Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. PZ2020-02t/.uiljef. KENAl,AWIA ~ CITY OF KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PZ2020 -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI ADOPT THE CITY OF KENAI HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS , the City of Kenai recognizes the threat from natural disasters posed to residents and property ; and, WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation projects before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to residents and property and save taxpayer dollars; and, WHEREAS, an adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and, WHEREAS, the City of Kenai Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has been approved pending local adoption by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA: Section 1. That the Kenai City Council enact a resolution adopting the City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Section 2. That a copy of Resolution PZ2020-02 be forwarded to the Kenai City Council. PASSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA , this 22nd day of January 22, 2020. 0 ( v ~ ~o r ~ :iEfF TWAIT. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: MEMORANDUM TO: City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner DATE: January 17, 2020 SUBJECT: Resolution No. PZ2020-02 – Recommending the Kenai City Council Adopt the City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan ____________________________________________________________________________ The City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan has been approved by both the State of Alaska and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pending local adoption. Resolution No. PZ2020-02 would recommend adoption by the Kenai City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting on February 5, 2020. Included in the packet is the updated draft plan after considering comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, City Councilmembers, City Administration, and the public. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies and screens changes in the cryosphere, earthquakes, floods/erosion, volcanic ashfall, severe weather, and wild/conflagration fires. The mitigation strategy designates erosion as the top priority hazard, followed by wildland fire and earthquakes. If the Planning and Zoning Commissioners adopt Resolution No. PZ2020-02, it would be part of City Council’s consideration in their evaluation of a resolution to adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution No. PZ2020-02 B. Final Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan i City of Kenai Hazard   Mitigation Plan  Photo Credit:  Eagle Eye Gallery        Prepared for:    State of Alaska  DMVA/DHS&EM  P.O. Box 5800   JBER, Alaska 99505 Prepared by:  November 2019 ii                               This page was intentionally left blank.           iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1   Hazard Mitigation Planning ....................................................................... 1   Planning Requirements .............................................................................. 1  1.2.1 Local Mitigation Plans .................................................................... 1   Grant Programs with Mitigation Plan Requirements ................................. 1  1.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Programs ................. 2   HMP Description ........................................................................................ 3  2. Prerequisites ..................................................................................................... 5   Adoption by City Council and Supporting Documentation ........................ 5  3. Community Description .................................................................................... 6   Location ..................................................................................................... 6   History ....................................................................................................... 6   Demographics ............................................................................................ 7   Economy .................................................................................................... 8  4. Planning Process ............................................................................................... 9   Overview of Planning Process .................................................................... 9   Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ............................................................ 10   Public Involvement & Opportunity for Interested Parties to  Participate ............................................................................................... 10   Incorporation of Existing Plans and Other Relevant Information ............. 12  5. Hazard Profiles ................................................................................................ 13   Overview of a Hazard Analysis ................................................................. 13   Hazard Identification and Screening ........................................................ 13   Hazard Profile .......................................................................................... 15  5.3.1 Changes in the Cryosphere .......................................................... 15  5.3.2 Earthquake ................................................................................... 17  5.3.3 Flood and Erosion ........................................................................ 24  5.3.4 Volcanoes and Ashfalls ................................................................. 34  5.3.5 Severe Weather ........................................................................... 38  5.3.6 Wildfire and Conflagration Fire .................................................... 42  6. Vulnerability Analysis ..................................................................................... 49   Overview of a Vulnerability Analysis ........................................................ 49  iv  Current Asset Exposure Analysis .............................................................. 49  6.2.1 Asset Inventory ............................................................................ 49  7. Mitigation Strategy ......................................................................................... 56   Developing Mitigation Goals .................................................................... 56   Identifying Mitigation Actions .................................................................. 57   Evaluating and Prioritizing Mitigation Actions ......................................... 57   Implementing a Mitigation Action Plan ................................................... 60  8. Plan Maintenance ........................................................................................... 65   Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the HMP ...................................... 65   Implementation Through Existing Planning Mechanisms ........................ 66   Continued Public Involvement ................................................................. 70   Potential Funding Resources ................................................................... 70  9. References ...................................................................................................... 76  v Tables Table 1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................................. 10  Table 2. Public Involvement Mechanisms................................................................................................... 10  Table 3. Identification and Screening of Hazards ....................................................................................... 14  Table 4. Perceived Shaking, Potential Damage, and Peak Ground Acceleration ........................................ 19  Table 5. Historical Earthquakes within a 50‐Mile Radius of the Approximate Center of the City .............. 20  Table 6. Hazus Earthquake Results for M7.1 and M9.2 Earthquakes in the City of Kenai ......................... 22  Table 7. FEMA RiskMap Identified Areas of Mitigation Interest ................................................................ 23  Table 8. Moderate‐ and High‐Code Buildings in the City of Kenai .............................................................. 23  Table 9. Historical Wildland Fires ................................................................................................................ 45  Table 10. Estimated Population and Building Inventory ............................................................................ 50  Table 11. Alaska’s Critical Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 50  Table 12. Kenai’s Critical Facilities .............................................................................................................. 53  Table 13. Mitigation Goals .......................................................................................................................... 57  Table 14. Mitigation Goals and Potential Actions ....................................................................................... 58  Table 15. Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions ................................................................................... 59  Table 16. City Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 61  Table 17. Regulatory Tools .......................................................................................................................... 68  Table 18. Administrative and Technical Resources .................................................................................... 68  Table 19. Financial Resources for Hazard Mitigation ................................................................................. 69  Figures Figure 1. Kenai’s Historic Population ............................................................................................................ 7  Figure 2. Active and Potentially Active Faults in Alaska.............................................................................. 22  Figure 3. State of Alaska Earthquake Probability ........................................................................................ 24  Figure 4. Erosion Mechanism Schematic .................................................................................................... 27  Figure 5. Kenai Bluffs Location .................................................................................................................... 27  Figure 6. Kenai Bluffs Eroded Surface ......................................................................................................... 28  Figure 7. Storm Event at Kenai Bluffs.......................................................................................................... 28  Figure 8. Kenai Bluffs Erosion ..................................................................................................................... 31  Figure 9. Kenai Coastal Erosion ................................................................................................................... 32  Figure 10. Regional Volcanos ...................................................................................................................... 35  Figure 11. Areas Affected by Ash Falls ........................................................................................................ 36  Figure 12. Alaska Fire Management Options .............................................................................................. 44  Figure 13. Kenai Wildland Fire History ........................................................................................................ 47  Figure 14. City’s Wildland Fire Risk ............................................................................................................. 48  Figure 15. Critical Facilities Locations ......................................................................................................... 54  Appendices A Public Involvement   B Glossary  C FEMA Review Tool  D Benefit‐Cost Analysis Fact Sheet  E Plan Maintenance Documents  F FEMA Approval Letter and City Council Adoption Resolution      vi Acronyms/Abbreviations °F Degrees Fahrenheit  ACS American Community Survey  AEC Alaska Earthquake Center  AFS Alaska Fire Service  AICC Alaska Interagency Coordination Center  AVO Alaska Volcano Observatory  BLM Bureau of Land Management  CFR Code of Federal Regulations  City City of Kenai  DCCED Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development  DCRA Division of Community and Regional Affairs  DGGS Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey  DHS&EM Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management  DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000  DMVA Department of Military and Veterans Affairs  DNR Department of Natural Resources  DOF Division of Forestry  EQ Earthquake  F Fire  F&E Flooding and Erosion  FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency  FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance  FP&S Fire Prevention and Safety  FY Fiscal Year  G General  g gravity as a measure of peak ground acceleration  HAZUS Multi‐Hazard Software   HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance  HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program  HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan  HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning  KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough  M Magnitude  MAP  Mitigation Action Plan  mm millimeters  vii MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity  mph miles per hour  NFIP National Flood Insurance Program  NWS National Weather Service  PDM Pre‐Disaster Mitigation  PGA peak ground acceleration  Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act  STAPLEE Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental  SW Severe Weather  TF Technical Feasibility  UAF GI University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute  UHMA United Hazard Mitigation Assistance  USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture  USFS U.S. Forest Service  U.S. United States  USC United States Code  USGS United States Geological Survey  V Volcanic Ash  WUI Wildland Urban Interface Introduction 1 1. Introduction This section provides a brief introduction to hazard mitigation planning, associated grants, and  a description of this 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City of Kenai (City).    HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Hazard mitigation, as defined in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section  §201.2, is “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long‐term risk to people and  property from natural hazards and their effects.  Hazard mitigation is the only phase of  emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage reconstruction  and repeated damage. As such, States and Local governments are encouraged to take  advantage of funding provided by Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs.” (FEMA,  2015c).  Hazard mitigation is any work done to minimize the impacts of any type of hazard  event before it occurs and aims to reduce losses from future disasters. Hazard mitigation is a  process in which hazards are identified and profiled, people and facilities at risk are analyzed,  and mitigation actions are developed. Implementation of mitigation actions, which include  long‐term strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities,  is the end result of this process.  PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 1.2.1 Local Mitigation Plans On October 30, 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (P.L.  106‐390) which amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act  (Stafford Act) (Title 42 of the United States Code [USC] 5121 et seq.) by repealing the act’s  previous mitigation planning section (409) and replacing it with a new mitigation planning  section (322). Section 322 directs State and Local entities to closely coordinate mitigation  planning and implementation efforts. Additionally, it establishes the HMP requirement for the  Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) HMA.   On October 2, 2015, FEMA published the Mitigation Planning Final Rule in the Federal Register,  [Docket ID: FEMA‐2015‐0012], 44 CFR Part 201, effective November 2, 2015. Planning  requirements for Local entities are described in detail in Section §201.6.  Locally‐adopted and  FEMA‐approved HMPs qualify jurisdictions for several HMA grant programs.  This 2019 HMP for  the City complies with Title 44 CFR Section §201.6 and applicable FEMA guidance documents as  well as the 2018 State of Alaska HMP by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs  (DMVA) Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM).  Section 322 of the Stafford Act (42 USC 5165) as amended by P.L. 106‐390 provides for State  and Local governments to undertake a risk‐based approach to reducing risks to natural hazards  through mitigation planning.  The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC 4001 et seq.) as  amended, further reinforces the need and requirement for HMPs, linking Flood Mitigation  Assistance (FMA) programs to State and Local HMPs.  This change also requires participating  National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities’ risk assessments and mitigation  strategies to identify and address repetitively flood‐damaged properties.  GRANT PROGRAMS WITH MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS FEMA HMA grant programs provide funding to Local entities that have a FEMA‐approved HMP.  Two of the grants are authorized under the Stafford Act and DMA 2000, while the remaining  Introduction 2 three are authorized under the National Flood Insurance Act and the Bunning‐Bereuter‐ Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act. As of June 19, 2008, the grant programs were  segregated. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is a competitive, disaster‐funded  grant program whereas the other Unified Mitigation Assistance Programs (Pre‐Disaster  Mitigation [PDM] and FMA, although competitive) rely on specific pre‐disaster grant funding  sources, sharing several common elements.  “The DHS&EM FEMA HMA grant programs present a critical opportunity to  protect individuals and property from natural hazards while simultaneously  reducing reliance on Federal disaster funds. The HMA programs provide PDM  grants annually. The statutory origins of the programs differ, but all share the  common goal of reducing the loss of life and property due to natural hazards.  The PDM program is authorized by the Stafford Act and focuses on mitigation  project and planning activities that address multiple natural hazards, although  these activities may also address hazards caused by manmade events. The FMA  program is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act and focuses on  reducing claims against the NFIP” (FEMA, 2019h).  1.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Programs The HMGP provides grants to Local entities to implement long‐term hazard mitigation  measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of  life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be  implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Projects must provide a long‐term  solution to a problem; for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as  opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. In addition, a project’s potential  savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect  either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in  danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a particular  disaster declaration is limited. FEMA may provide a State or Local entity with up to 20% of the  total aggregate disaster damage costs to fund HMGP project or planning grants. The cost‐share  for this grant is 75% Federal/25% non‐Federal.  The PDM grant program provides funds to Local entities for hazard mitigation planning and  mitigation project implementation prior to a disaster event. PDM grants are awarded on a  nationally‐competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, a PDM project’s potential savings must be  more than the cost of implementing the project. In addition, funds may be used to protect  either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in  danger of, repetitive damage. The total amount of PDM funding available is appropriated by  Congress on an annual basis. In Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 and 2017, PDM program funding totaled  approximately $90 million each year. The cost‐share for this grant is 75% Federal/25% non‐ Federal.  The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or  eliminate flood insurance claims under the NFIP.  Particular emphasis for this program is placed on  mitigating repetitive loss properties. The primary source of funding for this program is the  The City of Kenai does not  participate in the NFIP.  Introduction 3 National Flood Insurance Fund. Grant funding is available for three types of grants, including  Planning, Project, and Technical Assistance. Project grants, which use the majority of the  program’s total funding, are awarded to States and Local entities to apply mitigation measures  to reduce flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. In FY 2016, FMA funding totaled  $199 million. In FY 2017, FMA funding totaled $160 million.  The cost‐share for this grant is 75%  Federal/25% non‐Federal.  HMP DESCRIPTION The remainder of this HMP consists of the following sections and appendices:   Prerequisites   Section 2 addresses the prerequisites of plan adoption, which includes adoption by the City  Council. The adoption resolution is included in Appendix F.   Community Description  Section 3 provides a general history and background of the City, including historical trends for  population and the demographic and economic conditions that have shaped the area.   Planning Process  Section 4 describes the planning process and identifies the Project Team Members, the  meetings held as part of the planning process, and the key stakeholders within the City. In  addition, this section documents public outreach activities (Appendix A) and the review and  incorporation of relevant plans, reports, and other appropriate information.  Hazard Analysis  Section 5 describes the process through which the Project Team identified, screened, and  selected the hazards to be profiled in this 2019 HMP. The hazard analysis includes the  characteristics, history, location, extent, impact, and recurrence probability statements of  future events for each hazard. In addition, historical and hazard location figures are included.  Vulnerability Analysis  Section 6 identifies potentially vulnerable assets—people, residential and nonresidential  buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure—in the City. The resulting information  identifies the full range of hazards that the City could face and potential social impacts,  damages, and economic losses.  Land use and development are also discussed.  Mitigation Strategy  Section 7 defines the mitigation strategy which provides a blueprint for reducing the potential  losses identified in the vulnerability analysis. The Project Team developed a list of mitigation  goals and potential actions to address the risks facing the City. Mitigation actions include  preventive actions, property protection techniques, natural resource protection strategies,  structural projects, emergency services, and public information and awareness activities.   Plan Maintenance   Section 8 describes the Project Team’s formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the  2019 HMP remains an active and applicable document. The process includes monitoring,  evaluating (Appendix E), and updating the HMP; implementation through existing planning  mechanisms; and continued public involvement.  Introduction 4 References  Section 9 lists the reference materials used to prepare this HMP.  Appendix A  Appendix A provides public outreach information, including newsletters, meeting sign‐in sheets,  trip reports, and presentations.    Appendix B  Appendix B contains a glossary of terms that are used throughout this HMP.  Appendix C  Appendix C provides the FEMA crosswalk, which documents compliance of this HMP with FEMA  criteria.  Appendix D  Appendix D contains the Benefit‐Cost Analysis Fact Sheet used to prioritize mitigation actions.  Appendix E  Appendix E provides plan maintenance documents, such as an annual review sheet, the  progress report form, and a community survey.  Appendix F  Appendix F provides the adoption resolution by the City Council and FEMA’s approval letter.  5 2. Prerequisites ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Requirements for the adoption of this 2019 HMP by the local governing body, as stipulated in  the DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.   DMA 2000 REQUIREMENTS: PREREQUISITES Local Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): The local hazard mitigation plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council). Element  Has the local governing body adopted the local hazard mitigation plan?   Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included?  Source: FEMA, 2015. The City is the local jurisdiction represented in this 2019 HMP.  This HMP meets the  requirements of the 2018 State of Alaska HMP, Section 322 of DMA 2000, and 44 CFR Section  §201.6, respectively. The local governing body of the City is the City Council.  The City Council adopted the 2019 HMP  by resolution on February 5, 2020. A scanned copy of the resolution is included in Appendix F.  Community Description 6 3. Community Description This section describes the location, history, demographics, and economy of the City.  LOCATION Kenai is located on  the western coast of  the Kenai Peninsula  in Southcentral  Alaska, fronting Cook  Inlet. It lies on the  western boundary of  the Kenai National  Wildlife Refuge, on  the Kenai Spur  Highway. It is  approximately 65 air  miles and 160  highway miles  southwest of  Anchorage via the  Sterling Highway at  approximately  60.5537 North  Latitude and ‐151.2546 West Longitude.  Kenai is located in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB)  Recording District (Department of Community, Commerce, and Economic Development  [DCCED], Division of Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA], 2019).  The City covers approximately 29.9 square miles of land and 5.6 square miles of water. Kenai  falls within the gulf coast transitional climate zone, characterized by a semi‐arid atmosphere;  long, cold winters; and mild summers.  Summer temperatures typically range from 46 to 65  degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and winter temperatures from 4 to 22°F. Annual precipitation is 20  inches.  Kenai’s northern climate is tempered by Upper Cook Inlet to the west and the Kenai  Mountain Range to the south and east.  Average wind speeds are 7.8 miles per hour (mph)  (WeatherSpark, 2019).  HISTORY Prior to Russian settlement, Kenai was a Dena'ina Athabascan village. Russian fur traders first  arrived in 1741. At that time, about 1,000 Dena'ina lived in the village of Shk'ituk't, near the  river. The traders called the people "Kenaitze" or "Kenai people." In 1791, a fortified Russian  trading post, Fort St. Nicholas, was constructed for fur and fish trading. It was the second  permanent Russian settlement in Alaska. In 1849, the Holy Assumption Russian Orthodox  Church was established by Egumen Nicholai. In 1869, the U.S. Military established a post for the  Dena'ina in the area, called Fort Kenay, which was abandoned in 1870 after Alaska was  purchased by the U.S. A post office was established in 1899. Through the 1920s, commercial  fishing was the primary activity. In 1940, homesteading enabled the area to develop. The first  Community Description 7 dirt road from Anchorage was constructed in 1951. In 1957, oil was discovered at Swanson  River, 20 miles northeast of the City ‐ the first major Alaska oil strike. The City was incorporated  in 1960. In 1965, offshore oil discoveries in Cook Inlet fueled a period of rapid growth. After  rapid increases during the economic booms of the 1960s through the 1980s, population growth  in Kenai began to stabilize by 2000, with more long‐term residents and a generally older  population.  Several other communities, such as Soldotna, Nikiski, Kasilof, and Sterling, are  within 20 miles of the City, giving the northwest peninsula a population of roughly 34,000.   Kenai has been a growing center for oil exploration, production, and services since that time.   DEMOGRAPHICS The 2010 U.S. Census recorded 7,100 residents for the City.  The 2016 American  Community Survey (ACS) recorded 7,551 residents, of which the median age was 37,  indicating a relatively young population that is expected to continue increasing as  depicted in Figure 1. Over 74% of the population is 18 years of age or older (ACS, 2016).    The City is a blended community.  About 77% of residents recognize themselves as  White, 11% of residents recognize themselves as Alaska Native, and 8% recognize  themselves as two or more races. The percentage of males is 51.6%, and the percentage  of females is 48.4%. The 2010 U.S. Census indicated that there are 3,508 households with  the average household having approximately three individuals.    Figure 1. Kenai’s Historic Population Community Description 8 ECONOMY The City of Kenai’s economic well‐being is closely tied to general economic conditions in the  Kenai/Soldotna area.  This area continues to be the trade and service center for the western  Kenai peninsula and a local government center.  The area has an industrial base and a healthy  visitor industry centered on the recreational fisheries of the Kenai River and Cook Inlet.  According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the median household income for the City was $58,732.  Approximately 991 individuals (14%) were reported to be living below the poverty level. The  potential work force (those aged 16 years or older) for the City was estimated to be 5,820, of  which 3,716 were actively employed.   The Kenai River is a major sport fishing location for Anchorage residents and tourists. The river  is world‐renowned for trophy king and silver salmon. The Kenaitze (Tanaina Athabascans) live  borough‐wide and utilize the rich resources of Cook Inlet.      Planning Process 9 4. Planning Process This section provides an overview of the planning process; identifies the Planning Team  members and key stakeholders; documents public outreach efforts; and summarizes the review  and incorporation of existing plans, studies, and reports used to develop this HMP.  Additional  information regarding the Planning Team and public outreach efforts is provided in Appendix A.  Requirements for the planning process, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its implementing  regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Planning Process Local Planning Process Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Element  Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan?  Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process?  Does the plan indicate how the public was involved?  Does the plan discuss the opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process?  Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? Source: FEMA, 2015. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS The DMVA DHS&EM provided funding and project oversight to LeMay Engineering &  Consulting, Inc. Ms. Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP guided the Hazard Mitigation Project Team to  assist the City with development of the HMP.  The following five‐step process occurred from August through December 2019.  1. Organize resources: Members of the Hazard Mitigation Project Team identified  resources, including staff, agencies, and local community members, who could provide  technical expertise and historical information needed in developing the HMP.  2. Assess risks: The Hazard Mitigation Project Team identified hazards specific to the City  and developed a risk assessment for the identified hazards, including the vulnerability  analysis, prior to and during the development of the mitigation strategy.  3. Assess capabilities: The Hazard Mitigation Project Team reviewed current administrative  and technical, legal and regulatory, and fiscal capabilities to determine whether existing  provisions and requirements adequately address relevant hazards.  4. Develop a mitigation strategy: After reviewing the risks posed by each hazard, the  Hazard Mitigation Project Team developed a comprehensive range of potential  mitigation goals and actions based on hazard events.  Goals were then integrated into  mitigation actions and were then prioritized based on community concerns with the top  three hazards being fire, erosion of the Kenai Bluffs, and earthquakes.    Planning Process 10 5. Monitor, evaluate, and update the HMP: The Hazard Mitigation Project Team developed  a process to monitor the HMP to ensure it will be used as intended while fulfilling  community needs. The Hazard Mitigation Project Team then developed a process to  evaluate the HMP on a yearly basis to compare how their decisions affect hazard  impacts. They then outlined a method to share their successes with community  members to encourage support for mitigation activities and to provide data for  incorporating mitigation actions into existing planning mechanisms and providing data  for the HMP’s five‐year update.  Opportunities are described in the Continued Public  Involvement Section of this HMP (Section 8).  HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM Table 1 lists the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team members and contact information.     Table 1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Team NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION EMAIL  Elizabeth Appleby  City Planner City of Kenai eappleby@kenai.city  David Ross Police Chief City of Kenai dross@kenai.city  Jeff Tucker Fire Chief City of Kenai jtucker@kenai.city  Jeremiah Hamilton Fire Marshal City of Kenai jhamilton@kenai.city  Bob Frates Parks and Recreation Director City of Kenai bfrates@kenai.city  Mary Bondurant Kenai Municipal Airport  Director City of Kenai mbondurant@kenai.city  Scott Curtin Public Works Director City of Kenai scurtin@kenai.city  Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP Mitigation Planner LeMay Engineering  & Consulting, Inc.  jlemay@lemayengineering.com  Rick Dembroski State of Alaska PDM Project  Manager DHS&EM rick.dembroski@alaska.gov  Brent Nichols, CFM State of Alaska Hazard  Mitigation Officer DHS&EM brent.nichols@alaska.gov  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE Table 2 lists the community’s public involvement initiatives to encourage participation and  insight for the HMP effort.  Table 2. Public Involvement Mechanisms Mechanism Description   Newspaper  Advertisement, dated  October 25, 2019  On October 25, 2019, the City advertised in the Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper for the KPB with  regional circulation. The newspaper advertisement contained the agenda for the October 30,  2019 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as Item A: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT:   Planning Process 11 Mechanism Description   Jennifer LeMay, LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. to discuss the City of Kenai Local Hazard  Mitigation Plan.  This advertisement is contained in Appendix A.  Newsletter #1  Distribution (November  8, 2019)  On November 8, 2019, the City distributed a newsletter describing the Draft 2019 HMP’s  availability and identifying a 30‐day public comment period. The newsletter encouraged the  community to provide comments and was posted at the City Hall, the Post Office, and the Kenai  Community Library.  The newsletter also invited the community to a December 4, 2019 City  Council meeting for a public hearing on the HMP.  The newsletter was posted on the City’s  website, City Facebook page, and read on radio to the KPB population.   Public Notice, dated  November 29, 2019  On November 29, 2019, the City advertised in the Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper for the KPB  with regional circulation. The newspaper advertisement contained the date of the December 4,  2019 City Council meeting but did not contain the agenda.    Radio and Video The December 4, 2019 City Council meeting was broadcast via radio to the KPB, and a video of  the meeting was posted on the City’s website.    The 2010 KPB HMP included an annex which identified the City of Kenai’s hazards.  In 2019, the  City of Kenai chose to have its own standalone HMP.  Rather than begin the process at the  stakeholder level, it was necessary for a rough draft to be developed which could be used by  the community to provide constructive feedback.  LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc.  developed a standalone HMP with consultation from the City Planner.  The Hazard Mitigation  Planning Team fine‐tuned the HMP via email and met on October 30, 2019 from 2‐4 pm to  further discuss input into the HMP.    On October 30, 2019 at 7 pm, Jennifer LeMay gave a hazard mitigation planning presentation as  an agenda item for the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting (see  Appendix A for meeting attendees, agenda, Powerpoint© presentation slides, minutes, and trip  report).  Hazards were confirmed, the risk assessment was summarized, and mitigation actions  were presented.   The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended sending the HMP to the  City Council.  A 30‐day public comment period began on November 8, 2019 to allow the community the  opportunity to read the HMP and provide comments.  The Draft HMP was posted on the City’s  web page.  A newsletter was also posted at City Hall, the Post Office, and the Kenai Community  Library notifying the public of the availability of the Draft HMP and inviting the public to provide  comments.  Neighboring communities were invited to participate with an advertisement in the Peninsula  Clarion, a newspaper for the KPB with regional circulation.  The City Council meeting was  broadcast via radio and youtube to Kenai residents and residents of neighboring communities,  and a video of the meeting was posted on the City’s website.  The KPB was also provided with  the opportunity to comment (see Appendix A).  City personnel with the authority to regulate development were involved with the Draft HMP  development and included the Fire Marshal, Airport Director, Public Works Director, and City  Planner as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Department.  On December 4, 2019 at 6 pm, Jennifer LeMay presented an HMP summary as an agenda item  for the regularly scheduled City Council meeting (see Appendix A for meeting attendees,  agenda, Powerpoint© presentation slides, minutes, and trip report).  A public hearing was held,  Planning Process 12 and comments are summarized in the trip report in Appendix A. The meeting was broadcast via  radio, and a video of the meeting was posted on the City’s website.  The HMP was updated based on public comments.  This updated document known as the Draft  HMP was then submitted to DHS&EM for review before being submitted to FEMA for  evaluation.  INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION During the planning process, the Hazard Mitigation Project Team reviewed and incorporated  information from existing plans, studies, and reports into the HMP. The following were  reviewed and used as references for the jurisdiction information and hazard profiles in the risk  assessment (see Section 6) of the HMP:   Draft KPB Comprehensive Plan, 2019:  provides the goals, visions, and conditions of  the KPB.  Kenai is a city within the KPB.   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Alaska Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section  116 Feasibility Study, Kenai, Alaska, 2018: addresses storm damage, coastal erosion,  and ice and glacial damage occurring at the Kenai Bluffs site.  The Kenai Bluffs, lining  the north shore of the Kenai River estuary for roughly 5,000 feet, have been receding  at an average rate of approximately three feet per year, due to a combination of  coastal storm surge, tidal currents, and other erosive forces.  Public and private  property, structures and infrastructure, and cultural resources have been lost and  continue to be threatened by the receding bluff.   FEMA Region X – KPB, Alaska Risk Report for the KPB and the Incorporated Cities of  Homer, Kachemak, Kenai, Seldovia, Seward, and Soldotna, 2017:  contains the results  of an in‐depth risk assessment for flood, earthquake, erosion, tsunami, and dam  failure hazards for KPB cities, including a summary of the Risk Assessment Database.   City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan, 2016:  documents the City’s effort to guide  development in the community until 2030 and provides important information about  the population, environment, economy, transportation, and land use.   City of Kenai’s Annex to the KPB Local All‐Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010:  provides a  brief overview of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the City.   