Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011

Transcription

1 Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DW-12

2 DW Atkins North America, Inc.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... SECTION 1 Planning Process..SECTION 2 Community Profile...SECTION 3 Hazard Identification.. SECTION 4 Hazard Profiles... SECTION 5 Vulnerability Assessment..SECTION 6 Capability Assessment SECTION 7 Mitigation Strategy...SECTION 8 Mitigation Action Plan...SECTION 9 Plan Maintenance...SECTION 10 Plan Adoption...APPENDIX A Planning Tools...APPENDIX B Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk...APPENDIX C Planning Process Documentation...APPENDIX D Changes to Mitigation Actions...APPENDIX E Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdicational Hazard Mitigation Plan

4 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a general introduction to the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It consists of the following five subsections: 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Scope 1.4 Authority 1.5 Summary of Plan Contents 1.1 BACKGROUND Natural hazards, such as hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes, are a part of the world around us. Their occurrence is natural and inevitable, and there is little we can do to control their force and intensity. We must consider these hazards to be legitimate and significant threats to human life, safety and property. Spartanburg County is located in the northwestern part of South Carolina. This area is vulnerable to a wide range of natural hazards, including severe thunderstorms, wind storms, flooding, and landslides. It is also vulnerable to human-caused hazards, including hazardous material spills and acts of terrorism. These hazards threaten the life and safety of residents in Spartanburg County, and have the potential to damage or destroy both public and private property, disrupt the local economy and impact the overall quality of life of individuals who live, work, and vacation in the county. While the threat from hazardous events may never be fully eliminated, there is much we can do to lessen their potential impact upon our community and our citizens. By minimizing the impact of hazards upon our built environment, we can prevent such events from resulting in disasters. The concept and practice of reducing risks to people and property from known hazards is generally referred to as hazard mitigation. FEMA Definition of Hazard Mitigation: Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Hazard mitigation techniques include both structural measures (such as strengthening or protecting buildings and infrastructure from the destructive forces of potential hazards) and non-structural measures (such as the adoption of sound land use policies and the creation of public awareness programs). It is widely accepted that the most effective mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the regulation and control of development are ultimately made. A comprehensive mitigation approach addresses hazard vulnerabilities that exist today and in the foreseeable future. Therefore it is essential that projected patterns of future development are evaluated and considered in terms of how that growth will increase or decrease a community s overall hazard vulnerability. 1:1

5 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION A key component in the formulation of a comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation is to develop, adopt, and update as needed a local hazard mitigation plan. A hazard mitigation plan establishes the broad community vision and guiding principles for reducing hazard risk, and further proposes specific mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce identified vulnerabilities. This draws from the county s plans and documents its efforts to incorporate hazard mitigation principles and practices into routine government activities and functions. At its core, the plan recommends specific actions to minimize hazard vulnerability and protect residents from losses to those hazards that pose the greatest risk. These mitigation actions go beyond simply recommending structural solutions to reduce existing vulnerability, such as elevation, retrofitting and acquisition projects. Local policies on community growth and development, incentives for natural resource protection, and public awareness and outreach activities are examples of other actions recommended to reduce Spartanburg County s vulnerability to identified hazards. The plan remains a living document, with implementation and evaluation procedures established to help achieve meaningful objectives and successful outcomes over time The Disaster Mitigation Act and the Flood Insurance Reform Act In an effort to reduce the Nation's mounting natural disaster losses, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) in order to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Section 322 of DMA 2000 emphasizes the need for state and local government entities to closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities, and makes the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funds. These funds include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, both of which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Department of Homeland Security. Communities with an adopted and federally-approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes. Additionally, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L ) created two new grant programs: Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC), and modified the existing Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. One of the requirements of this Act is that a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan is now required if communities wish to be eligible for these FEMA mitigation programs. Communities with an adopted and federally-approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become prepositioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes. The has been prepared in coordination with FEMA Region IV and the South Carolina Emergency Management Division (SCEMD) to ensure that the Plan meets all applicable FEMA and state requirements for hazard mitigation plans. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, provides a summary of federal and state minimum standards and notes the location where each requirement is met within the Plan. 1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of the is to: Develop a stand-alone county plan that includes the participating jurisdictions; Complete update of existing plans to demonstrate progress and reflect current conditions; Increase public awareness and education; Maintain grant eligibility for participating jurisdictions; Update plans in accordance with Community Rating System (CRS) requirements; and 1:2

6 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Maintain compliance with state and federal legislative requirements for local hazard mitigation plans. 1.3 SCOPE The focus of the is on those hazards determined to be high or moderate risks to Spartanburg County, as determined through a detailed hazard risk assessment. Other hazards that pose a low or negligible risk will continue to be evaluated during future updates to the Plan, but they may not be fully addressed until they are determined to be of high or moderate risk. This enables the participating counties to prioritize mitigation actions based on those hazards which are understood to present the greatest risk to lives and property. The geographic scope (i.e., the planning area) for the Plan includes all areas within the unincorporated jurisdiction of Spartanburg County, as well as incorporated cities and towns expect the City of Greer. 1 Table 1.1 lists each participating jurisdictions. TABLE 5.1: PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS FOR THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Campobello Cowpens Inman Lyman Reidville Wellford Chesnee Duncan Landrum Pacolet Spartanburg Woodruff Unincorporated Spartanburg County 1 The City of Greer opted not to participate in this plan, because it has a recently approved plan in place. Officials from the City of Greer attended some meetings, and expressed interest in participating in the future. 1:3

7 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.4 AUTHORITY The has been developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans, and has been adopted by each participating county and local jurisdiction in accordance with standard local procedures. Copies of the adoption resolutions for each participating jurisdiction are provided in Appendix A. The Plan shall be routinely monitored and revised to maintain compliance with the following provisions, rules and legislation: Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L ); FEMA's Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Part 201; and, Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L ). 1.5 SUMMARY OF PLAN CONTENTS The contents of this Plan are designed and organized to be as reader-friendly and functional as possible. While significant background information is included on the processes used and studies completed (i.e., risk assessment, capability assessment), this information is separated from the more meaningful planning outcomes or actions (i.e., mitigation strategy, mitigation action plan). Section 2: Planning Process, provides a complete narrative description of the process used to prepare the Plan. This includes the identification of participants on the planning team, and how the public and other stakeholders were involved. It also includes a detailed summary for each of the key meetings held, along with any associated outcomes. The Community Profile, located in Section 3, provides a general overview of Spartanburg County, including prevalent geographic, demographic and economic characteristics. In addition, building characteristics and land use patterns are discussed. This baseline information provides a snapshot of the planning area and helps local officials recognize those social, environmental and economic factors that ultimately play a role in determining the county s vulnerability to hazards. The Risk Assessment is presented in three sections: Section 4: Hazard Identification; Section 5: Hazard Profiles; and Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment. Together, these sections serve to identify, analyze and assess hazards that pose a threat to Spartanburg County. The risk assessment also attempts to define any hazard risks that may uniquely or exclusively affect specific areas of the county. The Risk Assessment begins by identifying hazards that threaten Spartanburg County. Next, detailed profiles are established for each hazard, building on available historical data from past hazard occurrences, spatial extent, and probability of future occurrence. This section culminates in a hazard risk ranking based on conclusions regarding the frequency of occurrence, spatial extent, and potential impact highlighted in each of the hazard profiles. In the vulnerability assessment, FEMA s HAZUS MH loss estimation methodology is used to evaluate known hazard risks by their relative long-term cost in expected damages. In essence, the information generated through the risk assessment serves a critical function as Spartanburg County seeks to determine the most appropriate mitigation actions to pursue and implement enabling it to prioritize and focus its efforts on those hazards of greatest concern and those structures or planning areas facing the greatest risk(s). The Capability Assessment, found in Section 7, provides a comprehensive examination of Spartanburg County s capacity to implement meaningful mitigation strategies and identifies opportunities to increase and enhance that capacity. Specific capabilities addressed in this section include planning and regulatory 1:4

8 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION capability, staff and organizational (administrative) capability, technical capability, fiscal capability, and political capability. Information was obtained through the use of detailed survey questionnaires for local officials and an inventory and analysis of existing plans, ordinances and relevant documents. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts in programs or activities that may hinder mitigation efforts, and to identify those activities that should be built upon in establishing a successful and sustainable local hazard mitigation program. The Community Profile, Risk Assessment, and Capability Assessment collectively serve as a basis for determining the goals for the, each contributing to the development, adoption and implementation of a meaningful and manageable Mitigation Strategy that is based on accurate background information. The Mitigation Strategy, found in Section 8, consists of broad goal statements as well as an analysis of hazard mitigation techniques for Spartanburg County to consider in reducing hazard vulnerabilities. The strategy provides the foundation for a detailed Mitigation Action Plan, found in Section 9, which links specific mitigation actions for each county department or agency to locally-assigned implementation mechanisms and target completion dates. Together, these sections are designed to make the Plan both strategic, through the identification of long-term goals, and functional, through the identification of immediate and short-term actions that will guide day-to-day decision-making and project implementation. In addition to the identification and prioritization of possible mitigation projects, emphasis is placed on the use of program and policy alternatives to help make Spartanburg County less vulnerable to the damaging forces of hazards while improving the economic, social and environmental health of the community. The concept of multi-objective planning was emphasized throughout the planning process, particularly in identifying ways to link, where possible, hazard mitigation policies and programs with complimentary community goals related to disaster recovery, housing, economic development, recreational opportunities, transportation improvements, environmental quality, land development, and public health and safety. Plan Maintenance Procedures, found in Section 10, includes the measures that Spartanburg County will take to ensure the Plan s continuous long-term implementation. The procedures also include the manner in which the Plan will be regularly evaluated and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document. 1:5

9 SECTION 2 PLANNING PROCESS 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(1): The plan shall include documentation of 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. This section describes the planning process undertaken Spartanburg County in the development of its 2011 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It consists of the following seven subsections: 2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning 2.2 History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Spartanburg County 2.3 Preparing the 2011 Plan 2.4 The Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC) 2.5 Community Meetings and Workshops 2.6 Involving the Public 2.7 Involving the Stakeholders 2.8 Documentation of Plan Progress 2.1 OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Local hazard mitigation planning is the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks, and determining how to best minimize or manage those risks. This process culminates in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific mitigation actions, each designed to achieve both short-term planning objectives and a long-term community vision. To ensure the functionality of a hazard mitigation plan, responsibility is assigned for each proposed mitigation action to a specific individual, department or agency along with a schedule or target completion date for its implementation (see Section 10: Plan Maintenance). Plan maintenance procedures are established for the routine monitoring of implementation progress, as well as the evaluation and enhancement of the mitigation plan itself. These plan maintenance procedures ensure that the plan remains a current, dynamic and effective planning document over time that becomes integrated into the routine local decision making process. Communities that participate in hazard mitigation planning have the potential to accomplish many benefits, including: saving lives and property saving money speeding recovery following disasters reducing future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction expediting the receipt of pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding 2:1

10 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS demonstrating a firm commitment to improving community health and safety Typically, mitigation planning is described as having the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster loss. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that the investments made before a hazard event will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices will enable local residents, businesses and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community economy back on track sooner and with less interruption. The benefits of mitigation planning go beyond solely reducing hazard vulnerability. Measures such as the acquisition or regulation of land in known hazard areas can help achieve multiple community goals, such as preserving open space, maintaining environmental health and enhancing recreational opportunities. Thus, it is vitally important that any local mitigation planning process be integrated with other concurrent local planning efforts, and any proposed mitigation strategies must take into account other existing community goals or initiatives that will help complement or hinder their future implementation. 2.2 HISTORY OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Spartanburg County had a previously adopted regional hazard mitigation plan. This plan, Appalachian Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was completed in March It included five counties and the 36 jurisdictions within them. This plan was developed using the multi-jurisdictional planning process recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For this plan, Spartanburg County is developing a single county, multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. No new jurisdictions have joined the process. However, the City of Greer opted not to participate in this planning effort, as they have an existing hazard mitigation plan for their city. 2.3 PREPARING THE 2010 PLAN Hazard mitigation plans are required to be updated every five years to remain eligible for federal mitigation and public assistance funding. To prepare the 2011 Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Spartanburg County hired Atkins as an outside consultant to provide professional mitigation planning services. Per the contractual scope of work, the consultant team followed the mitigation planning process recommended by FEMA (Publication Series 386) and recommendations provided by South Carolina Emergency Management Division (SCEMD) mitigation planning staff 1. The Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, provides a detailed summary of FEMA s current minimum standards of acceptability for compliance with DMA 2000 and notes the location where each requirement is met within this Plan. These standards are based upon FEMA s Interim Final Rule as published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 in Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The planning team used FEMA s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (last revised in July 2008) for reference as they completed the Plan. Although an existing plan was in place, the change in study area from a regional plan to a single county multi-jurisdictional plan required making some plan update revisions based on FEMA s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. (Section 2.4 describes the review process and decisions to re-write the 1 A copy of the negotiated contractual scope of work between the county and Atkins is available through the Spartanburg County upon request. 2:2

11 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS existing plan.) Since all sections of the regional plan are technically new, all plan update requirements may not apply. However, since this is the first Spartanburg County plan, key elements from the previous approved plan are referenced throughout the document (e.g., existing actions with an updated status) and required a discussion of changes made. For example, all of the risk assessment elements needed to be updated to include the most recent information. It was also necessary to formulate a set of goals for the county, but they are based on previously determined goals (Section 8: Mitigation Strategy). The Capability Assessment section includes updated information for all of the participating jurisdictions and the Mitigation Action Plan provides implementation status updates for all of the actions identified in the previous plans. The process used to prepare this Plan included twelve (12) major steps that were completed over the course of approximately four months beginning in May Each of these planning steps (illustrated in Figure 2.1) resulted in critical work products and outcomes that collectively make up the Plan. Specific plan sections are further described in Section 1: Introduction. The Mitigation Action Plan provides a status update from the county on the actions formulated from the previous plan, as well as new actions for each of the participating jurisdictions. The Capability Assessment also documents the capabilities of each participating jurisdiction to implement the Mitigation Strategy. FIGURE 2.1: MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY 2:3

12 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS 2.4 SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE In order to guide the development of this Plan, Spartanburg County created the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC or SCHM Planning Committee). The SCHMPC represents a community-based planning team made up of representatives from various county departments and municipalities and other key stakeholders identified to serve as critical partners in the planning process. Beginning in May 2011, the SCHMPC members engaged in regular discussions as well as local meetings and planning workshops to discuss and complete tasks associated with preparing the Plan. This working group coordinated on all aspects of plan preparation and provided valuable input to the process. It was upon analyzing each section of the existing plan, the SCHMPC decided to re-write the entire plan (with the assistance of Atkins) in order to best include the jurisdictions and meet the federal requirements. Throughout the planning process, committee members routinely communicated and were kept informed through an distribution list. Several specific tasks were also assigned to the SCHMPC members: participate in SCHMPC meetings and workshops provide best available data as required for the risk assessment portion of the Plan help complete the local Capability Assessment Survey and provide copies of any mitigation or hazard-related documents for review and incorporation into the Plan support the development of the Mitigation Strategy, including the design and adoption of community goal statements help design and propose appropriate mitigation actions for their department/agency for incorporation into the Mitigation Action Plan review and provide timely comments on all study findings and draft plan deliverables support the adoption of the 2011 Table 2.1 lists the members of the SCHMPC who were responsible for participating in the development of the Plan. TABLE 2.1: MEMBERS OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE NAME TITLE JURISDICTION AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Alan Johnson Department Head Wastewater Division Town of Lyman Municipality Terry Richards Police Chief Town of Lyman Municipality Danny Swofford Fire Chief Town of Chesnee Municipality Harrison Goodwin Asst Superintendent of Spartanburg School District Operations/Administrati Spartanburg County One ve Procedures Sabrina Mason Director Spartanburg County Finance Department Lisa Benfield Director Spartanburg County Internal Audit Kathy Rivers Director Spartanburg County Community Development Department Jeff Straub Candy Bright Emergency Management Coordinator Safety and Regulatory Manager at Village Hospital Spartanburg County Spartanburg County Spartanburg Regional Medical Center/Healthcare System Village Hospital Bill McPherson Director Maintenance Spartanburg County Spartanburg School District 2:4

13 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS NAME TITLE JURISDICTION AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Three Jane Morris Emergency Services Specialist Spartanburg County American Red Cross Robbie Swofford Senior Research Analyst/CERT Spartanburg County Emergency Management Coordinator Mike Padgett Director Spartanburg County Building Codes Tony Barnett Fire Marshall Spartanburg County Office of Fire Marshall Bill Hall Deputy Fire Marshall Spartanburg County Office of Fire Marshall Terry Booker Risk Manager Spartanburg County Risk Management Doug Bryson Coordinator Spartanburg County Emergency Management Fred W. Gossett Town Administrator Town of Cowpens Municipality David Sellars Spartanburg County Roads and Bridges Department DJ Neubauer Corporate Emergency Manager/SRMC Safety Officer Spartanburg County Spartanburg Regional Medical Center/Healthcare System Chris Cothran Fire Chief City of Inman Municipality Johnny Ravan Department Head Spartanburg County Roads and Bridges Department Keith Tucker Police Chief City of Inman Municipality Steven Wolochowicz Town Administrator Town of Landrum Municipality Ron Kirby Floodplain Manager Spartanburg County Engineering Department Elaine Harris Mayor Town of Pacolet Municipality Dale Worthy Fire Chief Town of Pacolet Pacolet Fire District Buddy Bush Building Official City of Spartanburg Municipality Connie S. McIntyre Clerk/ Clerk to Mayor and Council City of Spartanburg Municipality Stephen Steese City Administrator City of Woodruff Municipality Tommy Watson Mayor City of Wellford Municipality Barry Frost Fire Chief Town of Duncan Municipality Eddie McNeil Fire Chief Town of Campobello Municipality Patrick Evatt Fire Chief Town of Reidville Municipality Additional participation and input from other identified stakeholders and the general public was sought by the participating areas of Spartanburg County during the planning process through phone calls and the distribution of s, advertisements, surveys, and public notices aimed at informing people on the status of the Hazard Mitigation Plan (public and stakeholder involvement is further discussed later in this section) Multi-Jurisdictional Participation The includes one county, its unincorporated areas, and twelve incorporated municipalities. To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, the county and participating jurisdictions were required to perform the following tasks: Participate in mitigation planning workshops; Provide data for the Risk Assessment if needed; Complete the Local Capability Assessment Survey; Identify completed mitigation projects, if applicable; and 2:5

14 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS Develop and adopt (or update) their local Mitigation Action Plan Each jurisdiction participated in the planning process and has developed a local Mitigation Action Plan unique to their jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction will adopt their Mitigation Action Plan separately. This provides the means for jurisdictions to monitor and update their Plan on a regular basis. 2.5 COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS The preparation of this Plan required a series of meetings and workshops for facilitating discussion, gaining consensus and initiating data collection efforts with local government staff, community officials and other identified stakeholders. More importantly, the meetings and workshops prompted continuous input and feedback from relevant participants throughout the drafting stages of the Plan. The following is a summary of the key meetings and community workshops held during the development of the plan update. 2 In many cases, routine discussions and additional meetings were held by local staff to accomplish planning tasks specific to their department or agency, such as the approval of specific mitigation actions for their department or agency to undertake and include in the Mitigation Action Plan. May 12, 2011 Project Kickoff Meeting The first meeting of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC) was held on May 12, 2011 during which the mitigation plan update process was presented to all participating municipal jurisdictions and invited stakeholders. The intent of this meeting was to educate officials from all participating municipal jurisdictions on the mitigation plan update process being sponsored by Spartanburg County, as well as to explain the DMA 2000 multi-jurisdictional planning requirements and the individual roles being required and assigned to each of the committee members. The meeting also served to initiate the preliminary data collection efforts for the risk and capability assessment tasks associated with the development of the Plan. The meeting began with a detailed presentation on the mitigation plan update process led by the project team from Atkins. 3 During the presentation, the concept of hazard mitigation was reviewed, followed by a more detailed discussion of the local mitigation plan update process to be followed in Spartanburg County. Ideas on how to improve and/or expedite the process were solicited from committee members, along with potential strategies for overcoming known barriers to accomplishing project tasks in a timely fashion. Specific data collection needs were thoroughly explained, including the need for any unique local hazard risk data available for specific areas of concern. Atkins also reviewed the roles and responsibilities of Spartanburg County, the SCHMPC, and Atkins. The proposed outline for the Spartanburg County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was also shared with the committee for review and comment. In addition to the presentation, Atkins led an icebreaker exercise to get the committee thinking about mitigation. To conduct the Icebreaker Exercise, participants were given $20.00 in fake FEMA money to spend in the categories of Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects, Emergency Services, and Public Education/Awareness. The money could be divided in any way to show interest in a single or multiple mitigation categories. The intent of the exercise is to show where the community s mitigation priorities may lie. Such knowledge may help formulate new mitigation actions for 2 Copies of the agendas, sign-in sheets, minutes and handout materials for all meetings and workshops can be found in Appendix B. 3 Copies of all Microsoft PowerPoint presentation slides are available through Spartanburg County upon request. Margaret Walton and Nathan Slaughter represented the project team from Atkins. 2:6

15 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS the Mitigation Action Plan. These results were presented at the following meeting to re-introduce mitigation and the desires of the committee. Following the presentation on the mitigation planning process, the project team from Atkins addressed any questions and concerns raised by the committee. These were primarily related to the hazards to be addressed in the planning process, the methodologies and data requirements for completing the risk and capability assessments, and the types of mitigation actions each jurisdiction should consider adding to their Mitigation Action Plans. Attendees at the meeting included members from the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation. The SPHMPC includes County representatives; a leader from each participating municipality; and other vested parties from the county, such as the school districts, hospital systems, and the American Red Cross. (A list of attendees can be found in Appendix D.) The scope of this meeting was to provide information to all of the entities within Spartanburg County. August 17, 2011 Mitigation Strategy Meeting The second Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC) meeting was held on August 17, 2011 in the form of a two hour presentation and discussion. Margaret Walton, Project Manager led the meeting. Caroline Cunningham and Nathan Slaughter were also in attendance from Atkins. Attendees included members of participating jurisdiction, South Carolina Emergency Management, and Stakeholders such as the Red Cross. Ms. Walton commenced the meeting with a review of the project schedule and recap of the ice-breaker results. Next, Ms. Cunningham provided a detailed presentation on the findings of the Risk Assessment. Ms. Walton then presented information on the Capability Assessment, Public Surveys, and Mitigation Strategy. By providing county and municipal officials with a more thorough understanding of the hazard risks in their communities, along with the varied levels of local capabilities available to address them, the stage became set for the next step in the update process - review of the current mitigation planning goals and specific mitigation actions designed to reduce future impacts of the identified hazards. To summarize, the following general findings were presented and discussed during the workshop. 4 Icebreaker Results The Icebreaker exercise was conducted during the SCHMPC kick-off meeting. Attendees were given an equal amount of money to allocate into six categories Emergency Services, Prevention, Public Education, Structural Projects, Natural Resource Protection, and Property Protection. Attendees were asked to distribute their money as if they were given grants towards emergency management, preparedness, and mitigation. The results were as follows: Emergency Services $131 Prevention $105 Public Education $54 Structural Projects $34 Natural Resource Protection $29 Property Protection $26 4 For more detailed information on the findings presented at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop, please refer to the PowerPoint slides available through Spartanburg County upon request. 2:7

16 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS Risk Assessment Findings The hazard list from the previous plan was re-examined since the update focused solely on the county and was no long regional. The hazard list was expanded to included Extreme Heat, Lightning, Thunderstorm, and Landslide hazards. There is approximately $30 billion in total estimated building exposure across the county, based on the estimated building value from Hazus-MH MR4. This includes a total of 114,662 buildings of which 105,405 are residential, 5,872 are commercial, and 3,385 are classified as other. The top three natural hazards based upon the qualitative assessment are: (1) Drought; (2) Tornado; and (3) Winter Storm and Freeze. The top three natural hazards based upon the quantitative assessment (ranked by estimated annualized loss) are: (1) Tornado; (2) Flood; and (3) Earthquake. Based upon a combination of the qualitative and quantitative assessments, the three high risk hazards for Spartanburg County are (1) Drought; (2) Tornado; and (3) Winter Storm and Freeze. Detailed information on these findings can be found in Section 5: Hazard Analysis and Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment. Capability Assessment Discussion Ten communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); no communities have applied to participate in the NFIP s Community Rating System (CRS). However, this is something that the county has investigated and found that joining the CRS would likely be a greater than cost than benefit due to the small number of at-risk flood properties in the counties. A majority of the jurisdictions have the following plans or ordinances in place: hazard mitigation plan, comprehensive land use plan, storm water management plan, emergency operations plan, zoning ordinance, and flood damage prevention ordinance. Regarding Planning and Regulatory Capability, most jurisdictions are in a moderate or high category. Regarding Administrative and Technical Capability, jurisdictions varied based on having grant writing, GIS, and emergency management staff. Regarding Fiscal Capability, most jurisdictions were in the low to moderate range. Details pertaining to capability scoring can be found in Section 7: Capability Assessment. Public Survey Results The public survey was made available on the Spartanburg Emergency Management website for three weeks prior to this meeting. There were a total of five respondents. Tornado was found to be the greatest hazard to a respondent s neighborhood (80%), followed by winter storm and freeze (20%). Thunderstorm was found to be the second greatest threat to a respondent s neighborhood (60%), followed by winter storm and freeze (20%) and extreme heat (20%). All respondents expressed interested in making their homes more resistant to hazards Sixty percent of respondents (3 out of 5) did not know who to contact regarding reducing risks to hazards. As part of the presentation, interactive participation was encouraged in order to address questions and discuss potential concerns. The attendees only had one question, which was curiosity as to why Greer was not included in the risk assessment results. Atkins explained that the City of Greer was invited to participate but had an existing plan in place. A representative from the City of Greer was at the meeting and further explained that the city may be interested in participating in future updates of the plan. Review of Existing Mitigation Plan Goals, Objectives and Actions The existing goals from the 2005 Appalachian Council of Governments were presented to the committee. The SCHMPC was asked to review the goals and objectives found on the handout and in the presentation 2:8

