735 $29,17668 $3012.78 $9,473.74 $1,284.07 $114,444.62 Market 'Town of $172,606 91 $70,437.54 $7,273.37 $22,871.24 $3, 099.97 $276,289.02 Woodstock *Town of $175,445.84 $71,596.D5 $7393.00 $23,247.41 $3,150.95 $280,83325 Strasburg 'Town of Toms $11,137.34 $4,544.93 $469.31 $1,975.75 $20002 $17827.35 Brook $1,280,157.00 $497,712.00 $44,685.00 $114,692.00 $16,071.00 $1,949,307.00 Warren County *Town of Front $550,78690 $214,140.34 $17,504.70 $49,341.87 $6,91454 $838,688.35 Royal $986,567.00 $488,467.00 $77,475.00 $266,591.00 $2,144.00 $1,821,2400 City of Winchester Total 1 $7,433,197.00 $3,029,979.00 $294,355.00 $945,226.00 $166,903.00 $11,869,660.00 All values are in thousands of dollars *Denotes Town values that are also included in totals for the respective County The assessed property damage in the Plan update was based on 63% of the total property values as indicated below being wood - frame. Similar breakdowns were used from the 2007 to assess impacts to residential versus commercial / industrial property, where 84% of the impacts would be to residential property and 13% of the impacts would occur to commercial property. These are presented in Table 4.7, below. 54 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Table 4.7. Property Impacts from Hurricanes in the NSV Region. Tornados and Severe Thunderstorms Based on historical occurrences, the entire Commonwealth is vulnerable to thunderstorm and tornado activity. These natural hazards are often associated in tandem or where tornados occur as 55 Total Property Values (Based on Hurricane impact Locality (Counties Taxable Nontaxable Jan. 12012 Tax Estimates, Total exclude Town data) Structures Structures Book in Commissioner of Property Revenue of Damages locality) Winchester City $1,688,187,500 $631,410,100 $2,319,597,600 $1,484,542,464.00 Clarke County $100,433,600 $1,334,321 $101,767,921 $65,131,469.44 Town of Berryville $321,625,500 $205,840,320.00 Town of Boyce $43,555,800 $27,875,712.00 Frederick County $4,818,580,400 $682,128,000 $5,500,708,400 $3,520,453,376.00 Town of Middletown $47,206,900 $30,212,416.00 Town of Stephens City $82,404,900 $52,739,136.00 Page County $876,062,945 $114,710,700 $990,773,645 $634,095,132.80 Town of Luray $336,678,500 $49,750,100 $386,428,600 $247,314,304.00 Town of Shenandoah $120,398,300 $13,189,700 $133,588,000 $85,496,320.00 Town of Stanley $73,582,400 $16,162,100 $89,744,500 $57,436,480.00 Shenandoah County $1,667,765,100 $131,746,400 $1,799,511,500 $1,151,687,360.00 Town of Edinburg $59,902,800 $10,060,200 $69,963,000 $44,776,320.00 Town of Mt Jackson $104,433,100 $17,364,500 $121,797,600 $77,950,464.00 Town of New Market $115,013,000 $14,243,700 $129,256,700 $82,724,288.00 Town of Strasburg $361,050,700 $33,889,400 $394,940,100 $252,761,664.00 Town of Toms Brook $9,105,400 $1,879,000 $10,984,400 $7,030,016.00 Town of Woodstock $350,570,600 $99,347,000 $449,917,600 $287,947,264.00 Warren County $1,765,325,200 $388,091,600 $2,153,416,800 $1,378,186,752.00 Town of Front Royal $786,114,700 $255,284,700 $1,041,399,400 $666,495,616.00 TOTAL in NSV region 1 1 2,460,591,521 $1,574,778,573.44 Tornados and Severe Thunderstorms Based on historical occurrences, the entire Commonwealth is vulnerable to thunderstorm and tornado activity. These natural hazards are often associated in tandem or where tornados occur as 55 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update a result from severe thunderstorm activity. As noted above, tornados may also occur during a tropical storm or hurricane. The probability of a severe thunderstorm occurring in the planning region is medium, while the probability for a tornado is low. The vulnerability analysis was considered to be equal for the entire planning region, since there is no precise location nor prediction of where and to what extent thunderstorm and tornado damage may occur, therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $2,460,591,521 for buildings and facilities within the region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted. The total planning region population of 222,152 (2010 Census) is considered to be affected as well_ For the severe thunderstorm and tornado hazards, best available data on historical hazard occurrences (limited to NOA.A National Climatic Data Center records) was used to produce an annualized loss estimate of potential damages for each County. However, the likelihood of the impacts to the region as a whole were considered most likely by the steering committee and therefore, impacts to multiple Counties were anticipated to be the case. Wildfires The risk. assessment for wildfires was based on the number of woodland homes in proximity to forested areas. Since over 45% of the County's land cover is forested, the risk to woodland homes remains high. The VDOF's annual estimate of the number of woodland homes per County for 2011 is presented below in Table 4.$.. These are considered the populations and structures at highest risk. Table 4.8. Number County of Woodland Woodland Communities DO Total number of - Structures CIarke County 20 1,256 Frederick County 69 1,431 Page County 21 728 Shenandoah. County 82 3,255 Warren County 103 7,416 The Virginia Department of Forestry completed 13 fuel reduction mitigation projects in woodland home communities within the NSV region since the 2007 Plan. During 2011 alone, five of these 13 fuel reduction projects were completed based on one mitigation project in Frederick County, two in Shenandoah County, and two in Warren County totaling approximately $25,000 in mitigation costs. In 2010, the VA Department of Forestry conducted three fuel reduction mitigation projects in woodland home communities within Page County, totaling 56 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update $10,000. The remaining were between 2007 and 2010. Figure 4 -3 presents the wildfire potential in the NSV region based on wildfire history, forests, and woodland homes, as provided by the Department of Forestry. The participating jurisdictions in the NSV region participate in FIREWISE and have continued the strategy to participate in the program. Future evaluations of wildfire mitigation may consider Schwab and Meek's 2005 report to the Chicago American Planning Association "Planning for wildfires" (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 5291530. Chicago: American Planning Association.) The findings could be considered by land use planners in pennitting future development in fire -prone areas and how best to design such developments to reduce the risk of damage and loss. Overall the hazards listed in the 2012 update of this Plan remain the same as those ranking highest in the 2007 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The results of this assessment remain the same as the 2007 due to the location of the critical facilities remaining static for those located in higher fire -risk areas between 2007 and 2012. Wildfires are usually started by human accidents or lightning. Since neither cause are predictable, the extent is considered to be the woodland communities in close proximity to the forests. It is worth noting that sequential years of drought can lead to environmental conditions that promote wildfires. 57 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update sldu•,�r ' Northern Shenandoah Valley RC r,d, Wildfi Potential f' Legend Wildfire Risk _ JK Lcrr POtaniisi ,.: Mnderafe Patarrtial ' '• s tmidmm High Polenlial y � Ctmnlr Parks a Fnresls NSVRC Town Boundaries Sl,lft• of W'.N1. \'fr1;i»fa � aA4 X1 d w i�. 0 � ; FaAyuuw 1. nunfl �'T wn - '4 YL��poluiruxkl. { C'truulc kexk�n}m G�ranly cul[itrEwr CuumN li9:t�11.usp +T�tttis�i 6ur}; M NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update r i ° ' !, N Scefe i 725.147 (Source: 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan) L P t °JeG� °n.�e ° Datum. n>AO lsas Figure 4 -2 Wildfire Potential in the NSV Region The highest at -risk populations and structures, as assessed in the 2007 Plan, is 89% of the region's woodland homes fall into the high potential for a wildfire. This is an extremely high percentage, meaning almost all of the woodland homes are at a wildfire risk. Warren and Clarke Counties have the highest relative percentage of homes in areas of high wildfire potential, with 100% and 99% of homes in the highest risk category due to proximity of woodland homes adjacent to forested areas. Frederick County has the third highest relative risk for wildfire with 85% of woodland homes at risk. Frederick County has a high percentage of critical facilities at risk to wildfire (47 %) followed by Warren County (29 %). Overall, a relatively low number of critical facilities in the NSV are at risk to wildfire (24 %) events. 58 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Warren County, an estimated 59% of the County's population Iives in areas classified as having high wildfire potential, followed by Frederick County with 52% of its population living in areas of high wildfire potential. Critical facilities in Frederick and Warren Counties have the highest percentage of critical facilities in the high wildfire potential category. Drought and Extreme Heat A drought can be characterized in several different ways depending on the impact. The most common form of drought is agricultural. Agricultural droughts are characterized by unusually dry conditions during the growing season. Meteorological drought is an extended period of time (i.e., six or more months) with precipitation less than 75 percent of the normal precipitation. The severity of droughts often depends on the community reliance on a specific water source. The probability of a drought is difficult to predict given the number of variables involved. As seen in the 2007 Plan, drought conditions appear at least once a decade in the region. Many problems can arise after the onset of a drought, some of which include diminished water supplies and quality, livestock and wildlife become undernourished, crop damage, and possible wildfires. Secondary impacts from droughts pose problems to farmers with reductions in income, while food prices and lumber prices also could drastically increase. Since the 2007, the extreme drought and low water conditions have persisted in 2008 and again in 2012. The impact of extreme heat is most prevalent in urban areas, where urban heat island effects prevent inner -city buildings from releasing heat built up during the daylight hours. Secondary impacts of excessive heat are severe strain on the electrical power system and potential brownouts or blackouts. According to the National Weather Service, July 2012 was the hottest July in 141 years of record. July 2012 tied 1980 for the most number of days of 95 degrees Fahrenheit, or higher, in any month, within 16 days. July 2012 also had the most number of days of 100 degrees or higher in any month followed by second highest number of over 100 degree days in 1930 (National Weather Service). Below is a summary of drought categories and impacts. Notice that water restrictions start off as voluntary and then become mandatory. For excessive heat, the National Weather Service utilizes heat index thresholds as criteria for the issuance of heat advisories and excessive heat warnings. 59 Northern Shenandoab Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Droughts and extreme heat are both conditions that are expected to affect the region equally, rather than community specific impacts. In assessing vulnerability it was assumed that areas with less than 25% of the population with private source water systems were assigned a high vulnerability ranking. When a drought occurs, these areas would likely feel a larger impact since most homes receive their water from wells, which are at greater risk of going dry during a drought. Municipalities with surface water withdrawals for source water (river intakes) are at risk for experiencing decreased water supplies during severe drought conditions; and localities using groundwater are also at risk to drought impacts. While those jurisdictions with surface water supply sources of water are immediately affected by drought conditions, extended drought conditions equally affect the municipalities that rely on groundwater wells for source water. The groundwater table can lag behind surface water elevations by three to six months, depending upon the severity of the drought. This phenomenon was documented in the 2011 Regional Water Supply Plan referencing drought' impacts from 2002 affecting groundwater wells within a year from the surface water drops in elevation. All localities within this planning region are considered equally vulnerable to in decreased water elevations in response to a drought; however, those jurisdictions that have surface water intakes are considered to experience adverse impacts from a drought before localities on groundwater wells. hi addition, the rural populations in the Counties that are not connected to municipal water are primarily reliant on groundwater wells, with less than one percent on cistern rainwater collections (Virginia Department of Health, 2012 estimate). The jurisdictions that have surface water intakes include the City of Winchester, Towns of Berryville, Front Royal, Middletown (through purchase from Winchester), Strasburg and Woodstock. The localities that rely on groundwater as municipal source water include: Clarke County, Town of Boyce, Page County, Town of Luray, Town of Shenandoah, Town of Stanley, Shenandoah County, Town of Edinburg, Town of Mt Jackson, Town of New Market, Town of Toms Brook, and Warren County. In summary, all localities are anticipated to be impacted by drought equally, although those on surface water supplies are expected to be impacted before the remaining populations in the planning region. Communities at greatest risk 60 Drought Severity ro ategazy Description Possible Impacts Going into drought: short -term dryness slowing planting, growth of crops or Do Abnormally Dry pastures; fire risk above average. Coming out of drought: some lingering water deficits; pastures or crops not fully recovered. Some damage to crops, pastures; fire risk high; streams, reservoirs, or wells DI Moderate Drought low, some water shortages developing or imminent, voluntary water use restrictions requested D2 Severe Drought Crop or pasture losses likely; fire risk very high; water shortages common; inter restrictions imposed D3 Extreme Drought Major crop /pasture losses; extreme fire danger; widespread water shortages or restrictions Droughts and extreme heat are both conditions that are expected to affect the region equally, rather than community specific impacts. In assessing vulnerability it was assumed that areas with less than 25% of the population with private source water systems were assigned a high vulnerability ranking. When a drought occurs, these areas would likely feel a larger impact since most homes receive their water from wells, which are at greater risk of going dry during a drought. Municipalities with surface water withdrawals for source water (river intakes) are at risk for experiencing decreased water supplies during severe drought conditions; and localities using groundwater are also at risk to drought impacts. While those jurisdictions with surface water supply sources of water are immediately affected by drought conditions, extended drought conditions equally affect the municipalities that rely on groundwater wells for source water. The groundwater table can lag behind surface water elevations by three to six months, depending upon the severity of the drought. This phenomenon was documented in the 2011 Regional Water Supply Plan referencing drought' impacts from 2002 affecting groundwater wells within a year from the surface water drops in elevation. All localities within this planning region are considered equally vulnerable to in decreased water elevations in response to a drought; however, those jurisdictions that have surface water intakes are considered to experience adverse impacts from a drought before localities on groundwater wells. hi addition, the rural populations in the Counties that are not connected to municipal water are primarily reliant on groundwater wells, with less than one percent on cistern rainwater collections (Virginia Department of Health, 2012 estimate). The jurisdictions that have surface water intakes include the City of Winchester, Towns of Berryville, Front Royal, Middletown (through purchase from Winchester), Strasburg and Woodstock. The localities that rely on groundwater as municipal source water include: Clarke County, Town of Boyce, Page County, Town of Luray, Town of Shenandoah, Town of Stanley, Shenandoah County, Town of Edinburg, Town of Mt Jackson, Town of New Market, Town of Toms Brook, and Warren County. In summary, all localities are anticipated to be impacted by drought equally, although those on surface water supplies are expected to be impacted before the remaining populations in the planning region. Communities at greatest risk 60 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for agricultural damage to crops in the event of drought and or extreme heat include Shenandoah County and Frederick County due to the 2007 Ag Census Data of crops produced. Both Page County and Shenandoah County are at the greatest risk to poultry mortalities due to extreme heat since these Counties have the highest number of poultry houses and slaughter houses. The impacts to grazing animals remains constant to the region as a whole, with all Counties at equal risk to extreme heat and drought impacts to grazing. Severe Winter Storm The primary impacts of winter storms are minimal in terms of property damage and long -term effects. The most notable impact from winter storms is the damage to power distribution networks and utilities. Severe winter storms have the potential to inhibit normal functions of the community. Governmental costs for this type of event are a result of the personnel and equipment needed for clearing streets. Private sector losses are attributed to lost work and lost sales when employees and customers are unable to travel. Homes and businesses suffer damage when electric service is interrupted for long periods of time. Health threats can become severe when frozen precipitation makes roadways and walkways very slippery, when there are prolonged power outages, or if fuel supplies are jeopardized. Occasionally, buildings may be damaged when snow loads exceed the design capacity of their roofs or when trees fall due to excessive snow or ice accumulation on branches. The primary impact of excessive cold is increased potential for frostbite and potentially death as a result of over - exposure to extreme cold. Some of the secondary effects presented by winter weather and extreme cold are danger to livestock and pets, and frozen water pipes in homes and businesses. Winter storms can consist of a combination of heavy snowfall, high winds, ice and extreme cold. Winter weather typically impacts the state of Virginia between the months of November and April, with varied intensities from east to west. During the recent three years there were two Presidential Disasters declared due to winter storms. In order to create a statewide winter weather hazard potential map that captures this variability, gridded climate data was obtained from the Climate Source and through the VirginiaView program. The data was developed by the Oregon State University Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) using PRISM (Parameter - elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) and presented in the 2007 Plan. The data presented on the mapping technique includes point weather station observation data, a digital elevation model, and other spatial data sets to generate gridded estimates of monthly, yearly, and event -based climatic parameters. The winter weather risk assessment in this plan uses snowfall severity assessment because of the damage it can cause with road conditions. This assessment is based on monthly normal precipitation, mean annual days with snowfall greater than one inch, and mean monthly snowfall 61 Northern. Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update PRISM data to develop snow and ice potential maps for the state, which are extrapolated to the planning area. These datasets have been generated for the 2007 Plan to incorporate topographic effects on precipitation, capture orographic rain shadows, and include coastal and lake effect influences on precipitation and snowfall. The monthly precipitation grid provides a 30 -year climatological average of total precipitation in inches. The mean monthly snowfall grid provides a 30 -year climatological average depth of freshly fallen snow in inches. The mean annual days map reveals the 30 -year average of the number of days that a location will receive greater than one inch of snowfall in a 24 -hour period in a given year. As set forth in the 2007 Plan, a criterion of greater than one inch was selected for winter snowfall severity assessment because this depth will result in complete road coverage that can create extremely dangerous driving conditions and will require removal by the local community. This amount of snowfall in a 24 -hour period also can lead to business closure and school delays or cancellation. Figure 4 -3 shows the average number of days with snowfall greater than one inch for the Northern Shenandoah region, Figure 4 -3 NSV Average Days of Snowfall >1 Inch Northern Shenandoah Valley RC Snowfall Greater than t Inch Legend i Ave, Number of Days >1 Inch Hi9h'ifi Low :4 NSVRC Tmart Boundaries stdLo of %I vjrf;iMa fun Wrigharee 4 uunfy NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Original Map 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan stat" n t.tlilci[nin seat,... r � Cuurttt 4t�d n �s Fduqui�r Cirunl} f;appa h a ntK k County ar - Culpvjler ( offnh +49aihsrrn Cuunh p 2 a e 1 iR c,t a Scale: 1 : 7 25 am . Protection_ Geogr ieographic Datum: W 1983 62 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update General trends determined for the NSV region include: • Western portions of Frederick County have a moderate potential for snowfall in relation to the rest of the NSV region becausc this part of the County is at a higher elevation and temperatures are colder. Eastern Frederick County and the City of Winchester have a lower potential for significant snowfall because they are at a much lower elevation and are typically warmer. • Southern and eastern Clarke County falls within the moderate category for snowfall because of the higher elevation Shenandoah mountain range that exists within these areas, creating a colder climate. • Eastern Warren County has a higher potential for snowfall than western Warren because the Shenandoah Mountains make up the eastern border of this County, causing lower temperatures. + Central Shenandoah County has a moderate to low potential for snowfall because it is within the valley of the surrounding Shenandoah mountain ranges to the east and west. These two mountain ranges are what make the outer regions of this County fall into the moderate potential category. Due to the recent winter storms, this ranking was raised from the level presented in the 2007 Plan. + Southern Page County has the highest relative potential for snowfall because this region receives the most winter precipitation and is also at the higher elevations of the Shenandoah Mountains. Iee Another challenge presented by winter weather in Virginia and the NSV region is the amount of ice that often comes as part of winter weather. Snowfall and ice potential are generated based on the percentage difference between the total precipitation from November to April and the corresponding liquid equivalent snowfall depth. Since snowfall is in a frozen state, it does not accumulate on the surface the same way that liquid rainfall would. In order to account for this difference, characteristic snow /rain relationships have been created. For example, a value of 1 would mean that all of the precipitation at the location falls as liquid rainfall, while a value of 0.5 would mean that half of the precipitation falls as liquid rainfall and half falls as frozen precipitation. It is assumed that the lower this percentage, the greater potential that precipitation within these months is falling as snow. The values in the middle of the two extremes would represent regions that favor ice conditions over rain and snow. A five quantile distribution was applied to the output statewide grid to split the percentages into five characteristic climatological winter weather categories (snow, snow /ice, ice, rain/ice, and rain). 63 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update Figure 4 -4 shows the statewide winter weather map and Figure 4 -5 shows the NSV regional winter weather map. As depicted on Figure 4 -6, there is a small pocket of snow /ice mixture centered around the Town of Stanley and to the west of the Town of Luray. The data for the 2007 maps was evaluated and results remain the same with pockets of intense ice around Stanley and Luray. Ice potential is low throughout the NSV because this region of the state has a drier climate from November to March and because mean daily temperatures hover around 32° F during this same time period. This combination of drier climate and colder temperatures makes it difficult for significant ice storms to develop in the region. Figure 4 -4 Statewide Winter Weather Map (Source, 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dewbery) Hazardous Winter Weather Potential 64 snow ice It Dewberry- Ma�ep � 6byV * I TeehnaW6Y Snpwllce � ft &in /lce arw:o�muzma Rain m w{ 0 20 40 so ��� � PNe Smlrcar:NCM.tv���ypPI50A Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Northern Shenandoah Valley RC Hazardous Winter Weather Potential Legend l Snow L __.. Snowltoe Ice RainAce Rain NSVRC Town Soundariee 'eta h1,4R Yox`h of Luray Iioa'kinghum F ount)' T x-n of Sh d h Raw of VJim vn1 Inia 1'awry QE p Srrard�urg Town a( , Toms E-A T— nG wcadg'O' Shenandoah T—naf- ` County Edinhurj;: \\ T—n ' 1laonl,�l;san Ir— of MI Frederick County c y "Caunt 1lrarmn County rixf' pt4f1.1"W'K k C'aunty F.fuqux t C +Rirth C ullvh+-r C ,mnt\' /r ep�n as Page Madison County Ctrurio Aiam k11 ech Dewberr Map prepared by Virginia 'Tech Cuter for Ceospaeat lnformateon Terhndogy '+ r a 5 N Date: Nouamher 2005 Data SouriES: Vf CGIT, NSVRC, ESRI, VDOT, rw r. '- Scale: 1725.000 Projechon Geographic ..... �....�. -_ ... -,.. VirglnlaVlew PRISM - .'• .. " Datum WAD 15a3 Figure 4 -5: NSV Regional Winter Weather Map 65 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Figure 4 -6: Relative Snowfall in the NSV Region (Source: 2007 Plan) Northern Shenandoah Valley RC Relative Snowfall Potential Frederick Legend Snow Rlsk by Census Tract Low Potential Medium Potentiaf FEgh Potential N5VRC Town Boundaries Slate of West Virginia Shenand.A County / J Taxn f stauni Ja csun Cairn of Rockingh,un County of Map prepared by Vfrglnia Tech Dewberry Center for Geospatial Information Technology Date: October 2005 Data Sources: VT CGIT, NSVRC, ESRI, VDDT, VirginiaView PRISM P k iva of Ih ayre Clarke County Fauquier County 1''"Wn County '{"aan of L ray RdrratLtnnl>t °l: County Aludlson County Culf e rer Count ;Ite of L iudoun County i, 0 2 4 8 12 le N . _ rrliies 1 , Scale: 1:725,000 F Projecton: Geographic Datum: NAD 1983 i, Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The entire region is at risk for winter weather and ice potential although specific localities are at higher degrees of impact, as presented above. The 2007 Plan presented the vulnerability of winter storm and ice risk by assigning a high risk to those census blocks within the regions with the greatest potential for snowy days (> 1 inch of snow) or ice. Division into high, medium and low were based on the levels predicted from potential maps. Chapter 3 and Table 4 -8, below, present the population affected by the overall snowfall and ice risks. Previous winter weather mapping resolution did not support accurate Town -based analysis, since most Towns in Northern Shenandoah would be represented by one or two pixels at this resolution, and was therefore excluded from this update. Future revisions of this plan will develop a method to calculate the potential loss from these winter storms. Due to weather data providing better spatial resolution, future mapping efforts may depict Town -based analysis. As noted in the 2007 Plan, Page County and the Towns of Shenandoah and Stanley may receive more snow than other localities, based on previous loss impacts reported from winter weather. 67 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Shenandoah Table 4-8. Northem Population (from 1 ! Census, Modified from 11 Communi Low Medium IE h Total Clarke County 9,262 6,035 0 14,034 4,185 *Town of Berryville 4,185 0 0 589 *Town of Boyce 0 589 0 64,993 13,312 78,305 Frederick County 0 1,261 *Town of Middletown 1,261 0 0 1,825 *Town of Stephens City 1,825 0 0 - 17,310 24,042 Page County 0 6,732 4,895 *Town of Luray 0 3,671 1,224 1,422 *Town of Stanley 0 0 1,422 2,373 *Town of Shenandoah 0 0 2,373 25,196 16,797 41,993 Shenandoah County 0 1,050 *Town of Edinburg 1,050 0 0 2,368 *Town of Mount Jackson 0 2,368 0 2,570 *Town of New Market 0 2,570 0 7,660 *Town of Strasburg 7,660 0 0 252 *Town of Toms Brook 252 0 0 6,097 *Town of Woodstock 6,097 0 0 17,848 19,915 37,575 Warren County 0 9,819 4,621 14,440 *Town of Front Royal 0 26,203 City of Winchester 26,203 0 0 *Denotes Town values that are also included in totals for the respective County rs., Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Table • Northern Relative Risk community Shenandoah YiI Low Population 2010 Census) Medium High TOTAL Clarke County 14,034 0 0 14,034 *Town ofBenyville 4,185 0 0 4,185 *Town ofBoyce 589 0 0 589 Frederick County 78,305 0 0 78,305 *Town ofMiddletown 1,261 0 0 1,261 *Town ofStephens Ci 1,825 0 0 1,825 Page County 24,042 0 0 24,042 *Town ofLuray 4,974 0 0 4,974 "Town of Stanley 2,161 0 0 2,161 *Town ofShenandoah 1,532 0 0 1,532 Shenandoah County 41,993 0 0 41,993 *Town of Edinburg 1,050 0 0 1,050 *Town ofMount Jackson 2,368 0 0 2,368 *Town ofNew Market 2,570 0 0 2,570 'Town of Strasburg 7,660 0 0 7,660 *Town of Toms Brook 252 0 0 252 *Town of Woodstock 6,097 0 0 6,097 Warren County 37,575 0 0 37,575 *Town ofFrontRoyal 14,440 0 0 14,440 City of Winchester 26,203 0 0 1 26,203 *Denotes Town values that are also included in totals for the respective County Erosion Erosion vulnerability for the region is difficult to determine because there are no historical records for previous occurrences of erosion events. Vulnerability is limited to areas along rivers, creeks and streams to areas of steep slopes. Future updates to this Plan will attempt to address erosion vulnerability in greater detail. 69 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Dam Failure There are three Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed dams located within the planning region. In addition, there are numerous agricultural and other privately -owned dams. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has hired an engineering firm to modify and improve the spillway for the Stoney Creek dam at Lake Laura in Shenandoah County. The downstream populations that were at risk from that dam are considered to be remediated with the completion of the spillway modification. The downstream impacts to structures, property and populations is not available for analysis at this time from the existing dams. DCR is conducting an inventory of the dams in Virginia and will be providing an assessment of the dam condition. This data will go into their new website that will be used to calculate downstream populations and areas that could be impacted in the event of a dam failure. DCR issued a press release in June 2012 that it will partner with North Carolina's existing darn safety website. North Carolina's website is recognized as one of the best flood mapping and dam programs in the nation. The site will soon display Virginia flood maps, models, and data on flood hazards and risk for use by citizens, floodplain managers, emergency planners and responders. The Virginia data is due to appear on the website by "late - summer 2012 "; however, no data was online at the time of this Plan update. The website will allow users to estimate flood damage and costs to properties from various storms on an individual and community -wide basis. The data will be used to support and prioritize mitigation actions and to increase education about hazard mitigation options to reduce flood danger and losses. Local governments, responsible for enforcing floodplain ordinances to enable their citizens to qualify for National Flood Insurance, will benefit from the statewide accessibility of digital maps and data. Local and state emergency responders also will benefit from easy access to this information to better protect lives and property. DCR is currently finalizing their 2010 hazard potential policy providing guidance to calculate the "Dam break inundation zone" or that area downstream of a dam that would be inundated or otherwise directly affected by the failure of a dam. The NSVRC staff contacted DCR for a full assessment of all dams in the planning region; however, no data was made available in time for incorporation into this Plan update. Future updates of this Plan may include data from DCR dam evaluations and the new DCR website Earthquake An earthquake is the shaking of the ground's surface caused by movements of the plates beneath it. Though there have been historical occurrences of earthquakes that have affected the area, the probability and impact is low. According to the 2007 Plan and State data, the region's risk to earthquakes can be considered limited; however, the risk of potential losses should a significant earthquake event occur —for example an earthquake registering 8.5 on the Richter Scale —is considered to be moderate. The vulnerability analysis was considered to be equal for the entire planning region, since there is no precise location nor prediction of where and to what extent an 70 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update earthquake may occur, therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $2,460,591,521 for buildings and facilities within the region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted. The total planning region population of 222,152 (2010 Census) is considered to be affected as well in the event of an earthquake. The 2011 earthquake in Virginia affected several localities; however, the data for damages was not tallied at the time of compilation of this Plan update. In future iterations of the Plan updates with losses from the earthquake will be included as available. Most of the steering committee indicated there were earthquake losses experienced throughout the region; however, most localities did not estimate or quantify the damages. Earthquakes are tracked at l~EMA by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Future updates of this Plan may include updates from FEMA's earthquake management team to be help NSV communities be more disaster resistant to earthquake impacts in the future. Overall this ranking was very low for likelihood of occurrence. Karst According to a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University research on natural hazard mitigation planning in karst areas in Virginia, it is recommended urban and land use planning develop hazard mitigation strategies for the following three most common karst natural hazards in Virginia ( http:/ /scholar. lib. vt. edu /theses /available /etd- 05222003 - 230312 /unrestrieted/etd pdD • sinkhole subsidence, • sinkhole flooding, and • groundwater contamination. A sinkhole is a localized land subsidence, generally a funnel- shaped or steep -sided depression; caused by the dissolution of underlying carbonate rocks such as limestone and dolomite. The dissolution can connect to a subterranean passage, cavity, or cave. Sinkhole subsidence in developed areas cause costly damage to private property and community infrastructure and occasionally threatens human lives. Sinkholes regularly form along the 1 -81 corridor in Virginia. In March 2001, three sinkholes immediately appeared in Augusta County along 1 -81 and resulted in interstate closure of a nine mile stretch for remediation. VDOT indicated the largest of the sinkholes measured 20 -feet long, 11 -feet wide, and 22 -feet. In 1992, a Clarke County, home collapsed into a sinkhole that formed underneath its basement soon after drilling a new well on the property. Sinkhole flooding in karst terrain is part of the natural karst hydrologic system. Rivers, streams, and wetlands accept floodwaters and allow slow release into adjacent downstream areas. Likewise, sinkhole floodplains store floodwater until the natural drainage system accepts the excess runoff. However, many land planners and local governments are less familiar with sinkhole flooding and sinkhole floodplains because they do not occur along obvious flood prone 71 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update areas like perennial stream courses. In addition, land use managers and planners often underestimate the actual extent of sinkhole floodplains. In 2011, the DMME prepared a map of karst features including sinkholes. The NSVRC staff issued the karst map to all local government planning staff as well as to the regional Bay TMDL program and DCR state agency staff. A regional strategy in this Plan update includes increasing raised awareness of the DMME karst map. In addition to floodwaters, urban development exacerbates sinkhole flooding due to increased conveyance of channelized waters resulting from changes in the natural drainage patterns of the landscape. The increased quantities and velocities of stormwater runoff due to increased impervious surface clog sinkholes with eroded sediment, debris, and/or trash and increase the extent and frequency of sinkhole flooding in urban areas. By raising awareness to local governments the locations of known sinkhole and karst floodplains, a locality can consider limiting development in sinkhole floodplains, urban and rural communities minimize structural damage to buildings and community infrastructure, and help limit groundwater contamination. In February 2012, the Counties of the NSV region adopted a regional watershed implementation plan that included use of the DMME karst map for future planning efforts. Karst aquifers rapidly and directly convey large quantities of water throughout karst areas, thereby increasing the vulnerability of the groundwater quality to surface contamination. In karst areas, the groundwater is prone to contamination from land use activities due to the rapid and direct interconnections between the surface and groundwater. Groundwater velocities in karst aquifers are very rapid with velocities of feet to miles per day, leaving little time for infiltration and contaminant removal by percolating through soils. In the Town of Stanley in Page County, the municipality is considering the adoption of an ordinance that prohibits certain land use activities in the karst areas surrounding the local groundwater wells supplying the Town. In general, throughout the region, the areas along the Valley floor are most prone to impacts from land subsidence or a sinkhole. Landslides As presented in the 2007 Plan, the areas with the steepest slopes are most prone to impacts from landslides. Future updates to this Plan will quantify impacts to Page County slopes and be used as a model for similar adjacent topographic communities. Several communities have steep slope ordinances which prohibit or limit development on steep slopes. The populations located in jurisdictions with steep slope ordinances are at less of a risk including Clarke County, Town of Front Royal, Shenandoah County, and Frederick County (through a TDR program) 72 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Overall Future updates to this Plan will address trends as data is available from jurisdictions reflecting new development, projects, and or any population changes which exceed those listed in locality comprehensive plans at the time of this Plan update and the 2011 Regional Northern Shenandoah Water Supply Plan. Locality specific, projects and development in areas prone to hazards were evaluated since the 2007 plan and updated herein. The updated developments are reflected within the natural hazard sections and listed in the vulnerability analysis. Where data was not available, the localities will provide updates annually in survey to ensure the Plan is current reflecting development trends and projects in hazard prone areas. 