City of Kenai Emergency Operations Plan, 2007:  addresses authorities, roles, and  responsibilities for disaster‐specific functions.   Kenai Area:  Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006: provides a risk assessment  and mitigation plan for the City regarding wildfire.   State of Alaska, DCCED Community Profile: provides historical and demographic  information.  Hazard Profiles 13 5. Hazard Profiles This section identifies and profiles the hazards that could potentially affect the City.  OVERVIEW OF A HAZARD ANALYSIS A hazard analysis includes the identification, screening, and profiling of each hazard. Hazard  identification is the process of recognizing the natural events that threaten an area. Natural  hazards result from unexpected or uncontrollable natural events of sufficient magnitude. Even  though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in the study area, all‐natural  hazards that may potentially affect the study area are considered; the hazards that are unlikely  to occur or for which the risk of damage is accepted as being very low, are eliminated from  consideration.  Human and Technological, and Terrorism‐related hazards are beyond the scope  of this HMP.  Hazard profiling is accomplished by describing hazards in terms of their characteristics, history,  location, extent, breadth, magnitude, frequency, and recurrence probability. Hazards are  identified through the collection of historical and anecdotal information, review of existing  plans and studies, and preparation of hazard maps of the study area. Hazard maps are used to  determine the geographic extent of the hazards and define the approximate boundaries of the  areas at risk.  HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING Requirements for hazard identification, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its implementing  regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment: Identifying Hazards Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location, and extent of all-natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Element  Does the plan include a description of the types of all-natural hazards with the potential to affect the jurisdiction?  Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?  Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., breadth, magnitude, or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?  Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard?  Does the plan include recurrence probability statements of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed? Source: FEMA, 2015.   For the first step of the hazard analysis, the Hazard Mitigation Project Team reviewed possible  hazards that could affect the City according to the 2018 State of Alaska HMP (DHS&EM, 2018a).  They then evaluated and screened the comprehensive list of potential hazards based on a range  of factors, including prior knowledge or perception of their threat and the relative risk  presented by each hazard, the ability to mitigate the hazard, and the known or expected  availability of information on the hazard (see Table 3). The Hazard Mitigation Project Team  determined that the hazards that have the potential to impact the City include: changes in the  Hazard Profiles 14 cryosphere, earthquakes, flood/erosion, volcanic ashfall, severe weather, and wildland/  conflagration fires. The remaining hazards excluded through the screening process were  considered to pose a lower threat to life and property in the City due to the low likelihood of  occurrence or the low probability that life and property would be significantly affected.   Table 3. Identification and Screening of Hazards Hazard Type  Should It  Be  Profiled?  Explanation  Changes in the  Cryosphere Yes  Changes in the cryosphere is designated as a hazard in the 2018 State of  Alaska HMP.  The City suffers from “silent storms” where high‐water storm  surges erode and undercut the banks.  This hazard is included under  floods/erosion in Section 5.3.  Both sea ice and river ice collect at the toe of  the Kenai Bluffs during the winter months, although to what extent is  dependent on temperatures, wind direction and intensity, tides, and ice  concentration in Cook Inlet (USACE, 2018).    Earthquakes Yes  Earthquakes are designated as a hazard in the 2018 State of Alaska HMP with  a high probability of occurring in the KPB.  The 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake  and resulting tsunami caused significant damage in Seldovia.  Land subsidence  within the KPB occurred in Seward, Homer, Hope, and Seldovia, where some  of the most drastic subsidence dropped land six feet.  The City was relatively  undamaged in the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake.  The 2018 earthquake that  was centered in the Matanuska‐Susitna Borough caused damage to the City  dock and wellhouse.  Floods/Erosion Yes  Flooding is designated as a hazard in the 2018 State of Alaska HMP with a  high probability of occurring in the KPB.  The 2017 FEMA Risk Report did not  identify flooding as a concern for the City; the Wastewater Treatment Plant  was identified in the report as having the potential to be affected by erosion  due to its location within a parcel along an identified Cook Inlet erosion zone.   The beach has been restored in the area near the Wastewater Treatment  Plant, and Public Works does not have any concerns at this time.  Only the  Kenai Bluffs area will be discussed in the HMP with regards to erosion.  Ground Failure No The terrain in the City is not likely to produce ground failure.  Volcanic Ashfall Yes  The City has been affected by volcanic ashfall from volcanoes in the past.  Volcanoes are designated as a hazard in the 2018 State of Alaska HMP with a  high probability of occurring in the KPB.    Severe Weather Yes  Annual weather patterns, such as fog and high winds, are predominant  threats. Severe weather is designated as a hazard in the 2018 State of Alaska  HMP with a high probability of occurring in the KPB.  High winds cause trees  to fall on power lines.      Wildland/Conflagration  Fires Yes  Dead and dying spruce trees pose the greatest risk of wild fire on the entire  KPB, including the City.  Wildland fire is designated as a hazard in the 2018  State of Alaska HMP with a high probability of occurring in the KPB.    Tsunamis No  The City is not at risk for tsunamis based on its location near the relatively  shallow depth of upper Cook Inlet.    Hazard Profiles 15 HAZARD PROFILE Requirements for hazard profiles, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations,  are described below.  The specific hazards selected by the Planning Team for profiling have been examined in a  methodical manner based on the following factors:    Hazard Characteristics;    Typical event characteristics;   Potential climate change impacts are primarily discussed in the Changes in the  Cryosphere hazard profile but are also identified where deemed appropriate  within selected hazard profiles;   History (geologic as well as previous occurrences);   Location;   Extent (breadth, magnitude, and severity);   Impact (general impacts associated with each hazard are described in the following  profiles, and detailed impacts to the City’s residents and critical facilities are further  described in Section 6 as part of the overall vulnerability summary for each hazard); and   Recurrence probability statement of future events.  The hazards profiled for the City are presented in the rest of Section 5.3. They are placed in  alphabetical order which does not signify the importance level or risk.  5.3.1 Changes in the Cryosphere 5.3.1.1 Hazard Characteristics The “cryosphere” is defined as those portions of Earth’s surface and subsurface where water is  in solid form, including sea, lake, and river ice, snow cover, glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets, and  frozen ground (e.g., permafrost).  The components of the cryosphere play an important role in  climate.  Snow and ice reflect heat from the sun, helping to regulate the Earth’s temperature.   They also hold Earth’s important water resources, and therefore, regulate sea levels and water  availability in the spring and summer.  The cryosphere is one of the first places where scientists  are able to identify global climate change.  Hazards of the cryosphere can be subdivided into four major groups:   Glaciers;   Permafrost and periglacial;   Sea ice; and    Snow avalanche.  Glaciers, permafrost, and snow avalanche are not applicable to the City of Kenai.  Of these four  major groups, sea ice applies to the City of Kenai.   Hazard Profiles 16 Sea ice is frozen ocean water that forms, grows, and melts in the ocean.  Sea ice grows in Cook  Inlet during the winter and melts during the summer.  The winds from a fall storm can push sea  ice onto the beach.  The ice will then gouge the beach and cause other damage.  Both sea ice  and river ice collect at the toe of the Kenai Bluffs during the winter months, although to what  extent is dependent on temperatures, wind direction and intensity, tides, and ice concentration  in Cook Inlet.  The average Kenai River ice freeze‐up is December 10, and the average ice break‐ up is April 2.  Ice can close the river to vessel traffic for short periods from December to early  April (USACE, 2018).  5.3.1.2 Climate Factors The cryosphere is strongly tied to climate, and thus, very responsive to climate warming.   Changes in climate can modify natural processes and increase the magnitude and recurrence  frequency of certain geologic hazards (e.g., floods caused by storm surge, erosion, and  increased precipitation), which if not properly addressed, could have a damaging effect on  Alaska’s communities and infrastructure, as well as on the livelihoods and lifestyles of Alaskans.   Wave climate and extreme water level events have the potential to change with climate and  influence coastal erosion rates.  During the last several decades, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the U.S.  The  major climatic factor leading to warming is an increase in air temperatures.  Even in non‐ice‐rich  soils, process‐driven models show more material is available for erosion and transport when  soil is thawed, which leads to increased exposure of underlying material to thermal and physical  stressors.     5.3.1.3 Cryosphere Hazard History The 2016 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan noted a drying trend in wetlands and that trees are  growing at higher altitudes.  The 2019 Draft KPB Comprehensive Plan states the average May to  August temperature has increased nearly 2°F over the last 50 years.  The increase in  temperature changed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plant hardiness zones for the  KPB.  The 2015 USDA Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Chugach National Forest  predicted the following climate conditions: shorter winter months, more snowpack at higher  elevations and less snowpack at lower elevations, less rain in spring and more rain in autumn,  and a drying trend for the western KPB that may increase the risk of wildland fire. 5.3.1.4 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location  Within the City, sea ice primarily occurs in Upper Cook Inlet, and river ice occurs at the mouth  of the Kenai River.  Snow occurs everywhere on land.  Extent  The entire state of Alaska is at risk of affects from climate change.  The state has grown wetter,  with a 30% increase in average precipitation between 1968 and 1990.  The growing season has  Hazard Profiles 17 lengthened by about 14 days.  Models predict continued warming, including an increase in  temperature by 1.5 to 5°F by 2030 and 5 to 18°F by 2100.    Impact  Impacts of a warming climate may include:   Springs, seeps, or wet ground that is not typically wet;  New cracks or bulges in the ground or pavement;  Soil subsiding from a foundation;  Secondary structures (decks, patios) tilting or moving away from main  structures;  Broken water line or other underground utility;  Leaning structures that were previously straight;  Offset fence lines;  Sunken or dropped‐down road beds;  Rapid increase in stream levels, sometimes with increased turbidity;  Rapid decrease in stream levels even though it is raining or has recently  stopped; and  Sticking doors and windows, visible spaces indicating frames out of plumb. Recurrence Probability  Changes to the cryosphere are occurring and will continue to do so.  5.3.2 Earthquake Alaska is one of the most seismically active regions in the world and is at risk of societal and  economic losses due to damaging earthquakes.  On average, Alaska has one “great” magnitude  [(M) >8] earthquake every 13 years and one M 7‐8 earthquake every year.  Earthquakes have  killed more than 130 people in Alaska during the past 60 years (DHS&EM, 2018a).  It is not possible to predict the time and location of the next big earthquake, but the active  geology of Alaska guarantees that major damaging earthquakes will continue to occur and can  affect almost anywhere in the state.  Scientists have estimated where large earthquakes are  most likely to occur, along with the probable levels of ground shaking to be expected.  With this  information, as well as information on soil properties and landslide potential, it is possible to  estimate earthquake risks in any given area.    Alaska earthquake statistics include:   Alaska is home to the second‐largest earthquake ever recorded (1964 Great  Alaska Earthquake, M 9.2);   Alaska has 11% of the world’s recorded earthquakes; and  Hazard Profiles 18  Three of the eight largest earthquakes in the world occurred in Alaska.  Since 1900, Alaska has had an average of:   45 M 5‐6 earthquakes per year;   320 M 4‐5 earthquakes per year; and   1,000 earthquakes located in Alaska each month.  Source:  Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC)  5.3.2.1 Hazard Characteristics An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling caused by a release of stress accumulated  within or along the edge of Earth’s tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be felt far  beyond the site of its occurrence. Earthquakes usually occur without warning, and after only a  few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. The most common effect of  earthquakes is ground motion, or the vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake.   Ground motion generally increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with  distance from the rupture area.  An earthquake causes waves in the earth’s interior (i.e.,  seismic waves) and along the earth’s surface (i.e., surface waves). Two kinds of seismic waves  occur: P (primary) waves are longitudinal or compressional waves similar in character to sound  waves that cause back and forth oscillation along the direction of travel (vertical motion), and S  (secondary) waves, also known as shear waves, are slower than P waves and cause structures to  vibrate from side to side (horizontal motion). There are also two types of surface waves: Raleigh  waves and Love waves. These waves travel more slowly and typically are more damaging than  seismic waves because they cause larger motions and their frequency is close to harmonic  frequencies for human structures and for sedimentary deposits.   In addition to ground motion, several secondary natural hazards can occur from earthquakes  such as:   Strong Ground Motion is ground shaking.  Strong ground motion intensity is directly  correlated with earthquake magnitude (i.e., the larger the earthquake magnitude, the  more intense and widespread the ground shaking will be).  The strong ground motion  severity is also dependent on the distance from the energy source.     Surface Rupturing occurs when the subsurface patch of fault that slips in an earthquake  intersects the earth’s surface.  This causes discrete, differential ground movement  during intense earthquake shaking.  The relative crustal block motion is dictated by the  rupture’s fault type, which can be horizontal, vertical, or a combination of both.   Earthquakes larger than a M of 6.5 have sufficient energy to create surface ruptures, but  whether or not this occurs is dependent on the earthquake’s depth.  The shallower a  depth at which a significant earthquake occurs, the more likely it is to create a surface  rupture.  Permanent displacement along faults can be substantial.  Surface ruptures, as  a product of intense strong ground motion, can cause severe damage to existing  structures.  Hazard Profiles 19  Landslides/Debris Flows occur as a result of horizontal seismic inertia forces induced in  the slopes by ground shaking. The most common earthquake‐induced landslides include  shallow, disrupted landslides such as rock falls, rockslides, and soil slides. Debris flows  are created when surface soil on steep slopes becomes completely saturated with  water. Once the soil liquefies, it loses the ability to hold together and can flow downhill  at very high speeds, taking vegetation and/or structures with it. Slide risks increase after  an earthquake during a wet winter.   The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in terms of intensity and M. Intensity is based  on the damage and observed effects on people and the natural and built environment. It varies  from place to place depending on the location with respect to the earthquake rupture (where  the fault moved). While the area directly above the rupture usually experiences the most  intense earthquake effects (e.g., shaking), the total area affected can cover hundreds of  thousands of square miles, depending on the earthquake’s M.    Larger earthquakes are less common than smaller earthquakes, such that the smallest  earthquakes are extremely frequent, while the largest earthquakes are relatively infrequent.    Earthquakes are also classified by their felt effects (e.g., perceived shaking intensity).  However,  the effects of an earthquake are directly related to the distance from the earthquake rupture,  among other parameters such as the type of crust where the earthquake occurs.  In general,  the closer one is to an earthquake’s epicenter, the more severe the felt effects and damage will  be.  An earthquake’s intensity is described by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale. As  shown in Table 4, the MMI Scale consists of 10 increasing levels of intensity that range from  imperceptible to catastrophic destruction. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is also used to  measure earthquake intensity by quantifying how hard the earth shakes in a given location.  PGA can be measured as acceleration due to gravity (g) (MMI, 2006).  Table 4. Perceived Shaking, Potential Damage, and Peak Ground Acceleration M is the measure of the earthquake’s strength and is related to the amount of seismic energy  released at the earthquake’s hypocenter, the actual location of the energy released inside the  earth. It is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments, known as  the Richter magnitude test scales, which have a common calibration.  5.3.2.2 History The KPB is subject to numerous earthquake events of varying magnitudes.  Several fault lines  traverse the KPB, including the Lake Clark Fault, Bruin Bay Fault, Sterling Fault, Border Ranges  Fault, and Eagle River Fault.  The region’s tectonic activity, documented back to 1933, includes  258 earthquakes centered within the KPB that registered over a M of 4.5 (FEMAj, 2017).  Hazard Profiles 20 A 7.1 earthquake with an epicenter north of Anchorage on November 30, 2018 damaged some  City facilities.  Damage was not as extensive as that in the Municipality of Anchorage or the  Matanuska‐Susitna Borough since the epicenter was farther away from Kenai.  The Kenai City  Dock was damaged with structural cracks in the concrete.  Well House #1 and the building  surrounding the well house were damaged.  A water main break in a residential neighborhood  resulting from the earthquake about a week after its occurrence was fixed by the City’s Public  Works Department.   One of the largest earthquake events in the KPB region occurred 53 miles west of Anchor Point  on January 24, 2016, with a M of 7.1.  This earthquake, referred to as the 2016 Old Iliamna  Earthquake, occurred 123.4 kilometers below ground, approximately 54 miles west of Anchor  Point.  It was reported that the shaking could be felt from Fairbanks to Juneau.  The earthquake  caused immediate regionwide power outages, gas leaks, and fires, which destroyed four  homes.  Additionally, businesses reported damaged merchandise, and the Kalifornsky Beach  Road dropped down a foot, creating a 150‐foot‐long‐crack.  The Red Cross provided shelters for  those whose homes were damaged, and for residents unable to return home due to closed  roads.  No fatalities were reported, and the structural damage was minimal.   As a result of the 2016 Old Iliamna Earthquake, the City felt the greatest impact when a gas line  broke on Lilac Lane and released 406,000 cubic feet of natural gas (KBBI, 2016).  The Pipeline  and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska didn’t  cite any corrosion or pre‐existing problem with the line.  There were two house explosions, and  a fire claimed two more, resulting in a total of four homes on Lilac Lane being completely  destroyed. Lindsay Hobson, a spokeswoman for Enstar Natural Gas, stated, “But for the  earthquake, there wouldn’t have been any damage to the line at all.  The earthquake moved  the line, and we had the resulting release of gas.”  Since 1931, 27 earthquakes have been recorded with a M of 5.0 or greater within a 50‐mile  radius of the approximate center of the City (60.559454⁰ N, 151.233000⁰ W) (Table 5).      Table 5. Historical Earthquakes within a 50-Mile Radius of the Approximate Center of the City Date Latitude Longitude Depth M Place  2017‐05‐30 60.8341 ‐151.8152 81.2 5.2 33km WNW of Nikiski, Alaska  2017‐05‐07 60.1828 ‐151.6783 67.2 5.3 29km SW of Cohoe, Alaska  2014‐05‐10 60.0101 ‐152.126 89.1 5.8 30km NNW of Anchor Point, Alaska  2012‐12‐04 61.24 ‐150.7682 63.7 5.8 Southern Alaska  2011‐06‐16 60.7649 ‐151.076 58.9 5.1 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  2009‐08‐19 61.2279 ‐150.8579 66.4 5.1 Southern Alaska  2004‐05‐30 61.056 ‐152.2015 124.9 5.3 Southern Alaska  2004‐03‐05 60.5023 ‐151.64 61.7 5 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  2001‐01‐25 60.114 ‐152.363 86.9 5.5 Southern Alaska  1999‐04‐18 60.387 ‐151.852 73.4 5.3 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1995‐05‐24 61.007 ‐150.119 41.8 5.6 Southern Alaska  1994‐04‐25 60.899 ‐151.142 67.9 5.4 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1991‐12‐07 60.954 ‐150.344 50.9 5.2 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1990‐08‐13 60.115 ‐152.006 87.6 5.5 Southern Alaska  1990‐03‐09 60.307 ‐152.286 84.9 5.3 Southern Alaska  1984‐04‐18 60.833 ‐152.067 95 5.1 Southern Alaska  1971‐06‐02 61.055 ‐151.147 29 5 Southern Alaska  1960‐06‐30 60.3 ‐150.9 55 5.9 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  Hazard Profiles 21 1958‐11‐19 60.46 ‐150.91 46 5.9 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1958‐01‐24 60.16 ‐151.76 52 6.4 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1954‐10‐03 60.651 ‐150.392 61.5 6.4 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1941‐07‐30 60.927 ‐151.033 35 6.4 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1940‐10‐11 60 ‐150.5  6 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1934‐06‐18 60.855 ‐151.316 15 6 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska  1933‐06‐13 61 ‐151  6.25 Southern Alaska  1933‐04‐27 61.131 ‐151.004 15 6.8 Southern Alaska  1931‐12‐24 60 ‐152 100 6.25 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska    5.3.2.3 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location  The Uniform Building Code rates the entire state of Alaska in Earthquake Zone 4, the highest  hazard level.  Figure 2 shows the locations of active and potentially active faults in Alaska.   Approximately 75% of Alaska’s detected earthquakes occur in the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian,  Cook Inlet, and Anchorage areas.  About 15% occur in Southeast Alaska, and the remaining 10%  occur in the Interior.  The greatest earthquake in North American history occurred in the  Alaska‐Aleutian Seismic zone.  That earthquake was a M of 9.2, lasting between four and five  minutes and was felt over a 7,000,000 square mile area.  The megathrust zone where the North  Pacific Plate plunges beneath the North American Plate still has the potential to generate  earthquakes up to a M of 9.    Extent  Although Southcentral Alaska is in a high seismic risk zone, the City was relatively undamaged in  the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake; however, the potential for seismic events remains high.       “Alaska has changed significantly since the damaging 1964 earthquake, and the population has  more than doubled.  Many new buildings are designed to withstand intense shaking; some older  buildings have been reinforced, and development has been discouraged in some particularly  hazardous areas.  Despite these precautions, and because practices to reduce vulnerability to earthquakes are not  applied consistently in regions of high risk, future earthquakes may still cause life‐threatening  damage to buildings, cause items within buildings to be dangerously tossed about, and disrupt  basic utilities and critical facilities.   FEMA estimates that with the present infrastructure and policies, Alaska will have the second  highest average annualized earthquake‐loss ratio (ratio of average annual losses to  infrastructure) in the country.  Reducing those losses requires public commitment to  earthquake‐conscious siting, design, and construction.  The Seismic Hazards Safety Commission  is committed to addressing these issues.  Earthquake‐risk mitigation measures developed by  similar boards in other states have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and  significant reductions in casualties when compared to other seismically active areas of the world  that do not implement effective mitigation measures.  The San Francisco (1989), Northridge  (1994), and Nisqually (2001) earthquakes caused comparatively low losses as a result of  Hazard Profiles 22 mitigation measures implemented in those areas.  Many of these measures were recommended  by the states’ seismic safety commissions.”  Source:  HAZUS 99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the U.S., FEMA Report 66.  September 2000.  Via DHS&EM,  2018a.    Figure 2. Active and Potentially Active Faults in Alaska   Impact  Two earthquake risk assessments were performed by FEMA using multi‐hazard software  (HAZUS) (FEMAj, 2017).  The first assessment used a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ShakeMap  created from the January 2016 M 7.1 Old Iliamna earthquake event and provides an estimate of  expected earthquake losses.  The second assessment simulated the 1964 Great Alaska  Earthquake with a M of 9.2 (using a USGS‐developed shaking scenario) to predict losses if the  event were to happen in 2017.  The results for the City are summarized in Table 6.  See Table 7  for a detailed breakout of impacted facilities for the City.   Table 6. Hazus Earthquake Results for M7.1 and M9.2 Earthquakes in the City of Kenai Total  Estimated  Value of  Improved  Parcels  Total Number  of Improved  Parcels  M 7.1 Event M 9.2 Event  Total Dollar  Loss  Loss Ratio  (Dollar  Losses/Total  Value)  Total Dollar  Loss  Loss Ratio  (Dollar  Losses/Total  Value)  $1,525,005,650 3,652 $2,482,040 0.16% $52,539,885 3.45%    Recurrence Probability   While it is not possible to predict an earthquake, the USGS has developed Earthquake  Probability Maps that use the most recent earthquake rate and probability models.  These  Hazard Profiles 23 models are derived from earthquake rate, location, and M data as well as from mapping of  active faults, from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.    Table 7. FEMA RiskMap Identified Areas of Mitigation Interest Category Name Total Value  (Building and  Contents)  Estimated Loss  from M9.2  Earthquake  M9.2 Earthquake  Loss Ratio  Water Treatment  Facility  Kenai Wastewater  Treatment Facility  $14,625,200 $453,829 3.1%  School Kenai Central  High School*  $115,594,200 $4,971,042 4.3%  School Kenai Middle  School*  $46,243,200 $1,988,654 4.3%  City Office Kenai City Hall $3,279,950 $123,822 3.78%  Fire Station Kenai Fire  Department  $3,279,950 $123,822 3.78%  City Office Kenai Fire  Department  $3,279,950 $123,822 3.78%  Police Station Kenai Police  Station  $3,279,950 $123,822 3.78%  Emergency  Shelter  LDS Chapel $3,459,400 $129,867 3.75%  Emergency  Shelter  Kaleidoscope  Charter School  $20,886,600 $783,338 3.75%  Federal Office U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers’  Kenai Field Office  $879,600 $32,401 3.68%  Park Beaver Creek Park $15,800 $552 3.49%  School Mountain View  Elementary*  $27,087,400 $942,826 3.48%  Note:  Hazards are considered identified if the following applies:  1. Earthquake:  Subject has a M 9.2 Earthquake Loss Ratio greater than 3.48%.  *   Facility is also a designated Emergency Shelter.  The results of each code type are summarized in Table 8.  Table 8. Moderate- and High-Code Buildings in the City of Kenai Total Moderate‐Code  Buildings  Percent Moderate‐ Code Buildings  Total High‐Code  Buildings  Percent High‐Code  Buildings  Total Number of  Buildings  1,077 29.49% 2,575 70.51% 3,652  Notes:  1.  Pre‐code buildings were built before 1941, without a wooden frame.                 2.  Moderate‐code means buildings were constructed after 1941, but with a wood frame and may include some  earthquake building components.                3.  High‐code means buildings built after 1975.    The measure of peak ground acceleration is relative to the acceleration due to gravity (1 g).  At  1 g vertical acceleration, objects will be lofted off the ground as it moves down, and then  experience twice their own weight when the ground moves up.  One g of horizontal  acceleration will make flat ground feel as though it is sloped at 45 degrees – steep enough that  most things would fall.  Figure 3 indicates that the USGS earthquake probability model places  the probability of an earthquake in the City of Kenai with a likelihood of experiencing severe  shaking (0.60g to 0.80g peak ground acceleration) at a 2% probability in 50 years, based on the  USGS Alaska hazard model.  A 2% probability in 50 years is the rare, large earthquake, and  statistically, it happens on average every 2,500 years.   Hazard Profiles 24 Figure 3. State of Alaska Earthquake Probability     5.3.3 Flood and Erosion 5.3.3.1 Hazard Characteristics Floods  Approximately 6,600 miles of Alaska’s coastline and many low‐lying areas along Alaska’s  riverbanks are subject to severe flooding and erosion.  The U.S. Government Accountability  Office reported in 2003 that flooding and erosion affect 184 out of 213 (86%) of Alaska Native  villages.  Many of the problems are long‐standing, although studies indicate that increased  flooding and erosion are being caused in part by changes in the cryosphere (DHS&EM, 2018a).    Flooding is the overflow of excess water from a stream, river, lake, reservoir, glacier, or coastal  body of water onto adjacent floodplains or normally dry land. Floodplains are lowlands adjacent  to water bodies that are subject to recurring floods. Floods are natural events that are  considered hazards only when people and property are affected.  Flooding is Alaska’s most  common disaster, often costing in excess of one million dollars annually, causing major  disruptions to society and occasionally loss of life (DHS&EM, 2018a).  Many floods are predictable based on rainfall patterns. In the City, most of the annual  precipitation is received from August through October with September being the wettest. This  rainfall leads to flooding in winter. Spring snowmelt increases runoff, which can cause flooding.   Hazard Profiles 25 To develop flood predictions, the National Weather Service (NWS) and DHS&EM operate a  flood‐forecasting network in the most populated parts of Alaska (River Watch), including the  KPB. Predictions are also difficult for many of the smaller rivers because of the short time  span between when the precipitation occurs and the flooding starts.  Erosion  Erosion is the action of surface processes (such as water) that remove soil, rock, or dissolved  material from one location and transport it to another location.  Erosion can be gradual or  occur quite quickly as the result of a flash flood, storm, or other event.  Most of the geomorphic  change to a river system is due to peak flow events that can dramatically increase the erosion  rate.  Erosion is a problem in developed areas where disappearing land threatens development  and infrastructure (DHS&EM, 2018a).  Erosion rarely causes death or injury. However, erosion  causes the destruction of property, development, and infrastructure. There are three main  types of erosion that affect human activity in the City:   Coastal erosion;   Riverine erosion; and   Wind erosion.  Coastal and Riverine Erosion  Coastal erosion is the wearing away of coastal land. This term is commonly used to describe the  horizontal retreat of the shoreline along the ocean, or the vertical down cutting along the  shores. Erosion is considered a function of larger processes of shoreline change, which includes  erosion and accretion. Erosion results when more sediment is lost along a particular shoreline  than is redeposited by the water body. Accretion results when more sediment is deposited  along a particular shoreline than is lost. When these two processes are balanced, the shoreline  is stable. Some erosion is related to redistributing sediment on a beach; moving sediment from  bluffs to sand flats, especially under the influence of sea‐level rise.  In assessing the erosion  hazard, it is important to realize that there is a temporal, or time aspect associated with the  average rate at which a shoreline is either eroding or accreting. Over a long‐term period (years),  a shoreline is considered to be eroding, accreting, or stable. A hazard evaluation should focus  on the long‐term erosion situation. However, in the short‐term, it is important to understand  that storms can erode a shoreline that is, over the long‐term, classified as accreting, and vice  versa.     Riverine erosion results from the force of flowing water into and adjacent to river channels.  This erosion affects the bed and banks of the channel and can alter or preclude any channel  navigation or riverbank development.  In less stable braided channel breaches, erosion and  deposition of materials are a constant issue.  In more stable meandering channels, episodes of  erosion may occur occasionally.    Erosion is measured as a rate, with respect to either a linear retreat (i.e., feet of shoreline  recession per year) or volumetric loss (i.e., cubic yards of eroded sediment per linear foot of  shoreline frontage per year). Erosion rates are not uniform, and vary both over time at any  single location and at any given time along the coast. Annual variations are the result of  seasonal changes in wave action and water levels.  Hazard Profiles 26 Erosion is caused by coastal storms and flood events; changes in the geometry of tidal inlets,  river outlets, and bay entrances; man‐made structures and human activities such as shore  protection structures and dredging; and local scour around buildings and other structures.  Major erosion occurs when there is a high tide and large storm waves that carry away the base  material of the bluff making the slopes steeper.  These steeper slopes are more susceptible to  erosion by wind and surface or groundwater.  Wind Erosion  Wind erosion is when wind is responsible for the removal, movement, and redepositing of land.   It occurs when soils are exposed to high‐velocity wind.  The wind will pick up the soil and carry  it away.  The wind moves soil particles 0.1‐0.5 millimeters (mm) in size in a hopping or bouncing  fashion (known as saltation) and those greater than 0.5 mm by rolling (known as soil creep).   The finest particles (less than 0.1 mm) are carried in suspension.  Wind erosion can increase  during periods of drought.    Wind erosion can cause a loss of topsoil, which can hinder agricultural production.  Loess,  deposits of silt laid down by wind action, can reduce visibility causing automobile accidents,  hinder machinery, and have a negative effect on air and water quality, creating animal and  human health concerns.  Wind erosion also causes damage to public utilities and infrastructure.   Combined Coastal, Riverine, and Wind Erosion   Most of the City is unaffected by erosion.  The City’s Historic District and residential areas  adjacent to the Kenai Bluffs have been affected by coastal erosion.  The City has lost land and  structures due to the erosion.  Roads have been abandoned, and sewer mains relocated.  In  2000, a sewer line was relocated due to the erosion on Mission Street.  The relocation of the  line and subsequent roadwork was in excess of $300,000; repairs were funded using the State  of Alaska Capital Improvements program.  An example of coastal, riverine, and wind erosion working together is represented in Figure 4  on the Kenai Bluffs.  The Kenai Bluffs are 5,000 linear feet of bluff (high bank) located in the City  along the north bank of the Kenai River at the mouth to Cook Inlet (see Figure 5).  Figures 6 and  7 show photographs taken in 2018 with the erosive forces labeled.  The Kenai Bluffs height ranges between 55 to 70 feet, and the bluff face is receding at an  average rate of three feet per year.  A review of aerial photographs that extended over a 56‐ year period of record indicate that the erosion rate ranges from two to four feet per year.  The  erosion is episodic, and the amount of bluff loss at any particular location can vary from  chronic to an acute large loss of bluff face over a short period.  Public and private property,  structures and infrastructure, and cultural resources have been lost and continue to be  threatened by the receding bluff.  The bluff consists of unconsolidated sediments that remain  unstable because it is exposed to Cook Inlet coastal storms and extreme floodtides that have  the fourth largest range in the world of 31.4 feet.  Tidal currents and wave action during flood  tides attack the toe of the bluff, removing sediments that originate from the bluff face and  accumulate at its toe.  Coastal storms also degrade the structural integrity of the exposed  lower bluff face.  In order for the bluff to stabilize, an effective structural project alternative will   Hazard Profiles 27 Figure 4. Erosion Mechanism Schematic   Figure 5. Kenai Bluffs Location     Hazard Profiles 28 Figure 6. Kenai Bluffs Eroded Surface     Figure 7. Storm Event at Kenai Bluffs     Hazard Profiles 29 need to prevent the removal of accumulated sediment at the bluff and the structural damage  of the lower bluff.  The USACE completed a feasibility study in November 2018 that  recommended a protective berm at the bluff toe.  This Bluff Stabilization project includes  constructing a berm at the bluff toe that is designed to prevent the removal of accumulated  sediment between the bluff toe and the berm and prevent storm damages to the lower portion  of the bluff.  With the bluff toe protection in place, it will eventually stabilize, and the bluff  surface will erode back naturally to a more stable slope, which is estimated to take up to 15  years (USACE, 2018).  The City supports this option and is pursuing the design phase of this  project.  In 2009, the City of Kenai added permanent fencing to the north beach dunes to help prevent  bluff erosion.  The fencing helped ensure that man‐made destruction of vegetation did not  compromise the integrity of the dunes.  A similar fencing project was completed in the summer  of 2010 on the south beach.  The dunes were at risk of destruction from the annual personal  use dipnet fishery if the fencing was not installed.  The fencing fulfilled its purpose.  Erosion on the Kenai River, predominantly outside the City, is of great concern to resource  management agencies because the increased sedimentation and loss of streamside cover  associated with acceleration rates may threaten salmon returns to the river.  The City’s gross  revenue from the 2019 personal use salmon fishery on the Kenai River was expected to be  $416,000.  5.3.3.2 Climate Factors Climate and weather are the two primary drivers of flooding and erosion in Alaska.  Weather  (i.e., the day‐to‐day state of the atmosphere) affects these hazards in the short‐term with  individual episodes of rainfall, wind, and temperature that initiate or intensify individual  episodes of flooding or erosion.  Climate is affecting the long‐term incident rate and severity of  these hazards, especially in Alaska, which is particularly vulnerable due to its high northern  latitude and the unique importance of snow, ice, and permafrost.    5.3.3.3 Flood and Erosion History The City has two flood and erosion events in the DHS&EM Disaster Cost Index (DHS&EM, 2018b).   These events are listed below.     96‐180.  Southcentral Fall Floods declared September 21, 1995 by Governor Knowles, then  FEMA declared (DR‐1072) on October 13, 1996: Record rainfall in Southcentral Alaska caused  widespread flooding in the KPB, Matanuska‐Susitna Borough, and the Municipality of  Anchorage.  