17 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS and provide feedback. The committee found that the goals and objectives were reasonable and applicable, so no changes were made. The goals are listed in Section 8 of this plan. The existing actions from the previous plan were being updated at the county level with input from jurisdictions and stakeholders when necessary. Several copies of the Previous Mitigation Action Plan were presented, so that all committee members could review as well. In addition, each jurisdiction was tasked with devising new actions for their jurisdictions based on the specific needs. In order to complete this task, Atkins distributed and explained the Mitigation Action Worksheets, forms used to propose new mitigation actions and to provide a status update for existing mitigation actions. Meeting participants were instructed to take these materials back to their individual jurisdictions to begin proposing and prioritizing new actions and reviewing existing mitigation actions for final submission to Atkins no later than August 24, The status of existing mitigation actions, as well as any new mitigation actions can be found in Section 9: Mitigation Action Plan. 2.6 INVOLVING THE PUBLIC 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(1): The planning process shall include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. An important component of the mitigation planning process involved public participation. Individual citizen and community-based input provides the entire planning team with a greater understanding of local concerns and increases the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation actions by developing community buy-in from those directly affected by the decisions of public officials. As citizens become more involved in decisions that affect their safety, they are more likely to gain a greater appreciation of the hazards present in their community and take the steps necessary to reduce their impact. Public awareness is a key component of any community s overall mitigation strategy aimed at making a home, neighborhood, school, business or entire city safer from the potential effects of hazards. Public involvement in the development of the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was sought using two methods: (1) open public meetings and (2) survey instruments. Public meetings were held at two distinct periods during the planning process: (1) during the drafting stage of the Plan; and (2) upon completion of a final draft Plan, but prior to official plan approval and adoption. A public participation survey (discussed in greater detail in Section 2.6.1) was made available during the planning process via the county s website. The two rounds of open public meetings that were held during the development of this Plan which coincided with the SCHMPC meetings described above. However, no members of the present were public in either meeting. A final public meeting is also held before the final plan is officially adopted by the local governing bodies. These meetings will occur at different times once FEMA granted conditional approval of the plan. Adoption resolutions have been included in Appendix A Public Participation Survey Since the open public meetings failed to draw large public attendance, the county also attempted to involve citizens through the use of the Public Participation Survey. The Public Participation Survey was designed to capture data and information from residents of Spartanburg County that might not be able to attend public meetings or participate through other means in the mitigation planning process. 2:9

18 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS An electronic version of the Public Participation Survey was posted on the county s website for several weeks (July 20 August 16) as shown in Figure 2.2. A total of 5 survey responses were received. Although the number of respondents was small, the information was helpful for the SCHMPC to consider in the development of the plan update. Selected survey results are presented below. Respondents included those from Unincorporated Spartanburg County (3), Duncan (1), and Spartanburg (1). None of the respondents live in a floodplain but one member did have flood insurance. The public survey was made available on the Spartanburg Emergency Management website for three weeks prior to this meeting. There were a total of five respondents. Tornado was found to be the greatest hazard to a respondent s neighborhood (80%), followed by winter storm and freeze (20%). Thunderstorm was found to be the second greatest threat to a respondent s neighborhood (60%), followed by winter storm and freeze (20%) and extreme heat (20%). Three out of five responses indicated that people had prepared their homes to be more resistant by developing a small disaster kit and participating in CERT trainings. (Such actions are not necessary directed to making the structure of the house more resistant to hazards, indicating an area of potential public awareness. All respondents expressed interested in making their homes more resistant to hazards. Four out of five respondents indicated that internet was the best way to receive information about how to make a home more resistant to hazards. Sixty percent of respondents (3 out of 5) did not who to contact regarding reducing risks to hazards. 2:10

19 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS FIGURE 2.2: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY LINK ON SPARTANBURG COUNTY A copy of the survey and a detailed summary of the survey results are provided in Appendix B. 2.7 INVOLVING THE STAKEHOLDERS 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(2): The planning process shall include an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process. In addition to the SCPHMPC meetings, Spartanburg County encouraged more open and widespread participation in the mitigation planning process through the design and posting of public notices and newspaper advertisements that promoted the open public meetings (described earlier in this Section). The county also went above and beyond in its local outreach efforts through the design and availability of the Public Participation Survey. These media advertisements and survey instruments provided 2:11

20 SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS opportunities for local officials, residents, businesses, academia and other private interests in the county to be involved and offer input throughout the local mitigation planning process. Despite these outreach efforts, no additional stakeholders participated on the TRRHMPC other than those participants listed in Section 2.4. A representative from the American Red Cross attended the public meetings discussed in Section 2.6. Submissions of the public survey mentioned in section were anonymous, so it is not possible to tell what, if any, stakeholders submitted hard copy or internet-based surveys. 2.8 DOCUMENTATION OF PLAN PROGRESS Progress in hazard mitigation planning for the participating jurisdictions in Spartanburg County is documented in this plan update. Since hazard mitigation planning efforts officially began in the participating communities with the development of the initial regional hazard mitigation plan in the mid 2000s, many mitigation actions have been completed and implemented in the participating jurisdictions. These actions will help reduce the overall risk to natural hazards for the people and property in county. The actions that have been completed are documented in the Mitigation Action Plan found in Section 8: Mitigation Strategy. In addition, community capability continues to improve with the implementation of new plans, policies and programs that help to promote hazard mitigation at the local level. The current state of local capabilities for the participating jurisdictions is captured in Section 7: Capability Assessment. The participating jurisdictions continue to demonstrate their commitment to hazard mitigation and hazard mitigation planning and have proven this by reconvening the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team to update the plan and by continuing to involve the public in the hazard mitigation planning process. 2:12

21 SECTION 3 COMMUNITY PROFILE This section of the Plan provides a general overview of Spartanburg County. It consists of the following four subsections: 3.1 Geography and the Environment 3.2 Population and Demographics 3.3 Housing, Infrastructure and Land Use 3.4 Employment and Industry 3.1 GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Spartanburg County is located in the northwest portion of South Carolina, southeast of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the piedmont plateau. The county is bordered on the east by Cherokee and Union Counties, on the south by Laurens County, on the west by Greenville County, and on the north by the State of North Carolina. An orientation map is provided as Figure 3.1. Spartanburg County has a total area of 819 square miles, comprised of 811 square miles of land and 8 square miles of water. Approximately 52 percent of the land cover is forested with most large forested stands located in the south and east. The topography across the county generally slopes southeastward with a range in elevation from over 1,000 feet to under 600 feet. The major surface water resources in Spartanburg County include Lake Blalock, Lake Bowen, the Pacolet River, and the Tyger River. However, ground water is the principal source of water for rural homes and farms as well as some small-sized industries. The climate in Spartanburg County is characterized as humid and temperate. Being located on the lee side of the mountains, the county is protected from cold air masses that move towards the southeast during the winter months. The average temperatures ( F) range from 32 degrees in the winter to 90 degrees in the summer and the average annual precipitation is about 50 inches. 3:1

22 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE FIGURE 3.1: SPARTANBURG COUNTY ORIENTATION MAP 3.2 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS Spartanburg County had a population of 284,307 people in Based on data from the US Census Bureau, the annual rate of population growth has remained relatively stable over the last century. The average rate of growth was 1.1 percent per year from 1990 to 2000 and 1.2 percent per year from 2000 to Figure 3.2 charts the population growth in the county from 1900 to 2010 with data provided by the US Census Bureau. Table 3.1 shows population counts for the participating jurisdictions from 2000 to :2

23 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE FIGURE 3.2: SPARTANBURG COUNTY POPULATION CHANGE TABLE 3.1: POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS Jurisdiction 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Census % Change Population Population Population SPARTANBURG COUNTY 226, , , % CAMPOBELLO % CHESNEE 1,280 1, % COWPENS 2,176 2,279 2, % DUNCAN 2,152 2,870 3, % INMAN 1,742 1,884 2, % LANDRUM 2,347 2,472 2, % LYNMAN 2,271 2,659 3, % PACOLET 1,736 2,690 2, % REIDVILLE % SPARTANBURG 43,467 39,673 37, % WELLFORD 2,511 2,030 2, % WOODRUFF 4,365 4,229 4, % UNINCORPORATED SPARTANBURG COUNTY 151, , , % Source: US Census Bureau Based on the 2010 Census, the median age for the county is 38.0 years. It is estimated that 13.4 percent of the population is made up of persons that are 65 years old and over and 6.7 percent is made up of persons that are under 5 years old. The age brackets that comprise the highest percentage of 3:3

24 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE overall population the county is the 15 to 19-year old and 45 to 49-year-old bracket, which each make up 7.4 percent of the county s total population. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Spartanburg County is 72.3 percent white and 20.6 percent black or African American. All other races accounted for only 7.1 percent of the population and 5.9 percent of the county s population reported being of Hispanic origin. The racial characteristics of the county and participating jurisdictions are presented in Table 3.2. Jurisdiction TABLE 3.2: DEMOGRAPHICS OF PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS White Persons, Percent (2010) Black Persons, Percent (2010) Other Race, Percent (2010) Persons of Hispanic Origin, Percent (2010)* SPARTANBURG COUNTY 72.3% 20.6% 7.1% 5.9% CAMPOBELLO 86.7% 9.4% 3.9% 1.6% CHESNEE 66.0% 27.1% 6.9% 4.4% COWPENS 73.9% 21.2% 4.9% 4.3% DUNCAN 60.9% 30.5% 8.6% 9.2% INMAN 68.9% 24.4% 6.7% 3.3% LANDRUM 81.5% 13.0% 5.5% 4.3% LYNMAN 84.9% 10.7% 4.4% 3.7% PACOLET 75.7% 21.7% 2.6% 1.1% REIDVILLE 86.7% 7.0% 6.3% 3.0% SPARTANBURG 45.6% 49.3% 5.1% 3.4% WELLFORD 47.7% 46.5% 5.8% 4.2% WOODRUFF 66.5% 25.2% 8.3% 7.7% UNINCORPORATED SPARTANBURG COUNTY 77.7% 15.3% 7.0% 5.3% Source: US Census Bureau *Hispanics may be of any race, so they are also included in applicable race categories. 3.3 HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE Housing According to the US Census Bureau s 2009 American Community Survey, there are 120,715 housing units in the county. Of these structures, 70 percent are single-unit and 14.8 percent are multi-unit. The remaining 15.2 percent are mobile homes. The median value of a home is $111,600. The age distribution of the county s housing stock in 2009 as reported by the American Community Survey is as follows: Pre percent 1940 to percent 1950 to percent 1960 to percent 1970 to percent 1980 to percent 1990 to percent 2000 or later percent 3:4

25 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE Infrastructure Transportation There are several major highways that travel through Spartanburg County including Interstates 85 and 26 and US Highways 29, 176, and 221. Interstate 85 runs southwest to northeast while Interstate 26 runs generally north to south. US Highway 29 cuts across the mid-portion of the county from east to west while US Highway 176 runs northwest to southeast and the two intersect in the City of Spartanburg. US Highway 221 travels from northeast to southwest. The Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport is located just off of Interstate 85 in the western portion of the county between the cities of Spartanburg and Greer. Since becoming an international airport in 1995, passenger and cargo traffic have significantly increased. The airport is now served by 21 passenger airlines with 60 flights daily to 18 destinations. Rail service in Spartanburg County is provided by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation which operate the first and second longest track routes in the state respectively. The county is also served by Amtrak. Utilities Electric power in Spartanburg County is provided by Duke Energy Carolina, Broad River Electric Cooperative, Laurens Electric Cooperative, Lockhart Power Company, and Greer Commission of Public (CPW) Works. The largest electric provider is Duke Energy and it extends to all but one incorporated area and most urban developed areas in the county. The Spartanburg Water Commission is the principal provider of water in the county. In addition to the direct water service it offers to the central area of the county, it also supplies treated water for distribution throughout most of the remainder of the county. Water service areas and providers not supplied by the Spartanburg Water Commission include the Greer CPW, City of Landrum, and Blue Ridge Rural Water Company. Community Facilities There are a number of public buildings and community facilities located throughout Spartanburg County. The county currently operates out of 9 facilities. According to the data collected for the vulnerability assessment (Section 6.3.3) from Hazus-MH, there are 97 schools, 33 fire stations, 11 police stations, 5 hospitals, and 1 Emergency Operations Center within the study area. Two hospitals are located in Spartanburg County. They are Spartanburg Regional Medical Center and B.J. Workman Memorial Hospital. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center is a 588-bed major teaching and research hospital and is one of the largest employers in the county, employing more than 3,500 people. B.J. Workman Memorial hospital has only 43 beds and serves the southern part of the county. Spartanburg County Public Libraries operates 11 library branches throughout the county. The Spartanburg Parks System maintains 23 local parks and Croft State Park is also located in the county. There are also additional recreational facilities provided by the Spartanburg County Recreation Depart such as ball parks and playing fields. The County also currently operates seven school districts. Higher education programs are also available including The University of South Carolina Spartanburg Campus, Spartanburg Technical College, Wofford College, Converse College, Spartanburg Methodist College, and Sherman College. 3:5

26 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE Land Use According to the Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan, in 1997, 52 percent of the county was woodlands, 25 percent was farmland, and 23 percent was urban or built up land. As the county continues to grow, more land is being converted from farmland and woodland to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. It is projected that approximately 22,000 acres of new development will be needed to accommodate the estimated population increase of 65,000 people by the year Additionally, if the ratio of population growth to farmland loss seen between 1978 and 1992 continues forward, the projected population increase for the year 2015 would remove another 100,000 acres of farmland. 3.4 EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY According to the 2009 County Business Patterns from the US Census Bureau, Spartanburg County had a total of 112,163 employees. The industries with the most employees in Spartanburg County were manufacturing (21.3 percent of total employment), health care and social assistance (12.5 percent of total employment), retail trade (12.4 percent of total employment), and accommodation and food services (9.3 percent of total employment). As mentioned above, Spartanburg Regional Medical Center is a major employer in the county. Other major employers include the Spartanburg County School System and the BMW Manufacturing Corporation. The median household income in Spartanburg County was reported as $41,981 by the US Census Bureau s 2009 American Community Survey, compared to $43,480 for the state of South Carolina. An estimated 14.4 percent of Spartanburg County s population was living below the poverty line in 2009, compared to 16.0 percent for the state as a whole. 3:6

27 SECTION 4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 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. OVERVIEW Spartanburg County is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-caused hazards that threaten life and property. Current FEMA regulations and interim guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) require, at a minimum, an evaluation of a full range of natural hazards. An evaluation of human-caused hazards (i.e., technological hazards, terrorism, etc.) is encouraged, though not required, for plan approval. Spartanburg County is focusing on natural hazards for this version of the plan, but may broaden its focus in updates. Although this is a plan update, it was decided by the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee members that a full identification should be completed since the study area of the plan was going from a regional multi-county plan to a single county, multi-jurisdictional plan. Upon a review of the full range of natural hazards suggested under FEMA planning guidance, Spartanburg County and its 12 participating municipalities, have identified a number of hazards that are to be addressed in the County Hazard Mitigation Plan. These hazards were identified through an extensive process that utilized input from the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee members, research of past disaster declarations in the participating counties 1, and review of the South Carolina State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004). Readily available information from reputable sources (such as federal and state agencies) was also evaluated to supplement information from these key sources. Table 4.1 lists the full range of natural hazards initially identified for inclusion in the plan and provides a brief description for each. This table includes 21 individual hazards. Some of these hazards are considered to be interrelated or cascading, but for preliminary hazard identification purposes these individual hazards are broken out separately. Next, Table 4.2 documents the evaluation process used for determining which of the initially identified hazards are considered significant enough for further evaluation in the risk assessment. For each hazard considered, the table indicates whether or not the hazard was identified as a significant hazard to be further assessed, how this determination was made, and why this determination was made. The table works to summarize not only those hazards that were identified (and why) but also those that were not identified (and why not). Hazard events not identified for inclusion at this time may be addressed during future evaluations and updates of the risk assessment if deemed necessary by the Planning Committee during the plan update process. 1 A complete list of disaster declarations for Spartanburg County can be found in Section 3: Community Profile. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:1

28 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Lastly, Table 4.3 provides a summary of the hazard identification and evaluation process noting that 13 of the 21 initially identified hazards are considered significant enough for further evaluation through this Plan s risk assessment (marked with a ). This list expands upon the hazards addressed in the previous plan to include Extreme Heat, Lightning, Thunderstorm, and Landslide hazards. TABLE 4.1: DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FULL RANGE OF INITIALLY IDENTIFIED HAZARDS Hazard Description ATMOSPHERIC HAZARDS Avalanche Drought Hailstorm Heat Wave Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning A rapid fall or slide of a large mass of snow down a mountainside. A prolonged period of less than normal precipitation such that the lack of water causes a serious hydrologic imbalance. Common effects of drought include crop failure, water supply shortages, and fish and wildlife mortality. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can worsen drought conditions and also make areas more susceptible to wildfire. Human demands and actions have the ability to hasten or mitigate drought-related impacts on local communities. Any storm that produces hailstones that fall to the ground; usually used when the amount or size of the hail is considered significant. Hail is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops into parts of the atmosphere where the temperatures are below freezing. A heat wave may occur when temperatures hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Humid or muggy conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when a dome of high atmospheric pressure traps hazy, damp air near the ground. Excessively dry and hot conditions can provoke dust storms and low visibility. A heat wave combined with a drought can be very dangerous and have severe economic consequences on a community. Hurricanes and tropical storms are classified as cyclones and defined as any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and with a diameter averaging 10 to 30 miles across. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane. The primary damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation and tornadoes. Coastal areas are also vulnerable to the additional forces of storm surge, wind-driven waves and tidal flooding which can be more destructive than cyclone wind. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane season, which extends from June through November. Lightning is a discharge of electrical energy resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm, creating a bolt when the buildup of charges becomes strong enough. This flash of light usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes, but the surrounding air cools Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:2

29 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Nor easter Tornado Severe Thunderstorm Winter Storm and Freeze HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS Dam and Levee Failure Erosion following the bolt. This rapid heating and cooling of the surrounding air causes thunder. On average, 73 people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the United States. Similar to hurricanes, nor easters are ocean storms capable of causing substantial damage to coastal areas in the Eastern United States due to their associated strong winds and heavy surf. Nor'easters are named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the East Coast along the Gulf Stream, a band of warm water that lies off the Atlantic coast. They are caused by the interaction of the jet stream with horizontal temperature gradients and generally occur during the fall and winter months when moisture and cold air are plentiful. Nor easters are known for dumping heavy amounts of rain and snow, producing hurricane-force winds, and creating high surf that causes severe beach erosion and coastal flooding. A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that has contact with the ground and is often visible as a funnel cloud. Its vortex rotates cyclonically with wind speeds ranging from as low as 40 mph to as high as 300 mph. Tornadoes are most often generated by thunderstorm activity when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from light to catastrophic depending on the intensity, size and duration of the storm. Thunderstorms are caused by air masses of varying temperatures meeting in the atmosphere. Rapidly rising warm moist air fuels the formation of thunderstorms. Thunderstorms may occur singularly, in lines, or in clusters. They can move through an area very quickly or linger for several hours. Thunderstorms may result in hail, tornadoes, or straight-line winds. Windstorms pose a threat to lives, property, and vital utilities primarily due to the effects of flying debris and can down trees and power lines. Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry forms of precipitation. Blizzards, the most dangerous of all winter storms, combine low temperatures, heavy snowfall, and winds of at least 35 miles per hour, reducing visibility to only a few yards. Ice storms occur when moisture falls and freezes immediately upon impact on trees, power lines, communication towers, structures, roads and other hard surfaces. Winter storms and ice storms can down trees, cause widespread power outages, damage property, and cause fatalities and injuries to human life. Dam failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure of a dam structure resulting in downstream flooding. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind even a small dam is capable of causing loss of life and severe property damage if development exists downstream of the dam. Dam failure can result from natural events, human-induced events, or a combination of the two. The most common cause of dam failure is prolonged rainfall that produces flooding. Failures due to other natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes or landslides are significant because there is generally little or no advance warning. Erosion is the gradual breakdown and movement of land due to both physical and chemical processes of water, wind, and general meteorological conditions. Natural, or geologic, erosion has occurred since the Earth s formation and continues at a very slow and uniform rate each year. Flood The accumulation of water within a water body which results in the overflow Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:3

30 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Storm Surge GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquake Expansive Soils Landslide Land Subsidence of excess water onto adjacent lands, usually floodplains. The floodplain is the land adjoining the channel of a river, stream ocean, lake or other watercourse or water body that is susceptible to flooding. Most floods fall into the following three categories: riverine flooding, coastal flooding, or shallow flooding (where shallow flooding refers to sheet flow, ponding and urban drainage). A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four to five feet in a Category 1 hurricane up to more than 30 feet in a Category 5 storm. Storm surge heights and associated waves are also dependent upon the shape of the offshore continental shelf (narrow or wide) and the depth of the ocean bottom (bathymetry). A narrow shelf, or one that drops steeply from the shoreline and subsequently produces deep water close to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful storm waves. Storm surge arrives ahead of a storm s actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Storm surge can be devastating to coastal regions, causing severe beach erosion and property damage along the immediate coast. Further, water rise caused by storm surge can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have not yet evacuated flood-prone areas. A sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the surface. This movement forces the gradual building and accumulation of energy. Eventually, strain becomes so great that the energy is abruptly released, causing the shaking at the earth s surface which we know as an earthquake. Roughly 90 percent of all earthquakes occur at the boundaries where plates meet, although it is possible for earthquakes to occur entirely within plates. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles; cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars; result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons; and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area. Soils that will exhibit some degree of volume change with variations in moisture conditions. The most important properties affecting degree of volume change in a soil are clay mineralogy and the aqueous environment. Expansive soils will exhibit expansion caused by the intake of water and, conversely, will exhibit contraction when moisture is removed by drying. Generally speaking, they often appear sticky when wet, and are characterized by surface cracks when dry. Expansive soils become a problem when structures are built upon them without taking proper design precautions into account with regard to soil type. Cracking in walls and floors can be minor, or can be severe enough for the home to be structurally unsafe. The movements of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope when the force of gravity pulling down the slope exceeds the strength of the earth materials that comprise to hold it in place. Slopes greater than 10 degrees are more likely to slide, as are slopes where the height from the top of the slope to its toe is greater than 40 feet. Slopes are also more likely to fail if vegetative cover is low and/or soil water content is high. The gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth s surface due to the subsurface movement of earth materials. Causes of land subsidence include groundwater pumpage, aquifer system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydrocompaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:4

31 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Tsunami Volcano OTHER HAZARDS Wildfire A series of waves generated by an undersea disturbance such as an earthquake. The speed of a tsunami traveling away from its source can range from up to 500 miles per hour in deep water to approximately 20 to 30 miles per hour in shallower areas near coastlines. Tsunamis differ from regular ocean waves in that their currents travel from the water surface all the way down to the sea floor. Wave amplitudes in deep water are typically less than one meter; they are often barely detectable to the human eye. However, as they approach shore, they slow in shallower water, basically causing the waves from behind to effectively pile up, and wave heights to increase dramatically. As opposed to typical waves which crash at the shoreline, tsunamis bring with them a continuously flowing wall of water with the potential to cause devastating damage in coastal areas located immediately along the shore. A mountain that opens downward to a reservoir of molten rock below the surface of the earth. While most mountains are created by forces pushing up the earth from below, volcanoes are different in that they are built up over time by an accumulation of their own eruptive products: lava, ash flows, and airborne ash and dust. Volcanoes erupt when pressure from gases and the molten rock beneath becomes strong enough to cause an explosion. An uncontrolled fire burning in an area of vegetative fuels such as grasslands, brush, or woodlands. Heavier fuels with high continuity, steep slopes, high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and high winds all work to increase risk for people and property located within wildfire hazard areas or along the urban/wildland interface. Wildfires are part of the natural management of forest ecosystems, but most are caused by human factors. Over 80 percent of forest fires are started by negligent human behavior such as smoking in wooded areas or improperly extinguishing campfires. The second most common cause for wildfire is lightning. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:5

32 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Table 4.2: Documentation of the Hazard Evaluation Process ATMOSPHERIC HAZARDS Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Avalanche NO Review of US Forest Service National Avalanche Center web site Review of the SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) There is no risk of avalanche events in South Carolina. The United States avalanche hazard is limited to mountainous western states including Alaska, as well as some areas of low risk in New England. Avalanche was not included in the South Carolina State Hazard Mitigation Plan. FEMA s MHIRA indicates that avalanche is not a hazard of concern in South Carolina. Avalanche was not included in the previous Spartanburg hazard mitigation plan. Drought YES Review of the SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of the U.S. Drought Monitor website Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) There are reports of drought conditions in ten of the last ten years in Spartanburg County, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. According to the South Carolina State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Spartanburg County experiences drought conditions an average of 51 to 73 days per year. The South Carolina State Hazard Mitigation Plan reports that drought conditions occurred in the Central/Santee Drought Management Area (including Spartanburg County) 110 out of 240 months from 1990 to Drought is included the previous Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan and ranked as a 20% probability. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:6