73 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 5: Capability Assessment Capability is the capacity to carry out projects and policies designed to reduce future impacts from hazards. This includes the resiliency of the locality to respond to a hazard as well as resources and political will to implement policies and programs to strengthen hazard mitigation actions and implement strategies identified in this Plan. The NSV region's capability assessment was conducted to identify the ability and capacity of participating localities to develop and implement the full suite of hazard mitigation strategies. Outcomes of this assessment are to establish policies and programs, implemented through various projects and actions that reduce future impacts from hazards. The capability assessment determines the feasibility of achieving goals and strategies set forth in this Plan, based on the political and organizational structure of the localities, agencies, and departments responsible for implementation of the policies and programs. The capability assessment was conducted through a review and inventory of the following from each locality in the planning region: relevant ordinances, comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, and other programs and policies to identify strengths and weaknesses that might preclude the implementation of hazard mitigation actions and goals. The results of the inventory were reviewed and evaluated to make a determination on the sufficiency of jurisdiction's resources to implement effective hazard mitigation and its resiliency to respond to current and anticipated hazards. In addition, beneficial programs were noted for continued support and enhancement. This is particularly noteworthy with the regional collaborative nature that has been demonstrated among emergency response coordinators in the NSV region in emergency response and hazard mitigation efforts. The capability assessment helped drive and refine the appropriate mitigation actions identified in this Plan, and provide a roadmap for strengthening the capacity to implement the mitigation strategies to ensure the Hazard Mitigation goals listed in this Plan are realistically achieved. For the 2012 plan update, the Hazard Mitigation Committee and NSVRC staff reviewed and revised the inventory of local plans, regulations and ordinances developed in the 2007 Hazard ® Mitigation Plan. These include but were not limited to existing local plans, policies, programs or ordinances that contribute to and/or hinder the community's ability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators included information related to each jurisdiction's fiscal, administrative and technical capabilities such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. Factors that influenced capacity assessment were based on reviews of plans, codes, and staff, as summarized below. 74 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 75 .iurisdiGtiun NSV Camprehensrve Regional Capacity EOP x in Plans Staff ' GfP MunACi�taI Narrae Flan s Resources A. Code Staff, Planning, Emergency 1 Clarke County X X Management, CIP, Budget X Zoning, Stormwater Staff Planning z Town of Through & zoning, Budget x Berryville County Emergency Management 3 Town of X Through Limited Budget X Boyce County Staff, Planning, Frederick Emergency 4 County X X Management, CIP, Budget X Zoning, Stormwater Town of Through Clerk, Zoning, 5 Middletown County Limited Staff Budget X Town of Through Staff of 6 Stephens City X County Planner Budget g X Emergency 7 Page County X X Management Budget X Staff Planning, S Town of X (Town Plan) Through Zoning, Budget X Luray County Assistanttown manager Town of Economic Through Budget and 9 Shenandoah Development County Staff Revitalization X Plan Fund Town of Through Emergency 10 Stanley County Management Budget X Staff Emergency Shenandoah Management, 11 County X x Stormwater, CIP, Budget X planning and Zoning 12 Town of Through Staff Budget X Edinburg County Town of Through 13 Mount Staff Budget X Jackson County Emergency Management, 14 X x Stormwater, CIP, Budget X X planning and Zoning Town of Through 15 Strasburg County Staff Budget X 75 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Participating jurisdictions were also given the opportunity to provide additional information for the capability assessment through meetings convened to discuss needs and abilities to carry out the proposed goals. Inquiries to localities prompted discussion and identification of a locality's regulatory capabilities, staff (administrative and technical resources), fiscal resources, the resiliency and capacity to respond to hazards and implement new policies and programs and overall local governments political will implement the mitigation actions based on NSVRC experience from other regional and local planning programs. The results are presented in five groups of capability to implement including: emergency management; floodplain management; fiscal capability; staff resources; and planning and regulatory capability. Emergency management Various plans including the Emergency Operational Plans (EOPs), pandemic flu response plans, 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, fire codes, and other plans and codes were reviewed. This included detailed responsibilities and procedures to be followed to deploy resources in response to an emergency, disaster, or hazard. Each of the five Counties and the City maintain and implement their own FOP. In many cases the Towns are included in the EOPs for the Counties in which they are located; this is the case in part throughout the region and in full for Shenandoah County and its six Towns and also for Clarke County and its two Towns. Overall findings in this assessment are that each jurisdiction, either through its overarching County, or individually, has sufficient capabilities in emergency management. Areas for improvement (such as warning systems, etc., are noted in mitigation strategies). prof Limited, Staff 16 Town of Through planning Budget X Toms Brook County through NSVRC i7 Town of Through Staff Budget X Woodstock County Emergency Warren Management, 1s County X x Stormwater, CIP, Budget X planning and Zoning Emergency Management Town of also through 19 Front Royal X x County, CIP, Budget X Stormwater, planning and Zoning Emergency City of Management, 20 X x Stormwater, CIP, Budget X Winchester planning and Zoning Participating jurisdictions were also given the opportunity to provide additional information for the capability assessment through meetings convened to discuss needs and abilities to carry out the proposed goals. Inquiries to localities prompted discussion and identification of a locality's regulatory capabilities, staff (administrative and technical resources), fiscal resources, the resiliency and capacity to respond to hazards and implement new policies and programs and overall local governments political will implement the mitigation actions based on NSVRC experience from other regional and local planning programs. The results are presented in five groups of capability to implement including: emergency management; floodplain management; fiscal capability; staff resources; and planning and regulatory capability. Emergency management Various plans including the Emergency Operational Plans (EOPs), pandemic flu response plans, 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, fire codes, and other plans and codes were reviewed. This included detailed responsibilities and procedures to be followed to deploy resources in response to an emergency, disaster, or hazard. Each of the five Counties and the City maintain and implement their own FOP. In many cases the Towns are included in the EOPs for the Counties in which they are located; this is the case in part throughout the region and in full for Shenandoah County and its six Towns and also for Clarke County and its two Towns. Overall findings in this assessment are that each jurisdiction, either through its overarching County, or individually, has sufficient capabilities in emergency management. Areas for improvement (such as warning systems, etc., are noted in mitigation strategies). prof Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update F000dplain management Existing plans, ordinances and programs were evaluated including national flood insurance programs (NFIP) such as the Community Rating System (CRS), flood overlay protective districts (and ordinances), wetland protection plans, and other flood damage prevention ordinances. Locality and regional participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS rating and through participation receive flood insurance premium rates discounted in increments of S% according to CRS class designation. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities, organized under four categories of public information; mapping and regulations; flood damage reduction; and flood preparedness. This capability area was considered sufficient with respect to the presence of an active regional floodplain manager although there were areas identified to improve the capacities based on findings from this assessment including a community rating system and reduction in the number of houses on the repetitive properties list. There are currently no localities in the NSV planning region that are enrolled in the CRS program; however, efforts are underway to initiate the CRS program in the region. The need for a regional or local enrollment in the CRS was included in the regional mitigation strategies as an outcome of this assessment. The September 2012 steering committee hosted the Virginia CRS locality representative for the committee to consider CAS membership as a region and how to best advance recommendations to the planning staff of the localities. The recent stormwater regulatory program, being administered through the VA Department of Conservation and Recreation, mandates each locality have an adopted stormwater program and ordinance by July 2014. In 2012, the Counties and the City commenced developing a draft stormwater ordinance for their Council and Board consideration in 2013. Regionally, localities are initiating efforts to develop policies and programs to implement a stormwater program to conform to state code. This ongoing effort will enhance the local and regional capability of floodplain management. Another area of weakness in capability assessment finding under the category of floodplains is the quantity of repetitive loss properties and a mechanism to raise awareness to localities about opportunities to elevate, dry floodproof, or relocate and acquire such properties. Additional steps needed were identified to help localities with better understanding opportunities to reduce the list of repetitive loss properties. This area for enhancement is reflected in a regional strategy to reduce repetitive loss properties through abatement or acquisition. Fiscal capability Capital Improvement Plans were inventoried, and comprehensive land use plans and other plans were evaluated. Public funds invested in hazard mitigation improvements to the benefit of life and property within the region are important components of capability. In addition, having the resources to assert the priority projects and programs for capital improvements and the staff 77 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update needed to obtain funding to implement these projects are also critical. Results of the capability assessment indicated a need for increased fiscal resources dedicated to implement the hazard mitigation strategies. This Plan serves as a roadmap for localities to use to identify projects when funding opportunities become available. The Plan Maintenance section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan provides localities and NSVRC with a framework to evaluate progress on strategy implementation of hazard mitigation strategies and advancement of projects for grant funding. Staff resources This included a review of in -house staff for administrative and technical support. Findings from this assessment indicated a need for additional administrative and technical staff for some localities. Most localities in the region have one or more designated emergency service managers with clearly defined responsibilities. In Shenandoah and Page Counties the regional emergency manager assumes the responsibility for the Towns located within the County, where Town staff is limited. Where localities are limited in staff resources, NSVRC or other service providers offer support to help these localities meet the letter and spirit of the hazard mitigation goals and strategies. For example, the Town of Toms Brook had a planning consultant to assist the Town. In July 2012, this role was assumed by the NSVRC staff in the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan and to provide additional planning services to the Town. Based on regional support, this capability was considered sufficient. A regional strategy in the future could be identification and pursuit of planning grant funding opportunities to support additional hazard mitigation planning efforts of the localities in the region. This type of strategy could enhance the capability of staff resources. Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is demonstrated by the development and implementation of plans, ordinances, programs, and policies by a locality that reflects commitment to responsible growth and land management with a clear focus on community safety and welfare. Along with effective land use and transportation planning, capability is expressed by the presence and enforcement of comprehensive zoning and subdivision ordinances and building codes, as well as effective emergency response, and mitigation planning. In addition, protection of environmental resources demonstrates capability to improve resiliency of the natural resources to recover from hazards. This assessment included an overview of the key planning and regulatory tools and programs in place, or currently underway, in the jurisdiction and throughout the region. This capability was determined sufficient in terms of the presence of planning tools with the exception of several Towns lacking a comprehensive land use plan. The staff resource category findings and recommended strategies for increased planning support for all localities through application of additional planning grants could facilitate this capability to be uniformly strong throughout the region. 78 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Other areas identified to improve or enhance capabilities through planning and regulations are ensuring continuity and coordination of hazard mitigation strategies with other regional and local plans and programs. For example, localities could include a strategy to ensure plan consistency between hazard mitigation strategies and other planning efforts such as community development plans covering property acquisition or violation abatement; bridge improvements in transportation programs; and stormwater detention basin upgrades under the Bay TMDL watershed implementation plan. Along with identifying potential effects on loss reduction, this information will help determine opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts among existing strategies and will facilitate integrating this plan with existing planning mechanisms. The plans and ordinances reviewed include: disaster recovery plans, comprehensive land use plans, stormwater management plans, fire codes, building codes, historic preservation plan, zoning ordinances, building codes, and subdivision codes. This portion of the assessment aggregated the result from all five groups to help identify the capabilities within the planning region. Overall the assessment resulted in the identification of these areas for improvement: • continue to encourage and enhance regional and local emergency management; • update database gaps in floodplain maps and encourage floodplain management through policies and projects; • improve fiscal capability and implement mitigation strategies identified in this Plan to fund when grant opportunities arise, • increase local staff resources either at the local level and through regional support; and, • develop (continue to develop) a comprehensive planning and regulatory program in each locality to improve capability. 