On September 29, 1995, the Governor amended the original declaration to include  Chugach, and the Copper River Regional Education Attendance areas, including the  communities of Whittier and Cordova, and the Richardson, Copper River, and Edgerton  Highway areas which suffered severe damage to numerous personal residences, flooding,  eroding of public roadways, destruction and significant damage to bridges, flood control dikes  and levees, water and sewer facilities, power, and harbor facilities.  On October 13, 1995, the  President declared this event as a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief  and Emergency Assistance Act.  Individual Assistance totaled $699K for 190 applicants.  Public  Hazard Profiles 30 assistance totaled $7.97 million for 21 applicants with 140 DSRs.  Hazard mitigation totaled $1.2  million.  The total for this disaster was $10.5 million.    The City of Kenai mobilized City boats, vehicles, and safety equipment to intercept and extract  huge quantities of debris such as docks, sheds, large liquefied petroleum gas tanks, fuels  storage tanks, and damaged boats from the Kenai River before this debris caused further  property damage and before it could flow into Cook Inlet shipping lanes.  13‐F‐243.  2013 October KPB Flood Disaster declared by Governor Parnell on November 18,  2013, then FEMA declared January 16, 2014 (DR‐4161): Beginning October 27, 2013, the KPB  received substantial amounts of rain following several weather systems that had previously  inundated low‐lying areas.  On October 26, the NWS issued a flood watch for areas around  Western Prince William Sound due to a slow‐moving system which brought widespread rainfall  to the mainland.  The forecast called for local amounts in excess of five inches of rain.  Seward,  Homer, and other areas of the KPB received heavy rain and flooding which caused landslides,  bridge, and airport and road closures.  Damages were reported in Seward, Homer, Kenai,  Anchor Point, and the Tyonek area along Beluga Road.  Flood damages affecting many  individual homes were reported, and several businesses were also impacted.    5.3.3.4 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location  Figure 8 is from the 2010 City Annex to the KPB HMP and shows estimated Kenai Bluff Erosion to  2057 (City, 2010).  The 2017 FEMA RiskMap study did not identify any areas of concern for the  City with regards to flooding (FEMAj, 2017).    The City has experienced significant erosion.  Figure 9 displays a coastal erosion rate along Cook  Inlet near the City.  Shorelines were compiled from three different time periods in the 1950s,  1960s, and 2000s used for the 2017 Risk Report analysis.    It is important to note that the Kenai Bluffs are not limited to the mile‐long stretch of the Kenai  River mouth encompassed by the USACE study, but also in the broader area of the Kenai River  mouth that has become so heavily involved in the personal use dip‐net fishery.  Bluff erosion in  this broader area has been significantly affected by the human impacts of this fishery itself and  by the impacts of increased use of the beach year‐round.  There are three distinct areas at the  mouth of the Kenai River affected by bluff erosion:   The mile‐long stretch of river encompassed by the USACE study;   The dunes on the north and south beaches, which protect against bluff erosion  and which need protection themselves; and   The sheer bluff on the north beach parallel to Toyon Way, which is unprotected  by dunes or anything else.   Extent  A variety of natural and human‐induced factors influence the erosion process. River orientation  and proximity to up and downstream river bends can influence erosion rates. Embankment  Hazard Profiles 31 Figure 8. Kenai Bluffs Erosion   composition also influences erosion rates, as sand and silt erode easily, whereas boulders or  large rocks are more erosion‐resistant. Other factors that may influence erosion include:   Geomorphology;   Amount of encroachment in the high hazard zone;   Proximity to erosion inducing structures;   Nature of the topography;   Density of development;   Structure types along the embankment; and   Embankment elevation.  The various erosion mechanisms acting on the Kenai Bluffs include:    Wind scour;   Groundwater seepage and piping;   Overland flow over the bluff;   Hazard Profiles 32 Figure 9. Kenai Coastal Erosion    Freeze thaw cycles; and   Wave action and currents at the toe of the bluff.  Impact  The ongoing condition of the receding Kenai Bluffs has resulted in:  Hazard Profiles 33  Lost land to the sea: commercial, municipal, non‐profit (e.g., Kenai Bible Church built  in 1940):  o  7 parcels have been completely lost;  o  18 parcels have suffered land loss; and  o  Nearly all threatened parcels have lost value.   Lost and damaged cultural resources (i.e., historical, potentially historical, and  archeological sites):  o 4 historic wooden structures;  o  Property of the historic Kenai Bible Church;  o  Human remains have eroded out of the bluff; and  o      Prehistoric house depressions have been lost or are exposed.   Abandoned and/or condemned structures: residential, commercial, and municipal.   Threatened structures and infrastructure: residential, commercial, non‐profit, and  municipal (e.g., Kenai Senior Center).   Relocation of utilities and roads.  In addition, the ongoing receding Kenai Bluffs has had other negative impacts (i.e., other social  effects) as listed below:   Lack of development and investment in Old Town.   Cultural vulnerability with local tribes and the local population.   Under use of public‐use areas by locals and tourists (e.g., scenic overlooks and nearby  parks).   Health and safety issues (The unstable bluff is preventing activities at the base and  near the top edge of the bluff, although soft sediments on the beach area may  continue to prevent activities at the base.).   Negatively impacted social connectedness, identity, resiliency, leisure, and recreation.   Contributes to uncertainty in community planning.  Recurrence Probability   Future populations of the City can expect to receive an increased number of erosion events due  to greater moisture content in warmer air.      Hazard Profiles 34 5.3.4 Volcanoes and Ashfall 5.3.4.1 Hazard Characteristics Alaska is home to 41 historically active volcanoes stretching across the entire southern portion  of the State from the Wrangell Mountains to the far Western Aleutians. An average of one to  two eruptions per year occurs in Alaska. Figure 10 shows regional volcanoes located in the  vicinity of the City.  Volcanic Ash  Volcanic ash, also called tephra, is fine fragments of solidified lava and rock crystals ejected into  the air by a volcanic explosion. The fragments range in size, with the larger falling nearer the  source. Ash is a problem near the source because of its high temperatures (may cause fires),  burial (the weight can cause structural collapses; for example, it was 100 miles from Novarupta  to Kodiak where structures collapsed), and impact of falling fragments. Further away, the  primary hazard to humans is damage to machinery (including airplanes in flight), decreased  visibility, and inhaling the fine ash (long‐term inhalation can lead to lung cancer), but lightning  in large ash clouds can also pose a hazard.  In Alaska, this is a major problem as many of the  major flight routes are near historically active volcanoes. Ash accumulation may also interfere  with the distribution of electricity due to shorting of transformers and other electrical  components (ash is an excellent conductor of electricity).  The largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century occurred at Novarupta Volcano in June 1912.  The eruption started by generating an ash cloud that grew to thousands of miles wide during  the three‐day event. Within four hours of the eruption, ash started falling on Kodiak, darkening  the City. It became hard to breathe because of the ash and sulfur dioxide gas. The water  became undrinkable and unable to support aquatic life. Roofs collapsed under the weight of the  ash. Some buildings were destroyed by ash avalanches while others burned after being struck  by lightning from the ash cloud. Similar conditions could be found all over the area. Some  villages ended up being abandoned, including Katmai and Savonoski Villages. The ash and acid  rain also negatively affected animal and plant life. Large animals were blinded, and many  starved because their food was eliminated.  5.3.4.2 History The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), which is a cooperative program of the USGS, Alaska  Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey (DGGS),  and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute (UAF GI), monitors the seismic  activity at 23 of Alaska’s 41 active volcanoes in real time. In addition, satellite images of all  Alaskan and Russian volcanoes are analyzed daily for evidence of ash plumes and elevated  surface temperatures. Russian volcanoes are also a concern to Alaska as prevailing winds could  carry large ash plumes from Kamchatka into Alaskan air space. AVO also researches the  individual history of Alaska’s active volcanoes and produces hazard assessment maps. The  Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, located in Palmer, also monitors volcanic and earthquake  activity throughout the Pacific region.  Hazard Profiles 35   The City has experienced volcanic ash in  1989, 1990, and 1992 from Mt. Redoubt and  Mt. Spurr. These eruptions disrupted  transportation and industry, particularly jet  aircraft (Figure 11).  Following the 1989‐ 1990 eruptions, debris flows caused  temporary closing of the Drift River Oil  Terminal.  A similar eruption event occurred  again in 2009 affecting the offloading of 3.7  million gallons of crude oil from the oil  terminal.  The KPB received ashfall in 2009,  but the wind direction spared the City.  The  Kenai Municipal Airport has an AVO tracking  device, and no ash was present in 2009.   Media reports, the KPB website, and the  Kenai communications center, operated by  the Kenai Police Department, adequately  informed citizens of volcanic precautions.   The City government took steps to minimize  damage to vehicles, buildings, and  computer equipment.  The City administration feels the above actions were more than  adequate to mitigate potential damage from volcanic ash fallout to residential and commercial  assets.  During the 1990 event, a KLM 747 jet aircraft, with 245 passengers and crew aboard,  temporarily lost power in all four engines when it entered the volcanic plume.  It would have  crashed into the mountains had the crew not been able to restart their engines about 4,000  feet above ground.       Figure 10. Regional Volcanos Hazard Profiles 36 Figure 11. Areas Affected by Ash Falls   5.3.4.3 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location Figure 11 illustrates the spread of ash fall which is dependent on wind direction.  Extent  The single greatest volcanic hazard in the City is airborne ash, fine fragments of rock blown  high into the atmosphere during explosive volcanic eruptions.  For any given eruption, the  depth of ash deposited at any given location depends on the total volume of ash ejected, the  wind direction, and the distance between the volcano and a given location.  Extreme ashfall events, similar to the 1912 event, would have similar extreme consequences  including building damage up to and including collapses, disruption of travel (air, sea, land),  disruption of water, electric power and communications, and health and environmental  impacts.  Smaller ashfall events would result in little or no building damage, but would still have  significant impacts, including:   Respiratory problems for at‐risk populations such as young children, people with  respiratory problems and the elderly;    Disruption of air, marine, and land traffic;   Clean‐up and ash removal from roofs, gutters, sidewalks, roads, vehicles, mechanical  systems and ductwork, engines, and mechanical equipment;   Clogging of filters and possible severe damage to vehicle engines, furnaces, heat  pumps, air conditioners, commercial and public buildings’ combined heating,  Hazard Profiles 37 ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and other engines and mechanical  equipment;    Disruption of public water supplies drawn from surface waters, including  degradation of water quality (high turbidity) and increased maintenance  requirements at water treatment plants;    Disruption/clogging of storm water drainage systems;   Disruption of electric power from ash‐induced short circuits in distribution lines,  transmission lines, and substations; and   Disruption of communications.  A major factor in determining ashfall is wind direction.  Additionally, if there is a large ashfall,  wind could blow and redistribute ashfall several times which would be a prolonged hazard.  Impact  The volcanic eruptions of 1989, 1990, 1992, and 2009 caused widespread distribution of ash  over the central and southern peninsula and resulted in power outages and disruption of  traffic. Volcanic ash nearly caused the greatest loss of life of any disaster event in Alaska.   Another impact of major ashfall is a breakdown of soil cover, accelerating erosion.  This impact  was seen on the flanks of Okmok in the eastern Aleutian Islands following the 2008 eruption.   Former grasslands were cut with networks of deep, rapidly eroding gullies.   Ash fall from volcanic eruptions is a threat to health and to equipment that may draw in  fine, abrasive particles. During times of high winds, these fine particles pose a significant  health threat.  The City has experienced a few tenths of an inch of ashfall on residents’ vehicles.  Planes do not  fly.  People do not operate motorized equipment.  Air quality is poor.  The City’s policy is for  people to shelter in place in their homes.   Recurrence Probability  The recurrence probability for the future residents of the City would remain the same as for  current residents.    Hazard Profiles 38 5.3.5 Severe Weather 5.3.5.1 Hazard Characteristics In contemporary usage, climate change commonly refers to the change in global or regional  climate patterns that spans from the mid‐ to late 20th century to the present.  Evidence  collected by scientists and engineers from around the world tells an unambiguous story:  the  planet is warming.  Climate change at high northern latitudes, such as Alaska, is causing rapid  and severe environmental change.  Severe weather occurs throughout Alaska with extremes experienced by the City that include  increasing high winds, winter storms, heavy and drifting snow, heavy rain/freezing rain/ice  storms, and cold.    High Winds  High winds occur in Alaska when there are winter low‐pressure systems in the North Pacific  Ocean and the Gulf of Alaska. Alaska’s high winds can equal cyclonic force. In Alaska, high winds  (winds in excess of 60 mph) occur frequently over coastal areas along the Gulf of Alaska.  They  can also combine with loose snow to produce blizzards.  Localized downdrafts and downbursts are also common wind hazards.  Downbursts are often  generated by thunderstorms.  Downbursts are areas of rapidly falling rain‐cooled air.  Upon  reaching the ground, downbursts spread out in all directions in excess of 125 mph.  Both types  of wind, commonly lasting five to seven minutes, are hazardous to aviation.  These winds reach  hurricane force and have the potential to seriously damage community infrastructure  (especially above ground utility lines) while disrupting vital marine transportation.  Winter Storms  Winter storms include a variety of phenomena described above and may include several  components such as wind, snow, and ice storms.  Ice storms include freezing rain, sleet, and  hail and can be the most devastating of winter weather phenomena; often causing automobile  accidents, power outages, and personal injury.  Freezing rain coats every surface it falls on with  an icy glaze.  Freezing rain most commonly starts in a narrow band on the cold side of a warm  front, where surface temperatures are at or just below freezing temperatures.  Ice crystals high  in the atmosphere grow by collecting water vapor molecules, sometimes supplied by  evaporating cloud droplets.  As the crystals fall, they encounter a layer of warm air where the  particles melt and collapse into raindrops.  As the raindrops approach the ground, they  encounter a layer of cold air and cool to temperatures below freezing.  Heavy and Drifting Snow  Heavy snow generally means an accumulation of more than 12 to 24 inches of snow inside of  24 hours and often brings transportation to a stop. Airports and major roadways will close,  disrupting supply flow and emergency response service access.  Excessive accumulation will  collapse roofs, knock down trees and power lines, damage parked light aircraft, and capsize  small boats.  Heavy snow increases flooding risks.  Heavy snow is associated with vehicle  accidents, overexertion, and hypothermia.  Drifting is the uneven distribution of snowfall and  snow depth caused by strong surface winds. Drifting snow may occur during or after a snowfall.  Hazard Profiles 39 Heavy Rain/Freezing Rain/Ice Storm  Freezing rain and ice storms describe occasions when excessive ice accumulations are expected  during a heavy rain event.  They are a particularly hazardous winter weather phenomena and  often cause numerous automobile accidents, power outages, and personal injury.  Ice storms  form from freezing rain and pass through a thin layer of cold air just above the ground and cool  to below freezing.  The drops remain in a liquid state until they impact a surface and freeze on  contact.  Ice accumulations can damage trees, utility poles, and communication towers which  disrupts transportation, power, and communications.  Cold  The definition of extreme cold varies according to the normal climate of a region. In areas  unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered “extreme”. In  Alaska, extreme cold usually involves temperatures ‐ 40 °F with additional wind chills. Excessive  cold may accompany winter storms or can occur without storm activity during clear skies with  high barometric pressure. Extreme cold accompanied by wind exacerbates exposure injuries  such as frostbite and hypothermia.  Extreme cold interferes with infrastructure across Alaska for days or sometimes weeks at a  time.  Liquid fuels may congeal or freeze, denying motorized transportation, heat, and  electricity generation.  In desperation, some people choose to burn propane stoves indoors,  increasing their risk to carbon monoxide poisoning.  Aircraft may be grounded, delaying the  resupply of food and emergency supplies.    5.3.5.2 Climate Change Influences Increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases in the atmosphere are generally  warming and changing the climate worldwide by trapping heat that would have escaped back  into space.  Trees and other plants cannot absorb as much carbon dioxide through  photosynthesis as is produced by burning fossil fuels.  Therefore, carbon dioxide builds up and  changes precipitation patterns, increases storms, wildfires, and flooding frequency and  intensity; and substantially changes flora, fauna, fish, and wildlife habitats.  Alaska’s temperature rise rate has been twice the average of the rest of the U.S. in recent  decades.  During the period from 1949 to 2014, the Statewide average annual air temperature  increased by 3℉, and the average winter temperature increased by 6℉ (ACRC, 2018).  This  included considerable annual and regional variability, and was accompanied by a greater  number of extremely warm days and fewer extremely cold days (CCSP, 2008).  The Statewide  average annual precipitation during this same period has increased by about 10%, with recent  decades showing amounts largely above normal, but with substantial annual and regional  variability (Shulski and Wendler, 2007, ACRC, 2018).  Global climate is projected to continue changing over this century, and changes to Alaska’s  climate are expected to be unprecedented (Chapin et al, 2014).  Average annual temperatures  in Alaska are projected to rise by an additional 2℉ to 4℉ by 2050, and by 6℉ to 12℉ by the  end of the century depending on emission levels (Stewart et al, 2013).  Projections of annual  Hazard Profiles 40 precipitation show an increase across Alaska as part of the broad pattern of increases projected  for high northern latitudes.    Snow cover extent and depth have been decreasing in most places in Alaska for nearly three  decades.  Warmer winter temperatures change the precipitation frequency of snow and rain,  and are producing more frequent rain‐on‐snow events.    5.3.5.3 History The City of Kenai has a history of two windstorm events in the DHS&EM Disaster Cost Index  (DHS&EM, 2018b).  These events are listed below.     12‐237.   2011 Kenai Peninsula Windstorm declared by Governor Parnell on December 12,  2011, then FEMA declared February 2, 2012 (DR‐4054): On November 1, 12, 15, and 16, 2011,  a series of major windstorms caused widespread power outages threatening life and property.  Power was disrupted to 17,300 homes and businesses.  Local utilities, Homer Electric  Association and Chugach Electric, employed several work crews to restore power to the area.   Public Infrastructure, commercial property, and personal property damages were reported in  the metropolitan areas and throughout the borough.  DHS&EM received local declarations from  the KPB requesting state disaster assistance to cover immediate response, public, and  individual costs.  In the City of Kenai, pipes were frozen and burst at City Hall and Vintage  Pointe facilities.  The primary response by City personnel was to remove downed trees and  debris from high winds, supply temporary power to critical facilities during the storm, and  respond to burst pipes in buildings without power.    AK‐17‐262, 2017 December KPB Storm declared by Governor Walker on January 19, 2018,  then FEMA declared on June 18, 2018 (DR‐4369): On December 4, 2017, a fast‐moving storm  system moving northward out of the Gulf of Alaska brought widespread high winds to coastal  areas on both the east and west sides of the KPB.  In the Lower Cook Inlet area, this storm  system created high winds gusting 30‐40 mph, reaching a maximum wind speed of 58 mph,  producing seven to ten‐ foot waves that impacted the Cook Inlet coastline from Homer to  Kenai.    5.3.5.4 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location  In the City, there is potential for weather disasters. High winds can topple trees, damage roofs  and windows, and result in power outages. Heavy snow can cause power outages or collapse  roofs of buildings.  Storms can make travel difficult.  Extreme weather is most prevalent during  the winter with any combination of cold temperatures, strong winds, storm surge, and heavy  snow.   Extent  Severe weather is a normal part of living in Alaska. However, sometimes the confluence of  elements produces extreme conditions. Being prepared is the key to survival. Alternate forms  of home heat and lighting, stored food, appropriate clothing, and advance planning are critical.   Hazard Profiles 41 The most common forms of damage to structures as a result of severe wind includes loss  of roofing materials, damage to doors and hinges, broken water lines due to freezing, fallen  trees, structural failure of out‐buildings, fallen or damaged exterior lights, flag poles, cell  towers, and antennae. Overhanging signs on businesses and satellite dishes become airborne  projectiles under certain conditions.  Heavy snow brings another set of damages. Structural deflection or collapse of structures  is common. Deflection causes cracks or breakage of interior walls and finishes. Falling ice  from roof eaves can knock out electric meters, damage vehicles, break windows, and threaten  injury to passersby. Sliding snow can cause damages described above plus cause damage to  roof mounted vents and other equipment. Wind packed snow and ice can block windows and  emergency exits.  Impact  Heavy snowfall can also damage infrastructure and critical facilities. Heavy snowfalls make  transportation difficult, especially by road, and result in more money spent on snow plow  services. High numbers of injuries and fatalities are not expected with a heavy snow event.  Heavy snow can have a greater impact on people who need access to medical services,  emergency services, pedestrians, and people who rely on public transportation. The cost of fuel  to heat homes during times of heavy snow can be a financial burden on populations with low or  fixed incomes.  The most vulnerable City residents to any of the hazards of severe weather are the homeless  who lack adequate shelter and those on fixed incomes who may not be able to adequately heat  their homes.   Extreme weather also interferes with community infrastructure and its proper functions.  It can  cause fuel to congeal in storage tanks and supply lines, stopping electric power generation,  which in turn causes heaters and furnaces to stop. Without electricity, heaters and furnaces do  not work, causing water and sewer pipes to freeze or rupture. If extreme cold conditions are  combined with low or no snow cover, the ground's frost depth can increase, disturbing buried  pipes. The greatest danger from extreme cold is its effect on people. Prolonged exposure to the  cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and become life‐threatening. Infants and elderly  people are most susceptible. The risk of hypothermia due to exposure greatly increases during  episodes of extreme cold, and carbon monoxide poisoning is possible as people use  supplemental heating devices not intended for indoor use during extreme weather events.  While the scope, severity, and pace of future climate change impacts are difficult to predict, it is  clear that potential changes could impact U.S. agencies’ ability to fulfill their respective  missions.  The challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequency of  heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, and extreme flooding could significantly alter the  types and magnitudes of hazards faced by communities and the emergency management  professionals serving them.       Hazard Profiles 42 Recurrence Probability  Alaska will continue to experience diverse and seasonal weather events.  Severe weather will  occur annually in the City.  Severe wind and rain are becoming more likely with climate change,  while extreme snow and cold are becoming less likely.  5.3.6 Wildfire and Conflagration Fire During the five‐year period spanning 2013 through 2018, over 82 fire‐related fatalities were  recorded in Alaska.  Since 2013, the State has declared over 3,077 fire‐related emergencies or  disasters (DHS&EM, 2018a).    For the purposes of profiling the hazard in Alaska, fires in this HMP are characterized by their  primary fuel sources into two categories:   Wildland fire, which consumes natural vegetation.   Community fire conflagration, which propagates among structures and infrastructure.  While fire is critical for maintaining the viability of Alaska’s ecosystems, it must be tempered  with the need to protect human life and property.  This is particularly true of fires burning in  “wildland urban interface” areas, where structures and other human development meet or  intermingle with undeveloped wildland.  Wildland urban interface (WUI) has gained importance  throughout Alaska with increased development adjacent to wildlands.  Urban conflagration is a large destructive fire that is widespread throughout an urban area or  community involving one or more developed areas in the community.  In contrast to the  commonly destructive individual property fire, conflagrations frequently overwhelm resources  and damage infrastructure.     Firefighter and public safety are the primary concern of each local fire response agency.  In  Alaska, thousands of acres burn every year in 300 to 800 fires, primarily between the months of  March and October.  According to the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC), Alaska  lost 7,815,368 acres from 2013 to 2017.  This figure consisted of the 2,408 wildland fires that  started throughout that same time period.  This is an average of 3,246 acres per wildland fire  (DHS&EM, 2018a).  The KPB, including the City of Kenai, has experienced a regional spruce bark‐beetle outbreak.   Fire risk has also increased in recent years due to spruce bark beetle infestations which have  affected both white and black spruce forest stands. Alaska’s 10.25 million‐acre KPB has  experienced a regional spruce bark‐beetle outbreak that peaked in 1996 and continues to  spread to uninfected areas.  Up to 2004, an estimated four million acres of spruce in  southcentral Alaska have been affected.  While spruce bark beetle outbreaks are natural  events, the magnitude of spruce mortality during historic episodes was typically much less (20%  to 30%) than the current infestation in which mortality rates exceeded 90% (KPB, 2006).  Dead and dying spruce trees present a wildfire hazard when standing because they can support  intense, rapidly moving fires. These insect‐killed trees also present a hazard after they have  fallen because they can support very intense surface fires. Wildfire in either fuel type is very  difficult for firefighters to control by direct attack.   Hazard Profiles 43 5.3.6.1 Management in Alaska In Alaska, fire management is the responsibility of three agencies:  Alaska Department of  Forestry (DOF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (through the Alaska Fire Service (AFS), and  U.S. Forest Service (USFS).  See Figure 12.  Each agency provides firefighting coverage for a  portion of the State regardless of land ownership.  These agencies have cooperated to develop  a state‐wide interagency wildland fire management plan.  In the KPB, the DOF has the  responsibility to manage fire response.  In 2006, the City adopted a Community Wildfire  Protection Plan for its entire acreage.  The Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan has  mapped the City as Full.     5.3.6.2 Hazard Characteristics A wildland fire is a type of wildfire that spreads through consumption of vegetation. It often  begins unnoticed, spreads quickly, and is usually signaled by dense smoke that may be visible  for miles around. Wildland fires can be caused by human activities (such as arson or unattended  campfires) or by natural events such as lightning. Wildland fires often occur in forests or other  areas with ample vegetation. In addition to wildland fires, wildfires can be classified as tundra  fires, urban fires, interface or intermix fires, and prescribed burns.  The following three factors contribute significantly to wildland fire behavior and can be used to  identify wildland fire hazard areas.   Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildland fire spread increases. South‐facing  slopes are also subject to more solar radiation, making them drier, and thereby,  intensifying wildland fire behavior. However, ridgetops may mark the end of wildland  fire spread since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill.   Fuel: The type and condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the occurrence and  spread of wildland fires. Certain types of plants are more susceptible to burning or will  burn with greater intensity. Dense or overgrown vegetation increases the amount of  combustible material available to fuel the fire (referred to as the “fuel load”). The ratio  of living to dead plant matter is also important. Climate change is deemed to increase  wildfire risk significantly during periods of prolonged drought as the moisture content of  both living and dead plant matter decreases. The fuel load continuity, both horizontally  and vertically, is also an important factor.   Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildland fire behavior is weather.  Temperature, humidity, wind, and lightning can affect chances for ignition and spread of  fire. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme  wildland fire activity. By contrast, cooling and higher humidity often signal reduced  wildland fire occurrence and easier containment.  Climate change increases the  susceptibility of vegetation to fire due to longer dry seasons.  The frequency and severity of wildland fires is also dependent on other hazards, such as  lightning, drought, and infestations (such as the damage caused by spruce‐bark beetle  infestations or spruce needle aphids). The risk of wildfire has increased significantly over the  past two decades, due in large part to the spruce‐bark beetle infestation.   If not promptly  Hazard Profiles 44 controlled, wildland fires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can  threaten lives and resources and destroy improved properties; they can also impact  transportation corridors and/or infrastructure.  In addition to affecting people, wildland  fires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require emergency  water/food, evacuation, and shelter.  Figure 12. Alaska Fire Management Options   The indirect effects of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of  vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways,  and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb moisture and  support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance rivers and stream siltation, thereby  enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life, and degrading water quality. Lands stripped of  vegetation are also subject to increased debris flow hazards.  Conflagration fires are very difficult to control.  Complicating factors are wind, temperature,  slope, proximity of structures, and community firefighting capability, as well as building  construction and contents.  Additional factors facing response efforts are hazardous substance  releases, structure collapse, water service interruptions, unorganized evacuations, and loss of  emergency shelters.  Historical national conflagration examples include the Chicago City Fire of  1871 and the San Francisco City Fire following the 1906 earthquake.  There have been no  conflagration fires within the City of Kenai.    Hazard Profiles 45 Many wildland firefighters are neither equipped nor trained for conflagration fires.  When  wildland firefighters encounter structure, vehicle, dump or other non‐vegetative fires during  the performance of their wildland fire suppression duties, firefighting efforts are often limited  to wildland areas.  Structural fire suppression within defined service areas is the responsibility of the Kenai Fire  Department.    5.3.6.3 Climate Factors According to the Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S., published in 2009 by the U.S.  Global Change Research Program, “Under changing climate conditions, the average area  burned per year in Alaska is projected to double by the middle of this century.  By the end of  this century, area burned by fire is projected to triple under a moderate greenhouse gas  emissions scenario and to quadruple under a higher emissions scenario” (DHS&EM, 2018a).  Since 1990, Alaska has experienced nearly twice the number of wildfires per decade compared  to a period from 1950 to 1980.  Additionally, the sparsely‐populated arctic region experienced  only three wildfires over 1,000 acres from 1950 to 1970.  Since 2000, there have been over 33  large wildfires in this same region.  The average duration of the wildfire season in the arctic region runs from May through July.   Other regions south of the arctic may run from late April through mid‐September.  Average  annual precipitation in Alaska has increased since 1950, but not quite as much as the average  annual temperature.  Wind blows down dead trees that have been affected by spruce‐bark beetles.  As air  temperatures warm, spruce‐bark beetles spread; typically, this occurs when temperatures are  over 60 ℉.    5.3.6.4 History The City does not have a history of fire events in the DHS&EM Disaster Cost Index (DHS&EM,  2018b).  AICC maintains a website to consolidate Alaska’s tundra fire information. Information  in Table 9 and Figure 13 for the City and surrounding area were obtained from this site.  Figure  14 shows the State’s fire risk (DHS&EM, 2018a).  Table 9. Historical Wildland Fires Fire Name Fire Year Estimated Acres Latitude Longitude Specific Cause  Berry 1945 200 60.5499992 ‐151.2166595 Unknown  Norene Fire 1953 2.5 60.583889 ‐151.3333282 Debris Burning  Peterkin 1958 3 60.5499992 ‐151.0833282 Debris Burning  Spur 1968 5 60.5666667 ‐151.2833333 Debris Burning  Crowder 1969 2 60.5833333 ‐151.2333333 Equipment  Cement Plant 1969 250 60.55 ‐151.1833333 Smoking  Wildwood 1970 46 60.5833333 ‐151.3 Playing / Matches  Candlelight 1984 80 60.5499992 ‐151.1833344 Other  Bigeddy 1999 5.5 60.51667 ‐151.0833 Other  Cannery Rd. #1 2009 1.5 60.521389 ‐151.2763824 Other  California Ave. 2009 1.5 60.5825005 ‐151.2938843 Unknown  Marathon Rd. 2009 10.9 60.5811119 ‐151.2302704 Equipment  Hazard Profiles 46 Redoubt 2019 1.4 60.57805 ‐151.275   (AICC, 2019)  5.3.6.5 Location, Extent, Impact, and Recurrence Probability Location  Nearly every community in the KPB’s wildfire risk is very high or extreme due to dead and dying  spruce trees.  Within the City, trees infested by the spruce bark beetle became a mitigation  priority in the late 1990s, with firefighters conducting door‐to‐door educational campaigns in  high‐risk neighborhoods delivering information packets to homeowners on how to develop a  defensible space around their properties.    Historically significant fires within the City included the 1969 Swanson River Fire and the Swires  Road fire in the mid‐1980s.  The City experiences small wildland fires throughout the summer  months, with the most recent being a 10‐acre fire during the summer of 2009 which the City of  Kenai Fire Department and DOF responded to cooperatively.  The KPB typically experiences wildfires, and in 2019, the Swan Lake fire was caused by lightning  in June and burned 142,542 acres before it was 20% contained in August, northwest of Cooper  Landing and to the east and northeast of Sterling.  Smoke was a concern for the City of Kenai  depending on which direction the wind blew.  Fire burned adjacent to the road in some areas,  and the only road to Anchorage was closed at times.  Extent  Generally, fire vulnerability dramatically increases in the late summer and early fall as  vegetation dries out, decreasing plant moisture content, and increasing the ratio of dead fuel to  living fuel. However, various other factors, including humidity, wind speed and direction, fuel  load and type, and topography can contribute to the intensity and spread of wildland fires. The  common causes of wildland fires in Alaska include lightning strikes and human negligence.    Fuel, weather, and topography influence wildland fire behavior. Fuel (e.g., slash, dry  undergrowth, flammable vegetation) determines how much energy the fire releases, how  quickly the fire spreads, and how much effort is needed to contain the fire. Weather is the most  variable factor. High temperatures and low humidity encourage fire activity while low  temperatures and high humidity retard fire spread. Wind affects the speed and direction of fire  spread. Topography directs the movement of air, which also affects fire behavior. When the  terrain funnels air, as happens in a canyon, it can lead to faster spreading. Fire also spreads up  slope faster than down slope.  Impact  Impacts of a wildland fire that interfaces with the population center could grow into an  emergency or disaster if not properly controlled. A small fire can threaten lives and resources  and destroy property. In addition to impacting people, wildland fires may severely impact  livestock and pets. Such events may require emergency watering and feeding, evacuation, and  alternative shelter.  Hazard Profiles 47 Indirect impacts of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of  vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways,  and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb moisture and  support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and streams, thus  increasing flood potential, harming aquatic life, and degrading water quality.  Recurrence Probability  Increased community development, fire fuel accumulation, and weather pattern uncertainties  indicate that seasonal wildfires will continue into the future.    Figure 13. Kenai Wildland Fire History     Hazard Profiles 48 Figure 14. City’s Wildland Fire Risk     Vulnerability Analysis 49 6. Vulnerability Analysis This section provides an overview of the vulnerability analysis.  OVERVIEW OF A VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS A vulnerability analysis predicts the exposure extent that may result from a given hazard event  and its impact intensity within the planning area. This qualitative analysis provides data to  identify and prioritize potential mitigation measures by allowing the community to focus  attention on areas with the greatest risk. A vulnerability or risk analysis is divided into the  following five focus areas:   1. Asset Inventory;  2. Infrastructure Risk, Vulnerability, and Losses from Identified Hazards;  3. Development Changes and Trends;  4. Data Limitations; and  5. Vulnerability Assessments.  DMA 2000 requirements and implementing state governance regulations for developing risk  and vulnerability assessment initiatives are described below.    