33 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Hailstorm YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) The state plan identified 40 recorded hail events in Spartanburg County from 2007 to NCDC reports 224 hailstorm events for Spartanburg between January 1950 and March For these events there are over $14.4 million in property damage and 1 injury. Hail is addressed in the previous county hazard mitigation plan, and it is listed as occurring 130 times with a probability of 35%. Heat Wave/Extreme Heat YES Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of the South Carolina State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of the FEMA MHIRA Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) NCDC reports two extreme heat events in Spartanburg County. The SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan discusses extreme heat under the drought hazard. Extreme heat is identified as a South Carolina hazard in the MHIRA. Extreme heat is reported in the previous plan under the drought hazard as causing crop damage. Hurricane and Tropical Storm YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Analysis of NOAA historical tropical storm and hurricane tracks and National Hurricane Center Website Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database The state plan found the entire state to be vulnerable to hurricane winds. Spartanburg County has been impacted by 4 recorded tropical storms between 1851 and 2009, according to the state plan. NCDC historical records indicate zero hurricanes or tropical storms between January 1950 and March NOAA National Hurricane Center indicates 16 tracks have passed within 75 miles of the county, and 4 Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:7

34 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Review of historical presidential and major disaster declarations Review of the previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) tropical storm tracks passed directly through the county. One out of five major disaster declarations in Spartanburg County is directly related to hurricane and tropical storm events (Tropical Storm Frances, which caused over $10 million in damages statewide, 2009 dollars). Hurricanes and tropical storms are addressed in the previous county plan but the county is identified as having a low vulnerability to this hazard. Lightning YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database, NOAA lightning statistics Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Lightning events are discussed in the state plan, and due to its unpredictability all buildings and facilities are considered to be exposed to this hazard. According to the state hazard mitigation plan, Spartanburg County experiences the second highest number of damage-causing lightning events per year in the state. NCDC reports 33 lightning events for Spartanburg County between 1951 and March These events have resulted in a 1 death, 1 injury and over $3million in property damage. MHIRA list lightning as a hazard for South Carolina. Lightning was not addressed in the previous plan. Given the damage and reported death and injury, individual analysis is warranted. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:8

35 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Nor easter NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s MHIRA. Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of the previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Nor easters are discussed in the state plan as a part of the Hurricane and coastal storm hazard but they are not identified as having a significant impact on the state. Nor easters are not identified as a hazard in FEMA s MHIRA. NCDC does not report any Nor easter activity for Spartanburg County. However, Nor easter may have affected the region as severe winter storms. In this case, the activity would be reported under winter storm events. This hazard was not addressed in the previous plan. Tornado YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of the previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Tornado events are discussed in the SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan under Severe Thunderstorms. And the plan reports 817 tornado events were experienced in South Carolina from 1950 to From 2007 to 2009, one tornado was reported in Spartanburg County in the state plan. Tornadoes are listed as a hazard for South Carolina in FEMA s MHIRA. NCDC reports 26 tornadoes between January 1950 and March 2011.These events have resulted in four reported deaths, 102 injuries, and $29 million (2011 dollars) in property damage with the most severe being an F4. Tornado events were addressed in previous county plan. Spartanburg County was noted as having a 60 percent probability based on 27 events. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:9

36 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Severe Thunderstorm YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Severe Thunderstorm events are discussed in the SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan and identifies Spartanburg County as one of the counties with the highest number of recorded events and property damaged associated with this hazard from 2007 to FEMA s MHIRA lists thunderstorm as a hazard for South Carolina. NCDC reports 368 thunderstorm events in Spartanburg County between January 1950 and March These events have resulted in over $10 million (2011 dollars) in property damage and six injuries. Severe Thunderstorm events were not addressed in the previous HMP. Winter Storm and Freeze YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Review of historical presidential and major disaster declarations. Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Severe Winter Storms including snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these are discussed in the state plan. The state plan lists 7 reported winter storm events were experienced in Spartanburg County from 2007 to MHIRA does not identify winter storm as a hazard for South Carolina. NCDC reports that Spartanburg County has have been affected by 53 snow and ice events between 1950 and March These events resulted in $15 million (2011 dollars) in damages but did not cause any deaths or injuries. Three of the county s five disaster declarations were directly related to winter storm and/or ice events. Winter Storm events were addressed in the previous HMP plan which noted that Spartanburg Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:10

37 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? County has a high level vulnerability to winter storms. HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS Erosion NO Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) Soil erosion is identified as a hazard in the SC state hazard mitigation plan. Coastal erosion is discussed in the state plan but only for coastal areas (no discussion of riverine erosion). Only coastal erosion is identified as a hazard of concern for South Carolina (not riverine or soil erosion). Erosion was not discussed in the previous plan. Flood YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of historical disaster declarations Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Review of FEMA s NFIP Community Status Book and Community Rating System (CRS) Review of FEMA DFIRM flood data for the county. Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazards in the US, 40% of all presidential disaster declarations have been from flooding alone and nearly 90% result from natural events in which flooding was a major component. The flood hazard is thoroughly discussed in the state plan and the Piedmont region is found to be at risk of riverine flooding, flash flooding, local drainage problems, and dam failure. The most recent major flood in Spartanburg County occurred in March of 2003 and produced over $1 million in property damage. NCDC Spartanburg County has been affected by 65 flood events between 1950 and These events caused one death, four injuries, and an estimated $24.9 million in Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:11

38 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Plan) property damages. Nearly 5% of the county is located in an identified floodplain (100 or 500 year). 10 of the 13 participating jurisdiction participate in the NFIP. The previous plan addresses flood hazard. Storm Surge NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of NOAA NCDC Storm Events Database Storm surge is discussed in the state plan under the hurricane hazard and indicates that only the costal shoreline counties are subject to storm surge. The previous plan does not address surge. No historical events were reported by NCDC Given the inland location of the county, coastal storm surge would not affect the area. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquake YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) USGS Earthquake Hazards Program web site Review of the National Geophysical Data Center Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Earthquake events are discussed in the state plan and all counties in SC are considered to be susceptible to the effects of earthquakes. The Piedmont/Blue Ridge region is considered at low risk of major earthquakes. The previous plan addresses earthquake. Earthquakes have occurred in and around the State of South Carolina in the past. The state is affected by the Charleston Fault line which has generated a magnitude 8.0 earthquake in the last 200 years. A 2010 earthquake of magnitude 2.5 occurred in Spartanburg County. Several events are known to have Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:12

39 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) occurred in the county according to the National Geophysical Data Center, although none are deemed significant. FEMA s MHIRA identifies earthquake as a hazard for South Carolina. According to USGS seismic hazard maps, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the Spartanburg County is approximately 4-5%g. FEMA recommends that earthquakes be further evaluated for mitigation purposes in areas with a PGA of 3%g or more. Expansive Soils NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) Review of USDA Soil Conservation Service s Soil Survey Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Landslide YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of USGS Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Expansive soils are not identified in the state plan. According to FEMA and USDA sources, Spartanburg County is located in an area that has a little to no clay swelling potential. Previous hazard mitigation plan does not identify Land Subsidence as a hazard. FEMA s MHIRA identifies expansive soil as a hazard for South Carolina. The state plan did not find landslides to pose a hazard risk because there is no history of significant events; however, upstate South Carolina is described to most closely fit the typical landslide topography as outlined by the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:13

40 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? Hazard Map Review of the South Carolina Geological Survey data Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) USGS. USGS landslide hazard maps indicate high and moderate susceptibility areas with low incidence. The South Carolina Geological Survey does not have any historical records of landsliding. However, it is know that they have occurred, but there were no known occurrences for Spartanburg County. Landslide was not addressed in the previous hazard mitigation plan. Land Subsidence NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of FEMA s MHIRA Tsunami NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA) Review of FEMA How-to mitigation planning The state plan does not identify land subsidence as a hazard. Previous county hazard mitigation plan do not identify Land Subsidence as a hazard. FEMA s MHIRA identifies land subsistence as a hazard. Tsunamis are described in the state plan as a relatively low risk, and any tsunamis impacting SC would likely be small and mostly inundate the beaches. The previous hazard mitigation plan does not address tsunami. No record exists of a catastrophic Atlantic basin tsunami impacting the mid-atlantic coast of the United States. Given the inland location of the county, even a major event would not be likely to impact the community. FEMA s MHIRA does not identify tsunami as a hazard in South Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:14

41 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? guidance (Publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses). Carolina. FEMA mitigation planning guidance suggests that locations along the U.S. East Coast have a relatively low tsunami risk and need not conduct a tsunami risk assessment at this time. Volcano NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of USGS Volcano Hazards Program web site There are no active volcanoes in South Carolina and volcanoes are not identified as a hazard in the state plan. There has not been a volcanic eruption in South Carolina in over 750 million years. However, the red clay soil found in the area is a result of iron that flowing lava brought to the area. OTHER HAZARDS Dam and Levee Failure NO Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of FEMA s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Dam Failure is identified in the state plan as a potential hazard; however there is no history of dam failures between 2003 and The previous plan does not address levee failure. According to the FEMA s Multi- Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment document (2010), Dam Failure is a technological hazard. Therefore, it will not be addressed in the plan. Wildfire YES Review of SC State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of previous Spartanburg Plan The state plan reports Spartanburg has experienced 138 recorded wildfire events between 1998 and 2006 that burned 513 acres of land. From 2007 through 2009, each Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:15

42 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Natural Hazards Considered Was this hazard identified as a significant hazard to be addressed in the plan at this time? (Yes or No) How was this determination made? Why was this determination made? HMP (Appalachian Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) Review of Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) Data Review of the SC Forestry Commission website and data Review of FEMA s MHIRA county in state had at least 164 recorded wildfire outbreaks. Wildfire was addressed as a hazard in the previous plan. An initial review of SWRA data indicates that there is wildfire vulnerability in the county. According to the South Carolina Forestry Commission, the county experiences an average of 46 fires which burn a combined average of 188 acres each year. Wildfire hazard risks will increase as low-density development along the urban/wildland interface increases. FEMA s MHIRA does not identify wildfire as a risk for South Carolina. TABLE 4.3: SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS ATMOSPHERIC HAZARDS Avalanche Drought Hailstorm Heat Wave/Extreme Heat Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Nor easter Tornado Severe Thunderstorm Winter Storm and Freeze HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquake Expansive Soils Landslide Land Subsidence Tsunami Volcano OTHER HAZARDS Wildfire Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:16

43 SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Dam and Levee Failure Erosion Flood Storm Surge = Hazard considered significant enough for further evaluation in the Spartanburg County hazard risk assessment. Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan 4:17

44 SECTION 5 HAZARD PROFILES 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 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. This section of the Plan provides a detailed assessment of the hazards identified to pose a threat to Spartanburg County. The remainder of this section is comprised of the following subsections: 5.1: Overview 5.2: Study Area 5.3: Drought 5.4: Extreme Heat 5.4: Hailstorm 5.5: Hurricane and Tropical Storm 5.6: Lightning 5.7: Thunderstorm 5.8: Tornado 5.9: Winter Storm and Freeze 5.10: Earthquake 5.12: Landslide 5.12: Flood 5.13: Wildfire 5.13: Conclusions of Hazard Risk 5.15: Final Determinations 5.1 OVERVIEW This section includes detailed hazard profiles for each of the hazards identified in the previous section (Hazard Identification) as significant enough for further evaluation in the Spartanburg County hazard risk assessment by creating a hazard profile. Each hazard profile includes a general description of the hazard, its location and extent, notable historical occurrences and the probability of future occurrences. Each profile also includes specific items noted by members of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC) as it relates to unique historical or anecdotal hazard information, where applicable. The following hazards were identified: Atmospheric Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze Geologic Earthquake 5:1

45 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Landslide Hydrologic Flood Other Wildfire 5.2 STUDY AREA Spartanburg County includes 13 jurisdictions, 12 of which are participating in this plan. Table 5.1 provides a summary table of the participating jurisdictions. 1 In addition, Figure 5.1 provides a base map, for reference, of Spartanburg County. TABLE 5.1: PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS FOR THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Campobello Cowpens Inman Lyman Reidville Wellford Unincorporated Spartanburg County Chesnee Duncan Landrum Pacolet Spartanburg Woodruff 1 The City of Greer, South Carolina is not participating in this plan as they already have an approved hazard mitigation plan in place. 5:2

46 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES FIGURE 5.1: SPARTANBURG COUNTY BASE MAP Table 5.2 lists each significant hazard for Spartanburg County and identifies whether or not it has been determined to be a specific hazard of concern for the county and 12 municipal jurisdictions. This is the based on the best available data and information from the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. ( = hazard of concern) 5:3

47 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED HAZARD EVENTS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Atmospheric Geologic Hydrologic Other Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Jurisdiction Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford Woodruff Unincorporated County Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm Earthquake Landslide Flood Wildfire Table 5.3 indicates the disaster declarations in Spartanburg County. There were no Presidential Disaster Declarations but a total of 5 major disaster declarations between 1953 and TABLE 5.3: MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATIONS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY 2009 Statewide Date Number Description Damage Estimate 10/22/ SEVERE STORMS & FLOODING $10,782,739 01/31/ SEVERE WINTER STORM $12,918,944 02/12/ SEVERE ICE STORM Not reported 10/07/ TROPICAL STORM FRANCES $10,275,855 01/20/ SEVERE ICE STORM $15,265,020 Source: PERI, :4

48 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Atmospheric Hazards 5.3 DROUGHT Background Drought is a normal part of virtually all climatic regions, including areas with high and low average rainfall. Drought is the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation expected over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can exacerbate drought conditions. In addition, human actions and demands for water resources can hasten drought-related impacts. Droughts are typically classified into one of four types: 1) meteorological, 2) hydrologic, 3) agricultural, or 4) socioeconomic. Table 5.4 presents definitions for these types of drought. Meteorological Drought TABLE 5.4 DROUGHT CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS The degree of dryness or departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales. Hydrologic Drought Agricultural Drought The effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels. Soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually crops. Socioeconomic Drought The effect of demands for water exceeding the supply as a result of a weatherrelated supply shortfall. Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy, FEMA Droughts are slow-onset hazards, but, over time, can have very damaging affects to crops, municipal water supplies, recreational uses, and wildlife. If drought conditions extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is based on observed drought conditions and range from -0.5 (incipient dry spell) to -4.0 (extreme drought). Evident in Figure 5.2, the Palmer Drought Severity Index Summary Map for the United Stated, drought affects most areas of the United States, but is less severe in the Eastern United States. 5:5

49 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES FIGURE 5.2: PALMER DROUGHT SEVERITY INDEX SUMMARY MAP FOR THE UNITED STATES Source: National Drought Mitigation Center Location and Spatial Extent Drought typically covers a large area and cannot be confined to any geographic or political boundaries. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Figure 4.2), northwestern South Carolina has a relatively low risk for drought hazard (less than 5%). However, local areas may experience much more severe and/or frequent drought events than what is represented on the Palmer Drought Severity Index map. Further, it is assumed that Spartanburg County would be uniformly exposed to drought, making the spatial extent potentially widespread. It is also notable that drought conditions typically do not cause significant damage to the built environment Historical Occurrences Data from the United States Drought Monitor was obtained used to ascertain historical drought conditions for Spartanburg County. (Data was only available at the county level, so each jurisdiction is not shown separately.) Data was available from January 2000 through May The Drought Monitor provides weekly updates on drought status by county. Drought conditions are classified on a scale of D0 to D4: D0: Abnormally Dry D1: Moderate Drought D2: Severe Drought D3: Extreme Drought D4: Exceptional Drought According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, Spartanburg County has experienced at least Abnormally Dry conditions in each of the reported years. Drought conditions (D1 and above) were experience every year 5:6

50 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES except Table 5.5 shows the most severe drought classification for each year, according to Drought Monitor classifications. Of note is the period beginning in October 2007 and continuing through December of 2008 at which time the county remained in an Exceptional Drought. Conditions in the area were not classified as normal until May 2009 following the Exceptional Drought of TABLE 5.5: HISTORICAL DROUGHT OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Year Highest Drought Condition Number of Weeks 2000 Extreme Drought Extreme Drought Exceptional Drought Abnormally Dry Moderate Drought Moderate Drought Severe Drought Exceptional Drought Exceptional Drought Extreme Drought Moderate Drought * Moderate Drought 12 *2011 is only reported through June 7, Source: United States Drought Monitor Probability of Future Occurrences 2 Drought has been present in ten of the last ten reported years, indicating an approximate annual probability of 1.0 (100 percent annual probability). Further, based on historical qualitative information, there is a high probability for long-lasting drought conditions. Based on the Priority Risk Index found in Table 5.36, this range of probably indicates that drought is highly likely in Spartanburg County and the jurisdictions within it. 5.4 EXTREME HEAT Background Extreme heat, like drought, poses little risk to property. However, extreme heat can have devastating effects on health. Extreme Heat is often referred to as a heat wave. According to the National Weather Service, there is no universal definition for a heat wave, but the standard U.S. definition is any event lasting at least three (3) days where temperatures reach ninety (90) degrees Fahrenheit or higher. However, it may also be defined as an event at least three days long where temperatures are 10 degrees greater than the normal temperature for the affected area. Heat waves are typically accompanied by humidity but may also be very dry. These conditions can pose serious health threats causing an average of 1,500 deaths each summer in the United States 3. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, heat is the number one weatherrelated killer among natural hazards, followed by frigid winter temperatures 1. The National Weather 2 Annual Probability is determined by first calculating the recurrence interval (R): R = N/n where N=Number of years and n = number of occurrences. Next, probably (P) is determined by calculating P=1/R. Approximate annual probabilities are then linked to a range of probabilities in the Priority Risk Index ( Table 5.36): unlikely (less than 1 percent annual probability), possible (1-10 percent), likely ( percent), highly likely (100 percent) :7

51 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Service devised the Heat Index as a mechanism to better inform the public of heat dangers. The Heat Index Chart, shown in Figure 5.3, uses air temperature and humidity to determine the heat index or apparent temperature. Table 5.6 shows the dangers associated with different heat index temperatures. Some populations, such as the elderly and young, are more susceptible to heat danger than other segments of the population. Figure 5.3: Heat Index Chart Source: NOAA Table 5.6: Heat Disorders Associated with Heat Index Temperature Heat Index Temperature Description of Risks (Fahrenheit) Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heatstroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity 130 or higher Heatstroke or sunstroke is highly likely with continued exposure Source: National Weather Service, NOAA In addition, NOAA has seventeen metropolitan areas participating in the Heat HealthWatch/Warning System in order to better inform and warn the public of heat dangers. A Heat HealthWatch is issued when conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 12 to 48 hours. A Heat Warning is issued when an excessive heat event is expected in the next 36 hours. Further, a warning is issued when the conditions are occurring, imminent, or have a high likelihood of occurrence. Urban areas participate in the Heat Health Watch/Warning System because urban areas are at greater risk to heat affects. Stagnant atmospheric conditions trap pollutants, thus adding unhealthy air to excessively hot temperatures. In 5:8

52 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES addition, the urban heat island effect can produce significantly higher nighttime temperatures because asphalt and concrete (which store heat longer) gradually release heat at night Location and Spatial Extent Excessive heat typically impacts a large area and cannot be confined to any geographic or political boundaries Historical Occurrences Data from the National Climatic Data Center was used to determine historical extreme heat and heat wave events in Spartanburg County. Two events were reported: August 22, Heat - One death resulted from extreme heat in the county. June 23, Excessive Heat - One death was reported as a results of heatstroke. Two additional event was found using internet resources: 1986 The maximum temperature ever recorded in the state was reach at 106 degrees. July 2001 Excessive Heat A heat wave gripped the area prompting heat advisories and warnings. In addition, information from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources State Climatology Office was reviewed to obtain historical temperatures in the county. Temperature information was reported The recorded maximum for Spartanburg County is 106 degrees Fahrenheit in The South Carolina State Climate Office also reports average maximum temperatures in various locations in the county. The most centralized location in Rainbow Lake. Table 5.7 below shows the average maximum temperatures for the Rainbow Lake, South Carolina which can be used as a general comparison for the county. TABLE 5.7: AVERAGE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE IN RAINBOW LAKE, SPARTANBURG COUNTY Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Avg. Max (F) Probability of Future Occurrences Based on the National Climatic Data Center s 61 year reporting history, and four extreme heat events during this time, it is assumed future heat events in Spartanburg County are possible. This ranking of possible is based on a approximate 0.6 percent annual chance or a 6.5 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Additional information on probably assignment can be found in the Priority Risk Index in Table :9

53 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES 5.5 HAILSTORM Background Hailstorms are a potentially damaging outgrowth of severe thunderstorms (thunderstorms are discussed separately in Section 5.7). Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until they develop to a sufficient weight and fall as precipitation. Hail typically takes the form of spheres or irregularly-shaped masses greater than 0.75 inches in diameter. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the intensity of heating at the Earth s surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. Hailstone size can range a great deal in size from 5mm (approximately pea-sized) to greater than 100mm (approximately melon-sized). Table 5.8 shows the typical damage associated with different sizes of hail. TABLE 5.8: TORRO HAILSTORM INTENSITY SCALE Probable Kinetic Energy, Typical Hail Intensity Category Diameter (mm) * J-m 2 Typical Damage Impacts H0 Hard Hail No damage H >20 Slight general damage to plants, crops Potentially Damaging H2 Significant >100 Significant damage to fruit, crops, vegetation H3 Severe >300 Severe damage to fruit and crops, damage to glass and plastic structures, paint and wood scored H4 Severe >500 Widespread glass damage, vehicle bodywork damage H5 Destructive >800 Wholesale destruction of glass, damage to tiled roofs, significant risk of injuries H6 Destructive Bodywork of grounded aircraft dented, brick walls pitted H7 Destructive Severe roof damage, risk of serious injuries H8 Destructive (Severest recorded in the British Isles) Severe damage to aircraft bodywork H9 Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe Super or even fatal injuries to persons caught in Hailstorms the open H10 Super Hailstorms >100 Source: Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe or even fatal injuries to persons caught in the open 5:10

54 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Location and Spatial Extent Hailstorms frequently accompany thunderstorms, so their locations and spatial extents coincide. It is assumed that Spartanburg County and the participating jurisdictions are uniformly exposed to hail Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, 222 recorded hailstorm events have affected Spartanburg County since Table 5.9 is a summary of the hail events that have occurred in each of the participating jurisdictions. Table 5.10 provides detailed information about each event that occurred including magnitude, reported deaths and injuries, and property damage. In all, hail occurrences resulted in over $14.4 million in property damages (2011 dollars), most of which were reported in unincorporated Spartanburg County. Hail ranged in diameter from 0.75 inches to 4.00 inches. It should be noted that hail is notorious for causing substantial damage to cars, roofs, and other areas of the built environment, so it is likely that damages are greater than the reported value. Further, a single storm event may have affected jurisdictions. TABLE 5.9: SUMMARY OF HAIL OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Property Damage (2011) Campobello 5 $0 Chesnee 5 $0 Cowpens 1 $0 Duncan 7 $0 Inman 7 $0 Landrum 9 $0 Lyman 4 $0 Pacolet 12 $0 Reidville 6 $0 Spartanburg 101 $14,384,286 Wellford 1 $0 Woodruff 6 $5,970 Unincorporated County 58 $12,492 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 222 $14,402,748 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.10: HISTORICAL HAIL OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Property Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Damage (2011)* Campobello Campobello 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Campobello 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Campobello 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Campobello 5/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Campobello 7/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee Chesnee 2/11/ in. 0/0 $0 4 These hail events are only inclusive of those reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It is likely that additional hail events have affected Spartanburg County. In addition to NCDC, the North Carolina Department of Insurance office was contacted for information. As additional local data becomes available, this hazard profile will be amended. 5:11

55 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Chesnee 7/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 5/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 6/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 7/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 2/11/ in. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 7/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Cowpens Cowpens 5/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan Duncan 5/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 3/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 8/4/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Duncan 8/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman Inman 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 7/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum Landrum 2/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 3/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 8/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 6/25/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 6/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Landrum 6/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Lyman Lyman 5/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Lyman 9/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Lyman 4/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Lyman 5/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet Pacolet 3/31/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/12/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 5:12

56 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Pacolet 6/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 7/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/11/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 2/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet Mills 6/6/ in. 0/0 $0 Pacolet Mills 4/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville Reidville 8/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville 5/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville 6/7/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville 6/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville 5/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/5/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Spartanburg 5/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/25/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/16/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/14/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/12/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/30/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/10/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/10/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/6/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/6/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/6/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/7/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/7/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/8/ in. 0/1 $0 Spartanburg 5/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/29/ in. 0/0 $0 5:13

57 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 5/16/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/17/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/17/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/5/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/5/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/7/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/30/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/30/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/4/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/1/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 9/8/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/8/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/29/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/29/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/5/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/28/ in. 0/0 $0 5:14

58 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 8/20/ in. 0/0 $1,425,761 Spartanburg 8/20/ in. 0/0 $12,831,848 Spartanburg 6/25/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/3/ in. 0/0 $126,677 Spartanburg 5/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/8/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/8/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/25/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/12/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Dwtn Ar 2/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Dwtn Ar 2/18/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/13/ in. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Dwtn Ar 6/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Wellford Wellford 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Woodruff Woodruff 8/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/31/ in. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 6/30/ in. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 6/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/1/ in. 0/0 $5,970 Woodruff 6/12/ in. 0/0 $0 Unincorporated County Ne Spartanburg 3/31/ in. 0/0 $0 Ne Portion 3/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Little Chicago (near 5/15/ in. 0/0 $8,034 Campobello) Roebuck 6/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Drayton 9/24/ in. 0/0 $1,607 Greenwood Co 4/24/ in. 0/0 $0 Converse 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Springfield 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Drayton 3/19/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 5/29/ in. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnsbrg Arpt 7/17/ in. 0/0 $0 Mayo 6/2/ in. 0/0 $0 5:15