79 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies This mandated portion of the Plan provides localities with the platform from which to identify actions and programs to implement to reduce impacts of identified hazards. Based on the findings of the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (Chapter 4) and the Capability Assessment (Chapter 5), this Chapter includes the mission statement, goals and actions. Components of the Mitigation Strategy include: • Mitigation Goals • Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures • Mitigation Action SubPlan This NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012 update includes a review of hazards and focuses policies, programs, and projects that will reduce future impacts from hazards while achieving compatible economic, environmental, and socio- political goals. In addition, the Mitigation Action SubPian subsection herein identifies policies, projects, responsible entities and agencies to reduce effects from hazards and protect life and property. In addition, funding sources are identified as information is available. The Mitigation Action SubPlan is a sub -plan within this Plan and includes a spreadsheet format in the 2007 NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and lists specific strategies and projects, including descriptions, those responsible for implementation, potential funding sources, and estimated completion dates. This format provides a comprehensive checklist that can be used as a monitoring tool and ready reference of proposed policies and projects. Each hazard type (flooding, winter storm, nonrotational wind, etc.) was evaluated by localities in terms of impacts, ability to recover, capacity to respond to and potential to mitigate effects of (see results presented in previous chapters of this Plan) each hazard while meeting the goals listed below. Once and strategies were identified, similar ones were aggregated and applied to the region. Below is the approach to provide the framework for the strategy identification process. Following the mission statement and goals, this chapter provides a summary of the local and regional strategies. The mitigation strategies with tracking information are provided in the strategy section. These mitigation strategies were collaboratively prepared by the steering committee and individual jurisdictions using the strategies from the 2007 Plan, the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, and experience and desires of the planning team. These mitigation strategies provide the participating jurisdictions' blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, and ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. A thorough review was conducted of all jurisdictional comprehensive plans, budgets, and working knowledge of staff resources, to assess the capacity to implement the strategies. Interviews were conducted with jurisdictions' staff 80 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update involved in local planning, public works, and emergency management in order to assess the feasibility of a mitigation strategy and identify the best means to implement it. Reviews of jurisdictional budgets, comprehensive plans, building codes, and ordinances were likewise consulted in this Plan update. The value of the strategies is to also provide an outline for a jurisdiction to apply for funds to implement strategies and thereby reduce impacts from natural disasters. The annual review of the Plan and evaluation of strategies will be updated and revised as the jurisdiction and planning team determine needed. In addition, a series of goals were identified in the 2007 Plan and revised and updated herein to help implement the mitigation strategies and reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the natural hazards identified. This Plan includes a section dedicated to a Mitigation Action SubPlan that adheres to conventional planning with a mission statement, goals, and mitigation actions to reduce the impacts of future hazard events. The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee worked with NSVRC staff to guide the process. NSVRC staff held a series of meetings with localities (County -Town meetings) to facilitate the identification of key priority projects and policies to reduce impacts to life and property from hazards. The Steering Committee reviewed and helped develop regional preferences from the prioritized actions (policies, programs, and projects). Each step in the Mitigation Action SubPlan provides a clearly defined set of policies and projects based on a rational framework for action. The components of the planning framework are as follows: mission statement, goals to meet the mission statement, strategies to implement the goals through policies, programs, and projects. The result is prioritized list of policies, programs, and projects, including contacts responsible for implementation, estimated completion date, and potential funding source(s). The mission statement is: To reduce the physical and economic impacts from natural hazards on the local governments located within the NSV region to the benefit of life and property. The goals to achieve this mission statement provide a framework for the manifestation of the mission statement through policies, programs, and projects. These goals were identified using planning process identified in Chapter 2 of this Plan. These general hazard mitigation goals are broad policy statements that reflect what the jurisdictions seek to accomplish through implementation of the mitigation plan and strategies. The goals are tied directly to reducing the impacts of the hazards identified in this Plan update. 81 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • Goal #1: Minimize flood - related deaths and losses of existing and future structures. • Goal #2: Improve and update data needed for hazard mitigation efforts within the NSV Region for localities. • Goal #3: Implement policies that incorporate mitigation planning into the framework of local government in the NSV Region to enhance hazard mitigation. • Goal #4: Identify, prioritize, and implement (a list of) cost effective structural projects throughout the region to reduce the impact of hazards identified in this Plan update and fixture disaster events. • Goal #5: Offer hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness training to educate local staff and raise public awareness. • Goal #6: Develop educational outreach projects throughout the region to educate the public about the dangers of natural hazards and create a page on the NSVregion.org website for localities and the public. Based on the goals listed above, the following types of actions were identified. These actions will form the basis for the strategies. These actions have been identified to implement the strategies and achieve the goals in this Plan. These actions include project- specific actions to reduce the effects of hazards and reduce impacts to life and property (both existing and planned buildings and infrastructure). In addition, the problem spots identified in the 2007 Plan were reviewed and considered during the identification of the actions in order to ensure minimizing and or reducing those previously identified "problem spots" as well as for the overall improved resiliency of a jurisdiction to a natural hazard. As presented in the FEMA guidance: mitigation `actions and projects means a hazard mitigation action, activity or process (for example, adopting a building code) or it can be a physical project (for example, elevating structures or retrofitting critical infrastructure) designed to reduce or eliminate the long term risks from hazards. This can be met with either actions or projects, or a combination of actions and projects.' Strategies, or actions, were developed as a logical extension of the plan's goals. Most of these actions are dynamic and can change. The actions were prioritized for each jurisdiction based on past damages, existing exposure to risk, other community goals, and weaknesses identified by the local government capability assessments. The priorities differ somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These actions have been organized into a Mitigation Action Plan for each participating jurisdiction. The following actions form the basis for the development of mitigation strategies and individual Mitigation Action Plans for each jurisdiction. These goals and actions apply to the region and the individual jurisdictions. A. Community Awareness A.1. Encourage leadership within the public and private sector organizations to prioritize and implement local, County, and regional hazard mitigation activities as a public value. 82 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update A2 Establish cooperative relationships between the public, private, and non -profit sectors to enhance our preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation for hazard events. A.3. Support pre - disaster mitigation and remedial efforts, should damage from a natural hazard event occur. A.4. Introduce hazard awareness and risk reduction principles into the community's daily activities, processes, and functions. A.S. Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of the risks associated with natural and manmade hazards. A.6. Improve community education and communication as they relate to disaster. B. Local Capacity B.1. Assess the extent of our vulnerability to natural and man -made environmental hazards. B.2. Enhance the capabilities of local government to lessen the impacts of future disasters. B.3. Improve hazard assessment information to make recommendation to discourage new development (and encourage preventative measures for existing development) in areas vulnerable to natural and man -made hazards. B.4. Leverage additional federal, non - federal, and state resources in meeting natural disaster resistance goals. B.5. Encourage scientific study of natural and man -made hazards and the development of data to support mitigation strategies for those hazards that are a threat to the region and localities within. C. Property Protection C.1. Minimize the impact of natural and man -made hazards on property with the region and localities within and promote future disaster resistant development. C.2. Protect new and existing public and private infrastructure and facilities from the effects of natural and man-made hazards. C.3. Reduce damage to personal and public property including critical facilities. CA. Identify and protect critical services, buildings, facilities and infrastructure at risk to natural and man -made hazards and undertake cost— effective mitigation measures. D. Public Safety D.I. Enhance the safety of residents and businesses by protecting new and existing development from the effects of natural and man -made hazards through efficient policies and procedures. D.2. Ensure public health and safety within the region and localities within before, during, and following hazardous events. D.3. Protect the citizens to the best of our abilities from natural and man -made environmental hazards to reduce the loss of life and personal injury. 83 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DA. Create coordinated regional emergency response criteria to establish services through the use of federal, state, regional and local resources utilizing a regional reciprocating agreement. Mitigation Alternatives The results of the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and the 2047 Plan resulted in the generation of a range of potential mitigation goals and actions to address the hazards. A range of acceptable alternatives were then identified and provided to the steering committee and local jurisdictions during the identification of strategies and consideration of alternatives. When deciding on which strategies should receive priority in implementation, the communities considered: • Time — Can the strategy be implemented quickly? • Ease to implement — How easy is the strategy to implement? Will it require many financial or staff resources? • Effectiveness — Will the strategy be highly effective in reducing risk? • Lifespan — How long will the effects of the strategy be in place? • Hazards — Does the strategy address a high priority hazard or does it address multiple hazards? • Post - disaster implementation — Is this strategy easier to implement in a post - disaster environment? In addition, the anticipated level of cost effectiveness of each measure was a primary consideration when developing mitigation actions. Because mitigation is an investment to reduce future damages, it is important to select measures for which the reduced damages over the life of the measure are likely to be greater than the project cost. For structural measures, the level of cost effectiveness is primarily based on the likelihood of damages occurring in the future, the severity of the damages when they occur, and the level of effectiveness of the selected measure. Although detailed analysis was not conducted during the mitigation action development process, these factors were. of primary concern when selecting measures. For those measures, that do not result in a quantifiable reduction of damages, such as public education an outreach, the relationship of the probable future benefits and the cost of each measure was considered when developing the mitigation actions. On the following pages are the strategies that each jurisdiction developed for their community. The strategies are organized as an action plan and include the following: a priority ranking (high, medium, low based on steering committee and locality rankings); ability to achieve Goals 1 -6 and Actions A -D (A.1 -A.6; 13.1 -13.5; C.1 -C.4; and D.1 -D.4); responsible department; likely source of funding to implement; and target completion date. The Counties and the City of Winchester are presented in alphabetical order followed by the Towns in alphabetical order. As 84 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update part of the 2012 update of the NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2007 Plan strategies were reviewed and revised as progress or completion has occurred or needs dictate. Progress achieved on the 2007 mitigation strategies has been through ordinance reviews, floodplain reviews and locality staff interviews.. Action Plan To implement these strategies listed below, if a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is required, the participating jurisdiction will work with VDEM and NSVRC: staff to complete the BCA. Where indicated, the regional strategies are either new or if identified in the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the status is currently in- progress. NSV Regional Action Plan to implement Regional Strategies Regional Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1 -6) 1 Actions(A- Responsible Funding Target Completion D) Deptl Status Source Date Develop broadband coverage 21 Communications, 2 years from throughout the region to facilitate H All D.1, ❑.D.2, Emergency Management I In VDEM Plan rescue communication D.3, DA Adoption progress Prepare shelf -ready projects eligible for 0 1, 3! Emergency 1 year from the 5 /o projects under VDEM Hazard H All A _ D Management) In VDEM plan adoption Mitigation funding progress Obtain LED signage for localities to 61 Emergency 2 years from display in key locations to inform M ALL A.B, D.14 Management VDEM Plan citizens of emergency shelter locations Adoption Procure and install backup generators 1,41 Emergency 1 year from for lift stations for wastewater treatment H ALL C.14, D.14 Management VDEM Plan adoption plants throughout the region Install additional Iflows in rivers 1 1 Emergency 2 years from throughout the region and update the H Floods B.1, C.1, C121 Management/ In VDEM Plan digital readouts to facilitate transfer of D 2 progress or ,adoption data (analog. updates) initiated Address interoperability for enhanced 2/ Communications, 2 years from connectivity to facilitate regional M ALL 0.1, D.D.2, Emergency VDEM Plan response (strive to link radio systems D 3 D 4 Management/ In Adoption across the region, etc.) progress Secure generators and hook ups for all 41 Emergency 2 years from critical facilities as designated citizen H ALL C.1-4, D.3, Management VDEM Plan convenience sites DA Adoption Identify private and or public gas H ALL 41 C.1 -4 D.31 Emergency VDEM 2 years from Plan stations in the region as critical facilities DA Management Adoption Maintain asset list annually for shelters 2 ! Emergency 1 year from and keep In a central regional location M ALL . . B1 B2 Management/ In Locality Plan adoption for sharing resources and capacities ° progress Identify key Infrastructure along Floods, 1,2,41 Emergency regionally significant primary and Storms, P..3, Management, 2 years from secondary routes (map, inventory M Snow, 8.4, C. C.1 -4, 1-4, Transportation VDEM Plan , condition, recommend improvements, Hurricane, D.14 Planning (as Adoption identify resources to upgrade, etc.) Tornado available) Continue coordinated efforts between Emergency hazardous materials, law enforcement, 2,3,5! Management, Localities, Annually over fire &rescue for enhanced regional M ALL A.2, B.1 -4 , Planning Staff) In VDEM next five mutual aid and encourage coordination D.1-4 years of local planning efforts. progress ogress Develop and maintain regional mapping 2f 2 years from of assets (Inventory dry hydrants, etc.) L ALL B 1 B 3 GIS, Planning VDEM Plan for improved ISO rating. Adoption 85 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Perform an engineering study of non - designated floodplain areas that are 2 years from flood prone hazards in each locality. M Flood 21 GIS, Planning! VDEM Plan Maintain these high- hazard riparian H.1 -B.3 In progress Adoption areas on a regional and locality- specific mapped database. Ensure all localities within the planning H Flood 1,2/ GIS, Planning! VDEM 1 year from Plan region have FiRM flood maps up to date 13,1 -15.4 In progress Adoption Floods, Emergency Work with localities to improve Storms, 1 A.3, Management, an 2 years from documentation of flooding events and H Snow, C.1- 8.4, C.1 -4, Planning (as Plannning ing ( VDEM Plan impacts to transportation routes. Hurricane, , D.14 available) / I n Adoption Tornado p rogress Encourage all localities to continue to participate in NFIP in the future. H Flood 1,2/ GIS, Planning! VDEM Throughout 5 Improve repetitive loss properties BA -B.4 In progress year cycle. through acquisition or elevation. Provide regional HAZMUS -MH training 2, 56/ i 2 years from update for planners in localities and H Flood, A.1 -6, -5, GIS, Planning / In VDEM Plan update floodplain data, mapping, and B.1 hurricane D.3, DA progress Adoption vulnerability analysis. Future Plan updates to fully Winter 2,3/ Emergency 2 years from characterize losses by localities due to H St°nns A.S, 6.1 -8.5, Management! In VDEM Plan winter storms. D.2 progress Adoption Provide annual updates of this Plan to Emergency Annually for Steering Committee, report to the H ALL ALL ManagemenU In Locality, next five year VDEM, with NSVRC survey to localities progress p g VDEM cycle to collect and report annual updates. Acquire, elevate and or remediate all H Flood ALL Emergency Management/ M Locality, Annually for next five year repetitive loss properties progress VDEM cycle Use the DMME Karst map and LiDAR 31 Planning! In 2 years from mapping by USGS to avoid M Karst B2 Plan development around sinkholes, etc. . progress pgress Adoption Department In future Hazard Mitigation Plan Emergency of Annually for updates, address manmade disasters H All All Management/ In Homeland next five year progress Security, cycle VDEM Department Include more college and university Emergency of Annually for specific disaster planning tools and H All All Management/ In Homeland next five year Incorporate with regional Plan. progress Security, cycle VDEM identify and map all critical facilities and Department ground truth. Develop key prioritization Emergency of Annually for of critical facilities and a disaster H All All Management/ In Homeland next five year resistant plan for them in all hazards. progress Security, cycle _ VDEM Coordinate with the WV Emergency Department Management in surrounding WV Emergency of Annually for Counties of Jefferson, Berkeley, Morgan, and Hampshire for manmade M All All Management/ In Homeland next five year and natural disaster planning integration progress Security, cycle as are ion. VDEM Department