DMA 2000 Requirements: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Overview Assessing Vulnerability: Overview §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards  described. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The  plan should describe vulnerability in terms of:  §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities  located in the identified hazard areas.  §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph  (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.  §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so  that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. Element  Does the plan include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard?   Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and  critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?   Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and  critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?   Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?   Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? Source: FEMA, 2015.   CURRENT ASSET EXPOSURE ANALYSIS 6.2.1 Asset Inventory Assets that may be affected by hazard events include population (for community‐wide hazards),  residential buildings, and critical facilities and infrastructure.  Assets are grouped into two  Vulnerability Analysis 50 structure types:  critical infrastructure and residential properties.  The assets and associated  values throughout the City are identified and discussed in detail in the following subsections.  6.2.1.1 Population and Building Stock The City’s total population for 2010 was 7,100, and the 2016 ACS reported a population of  7,551 (Table 10).   Table 10. Estimated Population and Building Inventory Population Residential Buildings  2010 Census 2016 ACS Data Total Building Count1 Total Value of Buildings1  7,100 7,551 3,267 Planning Team:  $627,248,400  Sources: 2010 U.S. Census and 2016 ACS Certified population data.  1 The Kenai Assessing Department provided these numbers in November 2019.  The average value per dwelling  based on 2019 certified values is $191,995.    6.2.1.2 Critical Infrastructure Critical infrastructure is defined as a facility that provides essential products and services to the  general public, such as preserving quality of life while fulfilling important public safety,  emergency response, and disaster recovery functions. Critical facilities and infrastructure for  the City are profiled in this HMP and include the following (see also Table 11):   Government: City administrative offices, departments, or agencies;   Emergency Response:  including police and fire personnel services; and fire‐fighting  equipment; and   Health Care:  medical clinics, congregate living, health, residential and continuing care,  and retirement facilities.  Table 11. Alaska’s Critical Infrastructure • Hospitals, Clinics,  & Assisted Living  Facilities   • Satellite Facilities  • Power Generation  Facilities   • Oil & Gas Pipeline  Structures &  Facilities   • Schools   • Fire Stations  • Radio  Transmission  Facilities   • Potable Water  Treatment Facilities   • Service  Maintenance  Facilities   • Community  Washeterias   • Police Stations  • Highways and  Roads     • Reservoirs &  Water Supply Lines     • Community Halls  & Civic Centers   • National Guard  Facilities   • Emergency  Operations Centers   • Critical Bridges  • Waste Water  Treatment Facilities   • Community Stores • Landfills &  Incinerators   • Any Designated  Emergency Shelter   • Airports  • Fuel Storage  Facilities   • Community  Freezer Facilities   • Community  Cemeteries   • Telecommunications Structures & Facilities  • Harbors / Docks / Ports     6.2.1.3 Infrastructure Risk, Vulnerability, and Losses from Identified Hazards Table 12 provides critical facilities and infrastructure identified for the City.  See Figure 15 for a  critical facilities map.  Vulnerabilities are described further In Section 6.2.1.6.  Vulnerability Analysis 51 6.2.1.4 Land Use and Development Trends Requirements for land use and development trends, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its  implementing regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Recommendations: Risk Assessment, Assessing Vulnerability, Analyzing Development Trends Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. Element  Does the plan describe land uses and development trends? Source: FEMA, 2015.   The City has been a deferred code enforcement entity since the late 1970s enforcing local  building, fire, and life safety codes in plan reviews for new construction. This provides local  access and oversight in new construction without requiring plans being sent through the State  Fire Marshal’s office in Anchorage.  Zoning changes are needed to comply with the 2016 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan and to  prevent infrastructure loss near the eroding Kenai Bluffs. Public Works has been addressing this  for several years, and the City has restricted new construction near hazardous areas, and  infrastructure has been relocated to prevent added loss or damage (water and sewer lines,  utilities, etc.).  The 2016 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan projects modest economic growth and population  increase.  The region’s main economic sectors of energy, fishing/fish processing, and tourism  also experienced modest growth.  Kenai is expected to continue as a trade and services center  for the region.  Consistent with regional and national trends, the proportion of people aged 65  and older is expected to increase within the City.  The City of Kenai’s median age is lower than  the national median age and slightly higher than the State of Alaska’s median age.  Approximately 1,680 homes and businesses (4,000‐5,000 users) are connected to the City’s  water and sewer system.  This is approximately 70% of the City’s population.  The City has four  operational well houses and a wastewater treatment plant.  A new 1,000,000‐gallon water  reservoir was constructed in 2016.  Of the 99 miles of roads in Kenai, the City of Kenai  maintains approximately 60 miles, including approximately 15 miles of gravel‐surfaced roads.   Improvements to the road system to create more vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the City  Center and provide safety and efficiency in travel could include paving more streets,  constructing sidewalks, creating trail linkages, and expanding road shoulders.  The Kenai  Municipal Airport is currently undergoing a major remodeling.  The Kenai Municipal Airport is  the largest airport within the KPB and is an important distribution center in the area.  The City has an ample supply of vacant land for future development.  Development near  existing City services will make the best use of public development expenditures.  Commercial  and retail development along the highway corridors has created a linear City form.  Residential  development is dispersed, and multiple commercial centers are emerging in the City.  Vulnerability Analysis 52 6.2.1.5 Data Limitations The vulnerability estimates provided herein use the best data currently available, and the  methodologies applied result in a risk approximation. These estimates may be used to  understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. However, uncertainties are inherent  in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge  concerning hazards and their effects on the built environment as well as the use of  approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis.  It is also important to note that the quantitative vulnerability assessment results are limited to  the exposure of people, buildings, and critical facilities and infrastructure to the identified  hazards. It was beyond the scope of this HMP to develop a more detailed or comprehensive  assessment of risk (including annualized losses, people injured or killed, shelter requirements,  loss of facility/system function, and economic losses). Such impacts may be addressed with  future updates of this HMP.  6.2.1.6 Vulnerability Assessments Hazards are assessed with regards to their vulnerabilities in this section.  Flood and Erosion Vulnerabilities The 2018 State of Alaska HMP categorizes the KPB at risk of experiencing high flooding and  erosion impacts.  City Dock facilities are somewhat vulnerable to flood conditions, but were  constructed with those events in mind, and generally remain usable in a flood event.  The City does not participate in the NFIP.  This decision was made in the 1980s, and current  staff do not know the reasoning behind the decision other than there was/is not much  development in the floodplain.  The current Planning Department is open to considering  participation in the NFIP after further evaluation.  The Kenai Bluffs erosion is an important concern of the City’s.  The City has taken steps to  preserve the integrity of protective dunes by installing permanent fencing.  Kenai’s erosion‐threatened population and infrastructure potentially include: the existing,  transient, and future population, residential structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure that  are exposed to changing flooding and erosion impacts.   Fire Vulnerabilities The 2018 State of Alaska HMP categorizes the KPB at risk of experiencing high fire impacts.  Impacts associated with a fire event include the potential for loss of life and property. Buildings  closer to the outer edge of town, those with a lot of vegetation surrounding the structure, and  those constructed with wood are some of the buildings that are more vulnerable to the impacts  of fire.  The City maintains a defensible space around all City facilities as a preventative measure  for wildland fires.  Dry forest conditions increase fire fuels and insect infestations.  These conditions create  optimum conditions for fire propagation, especially around housing and other areas where fire  fuels are not controlled near public or private structures.  Future populations, residential  Vulnerability Analysis 53 structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure located in dryer regions of Alaska are anticipated  to experience increased fire events compared to historical impacts.    Table 12. Kenai’s Critical Facilities Type of Facility Facilities Address Latitude Longitude Estimated Value  (2019 KPB Estimate) Number of Occupants Building Type Volcanic Ashfall Earthquake Flood/Erosion Cryosphere Weather (Severe) Fire Government City Hall 210 Fidalgo  Avenue 60.559085 ‐151.248688 $831,600 20 Class 6, Type 1 Steel x x  x x x  National Guard 105 South  Forest Drive 60.559036 ‐151.276414 $1,086,800 20 Class 51C Galvanized  Steel x x  x x x  U.S. Post Office 140 Bidarka  Street 60.557799 ‐151.248010 $2,709,600 15 Stucco x x  x x x Transportation Kenai Municipal Airport –  Passenger Terminal  305 North  Willow Street 60.565269 ‐151.246915 $14,000,000 200 Airport x x x x x x Emergency Response Kenai Public Safety  (Police Station and Fire  Station)  107 South  Willow Street 60.559112 ‐151.250225 $2,387,900 30 Concrete Block (Jail),  Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x Education Mountain View Elementary  School*  315 Swires  Road 60.565476 ‐151.176598 $13,543,700 480 Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x  Kenai Alternative High School,  Aurora Borealis Charter  School   705 Frontage  Road 60.554048 ‐151.253699 $11,817,000 80 Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x  Kaleidoscope School of Arts &  Science*  549 North  Forest Drive 60.568725 ‐151.279090 $10,443,300 290 Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x  Kenai Middle School* 201 North  Tinker Lane 60.562831 ‐151.206125 $23,121,600 360 Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x  Kenai Central High School* 9583 Kenai  Spur Highway 60.561267 ‐151.212238 $55,754,300 500 Class 1 Wood Frame x x  x x x Medical Kenai has Medical Clinics, but  the nearest hospital is in  neighboring Soldotna  N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A       Community Alaska Regional Fire Training  Facility  450  Daubenspeck  Circle  60.566308 ‐151.225563 $6,626,500 50 Class 1 Steel x x  x x x  First Baptist Church* 12815 Kenai  Spur Highway 60.560715 ‐151.295380 $798,100 100 Class 1 Wood Frame x x x x x x Road Kenai Spur Highway  (approx. 10.5 miles) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x  Bridge Access Road (3.5 miles) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x Bridge Warren Ames Memorial  Bridge  Bridge Access  Road 60.526740 ‐151.209042 N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x Utility Electric – Homer Electric N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x  Telephone – GCI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x  Gas – ENSTAR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x x  Wastewater Treatment Plant N/A 60.442466 ‐151.276836 $7,301,200 5 Sewage Treatment  Plant x x x x x x  Four Wellheads N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x x x   Water Reservoir N/A 60.564703 ‐151.260959 $2,750,000 N/A N/A x x  x x    Totals $153,173,600    *Shelters Vulnerability Analysis 54 Figure 15. Critical Facilities Locations   Vulnerability Analysis 55 Earthquake Vulnerabilities Alaska should expect the full spectrum of potential earthquake ground motion scenarios.   Severe shaking may result in infrastructure damage that is equally as extreme.  Although all  structures are at some risk due to earthquakes, short wooden buildings are less vulnerable than  multi‐story and complex masonry/steel structures.  The majority of Alaska’s schools, State, and  Federal buildings are built and sited based on stringent seismic construction standards and are  expected to survive major earthquake events.  The 2018 State of Alaska HMP categorizes the KPB at risk of experiencing high earthquake  impacts.  Protective measures are in place to minimize damage such as housing emergency  generators inside critical facilities and meeting construction standards for the seismic zone.  Due to Alaska’s highly active geologic setting at a tectonic plate boundary, existing and future  populations, residential structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure will be exposed to  continued earthquakes of various magnitudes—from those that are barely felt to those that  detrimentally affect large regions of the State.  Severe Weather Vulnerabilities The 2018 State of Alaska HMP categorizes the KPB at risk of experiencing high severe weather  impacts. Impacts associated with severe weather events include roof collapse, trees and power  lines falling, damage to light aircraft and sinking small boats, and injury and death resulting  from snow machine or vehicle accidents and overexertion while shoveling (all due to heavy  snow). A quick thaw after a heavy snow can also cause substantial flooding. Impacts from  extreme cold include hypothermia, halting transportation from fog and ice, congealed fuel,  frozen pipes, disruption in utilities, frozen pipes, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Buildings that  are older and/or not constructed with materials designed to withstand heavy snow and wind  (e.g., hurricane ties on crossbeams) are more vulnerable to the impacts of severe weather.  The  entire State is threatened by severe weather events.    Severe weather will occur annually in Kenai.  Climate change impacts vary across Alaska.  These  conditions will negatively impact existing and future populations, residential structures, critical  facilities, and infrastructure.     Volcanic Ashfall Vulnerabilities The 2018 State of Alaska HMP categorizes the KPB at risk of experiencing high volcanic impacts.  Impacts associated with an ashfall event include the potential for ashfall to damage motors and  impair air quality.    Changes in the Cryosphere Vulnerabilities Alaska can expect to experience ever‐changing effects from melting polar ice sheets, mountain  glaciers, and other cryosphere impacts.  According to mapping completed by the USGS, Kenai  does not have permafrost at ground level.  Sea ice and river ice affect Kenai.    Similar to weather vulnerabilities, changing cryospheric conditions also vary across Alaska.   Therefore, the entire population and infrastructure could be vulnerable to recurrent cryosphere  hazard impacts.      Mitigation Strategy 56   7. Mitigation Strategy A mitigation strategy provides the blueprint for implementing desired activities that will enable  the City to continue to save lives and preserve infrastructure by systematically reducing hazard  impacts, damages, and community disruptions.  This section outlines the process for preparing  a mitigation strategy including:   1. Develop Mitigation Goals to mitigate the hazards and risks identified (see Sections 5 and  6).  2. Identify Mitigation Actions to meet the Mitigation Goals.  3. Evaluate Mitigation Actions.  a. Describe and analyze Local mitigation policies, programs, and funding sources.  b. Evaluate Federal and State hazard management policies, programs, capabilities,  and funding sources.  4. Implement the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP).  Within this section, the Hazard Mitigation Project Team developed mitigation goals and  potential mitigation actions.  DEVELOPING MITIGATION GOALS Requirements for hazard mitigation goals, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its implementing  regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy –Hazard Mitigation Goals Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Element  Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? Source: FEMA, 2015. The exposure analysis results were used as a basis for developing the mitigation goals and  actions. Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines that describe what a community  wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long‐ range, policy‐oriented statements representing community‐wide visions. As such, goals were  developed to reduce or avoid long‐term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (Table 13).  Goals  are numbered according to the order of hazard priority; hazard designations are abbreviated  as:   F&E (Flooding and Erosion);   F (Fire);   EQ (Earthquakes);   V (Volcanic Ash);   SW (Severe Weather); and   Mitigation Strategy 57  G (General).  Table 13. Mitigation Goals No. Goal Description  F&E1a  Reduce or eliminate the erosion of the bluff at the mouth of the Kenai River.  Note that this goal incorporates  the changes to the cryosphere hazard with the erosion hazard.  F&E1b  Reduce or eliminate property damage and influx of debris into waterways due to floods by raising public  awareness and through zoning changes.  F2 Reduce or eliminate loss of homes and property due to fires.  EQ 3 Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes.  V 4 Educate citizens to adequately protect themselves and property from hazards of volcanic ash.  SW 5 Educate citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with severe weather.  G 6 Identify ways for the City to better prepare for an emergency.  IDENTIFYING MITIGATION ACTIONS Requirements for identification and analysis of mitigation actions, as stipulated in DMA 2000  and its implementing regulations, are described below.   DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Element  Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?  Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure?  Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure? Source: FEMA, 2015.   After mitigation goals and actions were developed, the Planning Team assessed the potential  mitigation actions to carry forward into the mitigation strategy. Mitigation actions are activities,  measures, or projects that help achieve the goals of an HMP. Mitigation actions are usually  grouped into three broad categories:  property protection, public education and awareness,  and structural projects. The Planning Team placed particular emphasis on projects and  programs that reduce the effects of hazards on both new and existing buildings and  infrastructure. These potential projects are listed in Table 16.    EVALUATING AND PRIORITIZING MITIGATION ACTIONS Requirements for the evaluation and implementation of mitigation actions, as stipulated in  DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Implementation of Mitigation Actions Implementation of Mitigation Actions Mitigation Strategy 58 DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in Section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the Local Government. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Element  Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized?  Does the mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered?  Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review to maximize benefits? Source: FEMA, 2015. The Planning Team identified mitigation actions on October 30, 2019, to determine which  actions would be retained in the MAP. The MAP contained in Table 14 represents potential  mitigation projects and programs. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ranked the top three  hazards with the potential to impact Kenai as erosion, fire, and earthquakes.  Table 14. Mitigation Goals and Potential Actions Goals Actions  No. Description ID Description  F&E1a  Reduce or eliminate the erosion  of the bluff at the mouth of the  Kenai River.  A Implement the recommendation from the 2018 USACE Report.  B  Maintain (and expand as needed) dune protection measures on the north and  south beaches in the vicinity of the Kenai River mouth.  C  Explore and implement bluff protection measures for the sheer bluff on the north  beach, which is currently unprotected.  F&E1b  Reduce or eliminate property  damage and influx of debris into  waterways due to floods by  raising public awareness and  through zoning changes.  A  Continue cooperative efforts of the KPB, City of Kenai Planning and Zoning  Commission, City Council, and land owners/developers to enforce a 50‐foot  setback of items on properties adjacent to waterways.  B  Evaluate the feasibility of participating in the NFIP.  F2    Reduce or eliminate loss of  homes and property due to fires.  A  Promote the development of FireWise neighborhoods to include the removal of  fuels and increased awareness of fire hazards in the community.  B  Develop a wildland hazard map based on vegetation data that ranks land based  upon its likely susceptibility to the spruce bark beetle.  C Map hydrant locations.  Extend water lines as needed to increase coverage.  D  Clear dead trees in high priority areas such as those that would be an immediate  hazard to road right‐of‐ways or structures.  EQ 3  Prepare citizens and the built  environment to better survive the  hazards associated with  earthquakes.  A  Raise public awareness of potential threats and necessary preparations to increase  survivability of citizens and structures.  Mitigation Strategy 59 V 4  Prepare citizens to adequately  protect themselves and property  from hazards of volcanic ash.  A  Educate the public to prepare for the harmful effects of volcanic ash fallout to life  and property.   SW 5  Educate citizens and the built  environment to better survive the  hazards associated with severe  weather.  A  Enforce building codes for structures to withstand high winds.  G 6 Identify ways for the City to better  prepare for an emergency.  A  Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan from 2007 to ensure the appropriate  response to natural hazards.  B  Update the Alaska Fire Training Facility as an Emergency Operations Command  Center.  The requirements for the evaluation and implementation of mitigation actions, as stipulated in  DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.    The Hazard Mitigation Project Team reviewed the simplified social, technical, administrative,  political, legal, economic, and environmental (STAPLEE) evaluation criteria (Table 15) and the  Benefit‐Cost Analysis Fact Sheet (Appendix D) to consider the opportunities and constraints of  implementing each particular mitigation action. For each action considered for implementation,  a qualitative statement is provided regarding the benefits and costs and, where available, the  technical feasibility. A detailed cost‐benefit analysis is anticipated as part of the application  process for those projects the City chooses to implement.  Table 15. Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE)  Evaluation  Category  Discussion  “It is important to consider…” Considerations  Social The public support for the overall mitigation strategy  and specific mitigation actions.  Community acceptance  Adversely affects population  DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy - Implementation of Mitigation Actions Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in Section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Element Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? Does the mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered? Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review to maximize benefits? Source: FEMA, 2015. Mitigation Strategy 60 Evaluation  Category  Discussion  “It is important to consider…” Considerations  Technical If the mitigation action is technically feasible and if it is  the whole or partial solution.  Technical feasibility  Long‐term solutions  Secondary impacts  Administrative  If the community has the personnel and administrative  capabilities necessary to implement the action or  whether outside help will be necessary.  Staffing  Funding allocation  Maintenance/operations  Political  What the community and its members feel about  issues related to the environment, economic  development, safety, and emergency management.  Political support  Local champion  Public support  Legal  Whether the community has the legal authority to  implement the action, or whether the community must  pass new regulations.  Local, Tribal, State, and Federal authority  Potential legal challenge  Economic  If the action can be funded with current or future  internal and external sources, if the costs seem  reasonable for the size of the project, and if enough  information is available to complete a FEMA Benefit‐ Cost Analysis.  Benefit/cost of action  Contributes to other economic goals  Outside funding required  FEMA Benefit‐Cost Analysis  Environmental  The impact on the environment because of public  desire for a sustainable and environmentally healthy  community.  Effect on local flora and fauna  Consistent with community environmental goals  Consistent with Local, Tribal, State, and Federal  laws  On October 29, 2019, the Hazard Mitigation Project Team considered each hazard’s history,  extent, and probability to determine each mitigation action’s priority. A rating system based on  high, medium, or low was used. High priorities are associated with actions for hazards that  impact the community on an annual or near annual basis and generate impacts to critical  facilities and/or people. Prioritizing the mitigation actions in the MAP Matrix was completed on  December 4, 2019, to provide the City with an approach to implementing the MAP.  Table 16  defines the mitigation action priorities.    IMPLEMENTING A MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Requirements for Local Government policies in mitigation strategies, as stipulated in DMA 2000  and its implementing regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Mitigation Strategy Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include]: an action plan describing how the actions will be prioritized implemented, and administered by the Local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Element  Does the plan contain a mitigation action plan? Table 16 defines the MAP.    Mitigation Strategy 61 Table 16. City Mitigation Action Plan (See acronym and abbreviations list for complete titles) Action ID Description Priority Responsible Department  Potential Funding Timeframe Benefit‐Costs / Technical Feasibility F&E1a Implement Kenai Bluffs protection measure recommended in the 2018 USACE Kenai Bluffs study.    High City Planner City, USACE, Legislature Capital Budget 2020‐2025 B/C:  The USACE has already completed the study and identified the best solution. TF:  The City is seeking funding opportunities.   F&E1b Establish zoning and building restrictions for the Kenai Bluffs area, and develop a plan to move infrastructure back from the bluff. High City Planner City 2020 B/C: This project would prevent infrastructure from being eroded into the bluff below.  TF: This project is feasible using existing community resources and construction standards.  Equipment and materials require grant funding. F&E1c Maintain (and expand as needed) dune protection measures on the north and south beaches in the vicinity of the Kenai River mouth. High City Planner  City 2020 B/C: Fences in 2009 and 2010 made a difference.  TF:  Fences are relatively inexpensive and easily implemented. F&E1d Explore and implement bluff protection measures for the sheer bluff on the north beach, which is currently unprotected. High City Planner City 2020 B/C:  Temporary signs have worked in the past.  Permanent signs should be considered to remind people their actions cause damage to the bluff. TF:  This project is easily implemented. F&E1e Continue cooperative efforts of the KPB, City of Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, and land owners/developers to enforce a 50‐foot setback of items on properties adjacent to waterways. High City Planner City Ongoing B/C:  The Kenai River Overlay mandates a 50‐foot building setback from the mean high water line of the Kenai River.  KPB regulations for development in this area meet the objective to minimize damage in the event of a flood.  Mitigation Strategy 62 Action ID Description Priority Responsible Department  Potential Funding Timeframe Benefit‐Costs / Technical Feasibility TF:  The City has the necessary resources to enforce regulations already in place. F&E1f Evaluate the feasibility of participating in the NFIP. Medium City Planner City 2020 B/C:  The KPB participates in the NFIP. TF:  The KPB would act as the Floodplain Manager. F2a Promote FireWise programs including public education programs in schools and neighborhoods.   High Fire Chief Minimal cost anticipated; City 2020 B/C: This is an easily‐implemented mitigation action. TF: This action could be accomplished by the Fire Department at minimal cost. F2b Promote the development of defensible space and landscaping techniques to community and home construction contractor participation.   High Fire Chief Minimal cost anticipated; City Spring 2020 B/C: This is an easily‐implemented mitigation action. TF: This action could be accomplished by the Fire Department at minimal cost. F2c Encourage the reduction of fuels in hazardous areas and egress routes in coordination with the Kenai Peninsula Spruce Bark Beetle Mitigation Office, State Forestry, and land owners. High Fire Chief City, DHS Preparedness Technical Assistance Program, HMGP, PDM Grants 2020 B/C:  National statistics state that there is a $10 benefit for every $1 spent on wildfire mitigation.  Flyers and radio ads are inexpensive. TF:  This action could be accomplished by the Fire Department at minimal cost.  Homeowners and property owners would be responsible for their own lots.  Funding would be needed for City property. F2d Develop a wildland hazard map based on vegetation data that ranks land based upon its likely susceptibility to the spruce bark beetle. High KPB/City Planner Funding has already been obtained Spring 2020 B/C: KPB has mapping expertise. TF:  This action is already in progress.  Mitigation Strategy 63 Action ID Description Priority Responsible Department  Potential Funding Timeframe Benefit‐Costs / Technical Feasibility F2e Map hydrant locations.  Extend water lines as needed to increase coverage. High Public Works Director Funding has already been obtained Spring 2020 B/C: Public Works has expertise. TF:  This action is already in progress.  EQ3a In an effort to reduce property damage, the City will continue to adopt and enforce current building codes and construction standards that address the seismic concerns for the KPB.   High City Planner City Ongoing B/C:  The City has already adopted the codes and enforces them.   TF:  Codes are already implemented. EQ3b Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes through the promotion of public education and the practice of sheltering in place.  Encourage the preparation of citizens for self ‐sufficiency on a post‐earthquake scenario. High City Planner City Ongoing B/C:  A comprehensive earthquake safety program, delivered as appropriate to all ages and audiences will save lives. Seismic standard construction will increase survivability of occupants. TF:  Codes are already implemented. V4 Continue cooperative effort with KPB, Office of Emergency Management, local media, and City of Kenai websites to provide the public with preparedness information prior to and during periods of increased volcano seismic activity.  High City Planner City, KPB, AVO Ongoing B/C:  During 2009 volcanic activity, the public was adequately informed for preparedness via the KPB and AVO websites as well as collaboration of City Government and local media.  Continue preparedness exercises. TF:  Regularly practice EOP. SW5 In an effort to reduce property damage, the City will continue to adopt and enforce current building codes and construction standards that address high winds.  Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with keeping power on such as backup generators.   Residents should do self‐assessments on their own properties High Individual Homeowner Individual Homeowner 2020 B/C:  Homeowners are responsible for the defensiveness of their property in a natural disaster.  Prevention now may save property in the future. TF:  Residents would be responsible for following  Mitigation Strategy 64 Action ID Description Priority Responsible Department  Potential Funding Timeframe Benefit‐Costs / Technical Feasibility and create open space around their houses accordingly so that trees do not fall on houses and powerlines. City codes and construction standards. G6a Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan to ensure the appropriate response to natural hazards. Medium Fire Chief City, Denali Commission 2020 B/C: Sustained mitigation outreach programs have minimal cost and will help build and support area‐wide capacity. This type of activity enables the public to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.  Coordinated planning ensures effective damage abatement and ensures proper attention is assigned to reduce losses and damage to structures and residents.   TF: This low‐cost activity can be combined with recurring community meetings where hazard‐ specific information can be presented in small increments. This activity is ongoing, demonstrating its feasibility.   G6b Update the Alaska Fire Training Facility as an Emergency Operations Command Center. Medium City Manager City, HMGP, PDM   2020‐2025 B/C:  The City needs to evaluate their EOC needs and determine if this building should be updated to replace the existing EOC.  This building has many desirable features for an EOC. TF:  This building is sitting empty in the community and appears to meet criteria.   Plan Maintenance 65 8. Plan Maintenance This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that this HMP remains an  active and applicable document. It includes an explanation of how the City’s Hazard Mitigation  Project Team intends to organize their efforts to ensure that improvements and revisions to the  HMP occur in a well‐managed, efficient, and coordinated manner.   The following three process steps are addressed in detail here:  1. Monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP;  2. Implementation through existing planning mechanisms; and   3. Continued public involvement.  MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE HMP Requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP, as stipulated in the DMA 2000  and its implementing regulations, are described below.    DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i, ii, and iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle; b] a process by which local government incorporates the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate; and c] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Element  Does the plan describe the method and schedule of monitoring the plan, including the responsible department?  Does the plan describe a system for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and project closeouts?  Does the plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle? Source: FEMA, 2015.   This HMP was prepared as a collaborative effort among the Hazard Mitigation Project Team and  LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. To maintain momentum, the City Planner will use the  Hazard Mitigation Project Team to monitor, evaluate, and update the HMP. Each authority  identified in Table 16 will be responsible for implementing the MAP. The City Planner will serve  as the primary point of contact and will coordinate local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and revise  the HMP.  Each member of the Hazard Mitigation Project Team will conduct an annual review during the  anniversary week of the HMP’s official FEMA approval date to monitor the progress in  implementing the HMP, particularly the MAP. As shown in Appendix E, the Annual Review  Worksheet will provide the basis for possible changes in the HMP MAP by refocusing on new or  more threatening hazards, adjusting to changes to or increases in resource allocations, and  engaging additional support for the HMP implementation. The City Planner will initiate the  annual review two months prior to the scheduled planning meeting date to ensure that all data  is assembled for discussion with the Hazard Mitigation Project Team. The findings from these  reviews will be presented at the annual Hazard Mitigation Project Team Meeting. Each review,  as shown on the Annual Review Worksheet, will include an evaluation of the following:   Participation of authorities and others in the HMP implementation;  Plan Maintenance 66  Notable changes in the risk of natural or human‐caused hazards;   Impacts of land development activities and related programs on hazard mitigation;   Progress made with the MAP (identify problems and suggest improvements as  necessary and provide progress reports on implemented mitigation actions); and    The adequacy of local resources for implementation of the HMP.  A system of reviewing the progress on achieving the mitigation goals and implementing the  MAP activities and projects will also be accomplished during the annual review process. During  each annual review, each authority administering a mitigation project will submit a Progress  Report to the Hazard Mitigation Project Team. As shown in Appendix E, the report will include  the current status of the mitigation project, including any changes made to the project, the  identification of implementation problems and appropriate strategies to overcome them, and  whether or not the project has helped achieve the appropriate goals identified in the HMP.   In addition to the annual review, the Hazard Mitigation Project Team will update the HMP every  five years. To ensure that this update occurs, in the fourth year following adoption of the HMP,  the Hazard Mitigation Project Team will undertake the following activities:   Request grant assistance from DHS&EM and FEMA to update the HMP (this can take up  to one year to obtain and one year to update the HMP);   Thoroughly analyze and update the risk of natural hazards;   Provide a new annual review (as noted above), plus a review of the three previous  annual reviews;   Provide a detailed review and revision of the mitigation strategy;   Prepare an updated MAP for the City;   Prepare an updated Draft HMP;   Submit an updated Draft HMP to DHS&EM and FEMA for approval;    Submit the DSH&EM‐ and FEMA‐approved plan for adoption by the City Council; and   Return adoption resolution to FEMA to receive formal approval.  IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS Requirements for implementation through existing planning mechanisms, as stipulated in DMA  2000 and its implementing regulations, are described below.      Plan Maintenance 67 DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirements §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which the Local Government integrates the HMP into other ongoing City planning efforts as well as other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans when appropriate. Element  Does the plan identify other planning mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan?  Does the plan include a process by which the City government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? Source: FEMA, 2015. After the adoption of the HMP, the City Planner will ensure that the HMP, in particular each  Mitigation Action Project, is incorporated into existing planning mechanisms. The City Planner  will achieve this incorporation by undertaking the following activities.   Conduct a review of the community‐specific regulatory tools to assess the integration of  the mitigation strategy. These regulatory tools are identified in the capability  assessment section (Tables 17‐19).    Work with pertinent community departments to increase awareness of the HMP and  provide assistance in integrating the mitigation strategy (including the MAP) into  relevant planning mechanisms. Implementation of these requirements may require  updating or amending specific planning mechanisms.    