59 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Pauline 7/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Mountain View 4/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Pelham 7/6/ in. 0/0 $0 Moore 8/20/ in. 0/0 $2,852 Roebuck 8/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 5/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 7/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 7/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 7/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 5/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 7/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Pauline 8/16/ in. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 5/16/ in. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 12/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Pauline 1/2/ in. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 4/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Enoree 5/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 5/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Mayo 7/3/ in. 0/0 $0 Arcadia 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Golightly 4/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 5/20/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 6/22/ in. 0/0 $0 Pauline 6/26/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 7/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 7/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Brooklyn 7/21/ in. 0/0 $0 Hayne 7/23/ in. 0/0 $0 Hobbyville 5/5/ in. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 6/11/ in. 0/0 $0 Hayne 6/11/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman Mills 6/11/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman Mills 9/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Jackson Mill 9/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Pauline 9/9/ in. 0/0 $0 Arcadia 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Fairmont 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Hobbyville 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Inman Mills 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 3/28/ in. 0/0 $0 Sigsbee 4/27/ in. 0/0 $0 Forster 5/15/ in. 0/0 $0 Cherokee Spgs 7/26/ in. 0/0 $0 *Property damage is reported in 2011 dollars; All damage may not have been reported. 5:16

60 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Source: National Climatic Data Center Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Probability of Future Occurrences Given that severe thunderstorm events will remain a frequent occurrence for the Spartanburg County, the probability of future hail occurrences is likely according to the annual probability ranges found in table Over a 61 year reporting period, hail was reported in 43 years resulting in an approximate annually probability of.56 (56 percent chance of occurrence in any one year). It should be noted, however, that occurrences are not regularly reported on the NCDC data until 1984, when hail has a 100 percent probably of annual occurrence. It can be expected that future hail events will continue to cause minor damage to property and vehicles throughout the county. Further, hail is an atmospheric hazard, so it is assumed that the entire county has equal risk to this hazard. 5.6 HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM Background Hurricanes and tropical storms are classified as cyclones and defined as any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical cyclones act as a safety-valve, limiting the continued build-up of heat and energy in tropical regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the tropics and the pole-ward latitudes. The primary damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation and tornadoes. The key energy source for a tropical cyclone is the release of latent heat from the condensation of warm water. Their formation requires a low-pressure disturbance, warm sea surface temperature, rotational force from the spinning of the earth and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane season, which encompasses the months of June through November. The peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is in early to mid-september and the average number of storms that reach hurricane intensity per year in the Atlantic basin is about six (6). As an incipient hurricane develops, barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls and winds increase. If the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical depression. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane. Hurricane intensity is further classified by the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (Table 5.11), which rates hurricane wind intensity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most intense. TABLE 5.11: SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE WIND SCALE 5:17

61 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Maximum Sustained Category Wind Speed (MPH) Source: National Hurricane Center The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon maximum sustained winds and barometric pressure, which are combined to estimate potential damage. Categories 3, 4, and 5 are classified as major hurricanes, and while hurricanes within this range comprise only 20 percent of total tropical cyclone landfalls, they account for over 70 percent of the damage in the United States. Table 5.12 describes the damage that could be expected for each category of hurricane. Damage during hurricanes may also result from spawned tornadoes, storm surge and inland flooding associated with heavy rainfall that usually accompanies these storms. TABLE 5.12: HURRICANE DAMAGE CLASSIFICATIONS 5:18

62 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Storm Category Damage Level Description of Damages Photo Example 1 MINIMAL No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some Very dangerous coastal flooding and minor pier damage. An example of a winds will produce Category 1 hurricane is Hurricane Dolly (2008). some damage MODERATE Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage EXTENSIVE Devastating damage will occur EXTREME Catastrophic damage will occur Some roofing material, door, and window damage. Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc. Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected moorings may break their moorings. An example of a Category 2 hurricane is Hurricane Francis in Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures, with larger structures damaged by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland. An example of a Category 3 hurricane is Hurricane Ivan (2004). More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland. An example of a Category 4 hurricane is Hurricane Charley (2004). Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial CATASTROPHIC buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major 5 damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline. Catastrophic Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required. An damage will occur example of a Category 5 hurricane is Hurricane Andrew (1992). Sources: National Hurricane Center; Federal Emergency Management Agency Similar to hurricanes, coastal storms are ocean-fueled storm events capable of causing substantial damage due to their associated strong winds and heavy surf. The Nor'easter is a particularly devastating type of coastal storm, named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the U.S. East Coast alongside the Gulf Stream, a band of warm water that lies off the Atlantic coast. They are caused by the interaction of the jet stream with horizontal temperature gradients and generally occur during the fall and winter months when moisture and cold air are plentiful. Nor easters are known for dumping heavy amounts of rain and snow and producing hurricane-force winds. Table 5.13 shows the Dolan-Davis Nor easter Intensity Scale. It should be noted that strong Nor easters have increased in recent years. 5:19

63 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES TABLE 5.13: DOLAN-DAVIS NOR EASTER INTENSITY SCALE (1993) Storm Class 1 (Weak) Beach Erosion Dune Erosion Overwash Property Damage Minor changes None No No 2 (Moderate) Modest; mostly to lower beach Minor No Modest 3 (Significant) Erosion extends across beach Can be significant No Loss of many structures at local level 4 (Severe) 5 (Extreme) Severe beach erosion and recession Extreme beach erosion Severe dune erosion or destruction Dunes destroyed over extensive areas On low beaches Massive in sheets and channels Source: Davis and Dolan, 1993; North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Loss of structures at community-scale Extensive losses on a regional-scale Location and Spatial Extent Hurricanes and tropical storms threaten the entire Atlantic and Gulf seaboard of the United States, and while coastal areas are most directly exposed to the brunt of landfalling storms, their impact is often felt hundreds of miles inland. Therefore, all areas in Spartanburg County are susceptible to tropical storms and hurricanes Historical Occurrences According to the National Hurricane Center s historical storm track records, 16 hurricane or tropical storms have passed within 75 miles of Spartanburg County since This includes: zero (0) Category 5 hurricanes; zero (0) Category 4 hurricanes; zero (0) Category 3 hurricanes; two (2) Category 2 hurricane; one (1) Category 1 hurricane; and thirteen (13) tropical storms. Of the recorded storm events, 4 tropical storms passed directly through the county in 1859, 1882, 1916, and The highest reported winds during these events was 45 knots (51.8 mph). Table 5.14 provides for each event the date of occurrence (when it passed near the county), name (if applicable), maximum wind speed in knots (as recorded within 75 miles of the county) and category of the storm based on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Figure 5.4 shows the track of each recorded storm. TABLE 5.14: HISTORICAL STORM TRACKS WITHIN 75 MILES OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY ( ) Maximum Wind Date of Occurrence Storm Name Speed (knots) Storm Category 9/17/1859 NOTNAMED 40 Tropical Storm 9/11/1882 NOTNAMED 40 Tropical Storm 6/22/1886 NOTNAMED 45 Tropical Storm 9/24/1889 NOTNAMED 45 Tropical Storm 5 These storm track statistics do not include extra-tropical storms or tropical depressions. Though these related hazard events are less severe in intensity, they may cause significant local impact in terms of rainfall and high winds. 5:20

64 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date of Occurrence Storm Name Maximum Wind Speed (knots) 8/28/1893 NOTNAMED 90 Category 2 Storm Category 7/8/1896 NOTNAMED 35 Tropical Storm 9/18/1906 NOTNAMED 60 Tropical Storm 8/3/1915 NOTNAMED 40 Tropical Storm 7/14/1916 NOTNAMED 55 Tropical Storm 10/3/1927 NOTNAMED 40 Tropical Storm 8/28/1949 NOTNAMED 40 Tropical Storm 5/29/1934 NOTNAMED 50 Tropical Storm 8/31/1952 ABLE 70 Category 1 9/30/1959 GRACIE 60 Tropical Storm 8/28/1988 CHRIS 35 Tropical Storm 9/22/1989 HUGO 85 Category 2 Source: National Hurricane Center 5:21

65 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES FIGURE 5.4: HISTORICAL HURRICANE STORM TRACKS WITHIN 75 MILES OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The National Climatic Data Center did not report any event associated with a hurricane, tropical storm, or nor easter in the participating counties between 1950 and However, federal records indicate that a major disaster declaration was made in 2004 in Spartanburg County (and other counties) due to Tropical Storm Frances Probability of Future Occurrences Over a 160 year reporting period ( ), 16 hurricanes or tropical storms came within 75 miles of the county. This results in an approximate annual probability of 0.1 or 10 percent probability of future occurrence in any given year. Therefore, it is possible that hurricanes and tropical storms will impact Spartanburg County as depicted by the National Hurricane Center historical storm track data. Given the inland location of the county, the county is more likely to be affected by remnants of hurricane and tropical storm systems which may result in flooding or high winds. Further, there is a higher probability that the county will be affected by Nor easters, which frequently result in large snow and/or ice accumulations during the winter months. 5:22

66 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES 5.7 LIGHTNING Background Lightning is a discharge of electrical energy resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm, creating a bolt when the buildup of charges becomes strong enough. This flash of light usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes but the surrounding air cools following the bolt. This rapid heating and cooling of the surrounding air causes the thunder which often accompanies lightning strikes. While most often affiliated with severe thunderstorms, lightning may also strike outside of heavy rain and might occur as far as 10 miles away from any rainfall. Lightning strikes occur in very small, localized areas. For example, they may strike a building, electrical transformer, or even a person. According to FEMA, lightning injures an average of 300 people and kills 80 people each year in the United States. Direct lightning strikes also have the ability to cause significant damage to buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure largely by igniting a fire. Lightning is also responsible for igniting wildfires that can result in widespread damages to property. Figure 5.5 shows a lightning flash density map for the years based upon data provided by Vaisala s U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN ). FIGURE 5.5: LIGHTNING FLASH DENSITY IN THE UNITED STATES Source: Vaisala U.S. National Lightning Detection Network Location and Spatial Extent It is assumed that all of Spartanburg County is uniformly exposed to lightning. Lightning occurs randomly, therefore it is impossible to predict where and with what frequency it will strike. It is assumed that all of Spartanburg County is uniformly exposed to lightning. 5:23

67 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been a total of thirty-one (31) recorded lightning events in Spartanburg County between January 1951 and March These events resulted in over $3 million (2011dollars) in damages, as listed in summary Table Further, lightning caused two (2) fatality and eleven (11) injuries throughout Spartanburg County. Detailed information on historical lightning events can be found in Table TABLE 5.15: SUMMARY OF LIGHTNING OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Property Damage (2011) Campobello 1 $1,229,874 Chesnee 0 $0 Cowpens 1 $0 Duncan 0 $0 Inman 1 $11,593 Landrum 2 $76,058 Lyman 1 $0 Pacolet 0 $0 Reidville 0 $0 Spartanburg 9 $1,297,447 Wellford 0 $0 Woodruff 4 $215,335 Unincorporated County 12 $211,053 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 33 $3,047,509 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.16: HISTORICAL LIGHTNING OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Property Jurisdiction Date Deaths/Injuries Damage (2011) Campobello Campobello 9/16/2004 0/0 $1,229,873 Chesnee None reported Cowpens Cowpens 6/14/1996 0/0 $0 Duncan None reported Inman Inman 5/25/2006 0/0 $11,592 Landrum Landrum 9/10/1995 0/0 $54,671 Landrum 7/27/1999 0/0 $21,386 Lyman 6 These lightning events are only inclusive of those reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It is likely that additional lightning events have occurred in Spartanburg County. The State Fire Marshall s office was also contacted for additional information but none could be provided. As additional local data becomes available, this hazard profile will be amended. 5:24

68 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Jurisdiction Date Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011) Lyman 8/22/2006 1/0 $0 Pacolet None reported Reidville None reported Spartanburg Spartanburg 3/31/1993 0/0 $82,432 Spartanburg 9/2/1993 0/0 $824,316 Spartanburg 4/24/1995 0/0 $23,431 Spartanburg 7/10/1997 0/0 $148,272 Spartanburg 5/29/1998 0/0 $218,997 Spartanburg 7/8/2001 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/3/2003 0/1 $0 Spartanburg 7/14/2005 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/29/2007 0/1 $0 Wellford None reported Woodruff Woodruff 5/4/1994 0/0 $80,336 Woodruff 7/10/1997 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/31/2008 0/0 $81,955 Woodruff 5/5/2009 0/0 $53,045 Unincorporated County Boiling Spgs 2/12/2000 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 8/17/2003 0/0 $12,668 Boiling Spgs 6/12/2004 0/1 $0 Cooley Spgs 7/29/2008 0/8 $0 Cross Anchor 6/22/1997 0/0 $0 Gramling 6/16/1994 0/0 $80,336 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 7/28/2000 0/0 $0 Gsp Intl Airport 7/17/1996 0/0 $0 North Spartanburg 7/2/1995 0/0 $54,671 Pauline 6/24/2001 0/0 $26,878 Roebuck 7/20/1998 0/0 $36,499 Roebuck 8/20/1999 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 2/12/2000 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 8/17/2003 0/0 $12,668 Boiling Spgs 6/12/2004 0/1 $0 Cooley Spgs 7/29/2008 0/8 $0 Cross Anchor 6/22/1997 0/0 $0 Gramling 6/16/1994 0/0 $80,336 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 7/28/2000 0/0 $0 Gsp Intl Airport 7/17/1996 0/0 $0 North Spartanburg 7/2/1995 0/0 $54,671 Pauline 6/24/2001 0/0 $26,878 5:25

69 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Jurisdiction Date Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011) Roebuck 7/20/1998 0/0 $36,499 Roebuck 8/20/1999 0/0 $0 All damage may not have been reported. Source: National Climatic Data Center Probability of Future Occurrences Over a 61 year reporting period from NCDC, lightning strikes were reported in 18 of those years for Spartanburg County. This results in an approximate annual probably of.30 or a 30 percent chance of occurrence in any given year. However, it should also be noted that the NCDC data does not report any events until Using this year as a starting point, the annual probability is 100 percent. Further, according to Vaisala s U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN ), Spartanburg County is located in an area of the country that experienced an average of 4-6 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year between 1997 and Given this regular frequency of occurrence, it can be expected that future lightning events will continue to threaten life and cause minor property damages throughout the county. 5.8 THUNDERSTORM Background Thunderstorms can produce a variety of accompanying hazards including wind (discussed here), hail, and lightning. 7 Although thunderstorms generally affect a small area, they are very dangerous may cause substantial property damage. Three conditions need to occur for a thunderstorm to form. First, it needs moisture to form clouds and rain. Second, it needs unstable air, such as warm air that can rise rapidly (this often referred to as the engine of the storm). Third, thunderstorms need lift, which comes in the form of cold or warm fronts, sea breezes, mountains, or the sun s heat. When these conditions occur simultaneously, air masses of varying temperatures meet, and a thunderstorm is formed. These storm events can occur singularly, in lines, or in clusters. Further, they can move through an area very quickly or linger for several hours. According to the National Weather Service, more than 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year, though only about 10 percent of these storms are classified as severe. A severe thunderstorm occurs when the storm produces at least one of these three elements: 1) Hail of three-quarters of an inch; 2) Tornado; 3) Winds of at least 58 miles per hour. Thunderstorm events have the capability of producing straight-line winds that can cause severe destruction to communities and threaten the safety of a population Location and Spatial Extent A thunderstorm event is an atmospheric hazard, and thus has no geographic boundaries. It is typically a widespread event that can occur in all regions of the United States. However, thunderstorms are most common in the central and southern states because atmospheric conditions in those regions are favorable for generating these powerful storms. It is assumed that all of Spartanburg County is equally susceptible to thunderstorm. 7 Lightning and hail hazards are discussed as separate hazards in this section. 5:26

70 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Historical Occurrences Severe storms have resulted in one disaster declaration in the County in According to NCDC, there have been 354 reported thunderstorm wind events in the participating areas of Spartanburg County. 8 These events caused over $10 million in damages (2011 dollars). There were seven reports of injuries but no fatalities. Table 5.17 summarizes the events by participating jurisdiction. Table 5.18 presents detailed thunderstorm event reports including date, magnitude, and associated damages for each event. TABLE 5.17: SUMMARY OF THUNDERSTORM OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Property Damage (2011) Campobello 8 $9,012,104 Chesnee 9 $72,999 Cowpens 6 $9,300 Duncan 8 $0 Inman 15 $118,269 Landrum 8 $3,045 Lyman 4 $1,344 Pacolet 8 $1,267 Reidville 15 $61,779 Spartanburg 164 $178,883 Wellford 1 $58,399 Woodruff 15 $26,095 Unincorporated County 93 $484,138 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 354 $10,027,622 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.18: HISTORICAL THUNDERSTORM OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Property Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Damage (2011)* Campobello Campobello 5/15/ kts. 0/0 $8,034 Campobello 6/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campobello 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campobello 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campobello 6/14/ kts. 0/0 $9,004,070 Campobello 7/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campobello 8/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campobello Arpt 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee Chesnee 7/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 4/17/ kts. 0/0 $72,999 Chesnee 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 11/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 8 These thunderstorm events are only inclusive of those reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It is likely that additional thunderstorm events have occurred in Spartanburg County. As additional local data becomes available, this hazard profile will be amended. 5:27

71 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Chesnee 6/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 6/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 8/1/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Chesnee 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cowpens Cowpens 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $8,034 Cowpens 8/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cowpens 7/29/ kts. 0/0 $1,267 Cowpens 6/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cowpens 7/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cowpens 11/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan Duncan 6/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 5/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Duncan 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman Inman 4/27/ kts. 0/0 $8,034 Inman 5/24/ kts. 0/0 $91,004 Inman 7/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 6/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 8/20/ kts. 0/0 $7,129 Inman 7/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 11/9/ kts. 0/0 $6,921 Inman 6/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/13/ kts. 0/0 $3,914 Inman 7/15/ kts. 0/0 $1,267 Inman 6/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 12/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman 5/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Inman Mills 2/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum Landrum 4/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum 3/8/ kts. 0/0 $1,562 Landrum 6/14/ kts. 0/0 $1,483 Landrum 6/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum 11/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum 7/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum 7/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Landrum 8/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:28

72 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Landrum 4/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Lyman Lyman 7/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Lyman 6/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Lyman 9/23/ kts. 0/0 $1,344 Lyman 3/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet Pacolet 6/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 5/2/ kts. 0/0 $1,267 Pacolet 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 6/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 8/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet 8/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pacolet Mills 6/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville Reidville 5/13/ kts. 0/0 $8,243 Reidville 6/2/ kts. 0/0 $8,034 Reidville 6/7/ kts. 0/0 $45,502 Reidville 7/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 6/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 4/17/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 5/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/17/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 5/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Reidville 7/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Spartanburg 5/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 1/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/7/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/3/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:29

73 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 8/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/29/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/17/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/7/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/17/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:30

74 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 4/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/7/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/10/ kts. 0/2 $0 Spartanburg 4/10/ kts. 0/2 $0 Spartanburg 4/10/ kts. 0/1 $0 Spartanburg 4/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/29/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 12/23/ kts. 0/1 $0 Spartanburg 3/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:31

75 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 7/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 9/24/ kts. 0/0 $1,607 Spartanburg 1/14/ kts. 0/0 $1,562 Spartanburg 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 1/19/ kts. 0/0 $53,086 Spartanburg 5/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 2/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/3/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 10/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $39,143 Spartanburg 9/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/11/ kts. 0/0 $2,610 Spartanburg 5/2/ kts. 0/1 $63,339 Spartanburg 8/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 11/19/ kts. 0/0 $1,267 Spartanburg 6/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/7/ kts. 0/0 $5,970 5:32

76 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 7/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 5/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 9/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/22/ kts. 0/0 $10,300 Wellford Wellford 9/7/ kts. 0/0 $58,399 Woodruff Woodruff 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 8/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 2/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 5/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 6/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 8/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 5/13/ kts. 0/0 $26,095 Woodruff 6/30/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 8/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 7/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 5/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 5/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Woodruff 8/12/ kts. 0/0 $0 Unincorporated County Croft Area 3/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 Greenville- Spartanbu 3/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 6/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Btwn Landrum 7/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Holly Springs To 7/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Near Inman 7/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Glenn Springs 10/22/ kts. 0/0 $3,213 Northern 6/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Greenville 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Boilingsprings 7/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 West Spartanburg 7/2/ kts. 0/0 $49,985 Cross Anchor 3/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnsbrg Arpt 6/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnsbrg Arpt 7/17/ kts. 0/0 $15,167 Glenn Spgs 7/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Glenn Spgs 7/24/ kts. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 8/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:33

77 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Pelham 4/17/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 5/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Enoree 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Glenn Spgs 6/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Mayo 6/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 6/29/ kts. 0/0 $0 Moore 7/19/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 8/20/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 5/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Moore 7/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Enoree 11/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 11/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 6/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Moore 7/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Holly Spgs 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Drayton 6/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 6/4/ kts. 0/0 $6,524 Boiling Spgs 7/3/ kts. 0/0 $130,477 Enoree 11/11/ kts. 0/0 $1,305 Enoree 6/11/ kts. 0/0 $1,267 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 7/11/ kts. 0/0 $63,339 Boiling Spgs 8/17/ kts. 0/0 $5,067 Roebuck 7/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pelham 7/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 7/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Holly Spgs 7/11/ kts. 0/0 $135,286 Roebuck 8/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cross Anchor 4/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 5/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 7/14/ kts. 0/0 $0 Moore 8/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 1/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Mayo 6/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Roebuck 6/25/ kts. 0/0 $56,275 Boiling Spgs 6/27/ kts. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 8/22/ kts. 0/0 $0 Mayo 8/25/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Sigsbee 7/4/ kts. 0/0 $0 Walnut Grove 7/6/ kts. 0/0 $0 Arlington 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 7/8/ kts. 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Mayo 7/21/ kts. 0/0 $0 Enoree 7/23/ kts. 0/0 $0 Stone Station 7/31/ kts. 0/0 $0 5:34

78 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 8/2/ kts. 0/0 $10,927 Moore 8/2/ kts. 0/0 $0 Enoree 12/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 2/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Whitney 2/11/ kts. 0/0 $5,305 Glenn Spgs 5/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 6/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Arkwright 6/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Camp Croft 6/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Saxon 6/13/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pauline 6/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Grnvl Sprtnbrg Arpt 6/18/ kts. 0/0 $0 Drayton 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Fairmont 7/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Gramling 9/9/ kts. 0/0 $0 Arcadia 3/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Enoree 3/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Forster 3/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campton 5/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Kilgore 5/28/ kts. 0/0 $0 Campton 6/10/ kts. 0/0 $0 Brooklyn 6/15/ kts. 0/0 $0 Whitney 6/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Pelham 7/11/ kts. 0/0 $0 Cashville 7/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 Fairmont 7/26/ kts. 0/0 $0 Mayo 8/5/ kts. 0/0 $0 Fingerville 11/16/ kts. 0/0 $0 *Property damage is reported in 2009 dollars; All damage may not have been reported. Source: National Climatic Data Center Probability of Future Occurrences Over NCDC s 61 year reporting period ( ), thunderstorms were reported in 49 of those years for Spartanburg County. This results in an approximate annual probability of.81, or an 81 percent probability of occurrence in any given year. According the Priority Risk Index in Table 5.36, this is a probability of likely. However, given the climate of the area and information provided by the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, it can be expected that thunderstorms will occur annually in the county, for a PRI rating of highly likely. 5.9 TORNADO Background A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most often generated by thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes and other tropical storms) when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist 5:35

79 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris, also accompanied by lightning or large hail. According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds normally range from 40 miles per hour to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and turning normally harmless objects into deadly missiles. Each year, an average of over 800 tornadoes is reported nationwide, resulting in an average of 80 deaths and 1,500 injuries. 9 According to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center (SPC), the highest concentration of tornadoes in the United States has been in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Florida respectively. Although the Great Plains region of the Central United States does favor the development of the largest and most dangerous tornadoes (earning the designation of tornado alley ), Florida experiences the greatest number of tornadoes per square mile of all U.S. states (SPC, 2002). Figure 5.6 shows tornado activity in the United States based on the number of recorded tornadoes per 1,000 square miles. FIGURE 5.6: TORNADO ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Tornadoes are more likely to occur during the months of March through May and are most likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. Most tornadoes are a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even small short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous damage. Highly destructive tornadoes may carve out a path over a mile wide and several miles long. 9 NOAA, :36

80 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from light to inconceivable depending on the intensity, size and duration of the storm. Typically, tornadoes cause the greatest damage to structures of light construction, including residential dwellings (particularly mobile homes). Tornadic magnitude is reported according to the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita Scales. Tornado magnitudes prior to 2005 were determined using the traditional version of the Fujita Scale (Table 5.19). Tornado magnitudes that were determined in 2005 and later were determined using the Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 5.20). TABLE 5.19: THE FUJITA SCALE (EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO 2005) F-SCALE NUMBER INTENSITY WIND SPEED TYPE OF DAMAGE DONE F0 GALE TORNADO MPH Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards. F1 MODERATE TORNADO MPH The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. F2 SIGNIFICANT TORNADO MPH Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. F3 SEVERE TORNADO MPH Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted. F4 DEVASTATING TORNADO MPH Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. F5 F6 INCREDIBLE TORNADO INCONCEIVABLE TORNADO Source: National Weather Service MPH MPH Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged. These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. TABLE 5.20 THE ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE (EFFECTIVE 2005 AND LATER) 5:37

81 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES EF-SCALE NUMBER INTENSITY PHRASE 3 SECOND GUST (MPH) TYPE OF DAMAGE DONE F0 GALE F1 MODERATE F2 SIGNIFICANT Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. F3 SEVERE Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted. F4 DEVASTATING F5 INCREDIBLE Over 200 Source: National Weather Service Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged Location and Spatial Extent Tornadoes occur throughout the state of North Carolina, and thus are possible in Spartanburg County. Tornadoes typically impact a relatively small area, but damage may be extensive. Event locations are completely random and it is not possible to predict specific areas that are more susceptible to tornado strikes over time. Therefore, it is assumed that the county is uniformly exposed to this hazard Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been a total of twenty-six (26) recorded tornado events in Spartanburg County between 1958 and March 2011 (Table 5.21), resulting in nearly $30 million in property damages (2011 dollars). 10 In addition, 4 deaths and 102 injuries were reported (Table 5.22). The magnitude of these tornadoes ranges from F0 to F4 in intensity, with approximate touchdown locations for events with known coordinates are shown in Figure 5.7. It is important to note that only tornadoes that have been reported are factored into this risk assessment. It is likely that a high number of occurrences have gone unreported over the past 53 years. 10 These tornado events are only inclusive of those reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It is likely that additional tornadoes have occurred. As additional local data becomes available, this hazard profile will be amended. 5:38