Inventory Fire Insurance Rate maps Emergency of Annually for and verify data. Integrate corrections M All All management/ In Homeland next five year into database for Plan updates. progress Security, cycle VDEM Identify funding for improved regional Department of and local mapping and connectivity of Emergency Homeland Annually for hazards. Update aerial imagery for M All All Management/ In Security, next five year localities with mapping and integrate progress VDEM, cycle with UGSG EROS center. USGS Emergency Department Work with local colleges and university Management; of Within the to create disaster - resistant universities M All All college 1 Homeland next 5 year and incorporate facility into this Plan. university staff/ Security, cycle, in progress VDEM, 86 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The above regional mitigation strategies are applicable to each of the participating twenty localities. In addition, the Counties and Towns and the City of Winchester have specific strategies which are presented below. Clarke County, Towns of Berryville and Boyce: Action. Flan to implement Strategies Clarke County, Town of Berryville, Town of Boyce Mitigation Action Priority Hazard s) USCS Responsible Dept IStatus Address impacts to the NSV region Target Completion Emergency Management, 4 years from from climate changes as available M All All planners/ In VDEM Plan becomes available. outlets to increase Adoption awareness of natural progress The above regional mitigation strategies are applicable to each of the participating twenty localities. In addition, the Counties and Towns and the City of Winchester have specific strategies which are presented below. Clarke County, Towns of Berryville and Boyce: Action. Flan to implement Strategies Clarke County, Town of Berryville, Town of Boyce Mitigation Action Priority Hazard s) Goals (1 -6) 1 Actions(A -D) Responsible Dept IStatus Funding Source Target Completion Date Work with local media outlets to increase awareness of natural hazards. Implement Communications, seasonal hazard H Alf 21 D.1, D.D.2, D.3, Emergency VDEM 2 years from Plan awareness weeks or days DA Management/ in Adoption (e.g., hurricane progress preparedness week, winter weather awareness day). Conduct public education 61 6 ! Planning 1 In 1 Year after on the principles of °sheltering M All A, progress VDEM adoption of in place." Plan Educate residents and business owners about reducing possible wind- hurricane, 5, 6 / Planning! In 2 years borne debris (e.g., M Tornado, Severe A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.3 progress VDEM after Ptan anchoring storage sheds g , g Storm Adoption moving outdoor furniture indoors, trimming trees). Encourage public and private water conservation plans, M Drought 5, 61 Planningl In VDEM 1 Year after adoption of including consideration of A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.3 progress rainwater catchment Plan system. Work with the Virginia Department of Forestry to 2 ears y implement the FIREWiSE p M Wildfires 5, 61 A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.3 Planningl In progress VDEM after Plan program in Clarke County Adoption and localities. 87 Northern Shenandoah Valley regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Identify means to coordinate, collect and store damage assessment data in GIS H All 21 GIS, Planning; In Locality, VDEM 1 Year after format for each natural 13,1 -6.5, DA progress adoption of Plan hazard event that causes death, injury and or p roperty damage. Consider providing necessary electrical hook -up, wiring, and switches to allow readily 41 Emergency 2 years accessible connections to M All C.1 -C.4, D.1 -D.4 Management/ In VDEM after Plan emergency generators at progress adoption key critical public facilities. Coordinate with the state to update and digitize 1, 21 GIS, Planning; In 2 years community Flood M Flood .4, R.1 -6.4 CA-C.4, progress DEM after Plan Insurance Rate Maps adoption (FiRMs). Link structure value data with tax parcel GIS 1, 2; GIS, Planning! In 2 ears database to increase M All C.1 -C.4, D.1 -D.4 progress VDEM after Plan accuracy of loss ado tion p estimates Encourage purchase of 21 Communications, NOAA radios. Provide H All Emergency VDEM 2 years after Plan NOAH weather radios to D.1, D.D.2, D.3, Management/ in adoption public facilities. D.4 progress Investigate critical community facilities, such as County administrative offices, shelters (non- Flood, hurricane, 1,2,4/ Emergency 2 Years school buildings), fire H Tornado, Severe B.1 -B.fi, C.1 -C.4, Management/ In VDEM after Plan stations and police Storm 1711-D.4 progress adoption stations, to evaluate their resistance to flood and wind hazards. Prioritize facilities in known hazard areas Annually (e.g., fioodplains). 1 Emergency during this 5 Acquire, remediate, H Flood C.1 -C.4, D.1 -D.4 Management; In VDEM year Plan elevate repetitive loss progress update cycle properties Identify program of corrective actions to 1,31 Planning! In 1 year after improve stormwater L Flood B.3-B.5, p 1 D.2 progress Locality, VDEM Plan systems' capacity to adoption handle major rain events. 88 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Investigate, develop, or Frederick County, Town of Middletown, Town of Stephen City Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1.6)1 Actions(A -D) enhance Reverse 911 Funding Source Target Completion 5.61 Emergency 2 years system or other public H All A.1, A.S, D.1 -D.4 Management) In VDEM after Plan notification system. 1 Year after Conduct public education progress adoption Continue to enforce adoption of on the principles of M All . . At -A6 zoning and building VDEM Plan; Action 31 Planning/ In 1 year after codes to prevent/control M Flood B.1 -6.2, C.2, D,1 progress Locality Plan construction within the continue adoption ftoodplain. Identify and protect 31 Planning! In 2 years critical recharge zones in M Flood 13,2 Locality after Plan high risk areas. progress Adoption Work with the Virginia Department of Forestry to review local zoning and 31 Planning, Emergency Locality, DOF, 3 ears subdivision ordinances to L wildfires B.2 Management/ In VDEM after Plan identify areas to include progress adoption wildfire mitigation principles. Work with mobile home parks to construct Piannin g community wind shelters Hurricane, Tornados, 5, 6 f , Emergency 3 years or to identify and L Storms, Snow .4 A.1 -A.6, D.1-DA Management/ In VDEM after Plan adoption publicize nearby shelters progress for residents. Inspect and clear debris Annually from stormwa #er drainage Flood, hurricane, Tornado, Severe 2, A ! Emergency during the system. Encourage L Storm, C.2, D.1 -D.4 Management/ In VDEM, VDOT Plan update VDOT to execute this Ice, Landslide progress five year strategy if needed. cycle Frederick County and Towns of Middletown and Stephen City (in addition to the regional strategies have these locality - specific strategies): Action Plan to implement Strategies Frederick County, Town of Middletown, Town of Stephen City Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1.6)1 Actions(A -D) Responsible DeptlStatus Funding Source Target Completion Date 1 Year after Conduct public education 6/ Planning/ In adoption of on the principles of M All . . At -A6 progress VDEM Plan; Action "sheltering in place." begun, continue M.0, Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Identify and educate homeowners In flood- 2/ Emergency Ongoing and prone areas about flood H AO D.1, D.D.2, D.3, Management/ In VDEM in progress, insurance and fioodplain D.4 progress continue mitigation measures. Work with the Virginia Department of Forestry to 2 years after implement the FIREWISE M Wildfires 5,6/ Planning/ In VDEM Plan program in County and A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.3 progress Adoption; Towns. initiated Conduct emergency preparedness education campaign targeted at Dam Safety, 1, 2, 4I Emergency Ongoing and residents and business H Flood A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.4 Management/ In VDEM in progress, within dam inundation progress continue zones. Work with local home improvement stores to Emergency Ongoing and provide workshops to M ALL Management/ In VDEM in progress, residents on mitigation progress continue techniques. A.1 -A.6 Work with local media outlets to increase awareness of natural hazards. Implement seasonal hazard 21 Emergency Ongoing and awareness weeks or days H All D.1, D.D.2, D.3, Management/ In VDEM in progress, (e.g., hurricane DA progress continue preparedness week, winter weather awareness day). Work with the National Weather Service to 5.61 Emergency Ongoing, promote the Turn Around, M Flood A.1 -A.6, 8.2 Management( In VDEM, Locality continue Don't Drown public progress progress education campaign. Develop flu annex for Emergency Ongoing, continuity of operations L All Management/ In Locality, VDH continue plans, p 1 progress progress Develop debris management Flood, Storms, Snow, ice, 1, 5 Emergency Ongoing, plan. M Hurricane, C.1 -C.4, D.1 -0.4 Management/ In VDEM, Locality continue Tornado progress progress Identify means to coordinate, collect and store damage 2 years after assessment data in GIS 1,2/ GIS, Emergency Plan format for each natural H All C.1 -C4 D.1 -D.4 Management/ In Locality, VDEM adoption; in hazard event that causes . , progress progress and death, {njury and or property ongoing damage. C©mpleted. Identify training opportunities Ongoing for staff to enhance their 1,2/ GIS, Emergency maintenance ability to use GIS for M All C-1 -C.4, DA -D.4 Management/ In Locality in progress emergency management progress throughout needs. planning cycle Investigate all primary and Ongoing, secondary schools to Emergency Continue evaluate their resistance to H A All Management/ In Locality, VDEM progress all natural hazards. Prioriti ze throughout the schools that are used as progress planning community shelters. cycle 90 Northern Shenandoah Valley regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Investigate critical community facilities, such as County Ongoing, administrative offices, Emergency Continue shelters (non - school buildings), fire stations and H All All Management/ In Locality, VDE M progress throughout police stations, to evaluate progress planning their resistance to flood and cycle wind hazards. Ongoing, Prioritize facilities in known 1,4/ E=mergency continue to hazard areas (e.g., M Flood Management( In Locality verify floodplain). C 1 C 4 D 1 progress facilities and locations Completed. Link structure value data with Ongoing tax parcel database to 2 / GIs, Emergency maintenance increase accuracy of less accuracy M All C.1 -CA, D.1 -D.4 .4 Management/ In Locality in progress estimates. progress throughout planning cycle Review and revise, if needed, existing Subdivision Ordinances to include hazard Ongoing, mitigation - related 3/ Panning/ In Continue through 2 development criteria in order M Ali B.2 progress Locality years after to regulate the location and construction of buildings and Plan other infrastructure in known adoption hazard areas. Review and revise, if needed, local floodplain ordinances. Work with the state to Ongoing, coordinate a Community Emergency Continue Assistance Visit to identify H Flood 3/ Management with Locality through 2 potential improvements or B.2 Planning/ In years after enhancements to existing progress Pian floodplain management adoption program. Ongoing, Encourage purchase of Continue NOAH NOAA radios. Provide Emergency until weather radios to public c H All All Management/ In VDEM completion facilities. progress by 2 years after Plan adoption Ongoing, Continue Increase flood warning Flood, Dam t, 2, 4, 5 / Emergency Locality, VDEM and until capabilities, particularly as H Safety B.1 -B.5, D.1 -D.4 Management! In DCR for completion they relate to dam failure. progress infrastructure by 3 years after Plan adoption Investigate, develop, or Ongoing, enhance Reverse 911 Emergency Continue system or other public notification system. H All All Management/ In Locality and VDEM through 2 years after Investigate possible funding progress Plan sources. adoption The Town of Stephens City has these strategies in addition to the County and two Towns' strategies listed above: Action plan to implement Strategies Town of Stephens City Goals 1•s Responsibfe Funding Target Completion Mitigation Action Priori/ Hazards Actions A -D Dept / Status Source Date 91 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 92 Town and County Emergency management 1 Conduct public education on w progress work with the principles of "sheltering in Schools and 5 years from Plan place'. H All 61 D.1 -D.4 other shelters VDEM adoption Identify and educate homeowners in flood -prone areas about flood insurance Town work and 2, 61 AL, A.6, 5.1- with VDEM 1 5 years from Plan flood plain mitigation measures. M Flood B.5, D.1 -D.4 In progress VDEM ado tfon VDEM, Lowes or Other hardware Work with local home Fown work corporation with a improvement 5, 6 ! A.5, A.6, D.1- with VDEM 1 safety 5 years from Plan mitigation techniques. L All DA In pro ress program adoption Develop debris management Town Staff I In Town and 5 years from Plan Ian. H All 51 C.3, D.1 -D.4 progress or VDEM adoption Investigate critical community facilities, such as the town office; identify shelters (non- school buildings), fire and police stations, to evaluate their resistance to flood work with County with w and wind hazards. Prioritize Emergency facilities in known hazard areas All Goals /All Management 5 years from Plan (e. ., flood plains) M All Actions and VDEM VDEM adoption Review and revise, if needed, local floodplain ordinances. Work with the state to coordinate a Community Assistance Visit to identify potential improvements or enhancements to existing Town work floodplain management 2, 61 A.5; A.6, B.1- with VDEM 1 5 years from Plan p rogram. L Flood B.5, D.1 -D.4 In progress VDEM adoption Identify key critical facilities and provide necessary electrical hook -up, wiring, and Town work switches for emergency with VDEM 1 5 years from Plan g enerators. H All 41 C.1 -CA, D.1 -DA In progress VDEM adoption Investigate, develop, or enhance Reverse 911 system Town w with County or other public notification Emergency system. Investigate possible All Goals /All Management 5 years from Plan funding sources. H I All Actions and VDEM I VDEM I adoption 92 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page County and its Towns of Shenandoah, Luray, and Stanley have the following strategies in addition to the regional strategies: Action Plan to implement Strategies Page County, Town of Luray, Town of Shenandoah, Town of Stanley Target Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible Funding Completion MAi ation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D De t! Status Source Date Work with local media outlets to increase awareness of natural hazards. Implement seasonal hazard awareness weeks or days (e.g. hurricane preparedness week, Communications, winter Emergency weather awareness Management/ In 2 years from _ z, etc.. H All All progress VDEM Plan Adoption Create a mOti-level education brochure and program that would be taught on different levels with regards to education within the school system as well as targeting a brochure Communications, for the residents L Emergency Annually, throughout the (Changed 1, fi ! Management! In throughout 5 coup . from H ) All A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.4 pmqress VDEM vear c cle. Create informational flyer to be handed out at the time of building permits are applied for with regard to building weather resistant homes. This fEyorwould be targeted to contractors and developers in a way Emergency to enhance their 6 ! Management/ In 1 year from buildin ro'ect. H All A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.4 progress VDEM Plan adoption Identify need for Back -Up generators, communications, andlor vehicles at critical public facilities. Develop means to Emergency address the shortfalls 41 C.1 -C.4, D.1- Management! In 2 years from identified. H All D.4 progress VDEM Plan Adoption Procure and install backup generators for lift stations for wastewater treatment plants throughout the Emergency 1 year from region H All 1,41C.1-4,D.1-4 Management VDFM Plan adoption Coordinate with the Emergency state to update and Management/ In digitize community progress or Flood Insurance Rate initiated Maps (completed in 3 years from ( FIRMS), H Floods 118.1 -B.5 Luray) VDEM Plan adoption, 93 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation PIan Update Install' additional Iflows in rivers throughout the region and update the digital Emergency readouts to facilitate Management[ In transfer of data progress or VDEM, 2 years from ( analog u ates H Floods 1 ! G.2 D.1 -D.4 initiated USGS Plan Adoption Encourage public and private water conservation plans, i Emergency including management or consideration of 'town staff. In rainwater progress for all, catchment system completed in or other low impact progress for all, development Changed from M completed in Luray and 5 years from techniques. Drought to L 316.1 -6.5 Stanley. VDEM Plan adoption. Coordinate with the state to update and digitize community Emergency Flood Insurance Medium Management /In progress in all, Rate Maps changed completed in 2 years from (FIRMS) to High All 1 2 /B.3 -B.5 Luray. VDEM Plan Adoption Evaluate properties within the floodplain for possible relocation and/or buy out. In particular, target FEMNs Repetitive Loss Properties throughout the Emergency Page Valley for management/ in possible relocation 4/ C.1 -C.4, D.1- Tows ss n f d or all 3 years from adoption of and/or buy out. H Flood DA County VDEM Plan E1+aleateat riAlF -reads and impisment ... des Wor w4 h 1 mnTi -o- oral „RK- odey•'�ed (Revised)Replace with: Inspect and Emergency clear debris from management, stormwater drainage County and 0 system. Encourage Towns but Luray VDOT to execute this work with VDOT strategy 3f needed. (Luray complete Annually Maintain bridges 41 C.1 -C.4, D.1- with Town staft)1 VDEM, throughout 5 y early. H All DA In progress VDOT year cycle. 