The City Planner will be responsible for providing a copy of this HMP to contractors  focused on developing new or updating existing Local Plans and ensuring that this HMP  is incorporated into plans as applicable.  The City will involve the public to continually reshape and update this HMP.  A paper copy of  this HMP will be available at City Hall.  This HMP will also be stored on the State DCCED/DCRA’s  plans website for public reference.  Planners are encouraged to integrate components of this  HMP into their own plans.  The following tables outline the resources available to the City for mitigation related funding  and training. The tables delineate the City’s regulatory tools, technical specialists, and financial  resources available for project management.                  Plan Maintenance 68 Table 17. Regulatory Tools Regulatory Tools  (ordinances, codes, plans)    Existing?  Comments (Year of most recent update; problems  administering it, etc.)  Economic Development Plan 2019 KPB Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy   Comprehensive Plan 2016 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan  Emergency Operations Plan 2007 City of Kenai Emergency Operations Plan  Land Use Plan Yes In the 2016 City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan  Transportation Plan 2003 Kenai Peninsula Borough Transportation Pan   Building code Yes The City can exercise this authority.  Zoning ordinances Yes The City can exercise this authority.  Subdivision ordinances or regulations Yes The City can exercise this authority.  Special purpose ordinances Yes The City can exercise this authority.  Land Use Regulation Yes The City can exercise this authority.    Local Resources  The City has a number of planning and land management tools that will allow it to  implement hazard mitigation activities. The resources available in these areas are  summarized below.  Table 18. Administrative and Technical Resources Staff/Personnel Resources Y/N Department/Agency and Position  Planner or engineer with knowledge of land  development and land management practices  Yes City Planner  Engineer or professional trained in construction  practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure  Yes Department of Public Works  Planner or engineer with an understanding of  natural and/or human‐caused hazards  Yes City Planner  Floodplain Manager Yes Jimmy C. Smith, State Floodplain Manager  KPB Floodplain Manager  Surveyors No The City may hire surveying consulting services.  Staff with education or expertise to assess the  jurisdiction’s vulnerability to hazards  Yes City Planner  Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS‐MH Yes City Planner  Scientists familiar with the hazards of the  jurisdiction  No U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game   Emergency Manager Yes City Manager, Kenai Peninsula Borough   Finance (Grant writers) Yes Finance Director  Plan Maintenance 69 Public Information Officer Yes City Manager   The following table includes additional information on existing City authority, policies,  and programs.  Table 19. Financial Resources for Hazard Mitigation Financial Resource  Accessible or Eligible to Use  for Mitigation Activities  General funds Limited funding, can exercise this authority with voter  approval.  Community Development Block Grants Limited funding, can exercise this authority with voter  approval.  Capital Improvement Projects Funding Limited funding, can exercise this authority with voter  approval.  Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Limited funding, can exercise this authority with voter  approval.  Incur debt through general obligation bonds Can exercise this authority with voter approval.  Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Can exercise this authority with voter approval.  Incur debt through private activity bonds Can exercise this authority with voter approval.    Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)  FEMA funding which is available to local communities after a  Presidentially‐declared disaster. It can be used to fund both  pre‐ and post‐disaster mitigation plans and projects.    Pre‐Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program  FEMA funding which is available on an annual basis. This  grant can only be used to fund pre‐disaster mitigation  plans and projects only.  Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant program FEMA funding which is available on an annual basis. This grant  can be used to mitigate repetitively‐flooded structures and  infrastructure to protect repetitive flood structures.    United State Fire Administration (USFA) Grants  The purpose of these grants is to assist state, regional,  national, or local organizations to address fire prevention  and safety. The primary goal is to reach high‐risk target  groups including children, seniors, and firefighters.    Fire Mitigation Fees  Finance future fire protection facilities and fire capital  expenditures required.      Plan Maintenance 70 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Requirements for continued public involvement, as stipulated in DMA 2000 and its  implementing regulations, are described below.  DMA 2000 Requirements: Plan Maintenance Process - Continued Public Involvement Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the Government will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Element  Does the plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? Source: FEMA, 2015. The City is dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and updating of  the HMP. A paper copy of the HMP and any proposed changes will be available at the City  Planning Office. An address and phone number of the City Planner to whom people can direct  their comments or concerns will also be available at the City Office.  The City Planner will also identify opportunities to raise community awareness about the HMP  and the hazards that affect the area with.  The City will host a booth at the Community Health  Fair that occurs each spring.  The purpose of the booth will be to remind the public about the  importance of mitigation and hand out community surveys (see Appendix E) to gauge what  areas of mitigation the community feels is relevant.  Any public comments received regarding  the HMP will be collected by the City Planner, included in the annual report, and considered  during future HMP updates.  POTENTIAL FUNDING RESOURCES Federal Resources   The Federal government requires Local Governments to have an HMP in place to be eligible for  mitigation funding opportunities through FEMA such as the UHMA Programs and the HMGP.  The Mitigation Technical Assistance Programs available to Local governments are also a  valuable resource. FEMA may also provide temporary housing assistance through rental  assistance, mobile homes, furniture rental, mortgage assistance, and emergency home repairs.  The Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant also promotes educational opportunities with  respect to hazard awareness and mitigation.   FEMA, through its Emergency Management Institute, offers training in many aspects of  emergency management, including hazard mitigation. FEMA has also developed a large  number of documents that address implementing hazard mitigation at the local level.  Key resource documents are available from the FEMA Publication Warehouse (1‐800‐ 480‐2520) and are briefly described here:  o How‐to Guides. FEMA has developed a series of how‐to guides to assist States,  communities, and Tribes in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities.  The first four guides describe the four major phases of hazard mitigation planning.  The last five how‐to guides address special topics that arise in hazard mitigation  planning such as conducting cost‐benefit analysis and preparing multi‐jurisdictional  Plan Maintenance 71 plans. The use of worksheets, checklists, and tables make these guides a practical  source of guidance to address all stages of the hazard mitigation planning process.  They also include special tips on meeting DMA 2000 requirements.   o Post‐Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local Governments.  FEMA DAP‐12, September 1990. This handbook explains the basic concepts of  hazard mitigation and shows State, Tribal, and Local governments how they can  develop and achieve mitigation goals within the context of FEMA's post‐disaster  hazard mitigation planning requirements. The handbook focuses on approaches to  mitigation, with an emphasis on multi‐objective planning.   o Mitigation Resources for Success compact disc (CD). FEMA 372, September 2001.  This CD contains a wealth of information about mitigation and is useful for State,  Tribal, and Local government planners and other stakeholders in the mitigation  process. It provides mitigation case studies, success stories, information about  Federal mitigation programs, suggestions for mitigation measures to homes and  businesses, appropriate relevant mitigation publications, and contact information.   o A Guide to Federal Aid in Disasters. FEMA 262, April 1995. When disasters exceed  the capabilities of State, Tribal, and Local governments, the President's disaster  assistance programs (administered by FEMA) is the primary source of Federal  assistance. This handbook discusses the procedures and process for obtaining this  assistance, and provides a brief overview of each program.   o The Emergency Management Guide for Business and Industry. FEMA 141, October  1993. This guide provides a step‐by‐step approach to emergency management  planning, response, and recovery. It also details a planning process that businesses  can follow to better prepare for a wide range of hazards and emergency events. This  effort can enhance a business's ability to recover from financial losses, loss of  market share, damages to equipment, and product or business interruptions. This  guide could be of great assistance to a community's industries and businesses  located in hazard prone areas.  o The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance and Addendum, February 5, 2015.  The guidance introduces the five HMA grant programs, funding opportunities, award  information, eligibility, application and submission information, application review  process, administering the grant, contracts, additional program guidance, additional  project guidance, and contains information and resource appendices (FEMA, 2015).   Department of Agriculture (USDA). Assistance provided includes: Emergency  Conservation Program, Non‐Insured Assistance, Emergency Watershed Protection, Rural  Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Rural Business and Cooperative Service.    Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,  Weatherization Assistance Program. This program minimizes the adverse effects of high  energy costs on low‐income, elderly, and handicapped citizens through client education  activities and weatherization services such as an all‐around safety check of major energy  systems, including heating system modifications and insulation checks.   Plan Maintenance 72  Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children & Families,  Administration for Native Americans (ANA). The ANA awards funds through grants to  American Indians, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific  Islanders. These grants are awarded to individual organizations that successfully apply  for discretionary funds. ANA publishes in the Federal Register an announcement of  funds available, the primary areas of focus, review criteria, and the method of  application.    Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Homes and  Communities, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Programs. This program provides loan  guarantees as security for Federal loans for acquisition, rehabilitation, relocation,  clearance, site preparation, special economic development activities, and construction  of certain public facilities and housing.    Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block  Grants (HUD/CDBG). Provides grant assistance and technical assistance to aid  communities in planning activities that address issues detrimental to the health and  safety of local residents, such as housing rehabilitation, public services, community  facilities, and infrastructure improvements that would primarily benefit low‐and  moderate‐income persons.    Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration, Disaster  Unemployment Assistance. Provides weekly unemployment subsistence grants for those  who become unemployed because of a major disaster or emergency. Applicants must  have exhausted all benefits for which they would normally be eligible.    Federal Financial Institutions. Member banks of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,  Financial Reporting Standards or Federal Home Loan Bank Board may be permitted to  waive early withdrawal penalties for Certificates of Deposit and Individual Retirement  Accounts.    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Relief. Provides extensions to current year's tax  return, allows deductions for disaster losses, and allows amendment of previous tax  returns to reflect loss back to three years.    U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). May provide low‐interest disaster loans to  individuals and businesses that have suffered a loss due to a disaster. Requests for SBA  loan assistance should be submitted to DHS&EM.   USACE Alaska District’s Civil Works Branch studies potential water resource projects in  Alaska. These studies analyze and solve water resource issues of concern to the local  communities. These issues may involve navigational improvements, flood control or  ecosystem restoration. The agency also tracks flood hazard data for over 300 Alaskan  communities on floodplains or the sea coast. These data help local communities assess  the risk of floods to their communities and prepare for potential future floods. The  USACE is a member and co‐chair of the Alaska Climate Change Sub‐Cabinet.  State Resources   DHS&EM is responsible for improving hazard mitigation technical assistance for Tribal  and Local governments for the State of Alaska. Providing hazard mitigation training,  Plan Maintenance 73 current hazard information, and communication facilitation with other agencies will  enhance local hazard mitigation efforts. DHS&EM administers FEMA mitigation grants to  mitigate future disaster damages such as those that may affect infrastructure including  the elevation, relocation, or acquisition of hazard‐prone properties. DHS&EM also  provides mitigation funding resources for mitigation planning.   Division of Senior Services (DSS): Provides special outreach services for seniors, including  food, shelter, and clothing.    Division of Insurance (DOI): Provides assistance in obtaining copies of policies and  provides information regarding filing claims.    Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA): Provides damage appraisals and  settlements for VA‐insured homes, and assists with filing of survivor benefits.    The Community Health and Emergency Medical Services (CHEMS) is a section within the  Division of Public Health within the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).  DHSS is charged with promoting and protecting the public health and one of CHEMS'  responsibilities is developing, implementing, and maintaining a statewide  comprehensive emergency medical services system. The department's statutory  mandate (Alaska Statute 18.08.010) requires it to:   o Coordinate public and private agencies engaged in the planning and delivery of  emergency medical services, including trauma care, to plan an emergency medical  services system;  o Assist public and private agencies to deliver emergency medical services, including  trauma care, through the award of grants in aid;  o Conduct, encourage, and approve programs of education and training designed to  upgrade the knowledge and skills of health personnel involved in emergency medical  services, including trauma care; and  o Establish and maintain a process under which hospitals and clinics can represent  themselves to be trauma centers because they voluntarily meet criteria adopted by  the department which are based on an applicable national evaluation system.   DCRA within the DCCED. DCRA administers the HUD/CDBG, FMA Program, and the  Climate Change Sub‐Cabinet’s Interagency Working Group’s program funds and  administers various flood and erosion mitigation projects, including the elevation,  relocation, or acquisition of flood‐prone homes and businesses throughout the State.  This department also administers programs for State "distressed" and "targeted"  communities.   Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC’s primary roles and  responsibilities concerning hazards mitigation are ensuring safe food and safe water,  and pollution prevention and pollution response. DEC ensures water treatment plants,  landfills, and bulk fuel storage tank farms are safely constructed and operated in  communities. Agency and facility response plans include hazards identification and  pollution prevention and response strategies.  Plan Maintenance 74  Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) personnel provide technical  assistance to the various emergency management programs, to include mitigation. This  assistance is addressed in the DHS&EM‐DOT/PF Memorandum of Agreement and  includes, but, is not limited to: environmental reviews, archaeological surveys, and  historic preservation reviews.  In addition, DOT/PF and DHS&EM coordinate buy‐out projects to ensure that there are  no potential right‐of‐way conflicts with future use of land for bridge and highway  projects, and collaborate on earthquake mitigation.  Additionally, DOT/PF provides safe, efficient, economical, and effective operation of the  State's highways, harbors, and airports. DOT/PF uses it's Planning, Design and  Engineering, Maintenance and Operations, and Intelligent Transportation Systems  resources to identify the hazard, plan and initiate mitigation activities to meet the  transportation needs of Alaskans and make Alaska a better place to live and work.  DOT/PF budgets for the temporary replacement bridges and materials necessary to  make the multi‐modal transportation system operational following a natural disaster.   The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers various projects designed to  reduce stream bank erosion, reduce localized flooding, improve drainage, and improve  discharge water quality through the stormwater grant program funds. Within DNR, the  Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey (DGGS) is responsible for the use and  development of Alaska's mineral, land, and water resources, and collaboration on  earthquake mitigation.  o DNR’s DGGS collects and distributes information about the State's geologic  resources and hazards. Their geologists and support staff are leaders in researching  Alaska's geology and implementing technological tools to most efficiently collect,  interpret, publish, archive, and disseminate that information to the public  o The DNR’s Division of Forestry (DOF) participates in a statewide wildfire control  program in cooperation with the forest industry, rural fire departments, and other  agencies. Prescribed burning may increase the risks of fire hazards; however,  prescribed burning reduces the availability of fire fuels, and therefore, the potential  for future, more serious fires.  o DOF also manages various wildland fire programs, activities, and grant programs  such as the FireWise Program, the Community Forestry Program (CFP) and the  Volunteer Fire Assistance and Rural Fire Assistance Grant (VFA‐RFAG) programs.  Other Funding Sources and Resources   The following provide focused access to valuable planning resources for communities  interested in sustainable development activities.   FEMA, http://www.fema.gov ‐ includes links to information, resources, and grants that  communities can use in planning and implementation of sustainable measures.   American Planning Association (APA), http://www.planning.org ‐ a non‐profit  professional association that serves as a resource for planners, elected officials, and  citizens concerned with planning and growth initiatives.  Plan Maintenance 75  Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), http://ibhs.org ‐ an initiative of the  insurance industry to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses, and  human suffering caused by natural disasters.   American Red Cross (ARC). Provides for the critical needs of individuals such as food,  clothing, shelter, and supplemental medical needs. Provides recovery needs such as  furniture, home repair, home purchasing, essential tools, and some bill payment may be  provided.    Crisis Counseling Program. Provides grants to State and Borough Mental Health  Departments, which in turn provide training for screening, diagnosing, and counseling  techniques. Also provides funds for counseling, outreach, and consultation for those  affected by disaster.  References 76 9. References ACRC (Alaska Climate Research Center).  2018:  Temperature Change in Alaska. Available:  http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html (August 2019).  AEC (Alaska Earthquake Center).  2019.  Available: http://earthquake.alaska.edu/.  (August 2019).  AICC (Alaska Interagency Coordination Center). 2019. Available: http://fire.ak.blm.gov/aicc.php.  (August 2019).  CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program).  2008.  Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing  Climate – Regions of Focus – North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands.  A  Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global  Change Research.  Vol. 3.3T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and  W.L. Murray, Eds. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, 164  pp.  City of Kenai.  2016.  Imagine Kenai 2030:  City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan.  Available:   https://www.kenai.city/planning/page/comprehensive‐plan (August 2019).    City of Kenai.  2010.  ANNEX to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Local All Hazard Mitigation  Plan.  (August 2019).    City of Kenai.  2007.  City of Kenai Emergency Operations Plan.  (November 2019).  DCCED/DCRA (Department of Community and Commerce and Economic Development  [DCCED]/Division of Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA]). 2019. Community  Profile:  https://dcced.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=0cc86ef7d286440f8 16f08f46467409a .  (August 2019).  DHS&EM (Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management). 2018a. Alaska State  Hazard Mitigation Plan, October 2018. Accessed January 2019.  DHS&EM. 2018b. Disaster Cost Index June 30, 2018. Accessed January 2018.   FEMA‐a, (Federal Emergency Management Agency), “Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide –  September 30, 2011.”  Available:  https://www.fema.gov/media‐library‐ data/20130726‐1809‐25045‐7498/plan_review_guide_final_9_30_11.pdf (January  2019).  FEMA‐b, “Mitigation Planning How‐To Guides, 2013.”  Available:  https://www.fema.gov/media‐ library/resources‐documents/collections/6 (January 2019).  FEMA‐c, “Local Mitigation Planning Handbook.”  Updated January 1, 2015.  Available:     https://www.fema.gov/media‐library/assets/documents/31598   (January 2019).  FEMA‐d, “Local Mitigation Assistance Guidance and Addendum, February 27, 2015.  Available:     https://www.fema.gov/media‐library/assets/documents/103279   (January 2019).  FEMA‐e, “Mitigation Planning Fact Sheet, February 27, 2015.  Available:     https://www.fema.gov/media‐library/assets/documents/5756   (January 2019).  References 77 FEMA‐f, “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide, May 2016.  Available:     https://www.fema.gov/media‐library‐data/1463766664964‐ 4e6dd22652cb7c8a6162904f3b1b2022/FinalHMACostShareGuide508.pdf   (January 2019).  FEMA‐g, “Flood Frequently Asked Questions.”  Available:    https://www.floodsmart.gov/faqs   (August 2019).  FEMA‐h, “Flood Facts.”  Available:    https://www.floodsmart.gov/why/why‐buy‐flood‐insurance   (August 2019).  FEMA‐i, “Community Status Book Report.”  Available:  http://www.fema.gov/cis/AK.html  (August 2019).  FEMA‐j, “FEMA Region X – Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Incorporated Cities of Homer,  Kachemak, Kenai, Seldovia, Seward, and Soldotna Risk Report”.  December 2017.   Available:   https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/4/pub/Risk_Report_Kenai_Final.pdf   (August 2019).  KBBI.  February 29, 2016.  “Enstar Identifies Cause of Gas Explosions in Kenai.”  Jenny Neyman,  Homer.  KPB.  March 2006.  Kenai Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan.  Prepared by Spruce Bark  Beetle Program.  KPB.  2019.  Draft Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan.  MMI. 2006. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Michigan Technical University. Available:  http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/Mercalli.html. (August 2011).  Shulski, M., and G. Wendler. 2007. The Climate of Alaska.  University of Alaska Press. 208 pp.  Stewart, B. C., K. E. Kunkel, L.E. Stevens, L. Sun, and J. E. Walsh.  2013.  Regional Climate Trends and  Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment:  Part 7.  Climate of Alaska.  NOAA  Technical Report NESDIS 142‐7. 60 pp.   USACE. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). November 2018. Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization  Section 116 Feasibility Study, Kenai, Alaska.  (August 2018).  WeatherSpark.  2019. Available: https://weatherspark.com/y/215/Average‐Weather‐in‐ Kenai‐Alaska‐United‐States‐Year‐Round#Sections‐Wind.                    APPENDIX B. Definitions  Asset: Any manmade or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to people;  buildings; infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines  like electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or  recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks.  Avalanche: Mass of snow and ice falling suddenly down a mountain slope and often taking  with it earth, rocks and rubble of every description.  Base Flood Elevation: The computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise  during the base flood. Base Flood Elevations are shown on FIRMs and on the flood  profiles. The Base Flood Elevation is the regulatory requirement for the elevation or  floodproofing of structures. The relationship between the Base Flood Elevation and  a structure's elevation determines the flood insurance premium.  Borough: The basic unit of local government in Alaska, analogous to counties in other states.  Building: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.  Building Code: The regulations adopted by a local governing body principally setting forth  standards for the construction, addition, modification, and repair of buildings and  other structures for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general  welfare of the public.  Community: Any state, area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or tribal  entity that has the authority to adopt and enforce statutes for areas within its  jurisdiction.  Critical Facility: Facilities critical to the health and welfare of the population and that  are especially important during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include,  but are not limited to, shelters, hospitals, and fire stations.  Dam: A structure built across a waterway to impound water.  Development: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but  not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading,  paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials.  Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) (public Law 106‐390):   This act was signed into law on  October 10, 2000. This legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning  and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur.  Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain  accumulated within or along the edge of the earth’s tectonic plates.  Elevation: The raising of a structure to place it above flood waters, generally above the  base flood elevation, on an extended support structure.  Emergency Operations Plan: A document that: describes how people and property will  be protected in disaster and disaster threat situations; details who is responsible  for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities,  supplies, and other resources available for use in the disaster; and outlines how  all actions will be coordinated.  Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other  geological agents.  Federal Disaster Declaration: See Presidential Disaster Declaration.  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): A federal agency created in 1979 to  provide a single point of accountability for all federal activities related to hazard  mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.  Flash Flood: A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at  an extremely fast rate.  Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry  land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid  accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or  the sudden collapse of shoreline land.  Floodplain: A "floodplain" is the lowland adjacent to a river, lake, or ocean. Floodplains are  designated by the frequency of the flood that is large enough to cover them. For  example, the 10‐year floodplain will be covered by the 10‐year flood; the 100‐year  floodplain by the 100‐year flood.  "Flood frequencies:" Frequencies are determined by plotting a graph of the size of all  known floods for an area and determining how often floods of a particular size  occur. The frequency is the chance of a flood occurring during a given timeframe. It  is the percentage of the probability of flooding each year. For example, the 100‐ year flood has a 1% chance, and the 10‐year flood has a 10% chance of occurring in  any given year.  Geographic Information System: A computer software application that relates physical  features of the earth to a database that can be used for mapping and analysis.  Governing Body: The legislative body of a jurisdiction such as a municipal or Borough  assembly or a city council.  Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition. Any situation that has the  potential for causing personal injury or death, or damage to property and the  environment.  Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.  Hazard Identification: The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area.  Hazard Mitigation: Any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long‐term risk to human life  and property from natural hazards (44 CFR Subpart M 206.401).  Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: The program authorized under section 404 of the Stafford  Act, which may provide funding for mitigation measures identified through the  evaluation of natural hazards conducted under §322 of the Disaster Mitigation  Act 2000.  Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis: The identification and evaluation of all the hazards that  potentially threaten a jurisdiction and analyzing them in the context of the  jurisdiction to determine the degree of threat that is posed by each.  Hydro Unit: Short for Hydrologic Unit. A drainage area delineated to nest in a multi‐level,  hierarchical drainage system.  Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and  topographic criteria that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on  a river, stream, or similar surface water.  A hydrologic unit can accept surface water  directly from upstream drainage areas, and indirectly from associated surface areas  such as remnant, non‐contributing, and diversions to form a drainage area with  single or multiple outlet points.   Infrastructure: The public services of a community that have a direct impact to the quality  of life. Infrastructure refers to communication technology such as phone lines or  Internet access, vital services such as public water supply and sewer treatment  facilities, and includes an area’s transportation system, regional dams or bridges,  etc.  Inundation: The maximum horizontal distance inland reached by a tsunami.  Landslide: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.  Liquefaction: The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking cause’s loose soils to lose  strength and act like a thick or viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground  failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength.  Local Government: Any county, Borough, municipality, city, township, public authority, school  district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council  of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law),  regional or interstate government entity, or agency, or instrumentality of a local  government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native  village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village,  or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a State  or political subdivision of a state.  Magma: Molten rock originating from the Earth’s interior.  Magnitude: A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as  severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures  specific to the hazard.  Mitigate: To cause something to became less harsh or hostile, to make less severe or painful.  Mitigation Plan: A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the  effects of natural hazards typically present in the State and includes a description of  actions to minimize future vulnerability to hazards.  Municipality: A political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the state that is a home  rule or general law city, a home rule or general law borough, or a unified  municipality.  Natural Disaster: Any natural catastrophe, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high  water, wind, driven water, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide,  snowstorm, fire, or drought. (44 CFR Subpart M206.401).  New Construction: New construction means structures for which the “start of construction”  on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a  community and includes any subsequent improvement to such structures.  One Hundred (100)‐Year: The flood elevation that has a one‐percent chance of occurring in  any given year. It is also known as the Base Flood.  Overlay Zone: Overlay zones (overlay districts) create a framework for conservation or  development of special geographical areas. In a special resource overlay district,  overlay provisions typically impose greater restrictions on the development of land,  but only regarding those parcels whose development, as permitted under the  zoning, may threaten the viability of the natural resource. In a development area  overlay district, the provisions may impose restrictions as well, but also may provide  zoning incentives and waivers to encourage certain types and styles of  development. Overlay zone provisions are often complemented by the adoption of  other innovative zoning techniques, such as floating zones, special permits,  incentive zoning, cluster development and special site plan or subdivision  regulations, to name a few.  Period: A length of time. For waves, it is the length of time between two successive peaks or  troughs, which may vary due to interference of waves. Tsunami periods generally  range from 5 to 60 minutes.   Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of  goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.  Preparedness: The steps taken to decide what to do if essential services break down,  developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan. Preparedness ensures  that people are ready for a disaster and will respond to it effectively.  Presidential Disaster Declaration: The formal action by the President of the United States to  make a state eligible for major disaster or emergency assistance under the  Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93‐ 288, as  amended.  Probability: A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.  Recovery: The long‐term activities beyond the initial crisis period and emergency  response phase of disaster operations that focus on returning all systems in the  community to a normal status or to reconstitute these systems to a new, less  vulnerable condition.  Response: Those activities and programs designed to address the immediate and short‐ term effects of the onset of an emergency or disaster.  Retrofit: The strengthening of existing structures to mitigate disaster risks.  Risk: The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and  structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an  adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative  terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a  particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It can also be  expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of  the hazard.  Riverine: Relating to, formed by, or resembling rivers (including tributaries), streams,  creeks, brooks, etc.  Riverine Flooding: Flooding related to or caused by a river, stream, or tributary overflowing  its banks due to excessive rainfall, snowmelt or ice.  Runoff: That portion of precipitation that is not intercepted by vegetation, absorbed by land  surface, or evaporated, and thus flows overland into a depression, stream, lake, or  ocean (runoff, called immediate subsurface runoff, also takes place in the upper  layers of soil).  Run‐up: The maximum vertical height of a tsunami in relation to sea level.  Seiche: An oscillating wave (also referred to as a seismic sea wave) in a partially or fully  enclosed body of water. May be initiated by long period seismic waves, wind and  water waves, or a tsunami.  Stafford Act: 1) The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public  Law 93‐288, as amended. 2) The Stafford Act provides an orderly and  continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, local and  tribal governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering  and damage which result from disaster.  State Disaster Declaration: A disaster emergency shall be declared by executive order  or proclamation of the Governor upon finding that a disaster has occurred or  that the occurrence or the threat of a disaster is imminent. The state of disaster  emergency shall continue until the governor finds that the threat or danger has  passed or that the disaster has been dealt with to the extent that emergency  conditions no longer exist and terminates the state of disaster emergency by  executive order or proclamation. Along with other provisions, this declaration  allows the governor to utilize all available resources of the State as reasonably  necessary, direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from  any stricken or threatened area if necessary, prescribe routes, modes of  transportation and destinations in connection with evacuation and control  ingress and egress to and from disaster area. It is required before a Presidential  Disaster Declaration can be requested.  State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The SHMO is the representative of state  government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other state and  Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and implementation  of pre‐ and post‐disaster mitigation activities.  Storm Surge: Rise in the water surface above normal water level on open coast due to the  action of wind stress and atmospheric pressure on the water surface.  Stream: A body of water flowing in a natural surface channel.  Flow may be continuous or only  during wet periods. Streams that flow only during wet periods are termed  “intermittent streams.”  Structure: That which is constructed above or below ground in some definite manner for any  use or purpose.  Subdivision Regulations: Ordinances or regulations governing the subdivision of land with  respect to things such as adequacy and suitability of building sites and utilities and  public facilities.  Tectonic Plate: Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth’s lithosphere that may be  assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between  plate boundaries that causes seismic activity.  Topography: The contour of the land surface. The technique of graphically representing  the exact physical features of a place or region on a map.  Tribal Government: A Federally recognized governing body of an Indian or Alaska Native  Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the  Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized  Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native  corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals.  Tsunami: A sea wave produced by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption with  a sudden rise or fall of a section of the earth's crust under or near the ocean. A  seismic disturbance or land slide can displace the water column, creating a rise or  fall in the level of the ocean above. This rise or fall in sea level is the initial  formation of a tsunami wave.  