82 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES TABLE 5.21: SUMMARY OF TORNADO OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Property Damage (2011) Campobello 0 $0 Chesnee 1 $0 Cowpens 0 $0 Duncan 0 $0 Inman 1 $803,358 Landrum 0 $0 Lyman 1 $803,358 Pacolet 1 $0 Reidville 0 $0 Spartanburg 17 $27,685,287 Wellford 0 $0 Woodruff 0 $0 Unincorporated County 5 $506,980 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 26 $29,798,983 Source: National Climatic Data Center Chesnee TABLE 5.22: HISTORICAL TORNADO OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Chesnee 7/7/2005 F0 0/0 $0 Inman Inman 3/27/1994 F2 0/0 $803,358 Lyman Lyman To Blackburg 3/27/1994 F1 0/4 $803,358 Pacolet Pacolet Mills 6/6/1998 F0 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Spartanburg 5/10/1952 F3 2/4 $0 Spartanburg 4/7/1964 F1 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/28/1964 F0 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/28/1964 F0 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 3/22/1968 F1 0/0 $20,496 Spartanburg 5/18/1969 F1 0/0 $1,620,449 Spartanburg 5/27/1973 F3 0/16 $13,398,769 Spartanburg 6/19/1976 F1 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 9/7/1977 F1 0/0 $98,234 Spartanburg 12/5/1977 F1 0/0 $98,234 Spartanburg 5/23/1980 F2 0/0 $722,257 Spartanburg 8/17/1985 F2 0/39 $5,535,550 Spartanburg 4/4/1989 F2 0/0 $479,981 Spartanburg 5/5/1989 F4 2/35 $4,799,812 5:39

83 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Magnitude Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011)* Spartanburg 2/10/1990 F1 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 4/28/1990 F0 0/0 $455,751 Spartanburg 4/28/1990 F1 0/4 $455,751 Unincorporated County Cross Anchor 10/22/1994 F0 0/0 $6,427 Walnut Grove 7/26/1996 F1 0/0 $0 Roebuck 2/21/1997 F2 0/0 $489,298 Cherokee Spgs 3/11/2000 F0 0/0 $0 Moore 1/5/2007 F0 0/0 $11,255 *Property damage is reported in 2009 dollars; All damage may not have been reported. Source: National Climatic Data Center FIGURE 5.7: LOCATIONS OF HISTORICAL TORNADO EVENTS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Source: NCDC 5:40

84 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Probability of Future Occurrences Over the 61 year NCDC reporting period, tornadoes occurred in 18 years. This results in an approximate annual probability of.26 or a 26 percent probability of occurrence in any given year. The probability of future tornado occurrences affecting Spartanburg County is likely, according to probability ranking in the Priority Risk Index (Table 5.36). While the majority of the reported tornado events are small in terms of size, intensity and duration, they do pose a significant threat should the county experience a direct tornado strike WINTER STORM AND FREEZE Background A winter storm can range from a moderate snow over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow that lasts for several days. Events may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry forms of precipitation. Some winter storms might be large enough to affect several states, while others might affect only localized areas. Occasionally, heavy snow might also cause significant property damages, such as roof collapses on older buildings. All winter storm events have the potential to present dangerous conditions to the affected area. Larger snowfalls pose a greater risk, reducing visibility due to blowing snow and making driving conditions treacherous. A heavy snow event is defined by the National Weather Service as an accumulation of 4 of more inches in 12 hours or less. A blizzard is the most severe form of winter storm. It combines low temperatures, heavy snow, and winds of 35 miles per hour or more, which reduces visibility to a quarter mile or less for at least three hours. Winter storms are often accompanied by sleet, freezing rain, or an ice storm. Such freeze events are particularly hazardous as they create treacherous surfaces. Ice storms are defined as storms with significant amounts of freezing rain and are a result of cold air damming (CAD). CAD is a shallow, surface-based layer of relatively cold, stably-stratified air entrenched against the eastern slopes of the Appalachian Mountains. With warmer air above, falling precipitation in the form of snow melts, then becomes either super-cooled (liquid below the melting point of water) or re-freezes. In the former case, super-cooled droplets can freeze on impact (freezing rain), while in the latter case, the re-frozen water particles are ice pellets (or sleet). Sleet is defined as partially frozen raindrops or refrozen snowflakes that form into small ice pellets before reaching the ground. They typically bounce when they hit the ground and do not stick to the surface. However, it does accumulate like snow, posing similar problems and has the potential to accumulate into a layer of ice on surfaces. Freezing rain, conversely, usually sticks to the ground, creating a sheet of ice on the roadways and other surfaces. All of the winter storm elements snow, low temperatures, sleet, ice, etcetera - have the potential to cause significant hazard to a community. Even small accumulations can down power lines and trees limbs and create hazardous driving conditions. Further, communication and power may be disrupted for days Location and Spatial Extent Nearly the entire continental United States is susceptible to winter storm and freeze events. Some ice and winter storms may be large enough to affect several states, while others might affect limited, localized areas. The degree of exposure typically depends on the normal expected severity of local winter weather. Spartanburg County is accustomed to occasional winter weather conditions. Given the atmospheric nature of the hazard, the entire county has uniform exposure to a winter storm. 5:41

85 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Historical Occurrences Winter weather has resulted in three out of five disaster declarations in Spartanburg County. According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been a total of 63 reported winter storm events in Spartanburg County since 1950 (Table 5.23). These events resulted in over $15 million (2011 dollars) in damages. 11 Those events with reported damages and fatalities are presented in Table TABLE 5.23: SUMMARY OF WINTER STORM EVENTS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Location Number of Occurrences Deaths/ Injuries Property Damage (2011) Spartanburg County 63 0/0 $15,226,876 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.24: HISTORICAL WINTER STORM IMPACTS Deaths/ Date Type of Storm Injuries Property Damage* Multiple Counties 1/11/1994 Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Mountains 2/10/1994 Freezing Rain/sleet 0/0 $0 17 counties 2/11/1994 Ice Storm 0/0 $472,564 9 counties 1/6/1995 Freezing Rain 0/0 $17,356 Multiple Counties 2/7/1995 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/10/1995 Snow Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/6/1996 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 7 counties 1/6/1996 Winter Storm 0/0 $10,834 7 counties 1/7/1996 Winter Storm 0/0 $10,834 Multiple Counties 1/11/1996 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/2/1996 Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/2/1996 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/16/1996 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/18/1996 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 5 counties 1/9/1997 Ice Storm 0/0 $59,309 Multiple Counties 2/13/1997 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/29/1997 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/19/1998 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/23/1998 Freezing Rain/sleet 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/24/1998 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 9 counties 1/2/1999 Ice Storm 0/0 $3,168,358 Multiple Counties 1/31/1999 Snow And Sleet 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/1/1999 Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/24/1999 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 3/9/1999 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/22/2000 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 11 These ice and winter storm events are only inclusive of those reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It is likely that additional winter storm conditions have affected Spartanburg County. The dollar amount of damages provided by NCDC is divided by the number of affected counties to reflect a damage estimate for each county. 5:42

86 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Type of Storm Deaths/ Injuries Property Damage* Multiple Counties 1/23/2000 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/24/2000 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/29/2000 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 11/19/2000 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/3/2000 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/13/2000 Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/19/2000 Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/21/2000 Freezing Rain 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 3/20/2001 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 4/17/2001 Snow Showers 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/3/2002 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 12 counties 12/4/2002 Ice Storm 0/0 $10,837,311 Multiple Counties 1/16/2003 Winter Weather/mix 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/23/2003 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/16/2003 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/4/2003 Winter Weather/mix 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/27/2004 Winter Weather/mix 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/2/2004 Winter Weather/mix 0/0 $0 8 counties 2/26/2004 Heavy Snow 0/0 $292,095 Multiple Counties 1/29/2005 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/8/2005 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 3 counties 12/15/2005 Ice Storm 0/0 $358,216 Multiple Counties 12/15/2005 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/18/2007 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/1/2007 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/16/2008 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/19/2008 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/20/2009 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 3/1/2009 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/30/2009 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/29/2010 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/29/2010 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 2/12/2010 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 3/2/2010 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/16/2010 Winter Weather 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 12/25/2010 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 Multiple Counties 1/10/2011 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 TOTAL - - 0/0 $15,226,876 *Property Damage is reported in 2011dollars Source: National Climatic Data Center 5:43

87 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Probability of Future Occurrences Over a 61 year reporting for NCDC, winter storm, snow, or ice events were reported in 17 of those years for Spartanburg County. This results in an approximate annual probably of.28 or a 28 percent of occurrence in any given year. It should be noted, however, that NCDC does not start reporting data until From this point, winter storm events occur annually, resulting in 100 percent annual probability and an average of 3 events per year. Winter storm events will remain a likely occurrence in Spartanburg County according to the Priority Risk Index probability rankings in Table Fortunately, large scale property damages and/or threats to human life and safety are rare with these events. 5:44

88 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Geologic Hazards 5.11 EARTHQUAKE Background An earthquake is movement or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides or the collapse of caverns. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons; and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area. Most property damage and earthquake-related deaths are caused by the failure and collapse of structures due to ground shaking. The level of damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of the shaking, which are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site and regional geology. Other damaging earthquake effects include landslides, the down-slope movement of soil and rock (mountain regions and along hillsides), and liquefaction, in which ground soil loses the ability to resist shear and flows much like quick sand. In the case of liquefaction, anything relying on the substrata for support can shift, tilt, rupture or collapse. Most earthquakes are caused by the release of stresses accumulated as a result of the rupture of rocks along opposing fault planes in the Earth s outer crust. These fault planes are typically found along borders of the Earth's 10 tectonic plates. The areas of greatest tectonic instability occur at the perimeters of the slowly moving plates, as these locations are subjected to the greatest strains from plates traveling in opposite directions and at different speeds. Deformation along plate boundaries causes strain in the rock and the consequent buildup of stored energy. When the built-up stress exceeds the rocks' strength, a rupture occurs. The rock on both sides of the fracture is snapped, releasing the stored energy and producing seismic waves, generating an earthquake. Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is measured using the Richter Scale, an open-ended logarithmic scale that describes the energy release of an earthquake through a measure of shock wave amplitude (Table 5.25). Each unit increase in magnitude on the Richter Scale corresponds to a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude, or a 32-fold increase in energy. Intensity is most commonly measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale based on direct and indirect measurements of seismic effects. The scale levels are typically described using roman numerals, ranging from I corresponding to imperceptible (instrumental) events to XII for catastrophic (total destruction). A detailed description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of earthquake intensity and its correspondence to the Richter Scale is given in Table RICHTER MAGNITUDES < 3.5 Generally not felt, but recorded Often felt, but rarely causes damage TABLE 5.25: RICHTER SCALE EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across where people live Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 8 or > Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across. Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency 5:45

89 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES TABLE 5.26: MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES CORRESPONDING SCALE INTENSITY DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS RICHTER SCALE MAGNITUDE I INSTRUMENTAL Detected only on seismographs. II FEEBLE Some people feel it. < 4.2 III SLIGHT Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling by. IV MODERATE Felt by people walking. V VI SLIGHTLY STRONG STRONG Sleepers awake; church bells ring. < 4.8 Trees sway; suspended objects swing, objects fall off shelves. < 5.4 VII VERY STRONG Mild alarm; walls crack; plaster falls. < 6.1 VIII IX X XI XII DESTRUCTIVE RUINOUS DISASTROUS VERY DISASTROUS CATASTROPHIC Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry fractures, poorly constructed buildings damaged. Some houses collapse; ground cracks; pipes break open. Ground cracks profusely; many buildings destroyed; liquefaction and landslides widespread. Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, railways, pipes and cables destroyed; general triggering of other hazards. Total destruction; trees fall; ground rises and falls in waves. < 6.9 < 7.3 < 8.1 > Location and Spatial Extent The greatest earthquake threat in the United States is along tectonic plate boundaries and seismic fault lines located in the central and western states; however, the East Coast does face moderate risk to less frequent, less intense earthquake events. Figure 5.8 shows relative seismic risk for the United States and Figure 5.9 shows the fault lines in South Carolina. Of greatest threat to the state is the Charleston Fault, located along the southern coast. There are several mapped faults and mapped thrust faults near Spartanburg County including the Pax Mountain fault system. 5:46

90 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES FIGURE 5.8: UNITED STATES EARTHQUAKE HAZARD MAP Source: United States Geological Survey FIGURE 5.9: GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMIC INFORMATION FOR SOUTH CAROLINA Source: South Carolina Geological Survey Figure 5.10 shows the intensity level associated with Spartanburg County, based on the national USGS map of peak acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. It is the probability that ground motion will reach a certain level during an earthquake. The 5:47

91 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES data show peak horizontal ground acceleration (the fastest measured change in speed, for a particle at ground level that is moving horizontally due to an earthquake) with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The map was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Hazards Team, which conducts global investigations of earthquake, geomagnetic, and landslide hazards. According to this maps, the county lies within an approximate zone of level of 4 to 5 peak ground acceleration. This indicates that the region as a whole exists within an area of moderate seismic risk. FIGURE 5.10: PEAK ACCELERATION WITH 10 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS Source: USGS, Historical Occurrences Two significant earthquakes are known to have occurred in South Carolina, according to the South Carolina Geological Survey. The first and most severe was the Charleston Earthquake of The epicenter was near Charleston, South Carolina and the magnitude was an estimated 7.6. Nearly 60 people died and damaged was extensive. The South Carolina Geological Survey also reports an earthquake in Union County, which borders Spartanburg County. In January 1913, the county experienced a strong, magnitude 5.5 earthquake. However, damage was minimal. There have been more than two hundred minimal earthquakes reported in South Carolina since 2001, but none of these events caused any significant damage and many were not strong enough to be felt by people. Most of these events occurred near Columbia, South Carolina or further east. However, one earthquake was reported in Spartanburg County in It was a magnitude 2.5 earthquake recorded on Thursday, October 28 th., 4.2 km (2.6 miles) deep, and 10 miles east southeast from Spartanburg, South Carolina. 5:48

92 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES The National Geophysical Data Center also provides historical earthquake information from 1638 to The number of events by jurisdiction are summarized in Table Events are reported for an area if they can be detected, so multiple listings of the same events are found in the jurisdictions below in table Table TABLE 5.27: SUMMARY OF EARTHQUAKE EVENTS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Greatest MMI Campobello - - Chesnee 2 3 Cowpens 2 7 Duncan 2 3 Inman 1 3 Landrum 5 5 Lyman - - Pacolet 2 7 Reidville 2 3 Spartanburg 11 7 Wellford 1 4 Woodruff 2 3 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 30 7 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.28: HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY* Date Magnitude Depth (km) MMI Campobello None Reported Chesnee Chesnee 2/3/ Chesnee 11/30/ Cowpens Cowpens 9/2/ Cowpens 2/3/ Duncan Duncan 2/3/ Duncan 11/30/ Inman Inman 11./30/ Landrum Landrum 2/21/ Landrum 10/20/ Landrum 11/3/ Landrum 11/30/ Landrum 5/5/ Lyman 5:49

93 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES None Reported Pacolet Date Magnitude Depth (km) MMI Pacolet 9/1/ Pacolet 2/3/ Reidville Reidville 2/3/ Reidville 11/30/ Spartanburg Spartanburg 11/2/ Spartanburg 9/1/ Spartanburg 5/31/ Spartanburg 4/20/ Spartanburg 2/21/ Spartanburg 10/20/ Spartanburg 11/3/ Spartanburg 7/26/ Spartanburg 5/13/ Spartanburg 11/20/ Spartanburg 2/3/ Wellford Wellford 2/3/ Woodruff Woodruff 2/3/ Woodruff 11/30/ Source: National Geophysical Data Center ( ) *As noted previously, a 2.5 magnitude earthquake occurred in Spartanburg County in Probability of Future Occurrences The National Geophysical data Center has reported earthquake data over a 347 year period of which Spartanburg County had 30 occurrences in 15 separate years. This results in an estimated annual probability of.43 or a 4.3 percent chance that an earthquake event will occur in any given year. The probability of earthquake events affecting Spartanburg County is possible according to the Priority Risk Index rankings in Table However, the probability of significant, damaging affects is unlikely, while future earthquakes resulting in light to moderate perceived shaking and slight damages will continue to impact the county LANDSLIDE 5:50

94 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Background A landslide is the downward and outward movement of slope-forming soil, rock, and vegetation, which is driven by gravity. Landslides may be triggered by both natural and human-caused changes in the environment, including heavy rain, rapid snow melt, steepening of slopes due to construction or erosion, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and changes in groundwater levels. There are several types of landslides: rock falls, rock topple, slides, and flows. Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, which result in bouncing or rolling. A topple is a section or block of rock that rotates or tilts before falling to the slope below. Slides are movements of soil or rock along a distinct surface of rupture, which separates the slide material from the more stable underlying material. Mudflows, sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars or debris avalanches, are fastmoving rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the soil into a flowing river of mud or slurry. Slurry can flow rapidly down slopes or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. Slurry can travel several miles from its source, growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other materials along the way. As the flows reach flatter ground, the mudflow spreads over a broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits. Landslides are typically associated with periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the effects of flooding that often accompanies these events. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides. Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly. Among the most destructive types of debris flows are those that accompany volcanic eruptions. A spectacular example in the United States was a massive debris flow resulting from the 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Areas near the bases of many volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range of California, Oregon and Washington are at risk from the same types of flows during future volcanic eruptions. Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include previous landslide areas; the bases of steep slopes; the bases of drainage channels; and developed hillsides where leach-field septic systems are used. Areas that are typically considered safe from landslides include areas that have not moved in the past; relatively flat-lying areas away from sudden changes in slope; and areas at the top or along ridges, set back from the tops of slopes. According to the United States Geological Survey, each year landslides cause $5.1 billion (2009 dollars) in damage and between 25 and 50 deaths in the United States. 12 Figure 4.11 delineates areas where large numbers of landslides have occurred and areas which are susceptible to landsliding in the conterminous United States United States Geological Survey (USGS). United States Department of the Interior. Landslide Hazards A National Threat This map layer is provided in the U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183, Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States, available online at 5:51

95 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES FIGURE 5.11: LANDSLIDE OVERVIEW MAP OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES Source: USGS Location and Spatial Extent Landslides are possible throughout Spartanburg County. However, some areas may experience more landslide activities than others. According to Figure 5.12 below, there are two zones of landslide incidence and susceptibility. The northern portion is an area of high susceptibility and moderate incidence. The lower portion of the county is in an area of moderate susceptibility and low incidence. This indicates that the northern portion of the county has a slightly higher risk to landslide activity. FIGURE 5.12: LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY 5:52

96 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Source: USGS Historical Occurrences There are no recorded historical landslide occurrences according to the South Carolina Geological Survey and the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. This plan will be amended in future updates if data becomes available Probability of Future Occurrences Based on historical information and the USGS susceptibility index, the probability of future landslide events is assumed to be possible (a 1 10 percent annual probability according to the Priority Risk Index in Table 5.36). Since there is no record of previous occurrences, it is difficult to determine the probability in the area. However, using data from the USGS, it can be determined that the county has low to moderate incidence and moderate to high susceptibility for landsliding. This plan will be amended in future updates if data becomes available. Hydrologic Hazards 5:53

97 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES 5.13 FLOOD Background Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United States; a hazard that has caused more than 10,000 deaths since Nearly 90 percent of presidential disaster declarations result from natural events where flooding was a major component. Floods generally result from excessive precipitation, and can be classified under two categories: general floods, precipitation over a given river basin for a long period of time along with storm-induced wave action; and flash floods, the product of heavy localized precipitation in a short time period over a given location. The severity of a flooding event is typically determined by a combination of several major factors, including: stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and the degree of vegetative clearing and impervious surface. General floods are usually long-term events that may last for several days. The primary types of general flooding include riverine, coastal and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is a function of excessive precipitation levels and water runoff volumes within the watershed of a stream or river. Coastal flooding is typically a result of storm surge, wind-driven waves and heavy rainfall produced by hurricanes, tropical storms and other large coastal storms. 14 Urban flooding occurs where manmade development has obstructed the natural flow of water and decreased the ability of natural groundcover to absorb and retain surface water runoff. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms in a local area or by heavy rains associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. However, flash flooding events may also occur from a dam or levee failure within minutes or hours of heavy amounts of rainfall, or from a sudden release of water held by a retention basin or other stormwater control facility. Although flash flooding occurs most often along mountain streams, it is also common in urbanized areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces. The periodic flooding of lands adjacent to rivers, streams and shorelines (land known as floodplain) is a natural and inevitable occurrence that can be expected to take place based upon established recurrence intervals. The recurrence interval of a flood is defined as the average time interval, in years, expected between a flood event of a particular magnitude and an equal or larger flood. Flood magnitude increases with increasing recurrence interval. 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, and the 100-year floodplain by the 100-year flood. Flood frequencies such as the 100-year flood 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. Another way of expressing the flood frequency is the chance of occurrence in a given year, which is the percentage of the probability of flooding each year. For example, the 100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year, and the 500-year flood has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year Location and Spatial Extent 14 While briefly mentioned here, coastal flooding is more thoroughly addressed under the storm surge hazard. 5:54

98 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES There are areas in Spartanburg County that are particularly susceptible to a flood event. Special flood areas in Spartanburg were mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) and FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) (effective January 2011). Figure 5.13 illustrates the location and extent of currently mapped special flood hazard areas for Spartanburg County based on best available FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data. 15 This includes Zone AE (1-percent annual chance floodplain with elevation), Zone X500 (0.2-percent annual chance floodplain). According to GIS analysis, of the square miles that make up Spartanburg County, there are 39.8 square miles of land in zone AE ( 1-percent annual chance floodplain) and 1.2 square miles in the 0.2-percent hazard area (500-year flood). These flood zone values account for approximately 5 percent of the total land area in Spartanburg County. It is important to note that while FEMA digital flood data is recognized as best available data for planning purposes, it does not always reflect the most accurate and up-to-date flood risk. Further, such maps do not address areas of flash flooding. Therefore, flooding and flood-related losses often do occur outside of delineated flood hazard areas. FIGURE 5.13: SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Historical Occurrences Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency 15 The county-level DFIRM data used for Spartanburg County has an effective date of January 6, :55

99 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Information from the National Climatic Data Center was used to ascertain historical flood events. The National Climatic Data Center reported a total of sixty-five (65) events throughout Spartanburg County since March A summary of these events is presented in Table These events accounted for over $24 million (2011 dollars) in property damage due to flood events throughout the county. 17 Specific information on flood events for each jurisdiction including date, type of flooding, and deaths and injuries, can be found in Table TABLE 5.29: SUMMARY OF FLOOD OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Jurisdiction Number of Occurrences Property Damage (2011 dollars) Campobello 5 $1,562 Chesnee 0 $0 Cowpens 0 $0 Duncan 2 $0 Inman 3 $0 Landrum 6 $0 Lyman 3 $0 Pacolet 0 $0 Reidville 1 $0 Spartanburg 15 $4,405,273 Wellford 0 $0 Woodruff 1 $1,562,040 Unincorporated County 29 $18,978,297 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 65 $24,947,172 Source: National Climatic Data Center TABLE 5.30: HISTORICAL FLOOD OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Property Damage Date Type Deaths/Injuries (2011 dollars)* Campobello Campobello 2/16/1995 Flash Flood 0/0 $1,562 Campobello 7/14/2005 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Campobello Arpt 11/11/2009 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Campobello Arpt 11/11/2009 Flood 0/0 $0 Campobello Arpt 12/2/2009 Flood 0/0 $0 Duncan Duncan 7/10/1997 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Duncan 3/20/2000 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Greer Greer 8/7/2003 Flash Flood 0/0 $63,339 Greer 6/28/2005 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Greer And Cowpens 8/26/1995 Flood/flash Flood 0/0 $781, These events are only inclusive of those reported by NCDC. It is likely that additional occurrences have occurred and have gone unreported. These totals do not include non-participating areas in Spartanburg County. 17 The total damage amount was averaged over the number of affected counties when multiple counties were involved in the flood event. 5:56

100 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Inman Inman 7/25/2001 Inman 10/15/2002 Date Type Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011 dollars)* Urban/ sml Stream Flood 0/0 $0 Urban/ sml Stream Flood 0/0 $0 Inman 3/1/2007 Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum Landrum 7/28/1994 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum 1/8/1998 Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum 12/24/2002 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum 1/24/2010 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum 1/25/2010 Flood 0/0 $0 Landrum 2/5/2010 Flood 0/0 $0 Lyman Lyman 7/28/1994 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Lyman 9/15/2002 Flood 0/0 $0 Lyman 12/9/2004 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Reidville Reidville 10/10/1999 Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Spartanburg 5/4/1993 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/17/1994 Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 10/4/1995 Urban Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/14/1997 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 10/26/1997 Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/14/1998 Flash Flood 0/0 $3,649,948 Spartanburg 8/15/1998 Flash Flood 0/0 $729,990 7/7/1999 Urban/sml Stream 0/0 $0 Spartanburg Fld Spartanburg 7/7/1999 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 7/23/2000 Urban/sml Stream Fld 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 9/1/2000 Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 6/25/2001 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 12/24/2002 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg 8/5/2003 Flash Flood 0/0 $25,335 Spartanburg 12/10/2004 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Woodruff Woodruff 8/27/1995 Flash Flood 1/3 $1,562,040 Unincorporated County North And South 2/7/1993 Flood 0/0 $824,316 Spartanburg County 4/5/1993 Coastal Flood 0/0 $8,243,155 Una And Other 6/5/1994 Flash Flood 0/0 $80,336 Eastside 7/18/1994 Flash Flood 0/0 $80, counties 10/13/1994 Flash Flooding 0/0 $76,510 5:57