94 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Initiate discussions with public/private utility companies to discuss Incorporating mitigation measures into new and pre- existing development and infrastructure repairs. Options include: anchoring heavy equipment such as electrical transformers mounted on poles using additional straps and braces; reducing camber in overhead Emergency transmission lines; Management, VDEM, Complete by 4 and providing cover Town staff! In Public years of Plan for exposed utilities L A5 4 /D.1 -D.4 progress Utilities adoption Evaluate properties within the floodplain for possible relocation and/or buy out. In particular, target FEMA's Repetitive Loss Properties throughout the Page Emergency Annually Valley for Management, throughout 5 possible relocation 1,4 /C.1 -C.4, D.1- Town staff/ in year cycle of and /or buy out. H Flood D.4 propress VDEM Plan update, VDEM, Valley Annually Work with land trusts Emergency Conservation throughout 5 to facilitate purchase Management, Council, land year cycle of of land. H All All TownAn p ress trusts Plan update. Implement a program to seal and vent or raise sewer system components (i.e. Emergency manhole management, covers that are County and all located in the 100- Towns but Luray year flood plain or work with VDOT other areas identified (Luray complete Annually as highly with Town staff)1 VDEM, throughout 5 p robable flooding). H AEI 4 ! D.1 -DA In proaress VDOT year cycle. Integrate the jurisdiction's Mitigation plan into current capital improvement plans to Completed ensure that Emergency throughout development does not Management, and by end of encroach on known Town staff/ In 5 year Plan hazard areas. L All 3 /A. 1-A,G, B.1 -B.3 progress VDEM update cycle Investigate all primary and secondary schools to evaluate their resistance to all natural Completed hazards. Prioritize the Emergency throughout schools that are used Management, and by end of as community 5,6 /A.1 -A.6, D.1- Town staff/ In 5 year Plan shelters. L All D.4 progress VDEM update cycle 95 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plant Update Link structure value data with tax parcel Completed GIS database to Emergency throughout increase accuracy of Management and by and of loss work with GIS 5 year Plan estimates. L All 21 B.1 -13.5 and Town Staff VDEM update cygle Establish flood level markers along bridges and other structures to indicate the rise of water levels along creeks and rivers in potential flood -prong areas. Work with Emergency VDOT.and Management, other Jurisdictions as Planning Staff/ In Localities, Annually over needed. H progress VDEM next five years Eagle eF 99Y SR9 feF: this pai#ieuk - w prejeet- Removed due to liability issues. # Removed Staff Emergency Management Office, Public Works, Building Inspections Office and/or Planning and Zoning Office at adequate levels as determined by the county based upon population Emergency demographics with Management, regard to density and Planning Staff/ In Localities, Annually over hazardous risks. M All 5113.1 -13.4 progress VDEM next five years Work with the Department of Forestry to implement Emergency the FIREW ISE Management, program in Page 5,61 A. 1 -A.6, D.1- Town Staff 1 In 4 years from County. M Fire D.4 progress VDEM, DOF Plan Adoption Gre ate train opperi, nities fo d.,paFt...egtai stag a n how - fB- in#ed6ee i 'AAhitx -the Included and daily actovives of reworded in go vernm ent , (Revised Page County and aid faaerparated-ie all 3 Towns' # Removed strata les Ensure all localities within the planning region have FIRM GIS, Planning/ 1 year from flood maps up to date H Flood 1, 2113.1 -BA In progress VDEM 1 Plan Adoption 11 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Work with localities to Emergency improve Target Management, Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible documentation of Completion Mitigation Action Priority Transportation Actions A -D Dept/ Status flooding events and Date Floods, Storms, Planning (as Removed impacts to Snow, Hurricane, 1,2,4IA.3,A.5,B.1- available) I In 2 years from transportation routes. H Tornado B.4, C.1-4, D.1 -4 progress VDEM Plan Adoption Freate appsaanities as-te- hew- i:ater- depa#RqeRta staff repast an +vithin the daily Removed, Page County and ast+vities- pFasasses completed and all 3 Town aA uAG40os L reworded into above strategy, In The County will N p consider participating 6re8#e apgaties Removed in the Storn axle hew i Rt' ter specific to Luray Program sponsored ^'^t^' ^`f Emergency and revised to by the Thunder storms, Management Completed by National Weather hurricane, tornado, 5,618.1, A.2, A.5, work with Towns 5 years from Service. L winter storms A.6 and NWS VDEM Plan adoption PADP989 a MOM 014iaa+tse #hat wil4 e#est<usly- eliprir�ta Of "etvites, pFeaaeses Town strategy, In . l; ige Raodplalr, Removed, M proqress #lood3way, and Aead completed and Removed base. L reworded into above specific to Luray Town of Luray in Page County has Hazard Mitigation strategies listed for Page County plus these strategies listed below: Action Plan to implement Strategies Town of Luray Target Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible Funding Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept/ Status Source Date eetlets to iasrease hazards and ast+ue€y Removed P%ffia4e and specific to Luray paftisipate is and placed as tarsi Page County and awaFeFiass days m all 3 Town w eeks (e.g., W �OF strategy, In N p 6re8#e apgaties Removed axle hew i Rt' ter specific to Luray ^'^t^' ^`f and revised to 'ntrgd hap :pr' staff capacity reduction strategy for Page Wit,io�o d , �..� County and all 3 "etvites, pFeaaeses Town strategy, In 4R6€unstisr;s= M proqress Identify ReedfeK bask -up getaera4eK6, Removed serPffi+anieatiens specific to Luray RRd. vehides-at and placed as sdtisalp6blis Page County and `""""`� —�. ^ ^"49P all 3 Town FAARRA `^ ".1 .J 8815 the strategy, In sdertfall- ide+aEitted. H prociress IF#egsa#e the Removed specific to Luray and placed as sumeat Gapite4 Page County and imp rovement p lans to L all 3 Town 97 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update ensure that strategy, In development does not Target progress Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible encroach on known Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept/ Status hazard areas. Date Removed c.t E °S Publie 1 q*s �q;1.r OffiGO aAd/BF Rarming and Zoning G e � deg � Aq Removed specific to Y ee1 bad specific to Luray Shenandoah apes} ` `^` hfir " ^ +^' and placed as Town and ffapalatieR departmeetal Staff Page County and revised to staff derAegsaggles w th all 3 Town capacity strategy redustien strategy, In for Page County hazardeus-rl L AthiR the ` 2ily proqress and all 3 Town astWfies, peeesses Annually Work with the County aad-faaetiens: H Town staff and throughout 5 of Page Emergency County year Plan Operations Center for Emergency update cycle better Hawksbill Management! In or until monitorfnq abilities. M Flood 1, 21A.2, 13.1 -I3.5 progress VDEM comp lete, Provide training for Town Staff (Public Annually Works, Police Town staff and throughout 5 Departmerts) relating County year Plan to hazards weather, Emergency update cycle disasters, flood zones Management/ In or until and natural disasters. H All All p roqross VDEM complete. Town to work with Page County Emergency Operations Center to Annually better provide reverse Town staff and throughout 5 911 calls to the public County year Plan I citizens of Luray Emergency update cycle during hazardous Management/ In or until natural events. H All All prociress VDEM complete, Work with local real estate agents to ensure better provision of information (maps, etc.) to potential home buyers in areas of recognized floodprone zones within the Town of Luray. Locality would work with County to ensure brochure is Completed by distributed to potential Town staffl In 3 years from home buyers. M All S IA.7 -A.6, D.1 -D.4 p VDEM Plan adoption. Town of Shenandoah in Page County has these Hazard Mitigation strategies listed below in addition to the ones included in Page County: ,action Plan to implement Strategies Town of Shenandoah Target Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible Funding Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept/ Status Source Date Removed specific to Shenandoah ` `^` hfir " ^ +^' Town and departmeetal Staff revised to staff capacity strategy redustien for Page County AthiR the ` 2ily and all 3 Town astWfies, peeesses strategy, In aad-faaetiens: H progress 98 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Identify for Removed Up i8R specific to seRisatieRs Shenandoah andFewehieles-at Town and added sisals as a strategy for fasilgiee- Deuetep Page County and MOOR tO add - 66 th e all 3 Towns 1 In shoKfall idepti494 H prcqress 6eardiRa#e with ikre state to ate awi dfeltkze nk R ).,.,,... pate Removed specific to (FIRMS). Deleted Shenandoah harp - and- moved te Town and added Page ` eunty "'heFe i as a strategy for Page County and but I=uFay, and Page all 3 Towns 1 In M progress EReewFa@e public and private water Removed specific to inGlWORS Shenandoah Gansideration -of Town and added saiRwateE satshRaeRt as a strategy for 6y6teFR ef Gth8F'G Page County and impaet develepmeRt all 3 Towns ! In L proqress Removed ! and "'B"" specific to debris frerR Shenandoah stermi.vater drainage Town and added systeage as a strategy for V" ^T to °"^ " Page County and this ntrvntnnY it all 3 Towns / In needed M progress 'RitiatB dissessieas With PUbIiWPF Removed atilitsempaRies to specific to Shenandoah m it esee„,e ��"� = =�Qeu"es Town and added We Raw and PFG- as a strategy for e deyelopmeR Page County and A n d i1 ;*@r # "n " "n" rg all 3 Towns / In L progress Vie= anchoring heavy eleStFiGal t..-.....F.-...A •�•• n nAvc AtOd OR Removed Removed specific to ps and bFaGW Shenandoah Feduc'ng- camber in Town and added d as a strategy for traRSRtissisR 10 %6 Page County and and PsvidiRg Be all 3 Towns 1 In for exposed LAWW-4 p rogress Staff Emergency W: na y .. Office PUblis Weflw Bui !Rspee Pla nd 7n..'n Office a t a d equ a&e Removed by th ba sed specific to Upon pepaIakieR Shenandoah d9x1e9raplais8 with Town and added as a strategy for Page County and was added to all all 3 Towns ! In M p Removed 1A the specific to D8paFtMeRt 9 Shenandoah r.,.e t im pl.....eR Town and added 440 P+ RW as a strategy for pregsam In Rage Page County and L all 3 Towns/ In M Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 100 progress Develop a link to the I -Flows database for Town, County the Town staff to Emergency Completed by access and use for 1,21 C.1 -C.4, D.1- Management f In VDEM, 2 years from stream levels M Flood D.4 Amoress USGS Plan adoption. Change stream gauge outflow location. Develop on- Town, County line interaction to be Emergency Completed by notified of outflow 1,21 C.1 -C.4, D.1- Management/ In VDEM, 2 years from upgrades. M Flood DA Progress USGS Plan adoption. Create markers on Town, County bridges to determine Emergency Completed by flood and drought 1,21 C.1 -C.4, D.1- Management/ In VDEM, 2 years from stages H Flood D.4 progress USGS Plan adoption. Develop a Notification Plan for water Town, County infrastructure M the Emergency Completed by event of failure of 1,2! C.1 -C.4, D,1- Management I In VDEM, 2 years from waters stem. H Flood D.4 I)rocjress USGS Plan adoption. Designate an alternative location for Town Office in the event of a disaster, to Complete 2 ensure continuity of All Goalsl Town Staff! In Locality, years from Town office functions. H All All Actions progress VDEM Plan adoption Ensure generators are in place, functional, with routine checks. Develop a generator maintenance program and record In progress and Complete 4 inspections in central in Page County years from location. H All All stratow VDEM Plan adoption Removed specific to Shenandoah outlets (Rawspap&r-, Town and added as a strategy for T to ineFeafe Page County and aWaFBRess 8f Rat' 'FR all ,3 Towns 1 In +4aaa -- _ progress Evaluate at -risk roads and implement mitigation measures in the event of a disaster. Work with VDOT as appropriate. (Also revised and added as a County strategy for County Complete 4 and all 3 Towns with Town Staff 1 In years from clear debris H All All Goals/ ro ress VDEM Plan ado ption 100 Northern. Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Town of Stanley in Page County has these Hazard Mitigation strategies listed below in addition to the Page County strategies: Action, Plan to implement Strategies Town of Stanley Target Goals (1 -6)/ Responsible Funding Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept/ Status Source Date •41..M 4•. ; ..i .•- .4.....1 Removed seasonal hsa and specific to Stanley Town feNGaRe and added as a woek strategy for minter Page County "' "" " " °s and all 3 Towns H IIn prcqress Greeate iaferrfRatieaal dQF4 94 4 Alked buil Removed o T ;" specific to Stantey Town and added as a GORERE49ffi, aR4 strategy for Page County to enFaaeES lh& and all 3 Towns /In ro ress Removed specific to Stanley Town and added as a strategy for Page County, Town of d gitize earnrwunity Stanley, and Creed i.... Y ....,.,,, Rate Town of Completion by Shenandoah/ In 2 years after H Flood 1/D.1 -D.4 proqress VDEM Plan adoption. Implement and/or Town of enhance a program to Stanley, Page seat and vent or raise County! Ir sewer system progress (This components (i.e. is also a manhole regional County covers that are and Page Town located in the 100- strategy, with year toodplain or words revised other areas identified slightly to Completion by as highly 41 C.1 -C.4, D.1- implement and 2 years after p robable floodin . H All DA or enhance VDFM Plan adoption. Town of Stanley, Page County I in Evaluate at risk roads progress (This and implement is also a mitigation measures regional County (e.g. elevation, re- and Page Town design) strategy, with Work with VDOT as words revised needed. Develop slightly to Completion by mapping or GIS layer develop GIS 2 years after of these. H All 216.1, B.3, B.4 I layer) VDEM I Plan adoption. 101 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Flan Update Staff Provide Page County Emergency Operations Center Management Office, with staff from Public Works, Building Inspections Office andfor Planning_ and Zoning Office Department during local hazards events, to provide damage reports critical to Town infrastructure. Town of at adequate levels as Stanley, Page determined by the County In town based upon progress (This population is also a demographics with regional County Completion by regard to density and All Goals 1 All and Page Town 5 years after hazardous risks. H All Actions strata VDEM Plan ado tion. Removed specific to 'A'aFk with the Stanley Town BepartFRent of and added as a p ere tt ry t ;»,,,,.MGA strategy for the rin,,,� , _,R R.,Sr Page County pregram;-the and all 3 Towns Fire ! In p Establish Flood level markers along Town of bridges and other Stanley, County structures to indicate Emergency the rise of Management water levels along and VDOT / In creeks and rivers in progress. This potential flood -prone strategy also in areas. Work with Page County VDOT and and 3 Towns other jurisdictions as (except Luray) VDEM 1 5 years from needed. H All 41A.2,D.1 -D.4 strateciv VDOT Plan ado bntentiall„ nn ner Removed from with the Eagle GF Pay Page County Sseutsfer- -this and Towns due to liability issues Work with Page County Emergency Operations Center to receive ]-flow measurements 1 Town of Stanley markings to alert work with County when streams around Emergency town and near management and 3 years from infrastructure are near 1,4 / A.1 -A.6, 8.1 -8.5, UNSGS, and VDEM, adoption of flooding. H Flood D.1 -D.4 VDEM LISGS Plan 102 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Shenandoah County and its six Towns have these Hazard Mitigation strategies (in addition the Towns of Edinburg, Mount Jackson, and New Market have strategies from the 2007 Plan): Action Plan to implement Strategies Shenandoah County, Towns of Edinburg, Mt. Jackson, New Market, Strasburg, Toms Brook, and Woodstock Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1 -6) 1 Actions(A -D) Responsible Dept I Status Funding Source Target . Completion Date Create a Public Education Program within the public and private schools within the Emer one Completed, community that will provide disaster preparedness H All 61 A,1 Mana ement(In g All Localities provide information to the student progress annual updates. bodies that can be utilized within their individual homes. Initiated, to Consider participating in the Storms, continue StormRead g y program Hurricane, 51 Emergency throughout 3 sponsored by the National M Tornado, Winter A.2 Management/ In All Localities es yea after Weather Service. Storms progress g p ro Plan adapted to corn lotion. Distribute information Initiated, to packets to raise awareness continue regarding the risks present in 5 6 I Emergency throughout 3 the region and to provide M All A.3 Management/ In All Localities years after disaster preparedness progress Plan adopted information. to completion. Create a knowledgeable group of speakers within the Initiated, to community that can be continue available to present L (County hired 5, 61 Emergency throughout 3 programs regarding PIO staff) All AA- A.6 Management/ In All Localities yeas after Emergency Management ro progress Plan adapted Principles and Concepts to to groups within the community. completion. Work with local media outlets to increase awareness of Initiated, to natural hazards. Implement continue seasonal hazard awareness L (County hired 5, fi! Emergency throughout weeks or days (e.g., PIC staff) All A.1- A.6 Management/ In All Localities years after hurricane preparedness progress Plan adopted week, winter weather to awareness day). completion. Identify need for back -up generators, communications. Ongoing and /or vehicles at critical Emergency through 5 public facilities. Develop H All All Management! In VDFM years of Plan means to address the progress cycle or until shortfall identified. complete. Develop a comprehensive In Progress debris management Ian as g plan All 3, 4/ Locality, VDOTI In to continue an annex to the Emergency 8.1 -B.6, DA - progress Local/ , VDOT ty throughout g out Operations Plan. DA planning cycle. 103 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Coordinate with FEMA and In progress, the state to continue program to continue of updating the community 1,41 Emergency throughout Flood Insurance Rate Maps H All B.3, C.1 -C.4, Managemen11 In VDEM planning (FIRMS) for selected D.1 -D.4 progress cycle or until tributaries of the North Fork completion, of the Shenandoah River. whichever comes first Ordinance Encourage public and private passed for water conservation plans, water including consideration of 3 Emergency conservation rainwater catchment systems M Drought B.4, A.6 Management! In All Localities measures or other low impact progress during development techniques. declared drought sta es. Incorporate mitigation In progress, principles into local M All All Emergency Management/ In VDEM, Planning contsnue through emergency management and staff (as avallable) recovery plans. progress planning cycle. Emergency Provide training opportunities Management In progress, to local zoning and building 5 (Damage to continue code officials in subject L All B 6 assessment Locality, VDOT throughout materials such as damage courses offered planning assessment and mitigation annually/ In cycle. p rogress Identify means to coordinate, collect and store damage assessment data in GIS Emergency In progress, format for each natural L Ali 2,3/ Management, GIS Locality, VDOT to continue hazard event that causes B.6 as available/ In throughout 9 death, injury and or property progress process. lama e. Identify key critical facilities and provide necessary Emergency Ongoing, to electrical hook -up, wiring, H All All Management/ In Locality contin in ue and switches for emergency progress row throughout 9 ut 5 g enerators. year cycle. Evaluate properties within the floodplain for possible elevation or acquisition. In particular, target FEM A's Ongoing to o Repetitive Lass Properties throu the County for H Flood 1 , 4 / C.1-C.4, 1 D.1 D,4 Emergency Management( in Locality, VDEM completion by 4 years possible elevation or progress after Plan acquisition. Work with land adoption trusts to facilitate purchase of land. Emergency Evaluate at risk roads and Management, Ongoing, Implement mitigation i Locality intern through measures (e. elevation, re- 9 L Flood 2,5/ with VDOT; also Locality, completion design). Work with VDOT as B.1 -B.5 devices to by 4 ears needed. measure rainflow after Plan for citizens/ In adoption. p rogress Ongoing, Inspect and clear debris from Emergency through stormwater drainage system. H All 41 Management and VDOT completion Encourage VDOT to execute D.1 -DdA VDOT/ In by 4 years this strategy if needed. progress after Plan adoption. Identify existing flood -prone Ongoing, structures that may benefit 1,41 Emergency through from mitigation measures L Flood C.1 -C.4, D.1 -D.4 Management) In Locality completion 2 after such as elevation or flood- progress years proofing techniques. Plan adoption. Annual Develop Reverse 911 system Management updates of or other public notification H All All Completed/ In Locality new system progress properties to database. 