Volcano:  A volcano is an opening, or rupture, in a planet's surface or crust, which allows hot  magma, ash, and gases to escape from below the surface. Volcanoes are generally  found where tectonic plates are diverging or converging. A mid‐oceanic ridge, for  example the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, has examples of volcanoes caused by divergent  tectonic plates pulling apart; the Pacific Ring of Fire has examples of volcanoes  caused by convergent tectonic plates coming together.  Vulnerability: Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset it. Vulnerability  depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its  functions.  The vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to  the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted  electrical power – if an electrical substation is flooded, it will affect not only the  substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Other, indirect effects can  be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.  Vulnerability Assessment: The extent of injury and damage that may result from hazard event  of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address  impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.  Watercourse: A natural or artificial channel in which a flow of water occurs either continually  or intermittently.  Watershed: An area that drains to a single point. In a natural basin, this is the area  contributing flow to a given place or stream.  Water Surface Elevation: Water surface elevation means the height, in relation to the  National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, (or other datum, where specified)  of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal riverine  areas.  Water Table: The uppermost zone of water saturation in the ground.  Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated frequently and for long enough to support  vegetative or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions  for growth and reproduction.  Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire that spreads though vegetative fuels, exposing and  possibly consuming structures.  Worst Case Scenario: The term “worst case scenario" is somewhat self‐explanatory. It includes  the potential for a “cascade effect", which was assumed in analyzing the risk from  each hazard. The term "cascade effect" is used to describe the triggering of  several hazard occurrences from an initial event. An earthquake for instance, might  also trigger avalanches, collapsed buildings, transportation and utility disruptions,  and hazardous material releases, each of which might trigger additional events,  all part of the same incident.  Zoning Ordinance: An ordinance under the state or local government’s police powers  that divides an area into districts and, within each district, regulates the use of  land and buildings, height, and bulk of buildings or other structures, and the  density of population.                             This page was intentionally left blank.      Appendix A: Public Involvement                               This page was intentionally left blank.  May 23, 2018 Elizabeth Appleby, C ity Planner City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo A ven ue Kenai, Alaska 9961 1 Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Division of Home land Sec ur ity and Emergency Management P.O. Box 57 50 JBER. AK 99505-0750 Main: 907.428.7000 Fox: 907.428.7009 www .re ady.olosko.gov RE: Letter of Commitment for the C ity of Kenai to participate in Local Hazard M itigation P lann ing d el ivered by the Stat e of A laska Division of Homeland Securi ty and Emergency Management. Dear Ms Appleby: The St ate of Alaska D ivision of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM), in cooperati on with the Federal Emergency management Agen cy (FEMA), is seeking fun d ing to provide your community with a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In cooperation w ith your community , the planning wo uld be completed usin g State technical assistance and State managed contracting. M iti gation planning gives your com munity a great opportunity to assess the d isaster hazard s facing your comm uni ty, consi der the risks from those hazards and the n consider as a commun ity how to reduce or eliminate the losses from those hazards in the future. As you know the C ity of Kenai can potentially be affected by a wid e range of hazards including wildfires, earthq uakes, and water-related events so this planning process co uld be critical to reduced effects from these event s. Hav ing a FEMA approved hazard m iti gation plan wi ll a lso make your community eligible for hazard mitigation grant funds to construct mitigation projects that wi ll make your community more resi lient in future disasters. The development of your p lan wi ll be the responsibil ity of contractors hired by t he State of Alaska. To be successfu l, your commun ity will be required to cooperat e during the development planni ng process in c ludi ng: • Providing community infonnation on previous disasters, damage and hazards • Ass ist with information that will allow a vu ln erabil ity analys is and a n identificat ion of risks • Work with the plan developers to formulate community mitigation goals and actions • Host at least two publi c comm unity meetings to review and edit the plan drafts • Formally present the completed plan as a commun ity document to the community's governing bod y for ado ptio n Therefore, with an underst andin of the re quirements for community participation in th e hazard mitigation planning process; l · \.i1'o · \~~~ommit the City of Kenai to the DHS&EM local hazard mitigation planni ng effort. Executed thi s~ay of N\""'( 20 I 8. Affidavit: By signing below, I certify that the AGENDA, a printed copy of which is attached, was published in the Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper of general circulation on the 25th day of October, 2019. WILMA E. ANDERSON , PLANNING ASSISTANT WITNESS SIGNATURE: Title: ~vJA Date: October 28, 2019 AGENDA CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2019 • 7:00 P.M. www.kenai.city A. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT -Jennifer LeMay, leMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. to Discuss the City of Kenai local Hazard Mitigation Plan B. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 1. Resolution PZ2019-40-0riginal Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights Osland Replat, submitted by Edge Survey and Design. Inc .. 43335 K· Beach Rd., Suite 168, Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of Tyler Scott Osland, 236 Riverwatch Dr., Soldotna, AK 99669 2. Resolution PZ2019-41 -Original Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights 2019 Replat, submitted by Mclane Consulting, Inc., P.O . Box 468, Soldotna, AK 99669, on behalf of Jeremiah N. and Jennifer Cates, 415 Phillips Dr., Kenai, AK 99611 3. Resolution PZ2019-42 -Original Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights White Replat, submitted by Mclane Consulting, Inc., P.O . Box 468, Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of John J. and Mary L. White, 5327 Kenai Spur Highway, Kenai, AK 99611 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS • None D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ·None E. NEW BUSINESS -None The meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. in the Kenai City Hall Council Chambers at 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska. For more information, please contact Wilma Anderson, Planning Assistant, at (907) 283-8237 or e-mail : wanderson@kenai.city . Wilma E. Anderson Planning & Zoning Administration Publish: October 25, 2019 2434354 Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission -Regular Meeting the city of KENAI, ALASKA V" A. CALL TO ORDER October 30, 2019 -7:00 PM Kenai City Council Chambers 21 O Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska https :llwww.kenai.city AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2 . Roll Call 3 . Agenda Approval 4. ConsentAgenda 5 . *Excused Absences *All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. *September 25, 2019 C. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker) 1. Jennifer LeMay, LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. to Discuss the City of Kenai Local Hazard Mitigation Plan D. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT (Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated) E . CONSIDERATION OF PLATS 1. Resolution PZ2019-40 -Original Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights Osmond Replat, submitted by Edge Survey and Design, P.O. Box 468, Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of Jeremiah N. and Jennifer Cates, 415 Phillips Dr., Kenai, AK 99611 Kenai Planning and Zon ing Commission -Regular Meeting October 30, 2019 Page 1 of 2 2. Resolution PZ2019-41 -Original Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights 2019 Replat, su bm itted by Mclane Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 468 , Soldotna AK 99669, on behalf of Jeremiah N. and Jennifer Cates , 415 Phillips Dr., Kenai, AK 99611 3. Resolution PZ2019 -42-Original Preliminary Plat of Valhalla Heights White Replat, submitted by Mclane Consulting , Inc., P.O. Box 468 , Soldotna , AK 99669 , on behalf of John J . and Mary l . White, 5327 Kenai Spu r Highway , Kenai , AK 99611 F. PUBLIC HEARINGS G . UNFINISHED BUSINESS H. NEW BUSINESS I. PENDING ITEMS J. REPORTS 1. City Council 2. Borough Planning 3 . Admini strativ e Report K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Pub lic comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated) L. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Planning and Zoning Resolutions -Third Quarter 2019 2. Building Permits -Third Quarter 2019 3 . Code Violation s -T hird Quarter 2019 M. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION 1. November 13 , 2019 -7.pm -Regular Meeting N. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 0. ADJOURNMENT Kenai Planning and Zoning Commiss ion -Regular Meeting O ctob er 30 , 2019 Page 2 of 2 / Kenai Planning Team Meeting for the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan Name October 30, 2019 2 pm at Kenai City Council Chambers Department Represented Contact Information (email) L'..-.l.-~~&_ \.)-=-:_{(}.:'.:::...:....~:.__:__:::::__· ~~__L_-.\---~_k----1-~=--==-~~~ . C .I~ S" c_p~ ~c-~ ~ -P"~c.. \.,_:)or1t-~ Seu C" T-~ ("\ ~ ~~\ • c.: Kenai Public Meeting #1 for the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan Name October 30, 2019 7 pm at Kenai City Council Chambers Organization Represented or Kenai Resident (/ LE N\A~ t:N [..jJ\l:GE;R\1\1 (; 'T ( o r~"i' u.L --fl ."l C., 1 NC . Contact Information (email) ~\+S;) \c \o\.\d. c_o·~ h~c Ito ~1~lr Hazard Mitigation Planning ProcessDevelopment of a City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation PlanPlans must be updated every five years and approved by DHS&EM and FEMA and then be adopted by the community via City Council resolution for the community to remain eligible for FEMA grant funding.Public Meeting #1: October 30, 2019 An annex to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared in 2010 and briefly listed natural hazard risks for the City of Kenai. The Plan has expired. LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. was hired by DHS&EM to assist in creating a stand alone City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan. The effort to develop this Plan is a public process, and you are invited to participate. Today is Public Meeting #1 as part of the regularly-scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on October 30, 2019. Within the next two weeks, the City will post the Draft 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan on its website for review by the community and begin a 30-day public comment period. Public Meeting #2 will occur December 4 at the regularly-scheduled City Council meeting and will serve as a public hearing and forum to provide comments on the Plan. Today’s meeting is a forum to present a summary of the planning process and evaluate mitigation actions for the community. I welcome your input. Comments can be provided during this meeting or by email or phone. Send Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP an email at jlemay@lemayengineering.comor call her at (907) 350-6061. Which hazards are applicable for the City of Kenai?•Flood/Erosion•Wildland/Conflagration Fires•Earthquakes•Volcanic Ashfall•Severe Weather•Changes in the CryosphereFor the Hazard Mitigation Plan, we’re interested in information related to: •Hazard Identification, •Profiles (characteristics), •Previous occurrences, •Locations,•Extents (breadth, magnitude, and severity),•Impacts, and •Recurrence probability statements. Plan Process•Public Meeting #1 on October 30, 2019.•Draft Plan available for public comment (Second Week of November, 2019).•Public hearing for Draft Plan (December 4, 2019).•State/FEMA review and pre-approval of Draft Plan.•Newsletter announcing Final Plan (the public may still comment).•City Council adoption.•Final Approval from State/FEMA. After the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan is completed, approved, and adopted, the City of Kenai will be eligible to apply for mitigation project funds from DHS&EM and FEMA for five years until the plan requires an update in 2025.Contacts:Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP, LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Planner (907) 350-6061Brent Nichols, CFM, State of Alaska DHS&EM Hazard Mitigation Officer (907) 428-7085 Changes in the Cryosphere•The City of Kenai is not affected by glaciers, permafrost, or avalanches.•According to the 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Kenai Bluffs’ report, both sea ice and river ice collect at the toe of the Kenai Bluffs during winter months. Ice gouges the beach and causes damage. Earthquakes•The entire geographic area of Alaska is prone to earthquake effects. The most recent large earthquake occurred on January 24, 2016, with a magnitude of 7.1 and was located 53 miles west of Anchor Point. A total of four homes were destroyed on Lilac Lane.•The USGS earthquake probability model places the probability of an earthquake with a likelihood of experiencing strong shaking within Kenai at 0.6 to 0.8 g PGA with a 2% probability in 50 years. A 2% probability in 50 years is a rare, large earthquake, and statistically, it happens on average every 2,500 years. Flood/Erosion•The 2017 FEMA Risk Map study did not identify any areas of concern for the City of Kenai with regards to flooding.•The 2017 FEMA Risk Map study identified the Wastewater Treatment Plant at risk of erosion.•The Kenai Bluffs are 5,000 linear feet of high bank located in the City along the north bank of the Kenai River at the mouth of Cook Inlet. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a feasibility study in September 2018 that recommended installation of a protective berm at the bluff toe. Mitigation Goals for the City of KenaiGoal ID Description1Reduce or eliminate loss of homes and property due to fires.2Reduce or eliminate the erosion of the bluff at the mouth of the Kenai River.3Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes. 4Prepare citizens to adequately protect themselves and property from the hazards of volcanic ash.5Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan to ensure the appropriate response to natural hazards.6Update the ARFT as an Emergency Operations Command Center. Mitigation Actions for the City of KenaiAction IDDescription Pri-orityRespon-siblePartyPotential FundingTime-frame1Promote the FireWise program including public education programs in school and neighborhoods. Promote the development of defensible space and landscaping techniques to community and home construction contractor participation. Encourage the reduction of fuels in hazardous areas and egress routes in coordination with the Kenai Peninsula Spruce Bark Beetle Mitigation Office, State Forestry, and land owners.Trees infected with spruce bark beetle need to be identified and removed. High Fire ChiefDHS Preparedness Technical Assistance Program, HMGP, PDM Grants >1 year 2Seek funding for bluff protection measure recommended in the 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Kenai Bluffs study. High City PlannerCity, USACE, State Legislature1-5 years Mitigation Actions for the City of KenaiAction IDDescription Pri-orityRespon-siblePartyPotential FundingTime-frame3In an effort to reduce property damage, the City will continue to adopt and enforce current building codes and construction standards that address the seismic concerns for the KPB. Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes through the promotion of public education and the practice of sheltering in place. Encourage the preparation of citizens for self -sufficiency on a post-earthquake scenario.High City PlannerKPB School District, Emergency Services, DHS&EMOngoing4Continue cooperative effort with Kenai Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management, local media, and City of Kenai websites to provide the public with preparedness information prior to and during periods of increased volcano seismic activity.High City Planner City, KPB, AVO Ongoing5Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan to ensure the appropriate response to natural hazards.High Fire Chief Fire Department 20206Update the ARFT as an Emergency Operations Command Center.Medium City Manager 2020-2025 Vulnerability of the City of KenaiPopulation2010 U.S. Census was 7,100.2016 ACS Data was 7,551. Houses and Critical Infrastructure 3,221 single-family residential structures per 2016 ACS. Critical facilities and infrastructure are being identified. Jennifer L. LeMay, PE, PMP Vice President 4272 Chelsea Way Anchorage, AK 99504 (907) 350-6061 jlemay@lemayengineering.com November 1, 2019 Brent A. Nichols, EMSII, CFM State Hazard Mitigation Officer Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) P.O. Box 5750 JBER, AK 99505-5750 Subject: Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Trip Report On October 30, 2019, I traveled to Kenai, Alaska. The purpose of this trip was to conduct an introductory meeting, gather hazard data, review with community leaders the applicable hazards for the area, review potential mitigation strategies, and identify the critical facilities within the community. I met with the Hazard Mitigation Project Team from 2-4 pm to discuss the planning process, identify City hazard concerns, and confer about critical facilities and infrastructure. At 7:00 pm, I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and gave a Powerpoint© presentation of the hazard mitigation planning process. The presentation will be included in Appendix A of the HMP. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (907) 350-6061. 11/1/19 Jennifer L. LeMay, PE, PMP/Date LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Photo Credit: Eagle Eye Gallery. The State of Alaska, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) was awarded a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop a hazard mitigation plan (HMP) for the City of Kenai. This plan will assist the City as a valuable resource tool in making decisions. Additionally, communities must have a State- and FEMA-approved and community-adopted HMP to receive FEMA pre- and post- disaster grants. You’re Invited to Comment on the Plan: The purpose of Newsletter #1 is to announce the availability of the Draft HMP and invite you to provide comments, identify key issues or concerns, and improve mitigation ideas. This plan has been posted on the City website and a printed copy is available at City Hall for your review. Comments can be provided verbally to Jennifer LeMay at (907) 350-6061 or emailed to jlemay@lemayengineering.com. Attend the December 4, 2019, Presentation at the regularly scheduled 6:00 pm City Council Meeting at the City Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo Avenue: Jennifer LeMay will provide a summary of the HMP process as a scheduled public speaker. You’re invited to provide input and comment on the Draft HMP. City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan Newsletter #1: November 8, 2019 For more information, contact: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner (907) 283‐8235 Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP, Lead Planner, (907) 350‐6061 Brent Nichols, DMVA DHS&EM Hazard Mitigation Officer (907) 428‐7085 Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan The State of Alaska, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) was awarded a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop a hazard mitigation plan (HMP) for the City of Kenai. This plan will assist the City as a valuable resource tool in making decisions. Communities must have a State- and FEMA-approved and community-adopted HMP to receive FEMA pre- and post- disaster grants. You’re Invited to Comment on the Plan through 12/8/19: View a pdf of the plan on this webpage or request a printed version at City Hall from Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner. Comments can be provided verbally to Jennifer LeMay at (907) 350-6061 or emailed to jlemay@lemayengineering.com. Planning and Zoning Search C I T Y O F KENAI A L A S K A Public Hearing 12/4/19: Attend the December 4, 2019 regularly scheduled 6:00 pm City Council Meeting at the City Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo Avenue for more information. One of the agenda items will be a summary of the HMP process by Jennifer LeMay. You are invited to provide input to the HMP. For more information, contact: Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner (907) 283‐8235 Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP, Lead Planner, (907) 350‐6061 Brent Nichols, DMVA DHS&EM Hazard Mitigation Officer (907) 428‐7085 Supporting Documents Nov. 2019 DRAFT City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan (10 MB) Nov. 2019 Newsletter #1 - City of Kenai HMP Update (260 KB) Contact Information Planning and Zoning planning@kenai.city 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, Alaska 99611  Phone (907) 283-8237 Fax (907) 283-3014 View Full Contact Details 210 Fidalgo Ave. Kenai, AK 99611  (907) 283‑7535 Home | Staff Login | KMC .HQDL&LW\&RXQFLO5HJXODU0HHWLQJ 3DJHRI 'HFHPEHU .HQDL&LW\&RXQFLO5HJXODU0HHWLQJ 'HFHPEHU±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±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x 6XEVWLWXWH5HVROXWLRQ1R±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±$SSRLQWHH&RPSHQVDWLRQ±6KLIW'LIIHUHQWLDO3D\ ±(PSOR\HH&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQG±4XDOLILFDWLRQ3D\WR,PSURYH .HQDL&LW\&RXQFLO5HJXODU0HHWLQJ 3DJHRI 'HFHPEHU 5HFUXLWPHQW DQG 5HWHQWLRQ IRU 3ROLFH 2IILFHUV DQG 2WKHU (OLJLEOH (PSOR\HHV 5HFHLYLQJ6KLIW'LIIHUHQWLDO3D\ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ  2UGLQDQFH1R$PHQGLQJ.HQDL0XQLFLSDO&RGH6HFWLRQ±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¶V ZHEVLWH DW ZZZNHQDLFLW\ &RSLHV RI UHVROXWLRQV DQG RUGLQDQFHV DUH DYDLODEOH DW WKH &LW\&OHUN¶V 2IILFH RU RXWVLGH WKH &RXQFLO &KDPEHU SULRU WR WKH PHHWLQJ)RU DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVH FRQWDFW WKH &LW\&OHUN¶V 2IILFH DW  Public Meeting #2 for the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan December 4, 2019, City Council Meeting 6 pm at Kenai City Council Chambers Name Department Contact I nformation Represented (email) 6 lmaJe 9-e::t-kJ; \ 6~cwn u l °l~)~a.1 .G~1 ~lo UOllav \ C·~ Co ~n c J bMo\l~ ~ta~. u ·i\ ' ~o W-\-Tu--\er'k-t \n U~\ Counc;. \ ( pe_ --k.iki h (<l) lt<..rw · li ·-t ~ Tu\ari 6 t{ lor-l-e . l G '-\-t.-\ Ch u Y\~ l btja\?r\e ( (ci) ~ · u.·-tv - -G '\Y\ ~ v l{_,('( I{_ ~ l dUYlkl .\--net van f c1D (Q.hC<J . lt~ j: m 6 ~ncmu~ U-tV\ CO u..n~ l .\ q \indaf'U<Y (0 ~rn;', ~ I J J {\'(\(G\ ~~StcJ+ ~C6u~l ~ \LrttC.~S -\-ed+@V /4.f1(; 2 J b i L-L })lfN'N e 1n21::N d Jf.ryyi Jr It-) y & ';-hl ~;j. / t> M .j~NN rf"i:;K L ~lll;"t:"I CorJs v L -r A tJ/ M9~~~· Hazard Mitigation Planning ProcessDevelopment of a City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation PlanPlans must be updated every five years and approved by DHS&EM and FEMA and then be adopted by the community via City Council resolution for the community to remain eligible for FEMA grant funding.Public Meeting #2: December 4, 2019 An annex to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared in 2010 and briefly listed natural hazard risks for the City of Kenai. The Plan has expired. LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. was hired by DHS&EM to assist in creating a stand alone City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan. The effort to develop this Plan is a public process, and you are invited to participate. Public Meeting #1 was held as part of the regularly-scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on October 30, 2019. The City posted the Draft 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan on its website for review by the community on November 8 and began a 30-day public comment period. Public Meeting #2 will occur as part of tonight’s regularly-scheduled City Council meeting. Tonight’s meeting is a forum to present a summary of the planning process and mitigation actions for the community. I welcome your input. Comments can be provided after this meeting or by email or phone. Send Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP an email at jlemay@lemayengineering.comor call her at (907) 350-6061. Which hazards are applicable for the City of Kenai?•Flood/Erosion•Wildland/Conflagration Fires•Earthquakes•Volcanic Ashfall•Severe Weather•Changes in the CryosphereFor the Hazard Mitigation Plan, we’re interested in information related to: •Hazard Identification, •Profiles (characteristics), •Previous occurrences, •Locations,•Extents (breadth, magnitude, and severity),•Impacts, and •Recurrence probability statements. Plan Process•Public Meeting #1 on October 30, 2019.•Draft Plan available for public comment (Second Week of November, 2019).•Public hearing for Draft Plan (December 4, 2019).•State DHS&EM/FEMA review and pre-approval of Draft Plan.•City Council adoption.•Final Approval from FEMA. After the 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan is completed, approved, and adopted, the City of Kenai will be eligible to apply for mitigation project funds from DHS&EM and FEMA for five years until the plan requires an update in 2025.Contacts:Jennifer LeMay, PE, PMP, LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Planner (907) 350-6061Brent Nichols, CFM, State of Alaska DHS&EM Hazard Mitigation Officer (907) 428-7085 Changes in the Cryosphere•The City of Kenai is not affected by glaciers, permafrost, or avalanches.•According to the 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Kenai Bluffs’ report, both sea ice and river ice collect at the toe of the Kenai Bluffs during winter months. Ice gouges the beach and causes damage. Earthquakes•The entire geographic area of Alaska is prone to earthquake effects. The most recent large earthquake on the Kenai Peninsula occurred January 24, 2016, with a magnitude of 7.1 and was located 53 miles west of Anchor Point. A total of four homes were destroyed on Lilac Lane.•The USGS earthquake probability model places the probability of an earthquake with a likelihood of experiencing strong shaking within Kenai at 0.6 to 0.8 g PGA with a 2% probability in 50 years. A 2% probability in 50 years is a rare, large earthquake, and statistically, it happens on average every 2,500 years. Flood/Erosion•The 2017 FEMA Risk Map study did not identify any areas of concern for the City of Kenai with regards to flooding.•The 2017 FEMA Risk Map study identified the Wastewater Treatment Plant at risk of erosion.•The Kenai Bluffs are 5,000 linear feet of high bank located in the City along the north bank of the Kenai River at the mouth of Cook Inlet. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a feasibility study in September 2018 that recommended installation of a protective berm at the bluff toe. The City supports implementing the project. Mitigation Goals for the City of KenaiGoal ID Description1Reduce or eliminate loss of homes and property due to fires.2Reduce or eliminate the erosion of the bluff at the mouth of the Kenai River.3Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes. 4Prepare citizens to adequately protect themselves and property from the hazards of volcanic ash.5Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan to ensure the appropriate response to natural hazards.6Update the Alaska Regional Fire Training Facility as an Emergency Operations Command Center. Mitigation Actions for the City of KenaiAction IDDescription Pri-orityRespon-siblePartyPotential FundingTime-frame1Promote the FireWise program including public education programs in school and neighborhoods. Promote the development of defensible space and landscaping techniques to community and home construction contractor participation. Encourage the reduction of fuels in hazardous areas and egress routes in coordination with the Kenai Peninsula Spruce Bark Beetle Mitigation Office, State Forestry, and land owners.Trees infected with spruce bark beetle need to be identified and removed. High Fire ChiefDHS Preparedness Technical Assistance Program, HMGP, PDM Grants >1 year 2Seek funding for bluff protection measure recommended in the 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Kenai Bluffs study. High City PlannerCity, USACE, State Legislature1-5 years Mitigation Actions for the City of KenaiAction IDDescription Pri-orityRespon-siblePartyPotential FundingTime-frame3In an effort to reduce property damage, the City will continue to adopt and enforce current building codes and construction standards that address the seismic concerns for the KPB. Prepare citizens and the built environment to better survive the hazards associated with earthquakes through the promotion of public education and the practice of sheltering in place. Encourage the preparation of citizens for self -sufficiency on a post-earthquake scenario.High City PlannerKPB School District, Emergency Services, DHS&EMOngoing4Continue cooperative effort with Kenai Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management, local media, and City of Kenai websites to provide the public with preparedness information prior to and during periods of increased volcano seismic activity.High City Planner City, KPB, AVO Ongoing5Update the City’s Emergency Operating Plan to ensure the appropriate response to natural hazards.High Fire Chief Fire Department 20206Update the Alaska Regional Fire Training Facility as an Emergency Operations Command Center.Medium City Manager Legislature, City 2020-2025 Vulnerability of the City of KenaiPopulation2010 U.S. Census was 7,100.2016 ACS Data was 7,551. Houses and Critical Infrastructure 3,221 single-family residential structures per 2016 ACS. Critical facilities and infrastructure are being identified. KENAI CITY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2019-6:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 210 FIDALGO AVE., KENAI, AK 99611 MAYOR BRIAN GABRIEL, PRESIDING MINUTES A Regular Meeting of the Kenai City Council was held on December 4, 2019, in City Hall Council Chambers, Kenai , AK. Mayor Gabriel called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Gabriel led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance . 2. Roll Call There were present: Brian Gabriel, Mayor Henry Knackstedt Jim Glendening Glenese Pettey A quorum was present. Also in attendance were: Paul Ostrander, City Manager Scott Bloom, City Attorney Jamie Heinz, City Clerk 3. Agenda Approval Robert Molloy Tim Navarre Robert Peterkin Mayor Gabriel noted the following revisions to the packet: Add to item D.4. Resolution No. 2019-71 • Public Comment MOTION: Vice Mayor Molloy MOVED to approve the agenda with the requested revi sions to the packet and req uested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion. VOTE: There being no objections , SO ORDERED. 4. ConsentAgenda MOTION: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to approve the consent agenda and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. The items on the Consent Agenda were read into the record . Mayor Gabriel opened the floor for public comment; there being no one wishing to be heard , the public comment period was closed . VOTE: There being no objections, SO ORDERED. *All items listed with an asterisk(*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion . There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember so requests , in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders . B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Branden Bornemann, Kenai Watershed Forum -The Value of Non-profits in Our Community and a Highlight of the Ways in Which the Kenai Watershed Forum and the City of Kenai Have Successfully Partnered with One Another Past, Present, and Future . Mr. Bornemann noted the value of non-profit agencies in communities in Alaska , provided a history of the Kenai Watershed Forum , and what the Forum does in the City and on the Kenai Peninsula . 2. Jennifer LeMay, LeMay Engineering -City of Kenai Draft Hazard Mitigation P lan Presentation. Ms. LeMay noted her work with the City on revising the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the benefits of having a plan , and provided an overview of the project to revise the plan. She also reviewed the hazards identified as risks to the City along with mitigation goals and actions for the City. 3. Joy Merriner, BOO Inc. -Presentation of the FY19 City of Kenai Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Ms. Merriner spoke regarding the FY19 Audit Wrap-up document, the Single Audit Report , and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) noting her firm , BDO, Inc ., issued unmodified , clean opinions, meaning the City followed the adopted standards fo r g overnmental agencies . She noted there were a lot of grant, procurement, and reporting requirements for the federal grant for the Airport 's Terminal Rehabilitation Project and reported t here were no issues with those requirements . She added that the CAFR would be submitted to the Alaska Government Finance Officers Assoc iation. C. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS City of Kenai Council Meeting December 4, 201 9 Page 2 of12 Nick Miller spoke regarding internet sales tax noting small businesses use the internet to buy product that can 't be purchased in Kenai or Alaska and suggesting something needed to be set in place so resale ability in the borough could be used online . Bill Dunn spoke regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan noting the focus of bluff erosion mitigation plan was a mile long stretch in the river and suggested the Mitigation Plan was an opportunity to provide education to the public on protecting the entire bluff. He pointed out people slid down the bluff but there was more bluff than just what the Corps of Engineers had identified . He also pointed out that in 2009 , protection of the dunes near the beaches was in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and fencing was enough to discourage people from doing more damage to the dunes suggesting most people wanted to do the right thing and sometimes need a little guidance . Hunter Beck invited Council to a spaghetti feed and auction benefitting the Students in Transition Program noting the definition of homeless as defined by the Students in Transition Program . MOTION: Council Member Navarre MOVED to donate $250 from the Legislative Budget to the Students in Transition Program and Council Member Glendening SECONDED the motion . VOTE: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening, Pettey, Molloy, Navarre, Gabriel, Peterkin NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Clerk's Note: There was no objection to item D.5. being taken up at this time . 5. Resolution No . 2019-76 -Identifying the Projects to be Funded through State of Alaska Grant No. 15-DC-078 for Personal Use Fishery Related Improvements on North and South Beaches . (Administration) MOTION: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 2019-76 and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing . Teea Winger spoke against inclusion of the campground option citing e xpansion , operation cost, maintenance, accessibility, and public safety concerns. She suggested the proxim ity to the care center, should remain secluded and recommended the matter be postponed until a site visit could be conducted; also suggested it be put out for proposa l for a developer to design and /or build. Reese Ramsdell spoke against inclusion of the campground on Spruce Street noting problems with transients, trespassing, and maintenance issues ; also noted the campground would not be big enough to serve the dipnet fishery users . City of Kenai Council Meeting De cember 4, 2019 Page 3 of 12 There being no one else wishing to be heard , the public hearing was closed . Clarification was provided the estimates provided were preliminary numbers and the resolution authorized pursuing additional information with an engineer's estimate, the intent to make the campground more functional was to purchase neighboring property, and phasing the project was an option . There was discussion regarding best use of the property, the need for a campground , the cost of an engineer's estimate for the campground, alternative locations for a campground, and other projects not listed. Clarification was provided the grant funds would not be available for a campground further away from the beach. MOTION: Vice Mayor Molloy MOVED to amend Section 1 to read "that the City of Kenai identifies vault restroom construction, Little League permanent restrooms, and South Beach shack replacement as three of the projects to be funded through State of Alaska grant 15-DC-078 ," and Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: YEA : Pettey, Knackstedt, Glendening, Molloy, Gabriel, Peterkin , Navarre NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A boardwalk project in the area of the dunes was discussed. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: There being no objections; SO ORDERED. MOTION: Council Member Navarre MOVED to direct Administration to provide another recommendation at the first meeting in January and Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion. Clarification was provided the Harbor Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission had recommended another project. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested. VOTE: There being no objections ; SO ORDERED. 1. Ordinance No. 3095-2019 -Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the General Fund -Police Department and Accepting a Grant from the Department of Justice for the Purchase of Ballistic Vests. (Administration) MOTION: City of Kenai Council Meeting Dece mber 4, 2019 Page 4of12 Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3095-2019 and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing ; there being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed . VOTE: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening, Pettey , Molloy, Navarre, Gabriel, Peterkin NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Ordinance No. 3096-2019 -Determining that Real Property Described as Lot One (1), Aleyeska Subdivision Part 3, According to Plat No. 1531 and Lot One A (1-A), Aleyeska Subdiv ision Part 3, According to Plat K-1531, City-Owned Airport Land Located Outside the Airport Reserve, is not Needed for a Public Purpose and Authorizing the Sale of the Property to MITAK, LLC . (Administration) MOTION: Vice Mayor Molloy MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 3096-2019 and Council Member Glendening SECONDED the motion. Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing. Lindsay Olson noted he was present to answer questions and expressed appreciation for working with the Administration . There being no one else wishing to be heard , the public hearing was closed. Mr. Olson was thanked for investing in the City. MOTION TO AMEND: Council Member Glendening MOVED to amend by inserting the words , "as if vacant," in Section 3 , Subsection a , after the words , "a value determined by an appraisal performed on the property ," and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: There being no objections; SO ORDERED. MOTION TO AMEND: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to amend by replacing quitclaim with warranty in Section 4 and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested . VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: There being no objections; SO ORDERED. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening, Pettey, Molloy, Navarre , Gabriel , Peterkin City of Kenai Council Meeting Pa ge 5 of 12 December 4, 2019 NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Ordinance No. 3097-2019 -Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the Terminal Improvements Capital Fund , and Authorizing an Increase to the Construction Purchase Order to Blazy Construction , Inc. (Administra tion) MOTION: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to enact Ordinance No . 3097-2019 and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion. Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing; there being no one wishing to be heard , the public hearing was closed . Clarification was provided that there were over $980,000 in change orders and the FAA approved over $800,000 of those and this ordinance appropriated the last of the reimbursement funds so they could be spent. VOTE: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening , Pettey, Molloy, Navarre, Gabriel , Peterkin NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Resolution No. 2019-71 -Repealing Policy No . 