101 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Date Type Deaths/Injuries Property Damage (2011 dollars)* Northern 1/14/1995 Flood 0/0 $0 West Spartanburg 8/26/1995 Flash Flood 0/0 $1,562,040 Mayo Crescent 8/27/1995 Flood 0/0 $3,124,080 Woodruff 4 counties 1/27/1996 Flood 0/0 $0 Enoree 7/23/1997 Flash Flood 0/0 $296,544 Clifton 2/3/1998 Flood 0/0 $0 North Portion 5/29/1998 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Pelham 9/15/2002 Flood 0/0 $0 North Portion 3/20/2003 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg County 3/20/2003 Flood 0/0 $1,266,770 Spartanburg County 4/18/2003 Flood 0/1 $31,669 Spartanburg County 5/22/2003 Flood 0/0 $0 Spartanburg County 2/6/2004 Flood 0/0 $0 East Central Portion 6/21/2004 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 2 counties 9/7/2004 Flood 0/0 $24,598 Spartanburg County 9/17/2004 Flood 0/0 $0 Central Portion 9/27/2004 Flash Flood 0/0 $24,597 3 counties 9/27/2004 Flood 0/0 $0 North Portion 7/7/2005 Flash Flood 0/0 $1,313,458 Spartanburg County 7/7/2005 Flood 0/0 $0 Boiling Spgs 8/10/2005 Flash Flood 0/0 $1,791,078 Spartanburg County 10/7/2005 Flood 0/0 $238,810 Arkwright 11/11/2009 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Holly Spgs 12/2/2009 Flood 0/0 $0 *Property damage is reported in 2009 dollars; All damage may not have been reported. Source: National Climatic Data Center Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program Ten jurisdictions participate in the national flood insurance program including Spartanburg County, Town of Campobello, Town of Duncan, City of Greer, City of Inman, Town of Landrum, Town of Lyman, Town of Pacolet, City of Spartanburg and City of Woodruff Historical Summary of Insured Flood Losses According to FEMA flood insurance policy records as of April 2011, there have been 66 flood losses reported in the County through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1970, totaling over $700,000 in claims payments. A summary of these figures for each participating municipality is provided in Table It should be emphasized that these numbers include only those losses to structures that were insured through the NFIP policies, and for losses in which claims were sought and received. It is likely that many additional instances of flood losses in the County were either uninsured, denied claims payment, or not reported. TABLE 5.31: SUMMARY OF INSURED FLOOD LOSSES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Location Flood Losses Claims Payments 5:58

102 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Campobello None reported None reported Chesnee * * Cowpens * * Duncan None reported None reported Inman None reported None reported Landrum None reported None reported Lyman None reported None reported Pacolet 1 $1,811 Reidville * * Spartanburg (city) 26 $184,877 Wellford * * Woodruff 2 0 Unincorporated County 37 $520,699 TOTAL 66 $707,387 *These communities do not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Therefore, no values are reported. Source: FEMA, NFIP, current as of 4/30/ Repetitive Loss Properties FEMA defines a repetitive loss property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period, since A repetitive loss property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. Currently there are over 122,000 repetitive loss properties nationwide. Currently (as of June 2011), according to data form the National Flood Insurance Program, there are 6 non-mitigated repetitive loss properties located in Spartanburg County, which accounted for 16 losses and more than $123,000 in claims payments under the NFIP (Table 5.32). The average claim amount for these properties is $7,692. Most of these properties (5) are single family residential and the remaining one (1) is a non-residential property (commercial or government-owned building). Without mitigation, these properties will likely continue to experience flood losses. TABLE 5.32: SUMMARY OF INSURED REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY FLOOD LOSSES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Location Number of Properties Spartanburg (city) 2 Spartanburg (unincorporated county) 4 TOTAL 6 Types of Propertie s Number of Losses Building Payments Content Payments Total Payments Average Payment 2 single family residential 8 $72, $4, $76, $9, single family residential, 1 nonresidential 8 $31, $15, $46, $5, single family; 1 nonresidential 16 $103, $19, $123, $7, Probability of Future Occurrences Over the 61 year reporting period for NCDC, flood events occurred in 18 years within Spartanburg County. This results in an approximate annual probability of.26, or a 26 percent probability of occurrence 5:59

103 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES in any given year. The probability of future flood occurrences affecting Spartanburg County is likely, according to probability ranking in the Priority Risk Index (Table 5.36). However, it should be noted that NCDC data does report any floods until 1993, at which point flood become a near annual occurrence. Flood events will remain a threat in Spartanburg County, and the probability of future occurrences is likely. The potential area of future flood events based on magnitude and according to best available data is illustrated in Figure 5.13 above, which indicates those areas susceptible to the 1-percent annual chance flood (100-year floodplain) and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (500-year floodplain). 5:60

104 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Other Hazards 5.14 WILDFIRE Background A wildfire is any outdoor fire (i.e. grassland, forest, brush land) that is not under control, supervised, or prescribed. 18 Wildfires are part of the natural management of forest ecosystems, but may also be caused by human factors. Nationally, over 80 percent of forest fires are started by negligent human behavior such as smoking in wooded areas or improperly extinguishing campfires. The second most common cause for wildfire is lightning. In South Carolina, 98 percent of wildfires are human-caused. The number one cause is woods arson, followed by debris burning. There are three classes of wildland fires: surface fire, ground fire and crown fire. A surface fire is the most common of these three classes and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire (muck fire) is usually started by lightning or human carelessness and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Wildfires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills the area for miles around. Wildfire probability depends on local weather conditions, outdoor activities such as camping, debris burning, and construction, and the degree of public cooperation with fire prevention measures. Drought conditions and other natural hazards (such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) increase the probability of wildfires by producing fuel in both urban and rural settings. The South Carolina wildfire season runs from late winter to early spring with March being the most severe. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses and industries are located within high wildfire hazard areas. Further, the increasing demand for outdoor recreation places more people in wildlands during holidays, weekends and vacation periods. Unfortunately, wildland residents and visitors are rarely educated or prepared for wildfire events that can sweep through the brush and timber and destroy property within minutes. Wildfires can result in severe economic losses as well. Businesses that depend on timber, such as paper mills and lumber companies, experience losses that are often passed along to consumers through higher prices, and sometimes jobs are lost. The high cost of responding to and recovering from wildfires can deplete state resources and increase insurance rates. The economic impact of wildfires can also be felt in the tourism industry if roads and tourist attractions are closed due to health and safety concerns. State and local governments can impose fire safety regulations on home sites and developments to help curb wildfire. Land treatment measures such as fire access roads, water storage, helipads, safety zones, buffers, firebreaks, fuel breaks and fuel management can be designed as part of an overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel management, prescribed burning and cooperative land management planning can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards Location and Spatial Extent The entire county is at risk to a wildfire occurrence. However, drought conditions may make a fire more likely in those locations. Further, areas in the urban-wildland interface are particularly susceptible to fire hazard as populations abut formerly undeveloped areas. 18 Prescription burning, or controlled burn, undertaken by land management agencies is the process of igniting fires under selected conditions, in accordance with strict parameters. 5:61

105 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Historical Occurrences Figure 5.14 shows the Fire Occurrence Areas (FOA) in Spartanburg County based on data from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. This data is based on historical fire ignitions and is reported as the number of fires that occur per 1,000 acres each year. FIGURE 5.14: HISTORIC WILDFIRE EVENTS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, SC Forestry Commission Evident from the map above is a generally low fire occurrence overall with a high of approximately 1.3 fires per 1,000 acres. Further, areas of fire seem to be distributed throughout and not localized to a specific area. The unincorporated county, likely due to the lack of built environment, assumes most of the high fire occurrence. Conversely, more developed areas, such as the City of Spartanburg and other municipalities, see little fire occurrence. Based on data from the South Carolina Forestry Commission from 1992 through 2009, Spartanburg County experiences 46 fires per year, on average. The greatest number of fires reported for a given year was 80 fires in The greatest number of acres burned in a given year was acres in Table 5.33 provides a summary table for wildfire occurrences in the County. Table 5.34 lists the number of reported wildfire occurrences in the County between the years 2000 and This 5:62

106 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES information was only available at the county level, and thus is not reported at the jurisdictional level in this plan. TABLE 5.33: SUMMARY TABLE OF ANNUAL WILDFIRE OCCURRENCES ( )* Spartanburg County Average Number of Fires per year fires Average Number of Acres Burned per year 188 acres Average Number of Acres Burned per fire 4.06 acres *These values reflect averages over a 17 year period: Source: South Carolina Forestry Commission TABLE 5.34: HISTORICAL WILDFIRE OCCURRENCES IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Year Total Number of Fires Number of Acres ,462.6 Source: South Carolina Forestry Commission Probability of Future Occurrences Over the 17 year reporting period provided by the South Carolina Forestry Commission, wildfires have occurred in each of those years within Spartanburg County. This results in an approximate annual probability of 100 percent (or highly likely) according to the Priority Risk Index found in Table However, it should be noted that these fires tend to small in size, burning an average of 4 acres per fire. Further, the likelihood of wildfires increases during drought cycles and abnormally dry conditions. 5:63

107 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES 5.15 CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD RISK The hazard profiles presented in this section were developed using best available data and result in what may be considered principally a qualitative assessment as recommended by FEMA in its How-to guidance document titled Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA Publication 386-2). It relies heavily on historical and anecdotal data, stakeholder input, and professional and experienced judgment regarding observed and/or anticipated hazard impacts. It also carefully considers the findings in other relevant plans, studies and technical reports Hazard Extent Table 5.35 describes the extent of each natural hazard identified for Spartanburg County. The extent of a hazard is defined as its severity or magnitude, as it relates to the planning area. TABLE 5.35 EXTENT OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAZARDS Atmospheric Hazards According to the U.S. Drought Monitor Classifications, the most severe drought condition is Exceptional. The county has received this ranking Drought three times in the ten year reported history, including a 39 week stretch in The exact temperature of the extreme heat or length of event was not Extreme Heat reported in the historic heat events. However, three previous events have impacted the area. Hail extent can be defined by the size of the hail stone. The largest hail Hailstorm stone reported in the Spartanburg County was 4.0 inches in Spartanburg. Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze Geologic Hazards Earthquake Hurricane extent is defined by the Saffir-Simpson Scale which classifies hurricanes into Category 1 through Category 5 (Table 5.9). Prior to becoming classified as a hurricane, the storms are called Tropical Storms The greatest classification of hurricane to pass directly through Spartanburg County was a Tropical Storm at 52 MPH. According to the NOAA flash density map (Figure 5.5), the majority of the county is located in an area that experiences 4-6 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year. It should be noted that future lightning occurrences may exceed these figures. Thunderstorm extent is defined by the number of thunder events and wind speeds reported. According to a 60-year history from the National Climatic Data Center, the strongest recorded thunderstorm wind in Spartanburg County was reported at 78 knots (approximately 85 mph) in the unincorporated area of the county. It should be noted that future events may exceed these historical occurrences. Tornado hazard extent is measured by Tornado Occurrences in the US provided by FEMA (Figure 5.6) as well as the Fujita/Enhanced Fujita Scale (Tables 5.17 and 5.18). The greatest magnitude reported was an F4 in Spartanburg. The extent of winter storms can be measured by the amount of snowfall or ice received (in inches). A review of historical NCDC snow and records for Spartanburg County indicated that the largest snowfall was 4-8 inches and the greatest ice accumulation was 3 inches. It should be noted that accumulations can vary widely across the county due to the terrain. Earthquake extent can be measured by the Richter Scale (Table 5.23) and the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Table 5.24) According to data 5:64

108 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Landslide Hydrologic Hazards provided by the National Geophysical Data Center, the greatest MMI to impact the county was reported in Pacolet and Cowpens with a MMI of VII. The greatest magnitude reported was 5.6 on the Richter Scale in Spartanburg. As noted above in the landslide profile, no historical landslide data was available. This provides a challenge when trying to determine an accurate extent for the landslide hazard. Based on a available data from the USGS, landslide extent in Spartanburg County can be described as High Susceptibility, Moderate Incidence. The aforementioned information will be revised when better data is available. According to GIS analysis, of the square miles that make up Spartanburg County, there are 39.8 square miles of land in zone AE ( 1- percent annual chance floodplain) and 1.2 square miles in the 0.2-percent hazard area (500-year flood). Depth grids from Hazus MH MR-4 were used to determine potential depth of water and thus extent of flood hazard for the 500-year flood. According to the model, the 500-year flood had depths up to approximately 56 feet. Flood Other Hazards Wildfire According to information from NOAA, the greatest historical crest was feet on April 1, 1791 on the Swannanoa River at Biltmore. Flood stage in the area is approximately 10 feet. The depth of flood waters varies across the region, but generally it is not so much the depth of the floodwaters that causes a problem, but the velocity that causes the most problems. Flash flood waters in mountainous terrain such as that of the county can be very dangerous and often deadly. Wildfire data was provided by the South Carolina Forestry Commission Resources and is reported annually by county from 1992 to The greatest number of fires reported for a given year was 80 fires in The greatest number of acres burned in a given year was acres in Priority Risk Index In order to draw some meaningful planning conclusions on hazard risk for Spartanburg County, the results of the hazard profiling process were used to generate countywide hazard classifications according to a Priority Risk Index (PRI). The purpose of the PRI is to categorize and prioritize all potential hazards for Spartanburg County as high, moderate, or low risk. Combined with the asset inventory and quantitative vulnerability assessment provided in the next section, the summary hazard classifications generated through the use of the PRI allows for the prioritization of those high hazard risks for mitigation planning purposes, and more specifically, the identification of hazard mitigation opportunities for Spartanburg County to consider as part of their proposed mitigation strategy. The prioritization and categorization of identified hazards for the county is based principally on the PRI, a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular planning area. The PRI is used to assist the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in gaining consensus on the determination of those hazards that pose the most significant threat to the county based on a variety of 5:65

109 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES factors. The PRI is not scientifically based, but is rather meant to be utilized as an objective planning tool for classifying and prioritizing hazard risks in Spartanburg County based on standardized criteria. The application of the PRI results in numerical values that allow identified hazards to be ranked against one another (the higher the PRI value, the greater the hazard risk). PRI values are obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard (probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time and duration). Each degree of risk has been assigned a value (1 to 4) and an agreed upon weighting factor 19, as summarized in Table To calculate the PRI value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final PRI value, as demonstrated in the example equation below: PRI VALUE = [(PROBABILITY x.30) + (IMPACT x.30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x.20) + (WARNING TIME x.10) + (DURATION x.10)] According to the weighting scheme and point system applied, the highest possible value for any hazard is 4.0. When the scheme is applied for the county, the highest PRI value is 2.8 (drought hazard). Prior to being finalized, PRI values for each identified hazard were reviewed and accepted by the members of the SCHM Planning Committee. 19 The SCHM Planning Committee, based upon any unique concerns or factors for the planning area, may adjust the PRI weighting scheme during future plan updates. 5:66

110 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES PRI Category Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 5.36: PRIORITY RISK INDEX FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY Level Degree of Risk Criteria Index Value Unlikely Less than 1% annual probability 1 Possible Between 1 and 10% annual probability 2 Likely Between 10 and 100% annual probability Highly Likely 100% annual probability 4 Minor Limited Critical Catastrophic Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week. High number of deaths/injuries possible. More than 50% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more. Negligible Less than 1% of area affected 1 Small Between 1 and 10% of area affected 2 Moderate Between 10 and 50% of area affected 3 Large Between 50 and 100% of area affected 4 More than 24 hours Self explanatory 1 12 to 24 hours Self explanatory 2 6 to 12 hours Self explanatory 3 Less than 6 hours Self explanatory 4 Less than 6 hours Self explanatory 1 Less than 24 hours Self explanatory 2 Less than one week Self explanatory 3 More than one week Self explanatory Assigned Weighting Factor 30% 30% 20% 10% 10% 5:67

111 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES Priority Risk Index Results Table 5.37 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each category for all initially identified hazards based on the application of the PRI. Assigned risk levels were based on the detailed hazard profiles developed for this section, as well as input from the SCHM Planning Committee. The results were then used in calculating PRI values and making final determinations for the risk assessment. TABLE 5.37: SUMMARY OF PRI RESULTS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY Hazard Atmospheric Hazards Category/Degree of Risk Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration PRI Score Drought Highly Likely Minor Large More than 24 hours More than one week 2.8 Extreme Heat Possible Limited Large More than 24 hours Less than one week 2.4 Hailstorm Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.1 Hurricane and Tropical Storm Possible Minor Large More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours 2.0 Lightning Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.2 Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.6 Tornado Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.7 Winter Storm and Freeze Likely Limited Large More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours 2.6 Geologic Hazards Earthquakes Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.0 Landslide Possible Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 1.8 Hydrologic Hazards Flood Likely Limited Small 6 to 12 hours Less than 24 hours 2.1 Other Hazards Wildfire Likely Minor Moderate 12 to 24 hours More than one week 2.4 5:68

112 SECTION 5: HAZARD PROFILES 5.17 FINAL DETERMINATIONS The conclusions drawn from the hazard profiling process for Spartanburg County, including the PRI results and input from the SCHM Planning Committee, resulted in the classification of risk for each identified hazard according to three categories: High Risk, Moderate Risk and Low Risk (Table 5.38). For purposes of these classifications, risk is expressed in relative terms according to the estimated impact that a hazard will have on human life and property throughout all of the county. A more quantitative analysis to estimate potential dollar losses for each hazard has been performed separately (when applicable), and is described in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment. It should be noted that although some hazards are classified below as posing low risk, their occurrence of varying or unprecedented magnitudes is still possible in some cases and their assigned classification will continue to be evaluated during future plan updates. TABLE 5.38: CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD RISK FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY HIGH RISK Drought Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze Thunderstorm MODERATE RISK LOW RISK Extreme Heat Wildfire Hail Flood Lightning Hurricane & Tropical Storm Earthquake Landslide 5:69

113 SECTION 6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. The description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: (A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; (B) An estimate of the potential 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; (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. The remainder of this section is comprised of the following subsections: 6.1: Overview 6.2: Methodology 6.3: Study Area Definition 6.4: Drought 6.5: Extreme Heat 6.6: Hailstorm 6.7: Hurricane and Tropical Storm 6.8: Lightning 6.9 Thunderstorm 6.10 Tornado 6.11 Winter Storm and Freeze 6.12 Earthquake 6.13 Landslide 6.14 Flood 6.15 Wildfire 6.1 OVERVIEW This section builds upon the information provided in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Section 5: Hazard Profiles by identifying and characterizing an inventory of assets in Spartanburg County. In addition, the potential impact and expected amount of damages caused to these assets by each identified hazard event is assessed. The primary objective of the vulnerability assessment is to quantify exposure and the potential loss estimates for each hazard. In doing so, the Spartanburg County and its participating jurisdictions may better understand their unique risks to identified hazards and be better prepared to evaluate and prioritize specific hazard mitigation actions. This section begins with an explanation of the methodology applied to complete the vulnerability assessment, followed by a summary description of the assets in the Spartanburg County study area including improved property, critical facilities, and population estimates. The remainder of this section focuses on the results of the vulnerability assessment conducted and is organized by hazard as listed below: Atmospheric Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm 6:1

114 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze Geologic Earthquake Landslide Hydrologic Flood Other Wildfire 6.2 METHODOLOGY This vulnerability assessment was conducted using two distinct methodologies: (1) utilizing a geographic information system (GIS)-based analysis; and (2) applying a statistical risk assessment methodology. Each approach provides estimates for the potential impact of hazards by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation, including historical occurrence information provided in the Hazard Profile section. The results of the vulnerability assessment for the aforementioned hazards are provided following the information on hazard identification and analysis. A GIS-based analysis was conducted for these hazards: Earthquake Flood Hurricane and Tropical Storm Landslide Wildfire A statistical risk assessment approach was used to analyze these hazards: Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze A brief description of the two different approaches is provided on the following pages. 6:2

115 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT GIS-Based Analysis For the GIS-based analysis, digital data was collected from local, regional, state and national sources. ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 was used to assess hazard vulnerability utilizing this digital data, including local tax assessor records for individual parcels and buildings and geo-referenced point locations for identified assets (critical facilities and infrastructure, special populations, etc.). Using these data layers, hazard vulnerability can be quantified by estimating the assessed building value for parcels and/or buildings determined to be located in identified hazard areas. FEMA s Hazus-MH software (further described below) was also used to model hurricane winds, riverine flood, and earthquake and estimate potential losses for these hazards. To estimate vulnerable populations in hazard areas, digital Census 2000 data by census block was obtained and census blocks intersecting with hazard areas were used to determine exposed population counts. The objective of the GIS-based analysis was to determine the estimated vulnerability of people, buildings and critical facilities to the identified hazards for Spartanburg County and the participating jurisdictions using best available geospatial data. Local databases were made available through Spartanburg County including tax assessor records, parcel records, as well as other regional, state, and federal government data sources were used in combination with digital hazard data as described in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section. The results of the analysis provided an estimate of the number of people, buildings, and critical facilities, as well as the value of buildings, determined to be potentially at risk to those hazards with delineable geographic hazard boundaries. A more specific description of the GISbased analysis conducted for each particular hazard is provided in the individual hazard sections. Hazus-MH Hazus-MH (MH standing for multi-hazard) is a standardized loss estimation software program developed by FEMA. It is built upon an integrated GIS platform to conduct analysis at a regional level (i.e., not on a structure-by-structure basis). The Hazus-MH risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters (e.g., wind speed and building types) can be modeled using the software to determine the impact (i.e., damages and losses) on the built environment. This risk assessment for Spartanburg County applied Hazus-MH to produce hazard profiles and estimate losses for three hazards in the planning area. At the time this analysis was completed, Hazus-MH MR-4 was used to estimate potential losses from hurricane winds, flood, and earthquake hazards using Hazus- MH methodology. Figure 6.1 illustrates the conceptual model of the Hazus-MH methodology as applied to Spartanburg County. 6:3

116 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HAZUS-MH METHODOLOGY Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology The statistical risk assessment methodology was applied to analyze hazards of concern that were outside the scope of Hazus-MH and the GIS-based risk assessment. This includes hazards that do not have geographically-definable boundaries and are therefore excluded from spatial analysis through GIS. Examples include hailstorm, lightning, and tornado. This methodology uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risk to predict a hazard s frequency of occurrence and estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information (presented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section). Historical data for each hazard as described in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section was used and statistical evaluations were performed using manual calculations. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are summarized below: 1. Compile data from local, state and national sources, as well as literature; 2. Clean up data, including removal of duplicate records and update losses to account for inflation; 3. Identify patterns in frequency, intensity, vulnerability and loss 4. Statistically and probabilistically extrapolate the patterns; and 5. Produce meaningful results, including the development of annualized loss estimates. Figure 6.2 illustrates a conceptual model of the statistical risk assessment methodology as applied to Spartanburg County. 6:4

117 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE STATISTICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The vulnerability assessment findings are presented in terms of potential annualized losses, whenever possible. In general, presenting results in the annualized form is useful in three ways: 1. This approach accounts for the contribution of potential losses from all future disasters; 2. Annualized results for different hazards are readily comparable, thus easier to rank; and 3. The use of annualized losses is the most objective approach for evaluating mitigation alternatives. Annualized losses for the hazards where the parametric approach was utilized were computed in a threestep process: 1. Compute/estimate losses for a number of scenario events with different return periods [e.g., 10-year, 100-year, 200-year, 500-year, etc.]; 2. Approximate the Probability versus Loss Curve through curve fitting; and 3. Calculate the area under the fitted curve to obtain annualized losses. This approach is illustrated graphically in Figure 6.3. For other hazards where the statistical approach was used, the computations are based primarily on the observed historical losses. 6:5

118 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.3: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE ANNUALIZED LOSS METHODOLOGY The economic loss results are presented here using two interrelated risk indicators: Annualized Loss and Annualized Loss Ratio. The Annualized Loss is the estimated long-term weighted average value of losses to property in any single year in a specified geographic area (i.e., municipal jurisdiction). The Annualized Loss Ratio expresses estimated annualized loss normalized by assessed building value. The estimated Annualized Loss (AL) addresses the key idea of risk: the probability of the loss occurring in the study area (largely a function of building construction type and quality). By annualizing estimated losses, the AL factors in historic patterns of frequent smaller events with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk. The Annualized Loss Ratio (ALR) represents the AL as a fraction of the assessed value of the local inventory. This ratio is calculated using the following formula: ALR = Annualized Losses / Total Exposure The ALR gauges the relationship between average annualized loss and assessed values. This ratio can be used as a measure of vulnerability in the areas and, since it is normalized by assessed value, it can be directly compared across different geographic units such as metropolitan areas, counties or municipalities. Loss estimates provided in this vulnerability assessment are based on best available data, and the methodologies applied result in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their 6:6