144 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Establish Flood level markers Towns of Edinburg Goals 1 -6 1 in progress for County along bridges and other Emergency and Towns, structures to indicate the rise M Flood 1,4/ Management/ In Locality continue until of water levels along reeks g Date D.1-D.4 completion or and rivers in potential flood- progress 3 years after prone areas. Winter Storm, Plan Pubfic notification of winterand Severe adoption. Work with VDOT and other 5 years from Plan severe storm information H Thunderstorm 61 D.1 -D.4 No status, to jurisdictions needed. ado tiun Locality/ In Locality (as continue (Possible partnering with rt M All All progress desirous of throughout 5 g Eagle Scout projects.) project) year planning cycle. Continue to administer building and zoning Planning and Completed, regulations to insure proper M Flood 3/ Zoning complete Locality annual development within flood 5 years from Plan Ian for town utilities and services. B.1 -B.5 forflood /In All Goals /All Actions update as p rone areas. adoption progress needed. Work with the Virginia County and Department of Forestry to 6,6/ Emergency Towns work implement the FIREWISE M Wildfires DA Management, DOF, VDEM closely with program in Shenandoah DOF1 In progress Firewise and County. WN continue to do so. The Town of Edinburg has these strategies in addition to the County and all six Towns' strategies listed above: Action Plan to implement Strategies Towns of Edinburg Goals 1 -6 1 Responsible Funding Target Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept I Status Source Date Town and County Winter Storm, Emergency Pubfic notification of winterand Severe management/ County, 5 years from Plan severe storm information H Thunderstorm 61 D.1 -D.4 In progress VDEM ado tiun Town public utilities staff work with County County, emergency Town of Create continuity of operations management/ Edinburg, 5 years from Plan Ian for town utilities and services. H All All Goals /All Actions In progress and VDEM adoption In regional County and Town strategies ! Town staff work with County Install backup generator for water Emergency 5 years from Plan treatment plant and Well #1. H All 41 D.1 -D.4 Management VDEM addition. Town work with County Continue support of the Virginia 5, 61A.1 -A.6, B.1- Emergency Department of Forestry's B.5, management VDEM, Throughout 5 years FIREWISE pro ram. L Fire D.1 -D.4 and DOF DOF of Pian update. 105 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation PIan Update The Town of Mount Jackson has these strategies in addition to the County and all six Towns' strategies listed above: Action Plan to implement Strategies Town of Mt Jackson Goals 1-6 1 Responsible Funding Target Completion Mitigation Action Priori! Hazards Actions A -D Dept I Status Source Date Work with local media outlets to increase awareness of natural Town and hazards. Implement County seasonal hazard awareness Emergency weeks or days (i.e., hurricane management/ preparedness week, winter 5, 61 A.1 -A.6, D.1- In progress work with County, 5 years from Plan weather awareness day). H All DA NWS VDEM adoption Town and County Emergency management 1 Conduct public education on In progress the principles of "shelter in work with Schools and 5 years from Plan lace ". H All 6 ! D.1 -DA other shelters VDEM adoption Identify need for back -up generators, communications, Town and andlor vehicles at critical public County Emergency facilities. Develop means to AI! Goals 1 All Management/ 5 years from Plan address the shortfall identified. H M Actions in progress VDEM adoption Opoi at pia„n event Af Removed, cam leted Propose a more restrictive floodplain ordinance that will effectively eliminate or minimize development within a of Mt the floodplain, floodway, and 1,316.1 -6.5, D.1- Town Staff! In Jackson son and or 5 years from Plan flood base. H i Flood D.4 progress VDEM adoption Develop a comprehensive debris management pian as an Town of Mt annex to the Emergency Town Staff! In Jackson and or 5 years from Plan Operations Plan. H All 51 C.3, D.1 -D.4 VDEM adoption - progress Town work with County Continue support of the Virginia 5, 61 A.1 -A.6, B.1- Emergency Department of Forestry's FIREWISE B.5, management VDEM, Throughout 5 years p rogram. M Fire D.1 -DA and DOF DOF I of Plan update. We Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update The Town of New Market has these strategies in addition to the County and all six Towns' strategies listed above: Action Plan to. implement Strate &s Town of New Market Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1 -6)1 Responsible Dept f Funding Target Completion Actions(A -D) Responsible Funding Target Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept! Status Source Date Design an interactive, animated Emergency com puter program that H All All Management M. ears from describes the sources of inflow Town working Localil y ado ption of this and infiltration and the role with County Plan the daily activities of government. Emergency citizens play in reducing the 1, 5, 6lB.1 -B.5, D.1- Manager l in VDEM, 5 years from date of problem. H Flood D,4 progress USGS Plan adoption increase awareness of natural hazards and actively promote H All All Town working Locality Current in progress, Provide up -to -date current with County to be maintained and weather information through Emergency Manager/ In Town, enhanced by 5 years from date of Plan local media on town's website. H All 61 a.5, A.fi progress VDEM adoption Create a pre - disaster family Emergency Town, 5 years from Secure town water sources M All All Town working VDEM, adoption of this (wells) through the installation Wlth County DEQ -VDH Plan of perimeter fencing and 41 C.2, C.3, C4, Emergency Manager/ In Wellhead protection 5 years from date of electronic acc H All D.1 -4 progress ro ram Plan adoption Work with the Department of Town work Forestry to implement the 5, 61A.1 -A,6, BJ- with County Emergency FIREWISE program in Page B.5, management VDEM, Throughout years County. M Fire D.1 -D.4 and DOF DOF of Plan update. Warren County Hazard Mitigation Strategies include: Action Plan to implement Strategies Warren County Mitigation Action Priority Hazard(s) Goals (1 -6) 1 Responsible Dept f Funding Target Completion Actions(A -D) Status Source Date Emergency Create training opportunities for H All All Management M. ears from departmental staff on haw to Viggianol In progress Localil y ado ption of this introduce hazard reduction within ongoing Plan the daily activities of government. 5 years from Worts with local media outlets to Emergency adoption of this increase awareness of natural hazards and actively promote H All All Management M. Locality Plan and participate in seasonal Viggiano/ In progress hazard awareness weeks or ongoing days. Create a pre - disaster family Emergency 5 years from response plan to distribute to M All All Management M. Locality y adoption of this members of the community with Viggiano/ In progress Plan shelter designation, ongoing 107 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 108 Emergency 5 years from Expand the local emergency Management M. adoption of this management committee to L All All Viggiano/ In progress Locality plan include private sector ongoing / Continuing organizations. to meet with them 5 years from Work with local home Emergency adoption of this improvement stores, local media Management M. Plan outlets and other local agencies L All All Viggiano/ Not initiated Localit ' to provide workshops to residents on mitigation yet techniques. Integrate the jurisdiction's mitigation plan into the current H All All T. Logan, Planning ° 5 years from Capital Improvements Plan, as Deptl in progress Locality adoption of this well as researching other funding plan. opportunities. 5 years T. Logan, Planning throughout cycle M Flood 3/ Dept/ Completed. To Locality ocaity from time of Review the County's existing B.2 -B.5 review annually for adoption of this floodplain ordinance to ensure any updates Plan that It is meeting local needs. 5 years 1 21 T. Logan, Planning throughout cycle Coordinate with the state to M Flood CA -C.4, D.1- Dept/ Completed. To VDEM from time of update and digitize community DA review annually for adoption of this Flood Insurance Rate Maps any updates Plan _(FIRMS). 1 year from adoption of this M All All T. Logan, Planning Locality Plan and Incorporate the hazard mitigation Dept/ in progress annually as plan goals and strategies into the needed. Gojj 's Comprehensive Plan. 5 years from adoption of this Provide training opportunities to Building Plan local zoning and building code L All All Building Inspection / In Inspection, enforcement staff and educate progress David Beahm them on damage assessment, mitigation techniques, and other related topics. 5 years from Review critical community adoption of this facilities such as County administrative offices, school Emergency Locality, Plan buildings, fire stations and police H All All Management, R. Emergency stations to evaluate their Mabie/ In progress Management resistance to natural and manmade hazards. Identify existing flood prone 5 years from structures that may benefit from T. Logan, Planning adoption of this mitigation measures such as L Flood All Departmentf not Locality Plan elevation or flood - proofing started techniques. Inspect and clear debris from 5 years from stormwater drainage systems. Emergency enc adoption of this Encourage VDOT, Sanitary L All All Management, R. Locality, VDOT Plan Districts, and Property Owner Mabie/ Not started Associations to execute this strat Completed, to Based upon the community's be reviewed needs and associated risks, staff annually the Emergency Management Emergency Office, Fire and Rescue, Law H All 5,6/ Management and Enforcement, Parks and B,1 -13.6 Doug Stanley/ Locality Recreation, Building Inspections Completed Department, and Planning and Zoning at adequate levels as determined by county Administration. 108 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Town of Front Royal Hazard Mitigation strategies are listed below: NSV Regional Action PIan to implement Regional Strate . ies 5 years from Continue support of the Virginia M Wildfires All Emergency Management, R. Locality, VDOF ada tion of this Department of Forestry's Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Mablet In progress Dept/ Status Plan FIRFWISE program. Utilize opportunities Town of Front Royal Hazard Mitigation strategies are listed below: NSV Regional Action PIan to implement Regional Strate . ies Target Goals (1 -5)1 Responsible Funding Completion Mitigation Action Priority Hazards Actions A -D Dept/ Status Source Date Utilize opportunities provided by Warren County Emergency Management Department for Town staff an how to introduce hazard reduction within the daily activities of government. This to include a program so key personnel and Department Heads Town receive basic training administration 1 in emergency In progress, By 5 years of response, such as 5,61A.5, D.1- initiated and Town and addition of this ICS certifications H All DA onaoing County Plan Coordinate with Warren County Emergency Management Department to work with local media outlets to increase awareness of natural hazards and actively promote and participate in seasonal hazard awareness days or weeks. Includes Town activities during administration Health & Wellness In progress, By 5 years of Expo annually as initiated and Town and addition of this schools request H All 5, 61A.5, A.6 on oin County Plan Town administration and County Create a pre - disaster Emergency family response plan Management I to distribute to In progress, By 5 years of members of the 5, 61 A.3, Initiated and Town and addition of this community, M All AA,A.5,A.6 ongoing County Plan Work with local home improvement stores, locail media outlets Town and other local administration agencies and County to provide workshops Emergency By 5 years of to residents on 5, 6lA.2, A3, Management l Town and addition of this mitigation techni ues. L All A,6, DA-DA Into started County Plan Develop additional GIS layers and training opportunities for Town staff to increase their knowledge and ability to use GIS for Town Planning By 5 years of emergency Department and addition of this management H All 21A.3, B.5 GISI In progress Town Plan 109 Northern Shenandoah 'Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 110 Town Planning Coordinate with Department and FEMA and Virginia GIS/ DCR to continue Completed, program of updating updated and Completed, and digitizing ongoing as annual the community 1, 2 / A.1 -A.4, needed In updates as FIRMS H Flood B.3, D.1 -0.4 0ruciress Town needed Provide training opportunities to local zoning and building code enforcement staff and educate them on Town DES, damage assessment, Energy mitigation techniques, Services, and By 5 years of and other related 5,6/A.1-A.6, Planning Staff/ addition of this topics. M All B.4,13.5 in progress Town Plan Integrate the jurisdiction's mitigation plan into the current Capital Improvements Plan, as well as B 5 years of researching other Town Manager/ addition of this funding opportunities. M All 318.2, B.3 Not started yet Town Plan Continue comprehensive inspection and Town Annually debris removal Environmental throughout 5 program for storm Services year update of water {J.Hannigany In this Plan from progress and time of drainage system H All 4/D.1 -D.4 onqolnp Town adoption Identify existing flood prone structures that may benefit from mitigation measures such Annually as elevation or flood- throughout 5 proofing techniques. Town Director year update of Research grants to of Planning 1 this Plan from fund mitigation 1, 4 /A.3,C.1- Ongoing, In time of im plementation M Flood C.4 progress Town adoption Based upon the community's needs and associated risks, staff Emergency Management, Fire and Rescue, Law Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, Building Inspections Annually Department, and throughout 5 Planning and Zoning year update of at adequate levels as this Plan from determined by Town Town Manager time of Administration. M All 5,6/13,1-13.5 An progress Town adoption Town staff with Medium County Continue support of changed to Emergency the Virginia low priority Management Throughout 5 Department of due to low and DOF I in year update of Forestry's FIREWISE applicability 5,61A.1 -A.6, progress limited DOF and Plan from time p rogram. in Town Fire D.1 -0.4 applicablRy County of adoption 110 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Review and develop Winchester City Mitigation Action Priority Hazards) Goals(1 -6)! Actions(A -D) Responsible Dept IStatus land development Target Completion ordinances that Date facilitate mitigation of In progress, Procure and install backup Emergency hazards and to continue until generators for lift stations for H Town planning AN Management responsiveness to completion or wastewater treatment plants Department 1 In By 5 years of emergencies during throughout progress, newly addition of this disasters M All 3/A.11,13.1-B.5 added Town Plan City of Winchester Hazard Mitigation Strategies (in addition to the regional strategies): ,fiction Nan to implement Strategies Winchester City Mitigation Action Priority Hazards) Goals(1 -6)! Actions(A -D) Responsible Dept IStatus Funding Source Target Completion Date In progress, Procure and install backup Emergency to continue until generators for lift stations for H All AN Management VDEM completion or wastewater treatment plants In f In throughout progress the Plan review cycle. Create an educational program and administer it Emergency In progress, throughout the community H All 3, 5, 6 1 Management to continue targeting residents within the A.1, D.1 -D.4 Initiated 1 In Locality and VDH all 5 years of City relating to all hazards progress planning including pandemic influenza. cycle. Create a local informational brochure and distribute the brochure Emergency n progress, p g community m rm yt o better inform M All 6/ Management VDEM to continue ally years of the community the community ity with regard to A.1 -A.6 InitiatedI In planning local emergency progress cycle, preparedness information. Create a Public Education Program within the public and private schools within the Emergency In progress, community that will provide M All 1,61 Management to continue disaster preparedness A.1 -A.6, D.1 -D.4 Initiated! In Locality, VDEM all 5 years of information to the student progress planning bodies that can be utilized cycle. within their individual homes. Create a knowledgeable group of speakers within the com munity that can be Emergency In progress, available to present L All 61 Management to continue programs regarding A.1 -A.6 Initiated / In VDEM all 5 years of Emergency Management progress planning Principles and Concepts to cycle. groups within the community. Conduct public education program throughout the City Emergency In progress, to residents and businesses L All fi 1 Management to continue relating to the "Shelter A.1 -A.6 Initiated d In VDEM all 5 years of Assignments and progress planning Management." cycle. Consider participating in the Storms, Emergency To complete StormReady Program sponsored by the National L Hurricane, Tornado, Winter 51 B.1 -B.5 Management Initiated! In VDEM, Locality by 4 years after Plan Weather Service. Storm progress I adoption. 