2017-02, Supervisory Sub- committee. (Council Member Knackstedt) [Clerk's Note : At its November 6 meeting Council postponed this item to the December 4 meeting; a motion to adopt is on the floor.] • Substitute Resolution No. 2019-71 -Amending Council Policy 2017-02, Establishing Procedures and Responsibilities of the Sub-Committee of Council for the Supervision of the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager for Improved Efficiency. (Council Members Knackstedt and Navarre) Clarification was provided the resolution was brought forth because the subcommittee hadn't been meeting the requirements of the policy and it was thought to eliminate it. It was pointed out that in the past employees had met individually with council members and discussed personnel problems and this sub-committee was a mechanism for Council to meet with its employees . MOTION TO AMEND : Council Member Navarre MOVED to amend by Substitute Resolution No. 2019-71 and Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion . It was noted the policy could be amended further in the future if needed but did not want to eliminate it. City of Kenai Council Meeting December 4, 2019 Page 6of12 There was discussion regarding communicating concerns, conflict supervis ion , and the entire body being involved in discussions regarding its employees. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening, Pettey, Molloy, Navarre , Gabriel , Peterkin NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION TO AMEND: Council Member Glendening MOVED to amend section D -Duties, of the policy , to state , "The Supervisory Sub-Committee shall make reports to Council ," in the second paragraph and Council Member Navarre SECONDED the motion . There was discussion regarding written reports on file in the Clerk's Office and executive sessions . The amendment motion was withdrawn. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: YEA: Knackstedt, Glendening, Pettey, Molloy, Navarre, Gabriel , Peterkin NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Resolution No. 2019-76 -Identifying the Projects to be Funded through State of Alaska Grant No. 15-DC-078 for Personal Use Fishery Related Improvements on North and South Beaches. (Administration) [Clerk's Note: This item was considered before item D . 1.] 6. Resolution No . 2019-77 -Authorizing a Sole Source Purchase Agreement for Proprietary Water Treatment Chemicals for the City's Water Treatment Plant to Nalco , an Ecolab Company. (Administration) MOTION: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 2019-77 and Vice Mayor Molloy SECONDED the motion . UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested. Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing ; there being no one wishing to be heard, the public hea ring was closed . VOTE: There being no objections ; SO ORDERED . City of Kenai Coun cil Meeting Page 7 of 12 December 4, 2019 7. Resolution No. 2019-78 -Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Amended Restaurant Concession Agreement with the Kenai Municipal Airport. (Administration) MOTION: Council Member Knackstedt MOVED to adopt Resolution No . 2019-78 and Council Member Peterkin SECONDED the motion . UNANIMOUS CONSENT was requested . Mayor Gabriel opened for public hearing; there being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed . VOTE: There being no objections; SO ORDERED. E. MINUTES 1. *Regular Meeting of November 6 , 2019 (C ity Clerk) Approved by the consent agenda . F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None. G. NEW BUSINESS 1. *Action/Approval -Bills to be Ratified. (Administration) Approved by the consent agenda. 2. *Ordinance No. 3098-2019 -Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations in the General Fund, Police Department and Amending Kenai Municipal Code Sections 23.25.040 -Appointee Compensation , 23.25 .065-Shift Differential Pay, 23.50.010 - Employee Classification, and 23.55.030 -Qualification Pay to Improve Recruitment and Retention for Poli ce Offi cers and Other Eligible Employees Receiving Shift Differential Pay. (Administration) Introduced by the consent agenda and public hearing set for December 18. 3. *Ordinance No. 3099-2019 -Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section 23.50.010 - Employee Classification to Amend Class Titles in the Public Works Water and Sewer and Wastewater Classes.(Administration) Introduced by the consent agenda and public hearing set for December 18 . 4. *Ordinance No. 3100-2019 -Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $4, 786.53 in the General Fund -Police Department for Drug Investigation Overtime Expenditures. (Administration) Introduced by the consent agenda and public hearing set for December 18. 5. Discussion -Old Town Kenai Signage (Council Member Knackstedt) City of Kenai Council Meeting December 4 , 2019 Page 8of12 It was noted there were no signs on the Kenai Spur Highway directing visitors to Old Town Kenai; further noted there were businesses and sights in the area. Clarification was provided Administration was working on concepts for signage and an audio tour for the area and would bring the topic back for additional discussion in the future . 6 . D iscussion -Kenai Peninsula Borough Substitute Ordinance 2019-24-Adopting KPB 20.80, Subdivision Private Streets and Gated Subdivisions . (Administration) Clarification was provided the substitute ordinance was currently being considered by the Kena i Peninsula Borough Assembly and it had been postponed to give cities an opportunity to weigh in . The necessity of the ordinance, the borough having platting powers, City roads being incorporated into a gated subdivision , platting recommendations from the City being upheld by the borough, and road standards were topics discussed . It was noted the topic would be brought back for further discussion . 7. Discussion -Potential Parcel Purchase by Ron Hyde . (Administration) It was noted Mr. Hyde was considering purchasing a parcel from the City for the purpose of building a hangar for an airship . Clarification was provided on the size of the parcel. Access to the beach, impacts to wetlands, zoning, and the property being in the City's land sale inventory were topics discussed. It was noted an application would be brought forth . H. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council on Aging -No report; next meeting December 12. 2. Airport Commission -No report; next meeting December 12 . 3. Harbor Commission -It was reported the Commission met jointly with the Parks and Recreation Commission and made recommendations for Personal Use Fishery related improvements; next meeting is a Special Meeting on January 6. 4. Parks and Recreation Commission -It was reported the Commission met jointly with the Harbor Commission and made recommendat ions for Personal Use Fishery related improvements; next meeting December 5. 5. Planning and Zoning Commission -It was reported that at their November 13 meeting the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a gunsmithing business , approved an amendment for a Conditional Use Permit for resource extraction, and heard an update regarding the Kenai Peninsula Borough 's subdivision ordinance; next meeting December 11. 6. Beautification Committee -No report ; next meeting January 14. 7. M ini-Grant Steering Committee -No report . City of Kenai Council Meeting December 4, 2019 Page 9 of 12 I. REPORT OF THE MAYOR Mayor Gabriel reported on the following: • Attended Veteran's Day event in Soldotna; • Attended the 501h Anniversary Celebration of the refinery; • Attended the Alaska Conference of Mayors meetings where school district funding and funding in general was discussed; • Attended the Thanksgiving meal at the Senior Center sponsored by Hilcorp; • Provided a reminder for the upcoming Christmas Comes to Kenai event; • Attended the Boys and Girls Club auction; • Commended the Finance Director and the Finance Department for another clean aud it and noted a Certificate of Achievement the Finance Director was awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association . J . ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 1. City Manager -City Manager P . Ostrander reported on the following : • Attended the recent Alaska Municipal Managers Association Conference; appreciated the opportunity; • Hosted Policy with a Pint during Startup Week noting three priorities that came up; • Continuing work on branding for the City; planned a work session on January 15 to present to Council; • Noted the ongoing work on the Hazard Mitigation Plan and noted reasons to pursue the plan; • Applied for a seat on the Kenai Peninsula Borough Anadromous Fish Habitat Protection Task Force; • Commended the Finance Department on their work on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; • Provided updates on the Terminal Rehabilitation Project and the Bluff Erosion Project. 2. City Attorney -City Attorney S. Bloom reported on the following: • Attended the recent Alaska Municipal Attorneys Association Conference; • Was appointed to Alaska Municipal League's Sales Tax Commission Board ; adopted bylaws; would continue to keep Council informed. 3 . City Clerk -City Clerk J. Heinz reported on the following: • Attended training at the Alaska Association of Municipal Clerks Annual Conference; • Noted upcoming personal leave. K. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Citizens Comments (Public comment limited to five (5) minutes per speaker) None. 2. Council Comments City of Kenai Coun cil Meeting December 4 , 20 19 Page 10of12 Council Member Knackstedt noted he attended the Alaska Municipal League Conference and suggested organizing a meeting of the City Councils on the Peninsula once or twice a year; regretted missing the installation of the City Clerk as First Vice President of the Alaska Association of Municipal Clerks (MMC) due to weather; attended the Christmas Comes to Kenai event; heard positive comments on snow plowing efforts ; and , thanked the Finance Department for their work. Council Member Pettey expressed appreciation for the opportunity to attend the Alaska Municipal League Conference; noted she attended the Boys and Girls Club auction ; expressed gratitude for Hilcorp's donation for the Senior Center Thanksgiving meal; thanked the Finance Department for looking out for the City's best interest. Council Member Glendening noted he had recently travelled; networking with the audience was beneficial ; attended the joint meeting of the Harbor and Parks and Recreation Commissions; the Hazard Mitigation Plan d iscussion was informative ; and expressed support for the City Clerk's insta ll ation as the MMC First Vice President. Council Member Peterkin noted and upcoming Cook Inlet Regional Citizen 's Advisory Council meeting in Anchorage and expressed gratitude to the Finance Department. Vice Mayor Molloy thanked the presenters and those that spoke during pub lic comments at the meeting, congratulated the Finance Department on a clean audit, and congratulated the City Clerk on installation as First Vice President of MMC. L. EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Review and Discussion of the Terms of an Employment Agreement Extension for the City Manager which Pursuant to AS 44.62 .310(C)(2) May be a Subject that Tends to Prejudice the Reputation and Character of the Applicant and per AS 44.62 .310(c)(1) is a Matter of which the Immediate Knowledge may have an Adverse Effect Upon the Finances of the City. MOTION: Vice Mayor Molloy MOVED to enter into executive sess ion to review and discuss the terms of an employment agreement extension for the City Manager which may be a subject that tends to prejudice the reputation and character of the City Manager and is a matter of which the immediate knowledge may have an adverse effect upon the finances of the City. [AS44.62.310(C)(1)(2)]; requested the attendance of C ity Manager, Paul Ostrander, and the City Attorney as needed . Council Member Knackstedt SECONDED the motion . VOTE: YEA: Knackstedt, Gabriel, Glendening , Molloy , Peterkin, Pettey NAY: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Council reconvened in open session and it was noted for the record that Council met in executive session and reviewed and discussed the terms of an employment agreement extension for the City of Kenai Coun ci l Meeting December 4, 2019 Page 11 of 12 City Manager's Contract. It was also noted a mutually agreed upon contract extension would be an approval item at a future meeting . M. PENDING ITEMS -None. N. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 p.m . I certify the above represents accurate minutes of the Kenai City Council meeting of December 4, 2019. City of Kenai Council Meeting December 4, 2019 Page 12of12 Jennifer L. LeMay, PE, PMP Vice President 4272 Chelsea Way Anchorage, AK 99504 (907) 350-6061 jlemay@lemayengineering.com December 6, 2019 Brent A. Nichols, EMSII, CFM State Hazard Mitigation Officer Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) P.O. Box 5750 JBER, AK 99505-5750 Subject: Hazard Mitigation Planning Trip Report On December 4, 2019, I traveled to Kenai, Alaska. At 6:00 pm, I attended the City Council meeting and gave a Powerpoint© presentation summarizing the hazard mitigation process for the City of Kenai. The presentation will be included in Appendix A of the HMP. City procedures did not allow me to pass the sign-in sheet around the room to obtain an accurate list of all meeting attendees. The City Clerk wrote the names and emails of the Council Members on the sheet. There were 25 people in attendance at the time I gave my presentation. Three emails were received that provided comments, and I’ve attached the emails to this trip report. I’ve incorporated all comments into the Draft HMP that I am submitting for State and FEMA review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (907) 350-6061. 12/6/19 Jennifer L. LeMay, PE, PMP/Date LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 1 jlemay@lemayengineering.com From:Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city> Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 2:29 PM To:jlemay@lemayengineering.com Subject:FW: Updated Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) - for review Hi Jennifer,    Below are comments from Mary Bondurant, Airport Director on the draft HMP. I would think cell towers would be  designed to withstand high winds. I’ll have to update my map label for her comment on the Fire Training Facility  labeling.    ‐‐Elizabeth    From: Mary Bondurant <mbondurant@kenai.city>   Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 2:24 PM  To: Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city>; Christine Cunningham <ccunningham@kenai.city>; David Ross  <dross@kenai.city>; Jeff Tucker <jtucker@kenai.city>; Jeremy Hamilton <jhamilton@kenai.city>; Bob Frates  <bfrates@kenai.city>; Scott Curtin <scurtin@kenai.city>; Paul Ostrander <postrander@kenai.city>  Subject: RE: Updated Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) ‐ for review    Below are my comments: Page 10 - Table 1 – Scott Curtin’s email is incorrect – should be scurtin@kenai.city Page 40 - Section 5.3.5.4 Just a comment – I did not see any mention of “cell towers”. Can cell towers blow over in severe winds? Page 46 – 5.3.6.5 Location – 1st paragraph 2 spelling errors – firefighteres & camptaigns Page 51 – 6.2.1.4 5th paragraph (not counting shaded table) last sentence – Should be “the largest airport within (not with) the KPB” Page 53 – Table 12. Under Community – delete BEACON s/b Alaska Regional Fire Training Facility Page 54 – Figure 15 – rename Beacon Fire Training Facility to Alaska Regional Fire Training Facility From: Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city>   Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:29 AM  To: Christine Cunningham <ccunningham@kenai.city>; David Ross <dross@kenai.city>; Jeff Tucker <jtucker@kenai.city>;  Jeremy Hamilton <jhamilton@kenai.city>; Bob Frates <bfrates@kenai.city>; Mary Bondurant <mbondurant@kenai.city>;  Scott Curtin <scurtin@kenai.city>; Paul Ostrander <postrander@kenai.city>  Subject: Updated Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) ‐ for review    Hi,    Attached is the updated draft HMP for your review. Thank you for your time a couple weeks ago to discuss the plan. I  don’t intend to meet again, but please provide any comments to me via email on the draft HMP and I will forward them  to Jennifer with LeMay Engineering.  2   Jennifer will be a scheduled public speaker at the 12/4/19 City Council meeting to discuss the draft HMP. Later in  December, she will submit the draft HMP for State and federal review before it comes back to the City of Kenai for  formal adoption in Spring 2020. The plan will also then be formally adopted by the Borough as the updated City of Kenai  HMP annex to the Borough HMP.    Thank you again for your input!      Elizabeth Appleby, AICP City Planner City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 (907) 283-8235/phone eappleby@kenai.city     1 jlemay@lemayengineering.com From:Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2019 11:30 AM To:Jennifer LeMay Subject:City of Kenai HMP - Erosion as #1 priority Hi Jennifer,    After hearing comments from City Council, the City Manager, and the public, I would like to change the priority ranking  in the draft HMP and make erosion the #1 priority hazard in Kenai, wildland fire would then be #2, and earthquake  would remain #3, the rest the same ranking. I brought this up at our Department Head meeting this morning, which  includes several members of the HMP Planning Team. No objection to this ranking change was voiced and this change  will align better with other current and past plans created by the City.    Thank you for making this change and facilitating a good discussion at the City Council meeting last night!      Elizabeth Appleby, AICP City Planner City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 (907) 283-8235/phone eappleby@kenai.city     1 jlemay@lemayengineering.com From:Bill Dunn <dunnwmr@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2019 4:41 PM To:jlemay@lemayengineering.com Cc:cityclerk@kenai.city; postrander@kenai.city; eappleby@kenai.city Subject:City of Kenai Hazard Mitigaion Plan Attachments:WRDtoJLL KenaiHMP 2019-12-06.pdf Dear Ms. Lemay:    Attached please find a letter addressing the Kenai HMP. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.   Please let me know if you need anything further from me. Many thanks for your help.    All the best,  Bill Dunn  December 6, 2019 Jennifer L. LeMay, PE, PMP Vice-President WILLIAM R. DUNN Box 163 Kenai, Alaska 99611 (907) 394-2887 dun nw m r(ii>gmail.com LeMay Engineering & Consulting, Inc . jlemay@lemayengineering.com Re: Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Dear Ms. LeMay: Thank you for your work on the City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan. The draft submitted for the Kenai City Council meeting (December 4, 2019) provides an admirable account of the major natural hazards facing the City. Bluff erosion in the vicinity of the Kenai River mouth is among the chief hazards facing the City and its property owners. I write today to advocate that the City adopt the goal of mitigating bluff erosion not only in the mile-long stretch of the river mouth encompassed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE) feasibility study (November, 2018), but also in the broader area of the Kenai River mouth that has become so heavily involved in the personal use dip-net fishery. Bluff erosion in this broader area has been significantly affected by the human impacts of this fishery itself and by the impacts of increased use of the beach year-round. For example, there has been a considerable increase in vehicular traffic on the beach since the dip-net fishery has become so popular. As the HMP report states, in 2009 and 2010 the City installed fencing to protect dunes on both the north and south beaches . This mitigation effort was both desperately needed and hugely successful in curtailing the destruction of these environmentally sensitive areas. On the north beach, however, just beyond the limit of the fencing that protects the dunes, below my home, little has been done to protect the fragile and environmentally sensitive bluff. The City has posted small temporary signs during the few weeks of the dip-net fishery, but once these signs are removed the bluff is defenseless. People thoughtlessly climb on the bluff, doing real and appreciable damage . The Kenai City Manager has recently agreed to provide more robust signage for a longer period of time both prior to and after the dip-net fishery , and that should help . As I see it, this is a good first step toward mitigating the hazard of bluff erosion in this area. Of course, the "gold standard" of mitigation for this type of erosion would involve bluff toe stabilization by means of Dunn to Lemay Kenai HMP Page 2of2 12/06/2019 an engineered barrier or berm. That would be a costly project, for which I expect the City would have no appetite at this time, but I believe there are other, less costly mitigation measures that might be explored and implemented. In your presentation of the draft HMP to the City Council December 4, 2019, you stated that the HMP is not a binding document but an important statement of the City's goals in the mitigation of identified hazards. Such a statement serves as a starting point, a first step, in securing grant funding for worthy projects. As I see it, there are three distinct areas at the mouth of the Kenai River affected by the bluff erosion hazard: (a) the mile-long stretch ofriver encompassed by the USA CE feasibility study; (b) the dunes on the north and south beaches, which protect against bluff erosion and which need protection themselves; and ( c) the sheer bluff on the north beach parallel to Toyon Way, which is unprotected by dunes or anything else. In the current draft of the HMP, only the first area appears to be covered in Table 16 of the Mitigation Strategy, "City Mitigation Action Plan." I suggest adding two items to this action plan between Action ID Items F&E2a and F&E2b: 1. Maintain (and expand as needed) dune protection measures on the north and south beaches in the vicinity of the Kenai River mouth. 2. Explore and implement bluff protection measures for the sheer bluff on the north beach, which is currently unprotected. Naturally, I am concerned about the bluff erosion hazard near my home. There are about a dozen structures along this unprotected stretch of sheer bluff, beautiful homes with stunningly beautiful views of mountains, sea and sky, well worth protecting to the homeowners and, I hope, to the City. fl;;:::ITS, Bill Dunn cc. Kenai City Mayor and Council Members (by City Clerk) Paul Ostrander, City Manager Elizabeth Appleby, City Planner 1 jlemay@lemayengineering.com From:Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:44 PM To:jlemay@lemayengineering.com Subject:FW: KPB 2019 HMP Update - Completed Attachments:Ordinance 2019-31.pdf Hi Jennifer, I just received this email about the Kenai Peninsula Borough HMP. We may need to add a line about their plan to our final plan. Thank you and Merry Christmas! --Elizabeth From: Ahlberg, Brenda <bahlberg@kpb.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:42 PM To: Elizabeth Appleby <eappleby@kenai.city>; 'jczarnezki@soldotna.org' <jczarnezki@soldotna.org>; 'rabboud@ci.homer.ak.us' <rabboud@ci.homer.ak.us>; Heidi Geagel <cityclerk@cityofseldovia.com>; 'Jennifer Carroll' <JCarroll@ci.homer.ak.us>; Jackie Wilde (jwilde@cityofseward.net) <jwilde@cityofseward.net>; 'kachemak@xyz.net' <kachemak@xyz.net> Cc: Best, Max <MBest@kpb.us>; Toll, Mary <MTOLL@kpb.us>; Nelson, Dan <dnelson@kpb.us> Subject: KPB 2019 HMP Update - Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Greetings all: The borough’s 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan update has been completed and has been recognized by FEMA. I’m just waiting on their official “plan approved” letter. The borough’s webpage will be updated upon receipt of the letter. Fast FYI on other city efforts: The borough planning commission followed by the assembly will be recognizing the city of Homer’s plan in January. I understand that the city of Kenai’s plan update is in the home stretch as well as the city of Seward. Please let me know, and we’ll introduce an ordinance as appropriate. NOTE: the borough’s adoption of a city’s plan is simply a formality to recognize it as an annex. The borough’s adoption of a city’s plan is NOT required by the state or by FEMA. Feel free to forward this email to others. Merry Christmas, B Brenda Ahlberg Community & Fiscal Projects Manager 2 Public Information Officer, MPIO, Type 1(t) 907-714-2153 direct 907-231-6505 mobile 907-714-2377 fax bahlberg@kpb.us www.kpb.us – Information by departments www.kpboem.com – Updates from agencies responding to area-wide emergencies on the Kenai. @Kenai.Peninsula.Borough – Facebook Page Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Ordinance 2019-31 Page 1 of 2 Introduced by:Mayor Date: 11/05/19 Hearing: 12/03/19 Action: Enacted Vote: 9 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ORDINANCE 2019-31 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2019 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN KPB 2.80.010 WHEREAS, the Kenai Peninsula Borough is vulnerable to damages from natural hazard events which pose a threat to public health and safety and could result in property loss and economic hardship; and WHEREAS, the KPB -Hazard Mitigation Plan, recommends actions to protect people and property at risk from natural and man-made hazards that will reduce future public and personal costs of disaster response and recovery, and will reinforce the borough preparedness efforts; and WHEREAS, the assembly initially adopted the Plan in 2004 and subsequently adopted updated Plans in July 2010 and June 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA ) disaster recovery funding and grant programs require regular updates to the mitigation plans; and WHEREAS, the 2019 the KPB Planning Department and the State of Alaska Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management; and WHEREAS, does not and cannot cover all possible hazards; and WHEREAS, the planning commission held a public hearing on this ordinance at its August 12, 2019 meeting and recommended approval by unanimous consent; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH: SECTION 1. That KPB 2.80.010 is hereby amended as follows: 2.80.010. Adoption of [ALL-] hazard mitigation plan. Ordinance 2019-31 New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Page 2 of 2 The document entitled Kenai Peninsula [ALL-H]Hazard Mitigation Plan which includes the Interagency All Lands/All Hands Action Plan is hereby adopted as the [ALL-] hazard mitigation plan for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The mayor is authorized to make administrative changes to these plans provided the assembly shall be advised of all such changes. SECTION 2. That this ordinance takes effect immediately upon its enactment. ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. Kelly Cooper, Assembly President ATTEST: Johni Blankenship, MMC, Borough Clerk Yes: Bjorkman, Blakeley, Carpenter, Cox, Dunne, Hibbert, Johnson, Smalley, Cooper No: None Absent: None , Kelly Cooper, Assembly President ATTEST: Johni Blankenship, MMC, Borough Clerk                         This page was intentionally left blank.  Appendix B: Glossary                           This page was intentionally left blank.  APPENDIX B. Definitions  Asset: Any manmade or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to people;  buildings; infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines  like electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or  recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks.  Avalanche: Mass of snow and ice falling suddenly down a mountain slope and often taking  with it earth, rocks and rubble of every description.  Base Flood Elevation: The computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise  during the base flood. Base Flood Elevations are shown on FIRMs and on the flood  profiles. The Base Flood Elevation is the regulatory requirement for the elevation or  floodproofing of structures. The relationship between the Base Flood Elevation and  a structure's elevation determines the flood insurance premium.  Borough: The basic unit of local government in Alaska, analogous to counties in other states.  Building: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.  Building Code: The regulations adopted by a local governing body principally setting forth  standards for the construction, addition, modification, and repair of buildings and  other structures for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general  welfare of the public.  Community: Any state, area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or tribal  entity that has the authority to adopt and enforce statutes for areas within its  jurisdiction.  Critical Facility: Facilities critical to the health and welfare of the population and that  are especially important during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include,  but are not limited to, shelters, hospitals, and fire stations.  Dam: A structure built across a waterway to impound water.  Development: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but  not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading,  paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials.  Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) (public Law 106‐390):   This act was signed into law on  October 10, 2000. This legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning  and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur.  Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain  accumulated within or along the edge of the earth’s tectonic plates.  Elevation: The raising of a structure to place it above flood waters, generally above the  base flood elevation, on an extended support structure.  Emergency Operations Plan: A document that: describes how people and property will  be protected in disaster and disaster threat situations; details who is responsible  for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities,  supplies, and other resources available for use in the disaster; and outlines how  all actions will be coordinated.  Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other  geological agents.  Federal Disaster Declaration: See Presidential Disaster Declaration.  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): A federal agency created in 1979 to  provide a single point of accountability for all federal activities related to hazard  mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.  Flash Flood: A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at  an extremely fast rate.  Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry  land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid  accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or  the sudden collapse of shoreline land.  Floodplain: A "floodplain" is the lowland adjacent to a river, lake, or ocean. Floodplains are  designated by the frequency of the flood that is large enough to cover them. For  example, the 10‐year floodplain will be covered by the 10‐year flood; the 100‐year  floodplain by the 100‐year flood.  "Flood frequencies:" Frequencies are determined by plotting a graph of the size of all  known floods for an area and determining how often floods of a particular size  occur. The frequency is the chance of a flood occurring during a given timeframe. It  is the percentage of the probability of flooding each year. For example, the 100‐ year flood has a 1% chance, and the 10‐year flood has a 10% chance of occurring in  any given year.  Geographic Information System: A computer software application that relates physical  features of the earth to a database that can be used for mapping and analysis.  Governing Body: The legislative body of a jurisdiction such as a municipal or Borough  assembly or a city council.  Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition. Any situation that has the  potential for causing personal injury or death, or damage to property and the  environment.  Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.  Hazard Identification: The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area.  Hazard Mitigation: Any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long‐term risk to human life  and property from natural hazards (44 CFR Subpart M 206.401).  Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: The program authorized under section 404 of the Stafford  Act, which may provide funding for mitigation measures identified through the  evaluation of natural hazards conducted under §322 of the Disaster Mitigation  Act 2000.  Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis: The identification and evaluation of all the hazards that  potentially threaten a jurisdiction and analyzing them in the context of the  jurisdiction to determine the degree of threat that is posed by each.  Hydro Unit: Short for Hydrologic Unit. A drainage area delineated to nest in a multi‐level,  hierarchical drainage system.  Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and  topographic criteria that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on  a river, stream, or similar surface water.  A hydrologic unit can accept surface water  directly from upstream drainage areas, and indirectly from associated surface areas  such as remnant, non‐contributing, and diversions to form a drainage area with  single or multiple outlet points.   Infrastructure: The public services of a community that have a direct impact to the quality  of life. Infrastructure refers to communication technology such as phone lines or  Internet access, vital services such as public water supply and sewer treatment  facilities, and includes an area’s transportation system, regional dams or bridges,  etc.  Inundation: The maximum horizontal distance inland reached by a tsunami.  Landslide: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.  Liquefaction: The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking cause’s loose soils to lose  strength and act like a thick or viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground  failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength.  Local Government: Any county, Borough, municipality, city, township, public authority, school  district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council  of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law),  regional or interstate government entity, or agency, or instrumentality of a local  government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native  village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village,  or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a State  or political subdivision of a state.  Magma: Molten rock originating from the Earth’s interior.  Magnitude: A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as  severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures  specific to the hazard.  Mitigate: To cause something to became less harsh or hostile, to make less severe or painful.  Mitigation Plan: A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the  effects of natural hazards typically present in the State and includes a description of  actions to minimize future vulnerability to hazards.  Municipality: A political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the state that is a home  rule or general law city, a home rule or general law borough, or a unified  municipality.  Natural Disaster: Any natural catastrophe, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high  water, wind, driven water, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide,  snowstorm, fire, or drought. (44 CFR Subpart M206.401).  New Construction: New construction means structures for which the “start of construction”  on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a  community and includes any subsequent improvement to such structures.  One Hundred (100)‐Year: The flood elevation that has a one‐percent chance of occurring in  any given year. It is also known as the Base Flood.  Overlay Zone: Overlay zones (overlay districts) create a framework for conservation or  development of special geographical areas. In a special resource overlay district,  overlay provisions typically impose greater restrictions on the development of land,  but only regarding those parcels whose development, as permitted under the  zoning, may threaten the viability of the natural resource. In a development area  overlay district, the provisions may impose restrictions as well, but also may provide  zoning incentives and waivers to encourage certain types and styles of  development. Overlay zone provisions are often complemented by the adoption of  other innovative zoning techniques, such as floating zones, special permits,  incentive zoning, cluster development and special site plan or subdivision  regulations, to name a few.  Period: A length of time. For waves, it is the length of time between two successive peaks or  troughs, which may vary due to interference of waves. Tsunami periods generally  range from 5 to 60 minutes.   Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of  goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.  Preparedness: The steps taken to decide what to do if essential services break down,  developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan. Preparedness ensures  that people are ready for a disaster and will respond to it effectively.  Presidential Disaster Declaration: The formal action by the President of the United States to  make a state eligible for major disaster or emergency assistance under the  Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93‐ 288, as  amended.  Probability: A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.  Recovery: The long‐term activities beyond the initial crisis period and emergency  response phase of disaster operations that focus on returning all systems in the  community to a normal status or to reconstitute these systems to a new, less  vulnerable condition.  Response: Those activities and programs designed to address the immediate and short‐ term effects of the onset of an emergency or disaster.  Retrofit: The strengthening of existing structures to mitigate disaster risks.  Risk: The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and  structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an  adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative  terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a  particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It can also be  expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of  the hazard.  Riverine: Relating to, formed by, or resembling rivers (including tributaries), streams,  creeks, brooks, etc.  Riverine Flooding: Flooding related to or caused by a river, stream, or tributary overflowing  its banks due to excessive rainfall, snowmelt or ice.  Runoff: That portion of precipitation that is not intercepted by vegetation, absorbed by land  surface, or evaporated, and thus flows overland into a depression, stream, lake, or  ocean (runoff, called immediate subsurface runoff, also takes place in the upper  layers of soil).  Run‐up: The maximum vertical height of a tsunami in relation to sea level.  Seiche: An oscillating wave (also referred to as a seismic sea wave) in a partially or fully  enclosed body of water. May be initiated by long period seismic waves, wind and  water waves, or a tsunami.  Stafford Act: 1) The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public  Law 93‐288, as amended. 2) The Stafford Act provides an orderly and  continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, local and  tribal governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering  and damage which result from disaster.  State Disaster Declaration: A disaster emergency shall be declared by executive order  or proclamation of the Governor upon finding that a disaster has occurred or  that the occurrence or the threat of a disaster is imminent. The state of disaster  emergency shall continue until the governor finds that the threat or danger has  passed or that the disaster has been dealt with to the extent that emergency  conditions no longer exist and terminates the state of disaster emergency by  executive order or proclamation. Along with other provisions, this declaration  allows the governor to utilize all available resources of the State as reasonably  necessary, direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from  any stricken or threatened area if necessary, prescribe routes, modes of  transportation and destinations in connection with evacuation and control  ingress and egress to and from disaster area. It is required before a Presidential  Disaster Declaration can be requested.  State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The SHMO is the representative of state  government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other state and  Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and implementation  of pre‐ and post‐disaster mitigation activities.  