119 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis (e.g., incomplete inventories, demographics or economic parameters). All conclusions are presented in Conclusions on Hazard Vulnerability (Section 6.18) at the end of this section. Findings for each hazard are detailed in the hazard-by-hazard vulnerability assessment that follows. 6.3 STUDY AREA DEFINITION Asset Inventory An inventory of geo-referenced assets within Spartanburg County counties was compiled in order to identify and characterize those properties potentially at risk to the identified hazards 1. By understanding the type and number of assets that exist and where they are located in relation to known hazard areas, the relative risk and vulnerability for such assets can be assessed. Under this assessment, two categories of assets were created and then further assessed through GIS analysis. The two categories of assets consist of: 1. Improved Property: Includes all improved properties in Spartanburg County according to local parcel data provided by counties when available. The information has been expressed in terms of the number of parcels, number of buildings (based upon building footprint data), and total assessed value of improvements (buildings) that may be exposed to the identified hazards. 2. Essential Facilities: Includes fire stations, hospitals, police stations, schools, and emergency operations centers located in Spartanburg County. Such facilities were not geo-referenced in the county data, so data from Hazus-MH MR4 will be used. While this listing is likely not all-inclusive for assets located in the county, it is anticipated that it will be expanded during future plan updates as more geo-referenced data becomes available for use in GIS analysis. The following tables (Table 6.1 and Table 6.2) provide a detailed listing of the geo-referenced assets that have been identified for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment for Spartanburg County Improved Property Table 6.1 lists the number of parcels 2, the estimated number of buildings 3 and the total assessed value of improvements for participating areas of Spartanburg County (study area of vulnerability assessment). 4 Table 6.2 lists the Hazus-MH MR4 building count estimates. Table 6.3 lists the Hazus-MH MR4 building dollar exposure estimates including building, contents, and inventory. 1 While potentially not all-inclusive for Spartanburg County, georeferenced assets include those assets for which specific location data is readily available for connecting the asset to a specific geographic location for purposes of GIS analysis. Data for this analysis was obtained from Spartanburg County. 2 Parcel information was provided by Spartanburg County GIS. 3 Number of Buildings is estimated using Spartanburg County s GIS data for the point location of structures. Many of these structures may be small in nature, such as garages or mother-in-law suites. However, such structure would still incur damage. 4 Total assessed values for improvements is based on tax assessor records as joined to digital parcel data. This data does not include dollar figures for tax-exempt improvements such as publicly-owned buildings and facilities. 6:7

120 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Location TABLE 6.1: IMPROVED PROPERTY IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Number of Parcels Estimated Number of Buildings Total Assessed Value of Improvements Campobello $1,542,330 Chesnee $1,862,314 Cowpens 1,096 1,278 $2,905,322 Duncan 1,184 1,818 $11,000,612 Inman 1,051 1,498 $6,217,498 Landrum 1,384 1,566 $6,263,799 Lyman 1,591 2,006 $10,582,204 Pacolet 1,347 1,627 $2,327,800 Reidville $1,404,807 Spartanburg 15,857 20,736 $158,984,057 Wellford 1,153 1,467 $8,168,684 Woodruff 2,127 2,232 $6,157,764 Unincorporated County 110, ,494 $291,897,021 Nonparticipating areas 2,778 3,466 $22,097,793 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 141, ,738 $531,412,004 Source: Spartanburg County GIS TABLE 6.2: BUILDING COUNTS FROM HAZUS MR-4 Location Total Number of Buildings Residential Buildings Commercial Buildings Other Buildings Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum 1,146 1, Lyman 1,165 1, Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg 12,883 11,465 1, Wellford Woodruff Unincorporated County 92,227 85,144 4,313 2,836 Non-participating areas 1,550 1, :8

121 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Location Total Number of Buildings Residential Buildings Commercial Buildings Other Buildings SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 114, ,405 5,872 3,385 Location TABLE 6.3: BUILDING EXPOSURE FROM HAZUS MR-4 Total Building Exposure (building and contents) Residential Building Exposure Commercial Building Exposure Other Building Exposure Campobello $176,126,000 $101,360,000 $19,719,000 $55,047,000 Chesnee $228,628,000 $82,043,000 $127,142,000 $19,443,000 Cowpens $271,864,000 $186,571,000 $47,112,000 $38,181,000 Duncan $806,019,000 $410,476,000 $155,381,000 $240,162,000 Inman $524,272,000 $314,885,000 $86,199,000 $123,188,000 Landrum $348,029,000 $184,248,000 $70,743,000 $93,038,000 Lyman $745,412,000 $474,090,000 $122,591,000 $148,731,000 Pacolet $374,645,000 $240,733,000 $33,749,000 $100,163,000 Reidville $182,055,000 $96,435,000 $61,437,000 $24,183,000 Spartanburg $6,760,703,000 $3,600,272,000 $2,171,463,000 $988,968,000 Wellford $587,621,000 $292,640,000 $83,525,000 $211,456,000 Woodruff $454,843,000 $314,495,000 $87,870,000 $52,478,000 Unincorporated County $16,381,419,000 $10,654,990,000 $2,962,118,410 $2,764,310,590 Non-participating areas $1,139,151,000 $614,747,000 $402,590 $524,001,410 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL $28,980,787,000 $17,567,985,000 $6,029,452,000 $5,383,350, Essential Facilities Table 6.4 lists the critical facilities from Hazus-MH MR4. Essential Facilities in Hazus include fire stations, police stations, schools, hospitals, and emergency operations centers (EOCs). In addition, Figure 6.4 shows the locations of essential facilities in Spartanburg County. In total, the county has 97 schools, 33 fire departments, 11 police departments, 5 medical care facilities, and 1 EOC. As noted previously, this list is not all-inclusive and only includes essential facility data provided in Hazus-MH MR4. Table 6.35, near the end of this section, shows a complete list of the critical facilities by name, as well as the hazards that affect each facility. 6:9

122 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.4: HAZUS ESSENTIAL FACILITY INVENTORY IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Facility EOCs Fire Stations Hospitals Police Stations Schools Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford Woodruff Unincorporated Spartanburg County Non-participating Areas Spartanburg County Total Source: Hazus-MH MR4 6:10

123 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.4: CRITICAL FACILITY LOCATIONS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Social Vulnerability In addition to identifying those assets potentially at risk to identified hazards, it is important to identify and assess those particular segments of the resident population in Spartanburg County that are potentially at risk to these hazards. Table 6.5 lists the population by jurisdiction according to U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 population estimates. Estimates from 2000 are presented since Hazus-MH 4 uses 2000 U.S. Census data, and Hazus- MH 4 is used throughout this section to estimate vulnerability. It is recognized that populations have likely changed, but the overall vulnerability is relatively unchanged. A detailed assessment of population estimates are presented in Section 3: Community Profile. 6:11

124 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.5: TOTAL POPULATION IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY (2000 & 2010) Jurisdiction Total Population (2000) Total Population (2010) Campobello Chesnee 1, Cowpens 2,279 2,162 Duncan 2,870 3,181 Inman 1,884 2,321 Landrum 2,472 2,376 Lyman 2,659 3,243 Pacolet 2,690 2,235 Reidville Spartanburg 39,673 37,013 Wellford 2,030 2,378 Woodruff 4,229 4,090 Unincorporated County 173, ,606 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 253, ,307 Source: US Census, 2010 In addition, Figure 6.5 illustrates the population density per census block in the county as it was reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in The total population in Spartanburg County according to Census data was 253,791 persons. As can be seen in the figure, populations are concentrated in the jurisdictions. More specific information on the estimated number of people living within identified hazard areas is provided throughout this section. 5 Hazus-MH MR4 uses Census 2000 data for mapping populations. 6:12

125 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.5: POPULATION DENSITY IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, :13

126 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Atmospheric Hazards 6.4 DROUGHT PRI Value: 2.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the drought hazard scored a PRI value of 2.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.6 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 6.6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR DROUGHT Highly Likely Minor Large More than 24 hours More than one week Because it cannot be predicted where drought may occur, all existing and future buildings, facilities, agricultural crops, and populations in Spartanburg County are considered to be equally exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. However, this hazard has a much greater effect on the natural environment than the built environment Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are equally exposed to the drought hazard. Further, all crops and other natural assets are at risk. An exact value for the total crop value (including shrubbery and tree farms) in the area is unknown. However, drought is typically a regional occurrence, thus posing a threat to all natural assets. Any anticipated future damages or losses are expected to be minimal. A list of critical facilities can be found in Table :14

127 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.5 EXTREME HEAT PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the extreme heat hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.7 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.7: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR EXTREME HEAT Probability Possible Impact Critical Spatial Extent Large Warning Time More than 24 hours Duration Less than one week Because it cannot be predicted where extreme heat may occur, all existing and future buildings, facilities, agricultural crops, and populations in Spartanburg County are considered to be equally exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. However, this hazard has a much greater effect on populations and the natural environment than the built environment. Of particular concern, are vulnerable populations, such as elderly, who have an increased risk to extreme heat conditions Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets and populations in Spartanburg County are equally exposed to the extreme heat hazard. However, any anticipated future damages or losses are expected to be minimal as heat does not typically impact the built environment. A list of critical facilities can be found in Table HAILSTORM PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: $240,046 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hail hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.8 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 6.8: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR HAIL Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 6:15

128 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Because it cannot be predicted where hail may fall, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations in Spartanburg County are considered to be equally exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. The total value for improved value property in the county can be found in Table 6.1. It is important to note that only reported hail events have been factored into this vulnerability assessment. 6 To estimate losses due to hail, NCDC historical lightning loss data was used to develop a stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data. Table 6.9 summarizes annualized losses due to hail by county, total exposure, and percent loss ratios resulting from the hail hazard for Spartanburg County. While it is assumed that one major hail event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would yields very low annualized loss estimates for the county. Location TABLE 6.9: ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR HAIL Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 $240, % Asset Vulnerability While all of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are equally exposed to the hail hazard, any anticipated future damages or losses are expected to be minimal. A list of reported critical facilities for Spartanburg County can be found in Table 6.35, near the end of this section. 6 It is possible that additional hail events may have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and are not accounted for in this analysis. 6:16

129 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.7 HURRICANE AND TROPCIAL STORM PRI Value: 2.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tropical storm system and hurricane hazard scored a PRI value of 2.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.10 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.10: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR TROPICAL STORM SYSTEM AND HURRICANE Probability Possible Impact Minor Spatial Extent Large Warning Time More than 24 hours Duration Less than 24 hours Hurricanes and tropical storms often impact large areas and cross jurisdictional boundaries, leaving all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations exposed to the impact of this hazard. Given its inland location, Spartanburg County would be expected to experience a lesser intensity impact than that of coastal areas. However, all areas are still considered at-risk (see Table 6.11 for the total values of improved property in the county). Hurricanes and tropical storms can cause damage through numerous additional hazards such as flooding, erosion, high winds and precipitation, thus it is difficult to estimate total potential losses from these cumulative effects. The current Hazus-MH hurricane model only analyzes hurricane winds and is not capable of modeling and estimating cumulative losses from all hazards associated with hurricanes; therefore only hurricane winds are analyzed in this section. TABLE 6.11: ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR IMPROVED VALUE AND POPULATIONS EXPOSURE AND ANNUALIZED LOSS ESTIMATES Location Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible n/a A probabilistic scenario was created using Hazus-MH to assess the vulnerability of the Spartanburg County to hurricane winds. Default Hazus-MH wind speed data, damage functions, and methodology were used to determine the potential estimated losses for 50-, 100-, 200-, 500-, and 1000-year frequency events and annual expected loss at the census tract level. Since results are provided at the census tract level, it is difficult to ascertain jurisdictional losses based without double-counting. Therefore, losses are presented at the county level. Losses include building, content, and inventory loss estimates. Table 6.12 shows estimated potential losses to improved properties for 50-, 100-, 200-, 500- and 1000-year hurricane wind event scenarios. 6:17

130 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.12: ESTIMATED POTENTIAL LOSSES TO IMPROVED PROPERTY FROM HURRICANE WIND BY RETURN PERIOD Location & Level of Event Estimated Potential Losses Spartanburg County 50-year $1,245, year $7,922, year $22,228, year $58,779,000 1,000-year $135,920,000 Source: HAZUS-MH4 There are no reported losses for hurricane events in Spartanburg County. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain an accurate annualized loss estimate. While it is assumed that a single hurricane or tropical storm event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would yields very low annualized loss estimates for the county Asset Vulnerability All of the assets inventoried in Spartanburg County are exposed to hurricane and tropical storm wind (Table 6.35). Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates. 6.8 LIGHTNING PRI Value: 1.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: $50,792 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the lightning hazard scored a PRI value of 1.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.13 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 6.13: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR LIGHTNING Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Because it cannot be predicted where lightning may strike, all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations in Spartanburg County are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. The total improved property values for Spartanburg County are shown in Table 6.1. It is 6:18

131 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT important to note that only reported lightning strikes have been factored into this vulnerability assessment. 7 To estimate losses due to lightning, NCDC historical lightning loss data was used to develop a lightning stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data. Table 6.14 shows total exposure, potential annualized property losses and percent loss ratios resulting from the lightning hazard for Spartanburg County. Location TABLE 6.14: ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR LIGHTNING Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 $50, % Asset Vulnerability While all of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are equally exposed to the lightning hazard, any anticipated future damages or losses are expected to be minimal. Inventoried critical facilities in Spartanburg County can be found in Table 6.35 near in the end of this section. 6.9 THUNDERSTORM PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: $16,987 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wind event hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.15 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.15: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR THUNDERSTORM Probability Highly Likely Impact Limited Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 7 It is possible that additional lightning strikes may have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and are not accounted for in this analysis. 6:19

132 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Historical evidence shows that the county is vulnerable to the thunderstorm hazard. This is an atmospheric hazard, so all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. The value of the total buildings in the county are shown in Table 6.1. It is important to note that only reported thunderstorms have been factored into this vulnerability assessment. 8 To estimate losses due to thunderstorm, NCDC data for occurrences in Spartanburg County was used to develop a thunderstorm stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data Table 6.16 shows total exposure and potential annualized property losses and percent loss ratios resulting from the thunderstorm hazard for Spartanburg County. TABLE 6.16: TOTAL EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED LOSSES FROM THUNDERSTORM WIND Location Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 $16, % Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are exposed to the thunderstorm wind hazard. Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates. A complete list of inventoried critical facilities can be found in Table 6.35 near the end of this section. 8 It is possible that additional thunderstorm events have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and, thus, are not accounted for in this analysis. The State Fire Marshall s office was contacted to determine if additional data existed, but no additional data was found. 6:20

133 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.10 TORNADO PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: $496,650 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tornado hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.17 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 6.17: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR TORNADO Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Historical evidence shows that the county is vulnerable to tornadic activity. This hazard can result from severe thunderstorm activity or may occur during a major tropical storm or hurricane. It cannot be predicted where a tornado may touch down, so all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. These results are shown in Table 6.1. It is important to note that only reported tornadoes have been factored into this vulnerability assessment 9. To estimate losses due to tornadoes, NCDC historical tornado loss data for occurrences in Spartanburg County was used to develop a tornado stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data Table 6.18 shows total exposure and potential annualized property losses and percent loss ratios resulting from the tornado hazard for Spartanburg County. TABLE 6.18: TOTAL EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR TORNADO Location Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 $496, % Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are at risk to the tornado hazard (Table 6.35). Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates. 9 It is possible that additional tornado events may have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and are not accounted for in this analysis. 6:21

134 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.11 WINTER STORM AND FREEZE PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: $253,781 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the winter storm and freeze event hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.19 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.19: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR WINTER STORM AND FREEZE Probability Likely Impact Limited Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Large More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours Historical evidence shows that Spartanburg County is vulnerable to winter storm and freeze hazards. This is an atmospheric hazard, so all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. These results are shown in Table 6.1. It is important to note that only reported events have been factored into this vulnerability assessment. 10 To estimate losses due to winter storm and freeze events, NCDC data for occurrences in Spartanburg County was used to develop a winter storm and freeze stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data Table 6.20 shows total exposure and potential annualized property losses and percent loss ratios resulting from the winter storm and freeze hazard for Spartanburg County. TABLE 6.20: TOTAL EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED LOSSES FROM WINTER STORM AND FREEZE EVENTS Location Estimated Population At Risk Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Spartanburg County 253,791 $531,412,004 $273, % Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are exposed to the winter storm and freeze hazard. Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates. A complete list of inventoried critical facilities can be found in Table 6.35 near the end of this section. 10 It is possible that additional winter storm events have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and, thus, are not accounted for in this analysis. 6:22

135 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Geologic Hazards 6.12 EARTHQUAKE PRI Value: 2.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $331,000 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the earthquake hazard scored a PRI value of 2.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.21 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.21: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR EARTHQUAKE Probability Possible Impact Minor Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours An earthquake has the potential to impact all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations. The cumulative figures for population and value of improved structures in Spartanburg County are shown in Table 6.1. Hazus-MH ground shaking data, inventory and damage functions, and methodology was used to determine the expected losses from a probabilistic earthquake scenario. Hazus-MH results are presented at the Census Tract level, resulting in loss estimates overlapping several jurisdictions. Therefore, results are best presented at the county level to pre-vent double-counting. Table 6.22 shows estimated potential property losses for the county and jurisdictions. Table 6.23 shows annualized property losses for Spartanburg County. All populations are considered to be at-risk. Location Table 6.22: Estimated Potential Losses from Earthquake 100-year Event (5.5 magnitude) 500-year Event (5.5 magnitude) Level of Event 1000-year Event (6.5 magnitude) 2500-year Event (7.5 magnitude) Spartanburg County $1,348,000 $24,463,000 $667,040,00 $198,575,000 Source: Hazus-MH MR4 Table 6.23: Estimated Potential Annualized Losses due to Earthquake Location Level of Event Residential Commercial Other Total Annualized Loss Ratio Spartanburg County $132,000 $120,000 $79,000 $331, % Source: Hazus-MH MR4 6:23

136 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Asset Vulnerability All of the inventoried assets in Spartanburg County are exposed to the earthquake hazard (Table 6.35). Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates LANDSLIDE PRI Value: 1.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the landslide hazard scored a PRI value of 1.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.24 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration TABLE 6.24: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR LANDSLIDE Possible Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Although historical evidence proves that Spartanburg County is susceptible to landslide events, there are no reports of damage or occurrences. Therefore, it is difficult to calculate an accurate annualized loss figure. It is assumed that one major landslide event could potentially result in significant losses, but annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a very low annualized loss estimate for the county. The potential total exposure and corresponding value for buildings at risk can be determined using the USGS Landslide Susceptibility Index (detailed in Section 5: Hazard Profiles), county level tax data, and GIS analysis. Table 6.25 presents the potential damage estimated where available. There are two zones of landslide risk in Spartanburg County indicated by the USGS data. The northern portion of the county is an area of high susceptibility and moderate incidence. The lower portion of the county is in an area of moderate susceptibility and low incidence. Given some level of risk throughout the county, it is assumed that all populations and assets are at-risk. Location TABLE 6.25: TOTAL EXPOSURE FOR LANDSLIDE HAZARD Number of Parcels at Risk Estimated Number of Buildings at Risk* Total Assessed Value of Improvements at Risk Susceptibility High Mod High Mod High Mod Campobello $1,542,330 0 Chesnee $1,862,314 0 Cowpens 0 1, ,278 0 $2,905,322 Duncan 1, ,818 0 $11,000,612 0 Inman 1, ,498 0 $6,217, :24

137 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Location Number of Parcels at Risk Estimated Number of Buildings at Risk* Total Assessed Value of Improvements at Risk Susceptibility High Mod High Mod High Mod Landrum 1, ,566 0 $6,263,799 0 Lyman 1, ,006 0 $10,582,204 0 Pacolet 0 1, ,627 0 $2,327,800 Reidville $1,404,807 Spartanburg 0 15, ,736 0 $158,984,057 Wellford 1, ,467 0 $8,168,684 0 Woodruff 0 2, ,232 0 $6,157,764 Unincorporated ,663 28,297 $223,840,796 $90,154,017 COUNTY TOTAL 89,672 51, ,038 54,700 $269,478,237 $261,933, Asset Vulnerability The entire county lies in area of landslide vulnerability, making all assets vulnerable. As noted, there are two areas of vulnerability: high susceptibility, moderate incidence and moderate susceptibility, low incidence. In the area of moderate susceptibility and low risk, there were 13 fire stations, 1 police station, 3 medical care facilities, 1 EOC, and 43 schools at-risk. The remaining essential facilities fall into the high susceptibility, moderate incidence risk area. A list of specific critical facilities at risk can be found in Table 6.35 near the end of this section. 6:25

138 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Hydrologic Hazards 6.14 FLOOD PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: $415,786 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the flood hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.26 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.26: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR FLOOD Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Likely Limited Moderate 6 to 12 hours Less than 24 hours In order to assess flood risk, a GIS-based analysis was used to estimate exposure to flood events using Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data in combination with local tax assessor records (2008). The determination of assessed value at-risk (exposure) was calculated using GIS analysis by summing the total assessed building values for only those improved properties that were confirmed to be located within an identified Zone A/AE (1-percent-annual-chance floodplain), or 500-year floodplain (0.2-percentannual-chance floodplain). Table 6.27 lists the number of parcels determined to be located within each of the special flood hazard areas along with the improved values for structures located on those properties. A total of 10,664 parcels (7,572 in the 100-year floodplain and 3,092 in the 500-year floodplain) were found to be at risk to the 100-year or 500-year floods. This represents about 7 percent of the total parcels in the county. A total of $149,804,503 of assessed property value by parcel was found to be exposed to the flood hazard (28 percent of the total value of $531,412,004). Hazus-MH was used to determine specific building counts and population, which follows these results. TABLE 6.27: ESTIMATED TOTAL EXPOSURE OF IMPROVED BUILDINGS EXPOSED TO FLOOD At-Risk 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Value of Improved Buildings At-Risk 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Value of Improved Buildings Location Number of Parcels Number of Buildings Number of Parcels Number of Buildings Campobello $194, $0 Chesnee $20, $0 Cowpens 13 7 $20, $0 Duncan $235, $169,796 Inman $789, $0 Landrum $78, $60,808 Lyman $66, $0 6:26

139 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Location At-Risk 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Number of Parcels Number of Buildings Value of Improved Buildings At-Risk 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Number of Parcels Number of Buildings Value of Improved Buildings Pacolet $20, $0 Reidville $312, $312,074 Spartanburg $35,874, ,518 $30,307,568 Wellford $2,795, $1,360,816 Woodruff $46, $0 Unincorporated Area Non-participating areas 5, $45,063,284 2,015 3,595 $31,612, $429, $33,545 County Total 7,572 $85,947,306 3,092 6,418 $63,857,197 Riverine Flooding Loss Estimates using Hazus-MH Hazus-MH MR4 was used to estimate potential losses in Spartanburg County resulting from potential riverine flood events. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was obtained from the USGS for the study area coordinates for input and flood depth was estimated at the pixel level for affected areas, along with the proportion of the area affected within the census blocks. 11 A drainage area of 5 square miles was used. Transects and stillwater elevations were input from data provided in the 2003 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for this area. Hazus-MH was utilized to estimate floodplain boundaries, potential exposure for each event frequency, and loss estimates based on probabilistic scenarios for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200- and 500- year flood events using a Level 1 analysis shows estimated potential losses for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood event scenarios that resulted from this analysis. Direct economic losses include losses sustained to buildings, contents, and inventory. TABLE 6.28: ESTIMATED POTENTIAL DIRECT LOSSES TO IMPROVED PROPERTY FROM FLOOD BY RETURN PERIOD Estimated Losses by Return Period 10-year 50-year 100-year 200-year 500-year Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman $1,233,000 $1,508,000 $1,644,000 $1,687,000 $1,962,000 $337,000 $448,000 $460,000 $496,000 $547,000 $115,000 $156,000 $194,000 $189,000 $208,000 $18,629,000 $36,337,000 $23,101,000 $24,170,000 $25,592,000 $533,000 $753,000 $848,000 $913,000 $1,013, A 1/3 arc second DEM was used. 12 At the time this plan was completed, the annualized loss function for the flood hazard in Hazus-MH was not available. Annualized loss from the flood hazard will be included in subsequent version of this plan when the annualized loss function becomes available. 6:27

140 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford $318,000 $466,000 $519,000 $569,000 $625,000 $5,166,000 $6,087,000 $6,734,000 $7,075,000 $7,616,000 $644,000 $816,000 $861,000 $944,000 $1,015,000 $1,944,000 $1,382,100 $2,506,000 $2,447,000 $1,788,061 $35,415,000 $46,780,000 $51,004,000 $54,971,000 $62,142,000 $2,259,000 $2,841,000 $3,130,000 $3,339,000 $3,573,000 Woodruff $142,000 $192,000 $209,000 $229,000 $244,000 Unincorporated County $10,909,000 $13,399,000 $144,836,000 $15,326,000 $170,558,939 Non-participating areas $104,481,000 $122,064,900 $14,303,000 $156,066,000 $15,750,000 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL $182,125,000 $233,230,000 $250,349,000 $268,421,000 $292,634,000 Source: Hazus-MH, building losses For the purposes of this risk assessment, the flood hazard was modeled for the 100-year flood hazard, also known as the 1-percent-annual-chance flood and the 500-year flood, also known as the 0.2- percent-annual-chance flood. Hazus-MH MR4 was used to estimate floodplain boundaries and potential losses for the 100-year and 500-year event frequency. Table 6.29 shows the estimated number and value of buildings, as well as the number of people that are potentially at risk to flooding by jurisdiction for the 100-year flood.. The losses estimated losses are per event. Table 6.30 shows potential losses by occupancy type in each jurisdiction. Table 6.31 shows the potential losses for the 500-year flood, and Table 6.32 shows the estimated losses by occupancy type for the 500-year flood. The total potential losses, including building and content losses, according to the HAZUS-MH results are over $250 million for the one-percent annual chance flood hazard and nearly $300 million for the 500-year flood. Table 6.33 shows the 1-percent-annual-chance flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood summarized as percentages. Location TABLE 6.29: ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR THE 100-YEAR FLOOD Total Number of People in the Jurisdiction* Number of People Exposed to Flood Hazard* Total Number of All Buildings Number of Exposed Buildings to Flood Hazard Total Value of all Buildings** Total Potential Losses of At-Risk Buildings Campobello 1, $176,126,000 $1,644,000 Chesnee 1, $228,628,000 $460,000 Cowpens 3, $271,864,000 $194,000 Duncan 5,896 2, $806,019,000 $23,101,000 Inman 5, $524,272,000 $848,000 Landrum 3, ,146 0 $348,029,000 $519,000 Lyman 6,254 2,779 1,165 8 $745,412,000 $6,734,000 Pacolet 3, $374,645,000 $861,000 6:28