111 Northem Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Develop plans that will Emergency In progress, provide continuity of H All 3I Management to continue operations for Public Safety B.1 -8.5 initiated I In Locality, VDEM all 5 years of and other related disciplines. progress planning cycle. Develop a comprehensive Emergency To compete debris management plan as H All All Management VDEM, VDOT, by 5 years of an annex to the Emergency Initiated I In Locality planning Operations Plan. progress cycle. Provide training opportunities to local zoning and building Emergency To complete code officials in subject L All All Management Locality by 5 years of materials such as damage Initiated I in planning assessment and mitigation. progress cycle. Staff the Departments of Emergency Management, Emergency To complete Public Safety and other associated departments at L A€ All Management Initiated / in Locality, VDEM by 5 years of planning levels that are adequate to progress cycle. support Emergency Program. Consider providing necessary electrical hook- Emergency In progress, ups including wiring and Management to complete swatches to allow ready M All A81 Initiated I In Locality, VDEM by 5 years of access and connection of planning emergency generators to key r9 Y y progress cycle. c critical ublic facilities. Continue to develop and Emergency In progress, to complete enhance the utilization of the M All All Management Initiated I In Locality, VDEM by 5 years of Reverse 9 1 -1 calling system. planning lanning cycle. Continue work on the development and administration of Public Emergency In progress, Education Programs to better educate and prepare the M All All Management Initiated 1 In Locality, VDEM to complete by 5 years of community to deal with progress planning natural and man -made cycle. disasters. Investigate all schools Emergency In progress, prioritizing those used as Management to complete community shelters for y L All All In itiated I In Locality, VDEM by 5 years of resistance to all natural planning hazards. progress cycle. Review and investigate all Emergency Emergency Eme In progress, flood -prone areas within the 21 to complete 100 year floodpiain area and L Flood B.1 -B. S, C.1 -C.4, Initiated I In Locality, VDEM by 5 years of incorporate mitigation D.1 -D.4 planning measures where possible, progress cycle. Provide NOAA weather Emergency In progress, radios to all public facilities to Management to permit ready access to L Ail All Initiated I In Locality, VDEM by years w issued weather planning statements. progress cycle. Create training opportunities Emergency In Progress, for staff increase their knowledge e and ability to use H All All Management GIS , Locality, VDEM to complete by 5 years of GIS for emergency initiated ! In tannin planning management, progress cycle. Provide National Incident Management System and Emergency In progress, Incident Command System H All All Management to complete training to all emergency Initiated I In Locality, VDEM by 5 years of response personnel and progress planning other key support personnel. cycle. Inspect and clear debris from storm water drainage Emergency In progress, systems to prevent property damage from localized M All All Management Locality, VDEM, to complete b 5 years of y flooding created by blocked Initiated I In VDOT tannin planning Inlets and transmission progress cycle. systems. I I I I I I 112 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Continue to administer Ongoing, to continue building and zoning regulations to insure proper M Flood 3/ Planninglnitlated! Localit V y, DEM through completion, development within flood 8.1 -6.5, o.1 -D.4 In progress p g ss or end of 5 prone areas. year planning cycle. Ongoing, to Evaluate existing storm water Emergency continue systems to determine if it is L Flood 2/ Management through adequate for existing and 4 9 D.1 -D.4 Initiated 1 In Locality, VDEM completion, future flood hazards. progress or end of 5 year planning cycle. Review and modify the Emergency Operations Plan to better address the 3 l ongoing, through 5 response to hazardous L All C.1 -C.4, D.1 -D.4, Planning Initiated In progress Locality year planning materials incidents by all 5.2 cycle for emergency response completion. p ersonnel; 113 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Chapter 7: Plan Maintenance This Chapter discusses how identified mitigation strategies will be implemented by participating jurisdictions and how the Plan will be evaluated and updated over tune. This section also discusses how the public will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process. The overall goal is for the Plan to remain a living document. This section was updated as part of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Per the FEMA guidance (October 2011) FEMA will accept the planning process as defined by the community. The collaborative nature of the steering committee, public, and local officials have been integral in the development and preparation of this Plan update including the format, mitigation strategies, focus on a website ( www.NSVemergency.org ) as well as other aspects throughout the planning process. The 2012 revision of the NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is expected to be adopted by participating jurisdictions in early Fall 2012. The governing body of each locality will be responsible for adopting the Mitigation Plan. Each governing body has the statutory authority to promote actions to prevent the loss of life and property from natural hazards. The Plan has been endorsed by each local government based on review and comment during August 2012. The next step is for NSVRC staff to submit the Plan to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM). The VDEM will then submit the plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and approval. Following FEMA approval, the local governments will formalize their adoption of the approved Plan through a letter or resolution. NSVRC staff is working with the twenty jurisdictions scheduling the work sessions and opportunity for adoption at Council and Board sessions between October through December 2012. By the September 30, 2012, the NSVCR will have a detailed schedule for each date the Plan will be on the agenda for adoption by a locality. This schedule for each locality is presented below based on the most current data available. Locality Work Session Scheduled for Adoption Clarke County 10/9/2012 10AM 11/20/2012 IPM Town of Berryville 11/13/12 7:30PM 12/11/12 7:30PM Town of Boyce 12/5/12 7PM Frederick County Oct committee; 11/28/12 71 1/22/13 or TBD Town of Middletown 11/5/12 Time unconfirmed 12/3/12 Time unconf. Town of Stephens City 11 /27/12 7:30PM Page County 11/6/12 7pm 1 12/4/12 7PM Town of Luray 11/12/12 71 1 12/10/12 7PM 114 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Town of Shenandoah - 10123/12`7PM • 11j27f 12 7PNf Town of Stanley 11/13/12 71 Shenandoah County 11 %13JJ 2'10,4fV1 _7 _ 7 ' 7:4P ; Town of Edinburg�1 /13; 3 pj Town of Mt Jackson 1113 Town of New Market 10/5/12;7 3QPI111 11/19?2 3PNI Town of Strasburg 11/5/2012 7 11/13/2012 7:30PM Town of Toms Brook 10/18/12 7PM 12/15/12 7PM Town of Woodstock 11/6/2017 7 M If3bp M Warren County 10/2/12 9AM 12/4/12 9AM Town of Front Royal 10/22/2012 7PM 12/127PII11 , City of Winchester 11/27/12 7PM 12/11/12 7PM Nate. All daties °not scheduled will be daterrnined1* eptbmber �O, 2Q12 Those,shade� rep resen dates, uncti°nfi €mgd. All resolutions for adoption of the plan are in Appendix C, Supporting documentation. Public comment was solicited during the drafting of the plan revision and prior to adoption by each participating jurisdiction. Local emergency management officials, planners and NSVRC staff were available to discuss the project at all meetings and hearings. Each jurisdiction participating in this Plan is responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions as prescribed in the previous chapter. Each action has been assigned to an agency, local government, or where possible, a point of contact that will be a resource for future committee reviews to contact regarding the status of a strategy. Because the locality - specific mitigation actions are directed specifically for each local government, the jurisdictions in the NSV planning region have adopted their locally specific Mitigation Strategy section of the Plan separately. Separate adoption of locally specific actions is required so that each jurisdiction is not responsible for the action(s) of the jurisdiction involved in the planning process. Separate adoption of locally specific actions also allows for each jurisdiction to retain flexibility over its prioritized strategies within the overall plan in between each five -year update of the Plan. Therefore, individual jurisdictions may update that specific section of the Plan individually, without meeting with the remainder of the Hazard Mitigation Committee. Some mechanism of annually tracking status (example surveys, etc.) will be implemented to report strategy status to the regional steering committee. The NSVRC or designated committee member(s) will maintain annual database documenting strategy status such as if the strategy has been completed, is on- going, or revised. Details of the annual activities are provided below. 115 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Future 5 year cyclic updates were detennined by the steering committee to include the following at a minimum: • Evaluate the Plan and strategies at the end of each calendar year • Survey localities regarding strategy status and provide suggestions for funding, etc. • The NSVRC staff, as guided by the steering committee, will issue the survey, review responses, and report findings to all participating jurisdictions, maintain on file in a central database at NSVRC, and report survey findings and recommendations to the VDEM annually. • The annual Hazard Mitigation update report will be summarized on the NSVRC website (www.NSVre ion.or and made available for public dissemination and comment, • The NSVRC staff will issue a media release annually that the results of the surveys of local and regional mitigation strategies are complete and available for comment on the website. If the steering committee determines sufficient public interest is initiated in response to the survey results, a public meeting may be held to solicit additional comments. • The results of any public comments will be included in the annual reporting submitted to VDEM. • NSVRC staff, as guided by the steering committee, will issue updates and mitigation strategy findings to local businesses, academia, local and regional planning staff, and any state agencies. • The steering committee will meet twice a calendar each year after the Plan update is approved by FEMA (starting December 2012) and determine if the frequency should be more often based upon needs. • The results of the findings from the steering committee survey will be included in the NSVRC annual report. The findings will also guide the NSVRC staff work plan annually to ensure support to localities to achieve regional and local mitigation strategies. • Other annual reviews during the 5 -year cycles may include recommendations by state and federal agencies. • The next formal 5 -year Plan update in 2017 will provide a summary of the annual findings. • The annual survey results will be presented to the Board of Commissioners of the NSVRC representing the participating. Other outreach efforts, as determined appropriate by the steering committee may include presentations and surveys on the NSVemergeney website. • Annual surveys and evaluations for each update by NSVCR staff as guided by the steering committee will also include identification of and a review of any new relevant or pertinent reports, plans, or data that affect natural hazard planning for that community. For example, the annual updates will survey each locality for updated comprehensive or capital improvement plans. As appropriate, the NSVCR planning staff may assist each locality 116 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update with narrative to update their locality- specific or regional plans to reflect pertinent sections of this Plan, as appropriate. • The Plan update and evaluations will be issued to the localities and interested stakeholders, by NSVRC staff, as directed by the steering committee, and will include a schedule of the Plan review meetings, current attendees, and an invitation to participate. In addition, the Plan update shall include the title and name of each contact person, how each locality participated to date. The meetings will also be announced to the general public through NSVRC media releases. To afford various groups and interested citizens the opportunity to participate in the update at specific dates and times. • During the process of this Plan update, the NSVRC staff monthly meetings included summaries of this Plan to identify any potential overlap with other regional or local projects or Plans. Where possible, plans prepared during the time of this update were revised to reflect the 2412 hazard mitigation Plan update. In the future updates, the NSVRC Executive Director will ensure that hazard mitigation plan is discussed at a minimum quarterly annually during NSVRC staff meetings to raise awareness amongst staff where cross over occurs in other program areas between projects and this Plan. In addition, locality- specific or regional plan updates NSVRC staff is aware of will be encouraged to include relevant sections of this Plan update. For example, NSVRC staff discussions may note overlap between natural hazard mitigation planning and community development and housing (property acquisition and improvement efforts), and transportations planning (example road and bridge improvements), and natural resource planning efforts (example stormwater efforts). Regional and local plans, projects, and programs will be updated to reflect pertinent sections of this Plan update. The annual surveys and updates of the Plan will be coordinated by the NSVRC hazard mitigation planning staff, and reported by Martha Shickle, Executive Director. The Executive Director will identify the responsible staff to meet the requirements of the annual updates, monitoring implementation, and evaluating effectiveness of the Plan. The NSVRC staff will work under the guidance of the hazard mitigation steering committee and report all findings through the steering committee. The steering committee will determine the survey questions and other mechanisms to interview participating jurisdictions regarding the effectiveness of the monitoring the Plan. (through annual surveys and reports of findings); evaluating the effectiveness of the Plan and revise protocol as best meets the guidance of the steering committee. In addition the NSVRC hazard mitigation planning staff will coordinate with the steering committee to update and revise the Plan every five years. The executive director of NSVRC shall submit the Plan update to VDEM annually as approved by the steering committee by March starting March 2414. The participating jurisdictions will be provided with an opportunity to add representatives to the steering committee annually. The 2017 Plan update that will compile the annual findings, updates, and evaluations will also include the following: each participating locality's review and revisions to the Plan., what documents and plans the locality revised to reflect the 2012 Plan 117 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation flan Update update, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in strategy priorities. NSVRC on behalf of the localities or the localities will resubmit if to the state and the state will review and advance it to FEMA for approval in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding. A review of the progress on the 2007 local mitigation strategies was completed as part of this Plan update and is presented in Appendix B. In general, most localities have made some progress on their 2007 . mitigation strategies, through ordinance reviews, floodplain reviews and management, GIS implementation, and development. For each identified action, potential funding sources have also been listed that may be used when the jurisdiction begins seeking funding for implementation of the action. These funding sources are not meant to be the only potential funding sources or strategies, but do provide an initial starting point for new projects, as well as projects already in progress. As part of the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee tracking strategy process, needs for funding can be revisited and updated as needed. It will be the responsibility of each participating jurisdiction to determine additional implementation procedures beyond the Mitigation Action SubPlan, listed in this Plan. Individual localities will be responsible for integrating the Plan into other planning documents, processes or mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, where appropriate. Local officials, planners, and emergency management staff are encouraged to continue to advocate for review and inclusion of identified mitigation strategies into relevant local plans and ordinances, as necessary. Periodic revisions and updates of the Plan are required to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazards vulnerability and mitigation priorities. This will also include updates to the list of critical facilities. An additional update that will be addressed is the compliance with any new state and federal regulations that could affect the mitigation strategies. In addition to annual updates conducted by review through the Regional Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, or designee, this Plan is mandated for a five -year update in 2017. Any increases in population, development, natural setting, urban areas, and new technology for assessing hazards or reducing risks from hazards will be included. In addition, the five -year update will also include any FEMA mapping revisions, or maps where there previously was a lack of coverage. The 2017 update of the NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be required to be adopted by all participating jurisdictions. Any local amendments adopted individually will be incorporated into the 2017 updated Plan. NSVRC and or the Regional Hazard Steering Committee will be responsible for the continued coordination of the annual monitoring of this plan. The Emergency Management Coordinator from each County and the City will provide annual updates to the Committee and or NSVRC 118 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update staff for an annual report to VDEM. The yearly reports will be compiled at the end of each calendar year, or as identified by the Hazard Mitigation Committee. If any of the Counties or Towns that participated in this planning effort wish to not participate in future updates of the Plan, they must notify NSVRC Executive Director in writing. To facilitate the localities with grant writing, the annual reviews of this Plan will include a listing of any and all new disaster declarations. Annual losses will be reported by the County and City Emergency Management Coordinators. NSVRC staff will maintain the documentation for the annual reviews of the Plan and house them in a central location, available to all participating localities. These annual updates will serve as the basis for the future 2017 update to the NSV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The NSVRC staff will review the results of the annual survey and evaluations and ensure localities are apprised of opportunities to revise plans to incorporate regional and local hazard mitigation updates and reference this Plan and future iterations. The results of the five -year review will be summarized in a report prepared by NSVRC staff and reported to the Board of Commissioners for the NSVRC, or to a designated committee. This annual reporting will include summary of any strategy changes in the Plan, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan, and recommendations by the localities, as appropriate. To be included in future updates of the Plan, as information becomes available, is an assessment of climate change and the impacts to the NSV region. The hazard mitigation steering committee also requested that future iterations of this Plan initiate the process to include man -made hazards and the response of the participating jurisdictions to mass evacuations from the Washington — Northern Virginia metropolitan area. 119