Storm Surge: Rise in the water surface above normal water level on open coast due to the  action of wind stress and atmospheric pressure on the water surface.  Stream: A body of water flowing in a natural surface channel.  Flow may be continuous or only  during wet periods. Streams that flow only during wet periods are termed  “intermittent streams.”  Structure: That which is constructed above or below ground in some definite manner for any  use or purpose.  Subdivision Regulations: Ordinances or regulations governing the subdivision of land with  respect to things such as adequacy and suitability of building sites and utilities and  public facilities.  Tectonic Plate: Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth’s lithosphere that may be  assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between  plate boundaries that causes seismic activity.  Topography: The contour of the land surface. The technique of graphically representing  the exact physical features of a place or region on a map.  Tribal Government: A Federally recognized governing body of an Indian or Alaska Native  Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the  Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized  Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native  corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals.  Tsunami: A sea wave produced by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption with  a sudden rise or fall of a section of the earth's crust under or near the ocean. A  seismic disturbance or land slide can displace the water column, creating a rise or  fall in the level of the ocean above. This rise or fall in sea level is the initial  formation of a tsunami wave.  Volcano:  A volcano is an opening, or rupture, in a planet's surface or crust, which allows hot  magma, ash, and gases to escape from below the surface. Volcanoes are generally  found where tectonic plates are diverging or converging. A mid‐oceanic ridge, for  example the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, has examples of volcanoes caused by divergent  tectonic plates pulling apart; the Pacific Ring of Fire has examples of volcanoes  caused by convergent tectonic plates coming together.  Vulnerability: Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset it. Vulnerability  depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its  functions.  The vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to  the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted  electrical power – if an electrical substation is flooded, it will affect not only the  substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Other, indirect effects can  be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.  Vulnerability Assessment: The extent of injury and damage that may result from hazard event  of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address  impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.  Watercourse: A natural or artificial channel in which a flow of water occurs either continually  or intermittently.  Watershed: An area that drains to a single point. In a natural basin, this is the area  contributing flow to a given place or stream.  Water Surface Elevation: Water surface elevation means the height, in relation to the  National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, (or other datum, where specified)  of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal riverine  areas.  Water Table: The uppermost zone of water saturation in the ground.  Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated frequently and for long enough to support  vegetative or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions  for growth and reproduction.  Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire that spreads though vegetative fuels, exposing and  possibly consuming structures.  Worst Case Scenario: The term “worst case scenario" is somewhat self‐explanatory. It includes  the potential for a “cascade effect", which was assumed in analyzing the risk from  each hazard. The term "cascade effect" is used to describe the triggering of  several hazard occurrences from an initial event. An earthquake for instance, might  also trigger avalanches, collapsed buildings, transportation and utility disruptions,  and hazardous material releases, each of which might trigger additional events,  all part of the same incident.  Zoning Ordinance: An ordinance under the state or local government’s police powers  that divides an area into districts and, within each district, regulates the use of  land and buildings, height, and bulk of buildings or other structures, and the  density of population.                             This page was intentionally left blank.    Appendix C: FEMA Review Tool                             This page was intentionally left blank.  Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐1 APPENDIX A: LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community. •The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA’s evaluation of whether the Plan has addressed all requirements. •The Plan Assessment identifies the plan’s strengths as well as documents areas for future improvement. •The Multi‐jurisdiction Summary Sheet is an optional worksheet that can be used to document how each jurisdiction met the requirements of each Element of the Plan (Planning Process; Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; Mitigation Strategy; Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation; and Plan Adoption). The FEMA Mitigation Planner must reference this Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide when completing the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool. Jurisdiction: Kenai, Alaska (Region 10) Title of Plan: The City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: December 9, 2019 Local Point of Contact: Elizabeth Appleby Address: City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Avenue Kenai, AK 99611 Title: City Planner Agency: City of Kenai Phone Number: (907) 283-8235 E‐Mail: eappleby@kenai.city State Reviewer: JJ Little jj.little@alaska.gov Title: Emergency Management Specialist II Date: 23 December 2019 FEMA Reviewer: John Schelling Title: Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Manager Date: 1/10/2019 1/15/2020 Date Received in FEMA Region (insert #) 12/26/2019 Plan Not Approved 1/15/2020 Plan Approvable Pending Adoption Plan Approved A‐2 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐3 SECTION 1: REGULATION CHECKLIST 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan (section and/or Not page number) Met Met Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) PDF 16‐19, 85‐131 X A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) PDF 17‐18, 95, 112-114, 139-142 X A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) PDF 16‐19, 88‐90, 104‐112, 125‐131 X A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3)) PDF 18‐19, 83‐84 X A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) PDF 77, 167‐171 X A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5‐year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)) PDF 72‐73 X ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS A‐4 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan (section and/or Not page number) Met Met Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all‐natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) Changes in the Cryosphere: PDF 22‐24; Earthquake: 24‐26, 28‐ 29; Flood/Erosion: 31‐ 39; Volcanic Ashfall: 41, 43‐44; Severe Weather: 45‐48; Fire: 49‐55 X B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) Changes in the Cryosphere: PDF 23‐24; Earthquake: 26‐31; Flood/Erosion: 36‐37; Volcanic Ashfall: 41‐42, 44; Severe Weather: 47, 49; Fire: 52‐54 X B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community as well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) Changes in the Cryosphere: PDF 24, 62; Earthquake: 29‐30, 62; Flood/Erosion: 39‐40, 59; Volcanic Ashfall: 44, 62; Severe Weather: 48, 62; Fire: 53‐54, 59; Overall Vulnerability: 59‐ 62 X B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) PDF 9, 59 X ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐5 ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)) PDF 12, 75‐76 X C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) PDF 9, 59 X C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long‐term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i)) PDF 63‐64 X C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) PDF 64‐71 X C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) PDF 67‐71, 157‐160 X C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii)) PDF 73‐74 X ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS A‐6 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan (section and/or Not page number) Met Met Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates only) D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) N/A D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) N/A D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) N/A ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION E1. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) Adoption Letter to be included in Appendix F once it is issued X E2. For multi‐jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) N/A ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS ONLY; NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA) F1. F2. ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐7 SECTION 2: PLAN ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of the Plan Assessment is to offer the local community more comprehensive feedback to the community on the quality and utility of the plan in a narrative format. The audience for the Plan Assessment is not only the plan developer/local community planner, but also elected officials, local departments and agencies, and others involved in implementing the Local Mitigation Plan. The Plan Assessment must be completed by FEMA. The Assessment is an opportunity for FEMA to provide feedback and information to the community on: 1) suggested improvements to the Plan; 2) specific sections in the Plan where the community has gone above and beyond minimum requirements; 3) recommendations for plan implementation; and 4) ongoing partnership(s) and information on other FEMA programs, specifically RiskMAP and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. The Plan Assessment is divided into two sections: 1.Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement 2.Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement is organized according to the plan Elements listed in the Regulation Checklist. Each Element includes a series of italicized bulleted items that are suggested topics for consideration while evaluating plans, but it is not intended to be a comprehensive list. FEMA Mitigation Planners are not required to answer each bullet item, and should use them as a guide to paraphrase their own written assessment (2‐3 sentences) of each Element. The Plan Assessment must not reiterate the required revisions from the Regulation Checklist or be regulatory in nature, and should be open‐ended and to provide the community with suggestions for improvements or recommended revisions. The recommended revisions are suggestions for improvement and are not required to be made for the Plan to meet Federal regulatory requirements. The italicized text should be deleted once FEMA has added comments regarding strengths of the plan and potential improvements for future plan revisions. It is recommended that the Plan Assessment be a short synopsis of the overall strengths and weaknesses of the Plan (no longer than two pages), rather than a complete recap section by section. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan provides a place for FEMA to offer information, data sources and general suggestions on the overall plan implementation and maintenance process. Information on other possible sources of assistance including, but not limited to, existing publications, grant funding or training opportunities, can be provided. States may add state and local resources, if available. A‐8 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A.Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies areas where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements. Element A: Planning Process Plan Strengths: •The use of an annual survey at the annual Community Health Fair that occurs each spring is a great way to raise awareness for both community preparedness and as an opportunity to highlight what the City of Kenai has proposed or is implementing to reduce the risk and impacts to the community. •Facilitating the hazard mitigation planning process through the city’s planning department is an excellent way to make strong connections to the community’s land use and development efforts and integrate natural hazard risk reduction into new and existing plans. Opportunities for Improvement: •Consider including any special purpose districts within the City of Kenai, such as Kenai Peninsula Borough school districts, utility districts, etc. on the planning team to identify potential opportunities for collaborative mitigation efforts that support the community. •Consider an annual presentation on mitigation progress to the City Council as part of the continued public engagement process. This is an easy way to keep the city’s legislative body informed on success and challenges in implementing the adopted Mitigation Action Plan. This can also help keep community leaders involved in the process and provide additional support for implementing the plan. Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Plan Strengths: •The plan does an excellent job of incorporating new RiskMAP data and analysis for identification of community assets that may be vulnerable to earthquake hazards. •The inclusion of climate factors within each section to identify where impacts and vulnerability may be increased is a great practice. This can assist in identifying where additional mitigation, both now and in the future, may be needed to address increased risk. Opportunities for Improvement: •The plan includes a general probability for volcanic hazards. More detailed information on recurrence and probabilities for volcano hazards can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Alaska Volcano Observatory. •The vulnerability assessment can provide more ‘so what’. For example, what will it mean to the City of Kenai if key infrastructure, like the water/wastewater treatment plants or the Passenger Terminal of the Kenai Municipal Airport are affected by one or more of the hazards identified? Including problem statements around these impacts can help identify more specific mitigation actions and also factor into prioritization for the overall mitigation strategy. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐9 Element C: Mitigation Strategy Plan Strengths: •The planning team developed an awesome mitigation strategy that really implements one of the key facets of mitigation planning…emphasizing reducing risks to new and existing buildings. Through the actions identified within the mitigation strategy, such as using zoning to reduce impacts of erosion and enforcing building codes for wind hazards, this is an excellent way to improve life safety, reduce risk to structures throughout the city, and increase Kenai’s overall resilience. •Inclusion of an action to develop a wildland fire hazard map and already having obtained the funding will help support implementation of the additional actions that were captured in the plan. Once these areas are identified, this may also assist the City’s planning team look at other options to reduce risks, such as how the city’s zoning code or building ordinances may facilitate the ability to use ignition resistant materials in structures located in mapped zones or specific education and outreach to properties within identified hazard areas. Opportunities for Improvement: •While the building code enforcement is listed for wind, consider how this may also be an opportunity further reduce potential impacts and enforce the seismic provisions of the codes as well (if not already in place) since Kenai has identified significant seismic hazards that are documented within the plan. Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) Not Applicable B.Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan The Region 10 Integrating Natural Hazard Mitigation into Comprehensive Planning is a resource specific to Region 10 states and provides examples of how communities are integrating natural hazard mitigation strategies into comprehensive planning. You can find it in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/media‐ library/assets/documents/89725. The Integrating Hazard Mitigation Into Local Planning: Case Studies and Tools for Community Officials resource provides practical guidance on how to incorporate risk reduction strategies into existing local plans, policies, codes, and programs that guide community development or redevelopment patterns. It includes recommended steps and tools to assist with local integration efforts, along with ideas for overcoming possible impediments, and presents a series of case studies to demonstrate successful integration in practice. You can find it in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7130. The Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk from Natural Hazards resource presents ideas for how to mitigate the impacts of different natural hazards, from drought and sea level rise, to severe winter weather and wildfire. The document also includes ideas for actions that communities can take to reduce risk to multiple hazards, such as incorporating a hazard risk assessment into the local development review process. You can find it in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6938. The Local Mitigation Planning Handbook provides guidance to local governments on developing or updating hazard mitigation plans to meet and go above the requirements. You can find it in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7209. The Integration Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Planning: Case Studies and Lessons Learned resource is a 2014 ICLEI publication for San Diego with a clear methodology that could assist in next steps for integration impacts of climate change throughout mitigation actions. http://icleiusa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2015/08/Integrating‐Hazard‐Mitigation‐and‐Climate‐Adaptation‐ Planning.pdf The Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide and Tool resource is available through FEMA’s Library and should be referred to for the next plan update. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4859 Volcanic Eruption Mitigation Measures: For information on Mitigation Actions for Volcanic Eruptions that would satisfy the C4 requirement, please visit: http://earthzine.org/2011/03/21/volcanic‐crisis‐management‐and‐mitigation‐strategies‐a‐multi‐ risk‐framework‐case‐study/ and http://www.gvess.org/publ.html. The FEMA Region 10 Risk Mapping, Analysis, and Planning program (Risk MAP) releases a monthly newsletter that includes information about upcoming events and training opportunities, as well as hazard and risk related news from around the Region. Past newsletters can be viewed at http://www.starr‐ Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A‐11 team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionX/Pages/default.aspx. If you would like to receive future newsletters, email rxnewsletter@starr‐team.com and ask to be included. The mitigation strategy may include eligible projects to be funded through FEMA’s hazard mitigation grant programs (Pre‐Disaster Mitigation, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance). Contact your State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Brent Nichols at Brent.Nichols@alaska.gov, for more information.                         This page was intentionally left blank.    Appendix D: Benefit‐Cost Analysis Fact Sheet                             This page was intentionally left blank.  Benefit Cost Fact Sheet Benefit Cost Analysis Fact Sheet Hazard mitigation projects are specifically aimed at reducing or eliminating future damages. A lthough hazard mitigation projects may sometimes be implemented in conjunction with the repair of damages from a declared disaster, the focus of hazard mitigation projects is on strengthening, elevating , relocating, or otherwise improving buildings, infrastructure, or other facilities to enhance their ability to withstand the damaging impacts of future disasters. In so me cases, hazard mitigation projects may also include training or public education programs if such programs can be demonstrated to reduce future expected damages. A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) provides an estimate of the "b enefits" and "costs" of a proposed hazard mitigation project. The "benefits " considered are avoided future damages and losses that are expected to accrue as a result of the mitigation project. In other words, benefits are the reduction in expected future damages and losses (i.e., the difference in expected future damages before and after the mitigation project). The costs considered are those necessary to implement the specific mitigation project under evaluation. Costs are generally well-determined for specific projects for which engineering design studies have been completed. The timing and severity of benefits , however , must be estimated probabilistically because they depend on the improved performance of the building or facility in future hazard events. All benefit-costs must be: • Credible and well do cumented • Prepared in accordance with accepted BCA practices • Cost-effective (BCR ~ 1.0) General Data Requirements: • All data entries (other t han FEMA) standard or default values) must be documented in the application. • Data must be from a credible source. • Provide complete copies of reports and engineering analyses. • Detailed cost estimate. • Identify the hazard (e.g., flood , wind, seismic). • Discuss how the proposed measure will mitigate against future damages. • Document the project's useful life. • Document the proposed Level of Protection. • The Very Limited Data (VLD) BCA module cannot be used to support cost- effectiveness (screening purposes only). • Alternative BCA software must be approved in writing by FEMA HQ and FEMA Region 10 staff prior to submittal of the application. Damage and Benefit Data • Well documented for each damage event. • Include estimated frequency and method of determination per damage event. • Data used in place of FEMA standard or default values must be documented and justified. • The Level of Protection must be documented and readily apparent. 1 Benefit Cost Analysis Process Benefit Cost Analysis Process How to Determine Cost-Effectiveness of Mitigation Projects When Congress enacted the Stafford Act's mitigation provisions, one of the criteria to determine priorities for mitigation funding was cost effectiveness. This cost effective provision was in response t o the recognition that there would never be enough funding to completely mitigate against every hazard . To determine the cost effectiveness of proposed mitigation projects, FEMA implemented a benefit cost analysis (BCA) requirement to mitigation grant funding applications. The basic requirement of the BCA is that the benefit of the mitigation project must equal or exceed the cost , a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1: 1 or greater. Over several years, FEMA developed a set standard values for use in BCA and custom software that estab lishes mitigation benefits and calculates the BCR. Benefit cost analysis submitted to FEMA to justify mitigation funding requires substantial documentation of project costs and benefits. FEMA provides the custom BCA software and training online at htt ps://www.fema.gov/benefit-cost -ana lysis . An overview of the BCA process for a mitigation projects follows . $5,000 ~---.---­ $4,000 $3,000 __ _, $2,000 +----I $1,000 +----I Benefit: Damages prevented or reduced due to Mitigation Project $0 -+----L__,...--~---,,----L.---- Damages Before Mitigation Damages After Mit ig ation Benefit Project Cost (Prevented or reduced damages) FEMA Basic Benefit-Cost Model. For more information about FEMA 's Benefit-Cost Modules, please contact the FEMA Region X Mitigation Division at 42 5-487-4600. It is important to understand that benefit-cost analysis is basically the same for each type of hazard mitigation project. The only differences are the types of data that are used in the calculations, depending on whether the project is for floods, earthquakes, or other natural hazards . For example, whereas the depth of flooding is used to estimate damage for flood mitigation projects, the severity of ground shaking is used to estimate damage for earthquake mitigation projects. Calculating the Benefit -Cost Ratio In the graph above , cost-effectiveness is determined by comparing the project cost of $1 ,000, to the value of damages prevented after the mitigation measure, which is $2,000. Because the dollar value of benefits exceeds the costs of funding the project , the project is cost-effective. This relationship is depicted numerically by dividing the benefits by the costs , resulting in a benefit- cost ratio (BCR). The BCR is simply a way of stating whether benefits exceed project costs , and 1 Benefit Cost Analysis Process by how much. To derive the BCR, divide the benefits by the cost ($2,000 + $1,000); if the result is 1. 0 or greater, then the project is cost -effective. In this instance , the BCR is 2. 0 , which far exceeds the 1.0 level. On the other hand, if the cost of the project is $2,000 and the benefits are only $1,000, the project wo uld have a BCR of 0.50 ($1,000-:-$2,000) and would not be cost- effective. Conducting a benefit-cost analysis determines one of two things: either the project is cost- effective (BCR > 1.0), or it is not (BCR < 1.0). If the project is cost-effective, then no further work or analysis needs to be done , there is no third step other than to move the project to the next phase in the approval process . However , if the project is not cost-effective, then it is generally not eligible for FEMA mitigation grant funding. There are four key e lements to all benefit-cost analyses of hazard mitigation projects: 1. An estimate of damages and losses before mitigation 2. An estimate of damages and losses after mitigation 3. An estimate of the frequency and severity of the hazard causing damages (e.g., floods), and 4. The economic factors of the analysis (e .g ., discount rate and mitigation project 's useful lifetime) These four key elements and their relationships to one another are detailed in the following example. Consider a 1,500 square foot , one-story, single family residence located in the Acorn Park subdivision along Squirrel Creek. A proposed mitigation project will elevate the structure four feet at a cost of $20,000. Whether this project is cost-effective depends on the damages and losses from flooding without the mitigation project, the effectiveness of the mitigation project in reducing tho se damages and lo sses, the frequency that the house is flooded and the depth of the flood water, and the mitigation project's useful lifetime . If the pre-mitigation damages are frequent and/or severe, then the project is more likely to be cost-effective. Even minor damage that occurs frequently can, over the life of a project , exceed the up-front costs of implementing a mitigation meas ure. On the other hand, if the building in the example above only flooded once, then it may not be cost-effective to elevate, unless the damages were significant in relation to the value of the structure and its contents. 2 Benefit Cost Fact Sheet • When using the Limited Data (LD) BCA module, users cannot extrapolate data for higher frequency events for unknown lower frequency events. Building Data • Should include FEMA Elevation Certificates for elevation projects or projects using First Floor Elevations (FFEs). • Include data for building type (tax records or photos). • Contents claims that exceed 30 percent of building replacement value (BRV) must be fully documented. • Method for determining BRVs must be documented . BRVs based on tax records must include the multiplier from the County Tax Assessor. • Identify the amount of damage that will result in demolition of the structure (FEMA standard is 50 percent of pre-damage structure value). • Include the site location (e.g., miles inland) for the hurricane module. Use Correct Occupancy Data • Design occupancy for hurricane shelter portion of tornado module. • Average occupancy per hour for the tornado s helt er portion of the tornado module. • Average occupancy for seismic modules. Questions to Be Answered • Has the level of risk been identified? • Are all hazards identified? • Is the BCA fully documented and accompanied by technical support data? • Will residual risk occur after the mitigation project is implemented? Common Shortcomings • Incomplete documentation. • Inconsistencies among data in the application, BCA module runs , and the technical support data. • Lack of technical support data. • Lack of a detailed cost estimate. • Use of discount rate other than FEMA-required amount of 7 percent. • Overriding FEMA default values without providing documentation and justification. • Lack of information on building type, size, number of stories, and value. • Lack of documentation and credibility for FFEs. • Use of incorrect project useful life (not every mitigation measure equals 100 years). 2   Appendix E: Plan Maintenance Documents                            This page was intentionally left blank.  Annual Review Questionnaire !nf ,,., .. ,""•lteh'I 1e 111,,._.,.lr•h'l."ll ~ Im) ••lltfJh'i l:S.,lL"I Are there internal or external organizations and agencies that have been Invaluable to the p lann ing process or to mitigation action Are there procedures (e.g., meeti ng PLANNING PROCESS announcements, plan updates) that can be done more efficiently? Has the Task Force undertaken any public outreach activities regarding the MHMP or implementation of mitigation actions? Has a na t ura l and/or human-caused d isaster occurred in this reporting period? Are there natural and/or human-caused HAZARD PROFILES hazard s that have not been addressed in this HMP and should be? Are additional maps or new haza rd studies available? If so, what have they revealed? Do any new critica l facilities or infrastructu re need to be added to th e asset lists? VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS Have there been changes in development patterns that cou ld influence the effects of hazards or create additional r isks? Are there different or add itional resources (financial, technical, and human) that are now available for rn ltigatloh plahnlng within the Are the goals still applicable? MITIGATION Should new m itigation actions be added to STRATEGY the a comm unity's M itigation Action Plan ? Do existing mitigation actions listed in a commun ity's Mitigation Action Plan need to be reprioritized? Are the m i tigation actions listed in a community's Mitigation Action Plan approprl- ate for available resources? Mitigation Action Progress Report Page 1 of3 Progress Report Period: _______ to ____________________ _ (date) (date) Project Title:-----------------Project ID# ___________ _ Responsible Agency:------------------------------ Address:---------------------------------- City: __________________________________ _ Contact Person: ________________ Title:-------------- Phone #(s): ____________ email address: _______________ _ List Sllpporting Agencies and Contacts: Total Project Cost:------------------------------- Anticipated CostOverrun/Unclemm: ------------------------- Date of Project Approval: __________ Start date of the project: _________ _ Anticipated completion date: __________________________ _ Description of the ProJect (include a description of each phase, 1f applicable, and the time frame for completing each phase}:--------------------------------- Proje cted Milestones Complete Date of Completion Plan Goal (s) Addressed: Page2of3 Goal: ______________________________________ ~ Indicator of Success: ---------------------------------- Project Status Project Cost Status D Project on schedule D Cost unchanged D Project completed D Cost overrun• D Project delayed• explain:--------------- explain: ______________ _ D Cost underrun D Project canceled •explain: ______________ _ Summary of progress on project for this report: A. What was accomplished during this reporting period? B. What obstacles, problems, or delays did you encounter, if any? C. How was each problem resolved? Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey  City of Kenai Hazard Analysis  1  Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey   This survey is an opportunity for you to share your opinions and participate in the mitigation  planning process. The information that you provide will help us better understand your concerns  for hazards and risks, which could lead to mitigation activities that will help reduce those risks  and the impacts of future hazard events.   The hazard mitigation process is not complete without your feedback. All individual responses  are strictly confidential and will be used for mitigation planning purposes only.   Please help us by taking a few minutes to complete this survey and return it to:  City of Kenai Planner  Vulnerability Assessment  The following questions focus on how vulnerable the community or its facilities are to damage  from a particular hazard type using the following vulnerability scale:  0= Don't Know     1 =Minimally Vulnerable     2=Moderately Vulnerable     3=Severely Vulnerable  1. How vulnerable to damage are the structures in the community from: a.Flooding?0   1   2   3  b.Wildfire?0   1   2   3  C.Earthquakes?0   1   2   3  d.Volcanoes?0   1   2   3  e.Snow Avalanche?0   1   2   3  f.Tsunami/Seiches?0   1   2   3  g.Severe weather storms?0   1   2   3  h. Ground failure (landslide, permafrost)?0   1   2   3  i. Coastal erosion?0   1   2   3  j.Climate change?0   1   2   3  k.Other hazards?0   1   2   3  Please Specify: 2. How vulnerable to damage are the critical facilities within our community from: [Critical facilities include airport, community shelter, bulk fuel storage tanks, generators, medical facilities, law enforcement office, fire department, school, public works, water and wastewater treatment, reservoir/water supply, satellite dish, communications tower, and landfills. a.Flooding?0   1   2   3  b.Wildfire?0   1   2   3  Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey  City of Kenai Hazard Analysis  2  C.Earthquakes?0   1   2   3  d.Volcanoes?0   1   2   3  e.Snow Avalanche?0   1   2   3  f.Tsunami/Seiches?0   1   2   3  g.Severe weather storms?0   1   2   3  h. Ground failure (landslide, permafrost)?0   1   2   3  i. Coastal erosion?0   1   2   3  j.Climate change?0   1   2   3  k.Other hazards?0   1   2   3   Please Specify: 3.How vulnerable to displacement, evacuation or life‐safety is the community from: a.Flooding?0   1   2   3 b.Wildfire?0   1   2   3  C.Earthquakes?0   1   2   3  d.Volcanoes?0   1   2   3  e.Snow Avalanche?0   1   2   3  f.Tsunami/Seiches?0   1   2   3  g.Severe weather storms?0   1   2   3  h. Ground failure (landslide, permafrost)?0   1   2   3  i. Coastal erosion?0   1   2   3  j.Climate change?0   1   2   3  k.Other hazards?0   1   2   3   Please Specify: 4.Do you have a record of damages incurred during past flood events?    Yes  No If yes, please describe:_________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Preparedness  Preparedness activities are often the first line of defense for protection of your family and the  community. In the following list, please check those activities that you have done, plan to do in  the  near  future,  have  not  done,  or  are  unable  to  do. Please check one answer for each  preparedness activity.  Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey  City of Kenai Hazard Analysis  3  Have you or someone in your household: Have  Done  Plan to  do  Not  Done  Unable  to do  Attended meetings or received written information on natural  disasters or emergency preparedness? □ □ □ □  Talked with family members about what to do in case of a  disaster or emergency? □ □ □ □  Made a "Household/Family Emergency Plan" in order to decide  what everyone would do in the event of a disaster? □ □ □ □  Prepared a "Disaster Supply Kit" extra food, water, medications ,  batteries, first aid items, and other emergency supplies)? □ □ □ □  In the last year, has anyone in your household been trained in  First Aid or CPR? □ □ □ □  5. Would you be willing to make your home more resistant to natural disasters?   □   Yes □ No 6. Would you be willing to spend more money on your home to make it more disaster resistant?         □ Yes  □ No  □ Don't know 7.How much are you willing  to spend to better protect  your home from natural  disasters? (Check only one) □Less than $100 □Desire to relocate for protection  □$100‐$499  □  Other, please explain  □$500 and above  □Nothing I Don't know  □Whatever it takes  Mitigation Activities  A component of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan activities is developing and documenting  additional mitigation strategies that will aid the community in protecting life and property from  the impacts of future natural disasters.  Mitigation activities are those types of actions you can take to protect your home and property  from natural hazard events such as floods, severe weather, and wildfire. Please check the box  for the following statements to best describe their importance to you. Your responses will help  us determine your community's priorities for planning for these mitigation activities.  Statement  Very  Important  Somewhat  Important  Neutral  Not Very  Important  Not  Important  Protecting private property □ □ □ □ □ Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey  4  Protecting critical facilities (medical facilities, school, police/fire department,  water/sewer, landfill)  □ □ □ □ □ Preventing development in hazard areas □ □ □ □ □ Protecting natural environment □ □ □ □ □ Protecting historical and cultural landmarks □ □ □ □ □ Promoting cooperation within the community □ □ □ □ □ Protecting and reducing damage to  utilities, roads, or water tank  □ □ □ □ □ Strengthening emergency services (clinic workers,  police/fire)  □ □ □ □ □ 8.Do you have other suggestions for possible mitigation actions/strategies? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ General Household Information  9.Please indicate your age: _______ and Gender:   □  Male   □  Female 10.Please indicate your level of education: □Grade school/no schooling □College degree □Some high school □Postgraduate degree □ High school graduate/GED □ Other, please specify □Some college/trade school 11. How long have you lived in Kenai?  City of Kenai Hazard Analysis  Community Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey  City of Kenai Hazard Analysis  5  □Less than 5 years  □ 5 to 10 years □11 to 20 years  □ 21 or more years 12.Do you have internet access?□Yes □No 13.Do you own or rent your home? □ Own    □ Rent If you have any questions regarding this survey or would like to learn about other ways that you  can participate in the development of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, please contact the City of Kenai Planner.  Thank You for Your Participation!   This survey  may be submitted anonymously; however, if you provide us with your  name and  contact information below we will have the ability to follow up with you to learn more about  your ideas or concerns (optional):  Name: _______________________________________________________________________  Address: ______________________________________________________________________     ______________________________________________________________________  Phone: _______________________________________________________________________                          This page was intentionally left blank.  Appendix F: Adoption Resolution and Approval Letter This page was intentionally left blank.  U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region 10 130 – 228th Street, SW Bothell, Washington 98021 January 15, 2020 Mr. Brent Nichols State Hazard Mitigation Officer Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management P.O. Box 5750 Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-5750 Dear Mr. Nichols The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10 completed a pre-adoption review of the draft City of Kenai Hazard Mitigation Plan. The attached Mitigation Plan Review Tool documents the Region’s review and compliance with all required elements of 44 CFR Part 201.6, as well as identifies the jurisdictions participating in the planning process. This letter serves as Region 10’s commitment to approve the plan upon receiving documentation of its adoption by participating jurisdictions. Formal adoption documentation must be submitted to FEMA Region 10 by at least one jurisdiction within one calendar year of the date of this letter, or the entire plan must be updated and resubmitted for review. Once FEMA approves the plan, the jurisdictions are eligible to apply for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants. Please contact John Schelling, Regional Mitigation Planning Program Manager, at (425) 487-2104 or john.schelling@fema.dhs.gov with any questions. Sincerely, Tamra Biasco Chief, Risk Analysis Branch Mitigation Division JS