141 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Location Total Number of People in the Jurisdiction* Number of People Exposed to Flood Hazard* Total Number of All Buildings Number of Exposed Buildings to Flood Hazard Total Value of all Buildings** Total Potential Losses of At-Risk Buildings Reidville 1,568 1, $182,055,000 $2,506,000 Spartanburg 48,204 10,356 12, $6,760,703,000 $51,004,000 Wellford 3,951 1, $587,621,000 $3,130,000 Woodruff 5, $454,843,000 $209,000 Unincorporated County 153,011 55,827 92, $16,381,419,000 $144,836,000 Non-participating areas 10,270 2,729 1, $1,139,151,000 $14,303,000 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 253,791 80, , $28,980,787,000 $250,349,000 Source: Hazus-MH MR4; FEMA Q3 * Based on U.S. Census block data (2000). ** Based on Hazus-MH MR4, building losses including building, contents, and inventory TABLE 6.30: POTENTIAL LOSSES FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD BY OCCUPANCY TYPE Estimated Losses by Return Period Res ($) Com ($) Ind ($) Edu ($) Gov ($) Agr ($) Rel ($) Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford 1,325, ,000 14,000 25,000 41,000 29, , ,000 5,000 41, , ,000 70,000 1, ,000 6,842,000 5,381,000 9,992, , , , , ,000 20, , , ,000 7, , ,365,000 1,020, ,000 2,000 1,000 56, , , ,000 71, , ,474, ,000 44, ,000 4,000 61,000 30,184,000 17,218,000 1,259, ,000 53, ,000 1,672,000 2,417, , , ,000 80,000 Woodruff 199,000 10, Unincorporated County 79,277,000 22,002,000 36,384,000 2,278,000 1,025, ,000 3,222,000 6:29

142 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Estimated Losses by Return Period Res ($) Com ($) Ind ($) Edu ($) Gov ($) Agr ($) Rel ($) Non-participating areas 5,501,000 6,881,000 1,306, ,000 36, ,000 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 133,438,000 54,884,000 50,168,000 2,809,000 1,283,000 1,270,000 6,497,000 Source: HAZUS-MH TABLE 6.31: ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR THE 500-YEAR FLOOD Location Total Number of People in the Jurisdiction* Number of People Exposed to Flood Hazard* Total Number of All Buildings Number of Exposed Buildings to Flood Hazard Total Value of all Buildings** Total Potential Losses of At-Risk Buildings Campobello 1, $176,126,000 $1,962,000 Chesnee 1, $228,628,000 $547,000 Cowpens 3, $271,864,000 $208,000 Duncan 5,896 2, $806,019,000 $25,592,000 Inman 5, $524,272,000 $1,013,000 Landrum 3, ,146 0 $348,029,000 $625,000 Lyman 6,254 2,929 1, $745,412,000 $7,616,000 Pacolet 3, $374,645,000 $1,015,000 Reidville 1,568 1, $182,055,000 $1,788,061 Spartanburg 48,204 10,576 12, $6,760,703,000 $62,142,000 Wellford 3,951 1, $587,621,000 $3,573,000 Woodruff 5, $454,843,000 $244,000 Unincorporated County 153,011 56,757 92, $16,381,419,000 $170,558,939 Non-participating areas 10,270 2,827 1, $1,139,151,000 $15,750,000 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 253,791 82, , $28,980,787,000 $292,634,000 Source: Hazus-MH MR4; FEMA Q3 * Based on U.S. Census block data (2000). ** Based on Hazus-MH MR4, building losses including building, contents, and inventory 6:30

143 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.32: POTENTIAL LOSSES FROM 500-YEAR FLOOD BY OCCUPANCY TYPE Estimated Losses by Return Period Res ($) Com ($) Ind ($) Edu ($) Gov ($) Agr ($) Rel ($) Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford 1,586, ,000 18,000 33,000 44,000 37, , ,000 8,000 50, , ,000 65,000 1, ,000 7,789,000 6,013,000 10,882,000 71, , , , ,000 23, , , ,000 9, , ,981,000 1,150, , , , , ,000 80, ,061 1,064,000 48, ,000 36,175,000 21,558,000 1,753, ,000 58, ,000 1,898,000 2,773, , , ,000 90,000 Woodruff 234,000 10, Unincorporated County 94,589,939 25,436,000 42,374,000 2,626,000 1,109, ,000 3,683,000 Non-participating areas 6,369,000 7,228,000 1,463, ,000 41, ,000 SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 157,312,000 64,122,000 57,842,000 3,188,000 1,390,000 1,444,000 7,336,000 6:31

144 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.33: PERCENTAGES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY Estimated Percentage of Population Exposed to Flood Hazard Estimated Losses by Return Period Estimated Percentage of Buildings in Floodplain Estimated Percentage of Potential Loss Estimates (compared to total building exposure) 100-year 500-year 100-year 500-year 100-year 500-year Campobello 43.0% 43.0% 1.5% 5.9% 0.9% 1.1% Chesnee 23.6% 23.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Cowpens 16.6% 16.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Duncan 47.2% 49.7% 2.6% 4.0% 2.9% 3.2% Inman 11.8% 11.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% Landrum 6.8% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Lyman 44.4% 46.8% 0.7% 1.5% 0.9% 1.0% Pacolet 11.6% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% Reidville 71.9% 71.9% 4.0% 5.1% 1.4% 1.0% Spartanburg 21.5% 21.9% 1.2% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% Wellford 31.7% 31.7% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.6% Woodruff 14.5% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Unincorporated County Non-participating areas SPARTANBURG COUNTY TOTAL 36.5% 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 26.6% 27.5% 11.8% 14.6% 12.7% 15.0% 31.8% 32.4% 0.4% 0.4% 8.7% 8.9% Asset Vulnerability There are a total of 4 Hazus essential facilities in Spartanburg County that are potential exposure to the flood hazard (including 100-year and 500-year events). This analysis was performed used GIS tools and DFIRM data. In the 1-percent annual chance flood zone (100-year floodplain) there are 2 fire stations and 1 school. In the 0.2-percent annual chance flood zone (500-year floodplain), there is one medical facility at-risk to flood (in addition to those structures in the 100-year floodplain). The specific facilities can be found in Table 6.35 at the end of this section. 6:32

145 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Other Hazards 6.15 WILDFIRE PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wildfire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.34 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 6.34: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR WILDFIRE Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Highly Likely Minor Moderate 12 to 24 hours More than one week The data used to determine vulnerability of people and property to wildfire in Spartanburg County is based on a GIS layer called the Level of Concern (LOC). This data was derived from Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) and was provided by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. According the SWRA, the LOC data can be used to: identify area where mitigation options may be of value, in addition to several other actions. LOC risk is represented here as a number between 0 and 10 Figure 6.6 presents the results, which indicate that Spartanburg County risk ranges from 0 to nearly 4 (to be considered moderate risk). Further, there are several areas of no risk. Also in sync with the Fire Occurrence Area map found in Section 5: Hazard Profiles, wildfire risk is decreased in more developed areas, such as the incorporated areas, while a greater risk is present in less developed areas of the county. 6:33

146 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6.6: WILDFIRE RISK AREAS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment Data Given the lack of historical loss data on wildfire events in Spartanburg County, it is assumed that while one major event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a very low annualized loss estimate for the county Asset Vulnerability Although risk is generally higher in the unincorporated areas, it can be assumed that all critical facilities are at risk to the wildfire hazard due to the unpredictable nature of the hazard which can be exacerbated by local conditions such as drought and vegetative fuel. Specific critical facilities can be found in Table :34

147 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6.16 CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD VULNERABILITY The results of this vulnerability assessment are useful in at least three ways: Improving our understanding of the risk associated with the natural hazards in Spartanburg County through better understanding of the complexities and dynamics of risk, how levels of risk can be measured and compared, and the myriad of factors that influence risk. An understanding of these relationships is critical in making balanced and informed decisions on managing the risk. Providing a baseline for policy development and comparison of mitigation alternatives. The data used for this analysis presents a current picture of risk in Spartanburg County. Updating this risk snapshot with future data will enable comparison of the changes in risk with time. Baselines of this type can support the objective analysis of policy and program options for risk reduction in the county. Comparing the risk among the natural hazards addressed. The ability to quantify the risk to all these hazards relative to one another helps in a balanced, multi-hazard approach to risk management at each level of governing authority. This ranking provides a systematic framework to compare and prioritize the very disparate natural hazards that are present in Spartanburg County. This final step in the risk assessment provides the necessary information for local officials to craft a mitigation strategy to focus resources on only those hazards that pose the greatest threat to the county and its participating jurisdictions. Exposure to hazards can be an indicator of vulnerability. Economic exposure can be identified through locally assessed values for improvements (buildings), and social exposure can be identified by estimating the population exposed to each hazard. This information is especially important for decision-makers to use in planning for evacuation or other public safety related needs. Table 6.5 provides a summary of the estimated population counts and improved property values at-risk (exposed) to each hazard. The types of assets included in these analyses include all building types in the participating jurisdictions. Specific information about the types of assets that are vulnerable to the identified hazards is included in each hazard subsection (for example all building types are considered at risk to the winter storm hazard and commercial, residential and government owned facilities are at risk to repetitive flooding, etc). Table 6.35 provides a summary of results for the vulnerability assessment conducted for each of the Spartanburg County inventoried critical facility assets. The table lists those assets that are determined to be exposed to each of the identified hazards (marked with an X ). 6:35

148 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: SUMMARY OF TOTAL EXPOSURE AND POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED LOSSES TO Hazard Atmospheric IDENTIFIED HAZARDS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY Estimated Population At Risk (Census 2000) Total Assessed Value of Improvements (Buildings) (Spartanburg County) Annualized Expected Property Losses Annualized Percent Loss Ratio Drought 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible n/a Extreme Heat 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible n/a Hail 253,791 $531,412,004 $240, % Hurricane and Tropical Storm 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible 0.00% Lightning 253,791 $531,412,004 $50, % Thunderstorm 253,791 $531,412,004 $16, % Tornado 253,791 $531,412,004 $496, % Winter Storm 253,791 $531,412,004 $253, % Geologic Earthquake 253,791 $531,412,004 $331, % Landslide 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible n/a Hydrologic Flood 253,791 $531,412,004 $415, % Other Wildfire 253,791 $531,412,004 Negligible n/a 6:36

149 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank 6:37

150 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME FIRE STATIONS SPARTANBURG CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT ARKWRIGHT FIRE DEPARTMENT WHITNEY AREA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT HILLTOP AREA FIRE DISTRICT UNA COMMUNITY FIRE DEPARTMENT NORTH SPARTANBURG FIRE AND EMERGENCY SER WESTVIEW - FAIRFOREST FIRE DEPARTMENT ROEBUCK FIRE DISTRICT CROFT FIRE DISTRICT COWPENS FIRE DEPARTMENT COOLEY SPRINGS-FINGERVILLE FIRE DEPARTME CHESNEE COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTM NEW PROSPECT FIRE DEPARTMENT BOILING SPRINGS FIRE DISTRICT CHEROKEE SPRING FIRE DISTRICT LANDRUM FIRE DEPARTMENT INMAN FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITY TYPE Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:50

151 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME INMAN MILLS FIRE DEPARTMENT HOLLY SPRINGS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT TYGER RIVER FIRE SERVICE AREA DUNCAN FIRE DEPARTMENT STARTEX FIRE DISTRICT GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT FIRE DEPA PELHAM BATESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT POPLAR SPRINGS FIRE SERVICE AREA WOODRUFF HOBBYSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT PACOLET FIRE DISTRICT DRAYTON FIRE DEPARTMENT GLENDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONVERSE FIRE DEPT MAYO FIRE DEPARTMENT REIDVILLE AREA FIRE DISTRICT POLICE STATIONS DUNCAN POLICE DEPT NON-EMERGENCY DUNCAN POLICE Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:51

152 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FACILITY NAME CAMPOBELLO TOWN HALL & POLICE LANDRUM CITY OF POLICE DEPT WOODRUFF POLICE DEPT INMAN POLICE DEPT INMAN POLICE DEPT BUSINESS AND LYMAN POLICE DEPT WELLFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP POLICE D POLICE DEPARTMENT NON-EMERGENCY DUNCAN POLICE DEPT NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE BUILDINGS TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X Police Station X X X X X X X X X X X B. J. WORKMAN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Medical X X X X X X X X X X X CHILDREN S HABILITATION CENTER Medical X X X X X X X X X X X SPARTANBURG HOSPITAL FOR Medical RESTORATION X X X X X X X X X X X SPARTANBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CARE Medical X X X X X X X X X X X X MARY BLACK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Medical X X X X X X X X X X X EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER SPARTANBURG AREA CD EOC X X X X X X X X X X X SCHOOL FACILITIES SC SCHOOL FOR BLIND HIGH School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:52

153 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME SC SCHOOL FOR DEAF HIGH SC SCHOOL FOR DEAF ELEMENTARY SC SCHOOL FOR BLIND ELEMENTARY MULTI-HANDICAPPED SCHOOL H B SWOFFORD AVC R D ANDERSON VOCATIONAL CENTER TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL PARK HILLS ELEMENTARY MARY H WRIGHT ELEMENTARY CARVER JR HIGH PINE STREET ELEMENTARY HOUSTON ELEMENTARY SPARTANBURG HIGH JESSE W BOYD ELEMENTARY J. G. MCCRACKEN JR. HIGH CANNONS ELEMENTARY W HERBERT CHAPMAN ELEMENTARY MYLES W WHITLOCK JR HIGH MCCARTHY/TESZLER Z L MADDEN ELEMENTARY Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE School X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:53

154 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME JESSE S BOBO ELEMENTARY JAMES HENDRIX ELEMENTARY LONE OAK ELEMENTARY ARCADIA ELEMENTARY FAIRFOREST ELEMENTARY FAIRFOREST MIDDLE WEST VIEW ELEMENTARY ROEBUCK ELEMENTARY ANDERSON MILL ELEMENTARY DORMAN HIGH FRESHMAN CAMPUS R P DAWKINS MIDDLE E P TODD ELEMENTARY T E MABRY JR HIGH SCHOOL BEECH SPRINGS INTERMEDIATE DUNCAN ELEMENTARY JAMES F BYRNES HIGH D R HILL MIDDLE WELLFORD ELEMENTARY RIVER RIDGE ELEMENTARY BERRY SHOALS INTERMEDIATE Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE School X X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:54

155 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME WOODRUFF PRIMARY WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY WOODRUFF MIDDLE WOODRUFF HIGH PAULINE GLENN SPRGS L E GABLE MIDDLE PACOLET ELEMENTARY PACOLET MIDDLE FLORENCE CHAPEL MIDDLE REIDVILLE ELEMENTARY EDDLEMON ADVENTIST ST PAUL THE APOSTLE CATHOLIC GRACE CHRISTIAN INMAN CHRISTIAN ACADEMY SPARTANBURG DAY UMC OF THE COVENANT CHILD DEVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CHRISTIAN ACAD CLEVELAND ELEMENTARY DORMAN HIGH WOODLAND HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE School X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:55

156 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME DANIEL MORGAN VOC BROOME HIGH SCHOOL CLIFDALE ELEMENTARY COWPENS ELEMENTARY COWPENS MIDDLE CHESNEE ELEMENTARY COOLEY SPGS-FINGERVILLE CHESNEE HIGH CHESNEE MIDDLE MAYO ELEMENTARY NEW PROSPECT ELEMENTARY BOILING SPRINGS HIGH NINTH GRADE OAKLAND ELEMENTARY BOILING SPRINGS ELEMENTARY BOILING SPRINGS HIGH BOILING SPRINGS JUNIOR HIGH BOILING SPRINGS MIDDLE CARLISLE-FOSTER'S GROVE ELEMENTARY LANDRUM JR. HIGH O P EARLE ELEMENTARY Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE School X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:56

157 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 6.35: CRITICAL FACILITIES AT-RISK ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER FACILITY NAME LANDRUM HIGH CAMPOBELLO GRAMLING SCHOOL HOLLY SPGS MOTLOW EL INMAN ELEMENTARY CHAPMAN HIGH SCHOOL WESTGATE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FIRST BAPTIST WEEKDAY SCHOOL ST JAMES METHODIST KINDERGARTEN BETHEL CHILD ENRICHMENT PROGRAM MONTESSORI ACADEMY WESTMINSTER DAY SCHOOL ST PAUL UNITED METHODIST PRESC SPARTANBURG CHRISTIAN ACADEMY BOILING SPRINGS FIRST BAPTIST HAPPY DAY PLAYSKOOL MONTESSORI WEST CHRISTIAN SCHO Drought Extreme Heat Hailstorm Hurricane and Tropical Storm Lightning Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm and Freeze FACILITY TYPE School X X X X X X X X X X X Earthquake Landslide Mod Landslide- High School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X School X X X X X X X X X X X Flood 100 yr Flood 500 yr Wildfire 6:57

158 SECTION 6: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6:39

159 SECTION 7 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT This section of the Plan discusses the capability of Spartanburg County to implement hazard mitigation activities. It consists of the following five subsections: 7.1 What is a Capability Assessment? 7.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment 7.3 Capability Assessment Findings 7.5 Conclusions on Local Capability 7.1 WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT? The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs or projects 1. As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish which goals, objectives and/or actions are feasible, based on an understanding of the organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability assessment helps to determine which mitigation actions are practical and likely to be implemented over time given a local government s planning and regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical support, amount of fiscal resources and current political climate. A capability assessment has two primary components: 1) an inventory of a local jurisdiction s relevant plans, ordinances or programs already in place; and 2) an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. Careful examination of local capabilities will detect any existing gaps, shortfalls or weaknesses with ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. A capability assessment also highlights the positive mitigation measures already in place or being implemented at the local government level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced through future mitigation efforts. The capability assessment completed for Spartanburg County serves as a critical planning step and an integral part of the foundation for designing an effective hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment helps identify and target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation in the Mitigation Strategy portion of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It not only helps establish the goals and objectives for the Region to pursue under this Plan, but also ensures that those goals and objectives are realistically achievable under given local conditions. 7.2 CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities within participating jurisdiction of Spartanburg County, a detailed Capability Assessment Survey 2 was distributed to members of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The survey questionnaire requested information on a variety of capability indicators such as existing local plans, policies, programs or ordinances that contribute to and/or hinder the jurisdictions ability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators included information related to the jurisdictions fiscal, administrative and technical capabilities, such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. 1 While the Interim Final Rule for implementing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 does not require a local capability assessment to be completed for local hazard mitigation plans, it is a critical step in developing a mitigation strategy that meets the needs of the Region while taking into account their own unique abilities. The Rule does state that a community s mitigation strategy should be based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools (44 CFR, Part 201.6(c)(3)). 2 The Capability Assessment Survey instrument is available in Appendix B. 7:1

160 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Survey respondents were also asked to comment on the current political climate with respect to hazard mitigation, an important consideration for any local planning or decision making process. At a minimum, survey results provide an extensive inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs and resources in place or under development, in addition to their overall effect on hazard loss reduction. In completing the survey, local officials were also required to conduct a self-assessment of their jurisdiction s specific capabilities. The survey instrument thereby not only helps accurately assess the degree of local capability, but also serves as a good source of introspection for counties and local jurisdictions that want to improve their capabilities as identified gaps, weaknesses or conflicts can be recast as opportunities for specific actions to be proposed as part of the hazard mitigation strategy. The information provided in response to the survey questionnaire was incorporated into a database for further analysis. A general scoring methodology 3 was then applied to quantify each jurisdiction s overall capability. According to the scoring system, each capability indicator was assigned a point value based on its relevance to hazard mitigation. Additional points were added based on the jurisdiction s selfassessment of their own planning and regulatory capability, administrative and technical capability, fiscal capability and political capability. Using this scoring methodology, a total score and an overall capability rating of High, Moderate or Limited could be determined according to the total number of points received. These classifications are designed to provide nothing more than a general assessment of local government capability. In combination with the narrative responses provided by local officials, the results of this capability assessment provide critical information for developing an effective and meaningful mitigation strategy. 7.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan to provide insight into the relevant capacity of the Spartanburg County participating jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. All information is based upon the input provided by local government officials through the Capability Assessment Survey and during meetings of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances and programs that demonstrate a local jurisdiction s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development and redevelopment in a responsible manner, while maintaining the general welfare of the community. It includes emergency response and mitigation planning, comprehensive land use planning and transportation planning, in addition to the enforcement of zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built, as well as protecting environmental, historic and cultural resources in the community. Although some conflicts can arise, these planning initiatives generally present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision making process. This assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools or programs in place or under development for Spartanburg County, along with their potential effect on loss reduction. This information will help identify opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts with other initiatives in addition to integrating the implementation of this Plan with existing planning mechanisms where appropriate. 3 The scoring methodology used to quantify and rank the Region s capability can be found in Appendix B. 7:2

161 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 7.1 provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances and programs already in place or under development for Spartanburg County. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the given item is currently in place and being implemented. An asterisk (*) indicates that the given item is currently being developed for future implementation. Each of these local plans, ordinances and programs should be considered available mechanisms for incorporating the requirements of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. TABLE 7.1: RELEVANT PLANS, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS Planning / Regulatory Tool Spartanburg County Chesnee Cowpens Landrum Lyman Pacolet Spartanburg Woodruff Hazard Mitigation Plan * * * Comprehensive Land Use Plan Floodplain Management Plan * Open Space Management Plan (or Parks & Rec/Greenway Plan) Stormwater Management Plan/Ordinance Natural Resource Protection Plan * * * * * * * * Flood Response Plan * * Emergency Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Plan * * Evacuation Plan Disaster Recovery Plan Capital Improvements Plan Economic Development Plan Historic Preservation Plan Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 7:3

162 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Unified Development Ordinance Post-Disaster Redevelopment Ordinance * Building Code Fire Code National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) NFIP Community Rating System A more detailed discussion on the Region s planning and regulatory capability follows, along with the incorporation of additional information based on the narrative comments provided by local officials in response to the survey questionnaire Emergency Management Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management. The three other phases include preparedness, response and recovery. In reality each phase is interconnected with hazard mitigation, as Figure 7.1 suggests. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are most often implemented before disaster strikes, such as elevation of flood prone structures or through the continuous enforcement of policies that prevent and regulate development that is vulnerable to hazards because of its location, design or other characteristics. Mitigation opportunities will also be presented during immediate preparedness or response activities (such as installing storm shutters in advance of a hurricane), and certainly during the long-term recovery and redevelopment process following a hazard event. 7:4

163 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE 7.1: THE FOUR PHASES OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Planning for each phase is a critical part of a comprehensive emergency management program and a key to the successful implementation of hazard mitigation actions. As a result, the Capability Assessment Survey asked several questions across a range of emergency management plans in order to assess participating jurisdictions willingness to plan and their level of technical planning proficiency. Hazard Mitigation Plan: A hazard mitigation plan represents a community s blueprint for how it intends to reduce the impact of natural and human-caused hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment and mitigation strategy. Twelve of the 13 municipalities are participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan under Spartanburg County. The 13 th municipal is in two counties and has their own hazard mitigation plan. Disaster Recovery Plan: A disaster recovery plan serves to guide the physical, social, environmental and economic recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. In many instances, hazard mitigation principles and practices are incorporated into local disaster recovery plans with the intent of capitalizing on opportunities to break the cycle of repetitive disaster losses. Disaster recovery plans can also lead to the preparation of disaster redevelopment policies and ordinances to be enacted following a hazard event. Spartanburg County maintains a Disaster Recovery Plan that is a cooperative effort between the Emergency Management and Planning Departments. A County Disaster Recovery Plan would be beneficial for all of the municipalities. The municipalities of Pacolet, Spartanburg, and Woodruff all have Disaster Recovery Plans as well. Emergency Operations Plan: An emergency operations plan outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are deployed during and following an emergency or disaster. 7:5

164 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Spartanburg County maintains an Emergency Operations Plans through the Emergency Management Department. The participating jurisdictions of Lyman, Landrum, Woodruff, Cowpens, Pacolet, and Spartanburg, within the County have emergency operations plans. Continuity of Operations Plan: A continuity of operations plan establishes a chain of command, line of succession and plans for backup or alternate emergency facilities in case of an extreme emergency or disaster event. Spartanburg County is currently in the process of developing their Continuity of Operations Plan and all of the county departments were invited to participate. Only a small percentage of the municipalities, have a Continuity of Operations Plans or have even begun to develop a plan General Planning The implementation of hazard mitigation activities often involves agencies and individuals beyond the emergency management profession. Stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials, economic development specialists and others. In many instances, concurrent local planning efforts will help to achieve or complement hazard mitigation goals, even though they are not designed as such. Therefore, the Capability Assessment Survey also asked questions regarding general planning capabilities and the degree to which hazard mitigation is integrated into other on-going planning efforts in Spartanburg County. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: A comprehensive land use plan establishes the overall vision for what a community wants to be and serves as a guide for future governmental decision making. Typically a comprehensive plan contains sections on demographic conditions, land use, transportation elements and community facilities. Given the broad nature of the plan and its regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can enhance the likelihood of achieving risk reduction goals, objectives and actions. Spartanburg County has a comprehensive land use plan that that is maintained for the County property. The participating jurisdictions of Lyman, Landrum, Woodruff, Chesnee, Pacolet, and Spartanburg maintain their own comprehensive land use plans. Capital Improvements Plan: A capital improvements plan guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A capital improvements plan can serve as an important mechanism for guiding future development away from identified hazard areas. Limiting public spending in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local governments. Spartanburg County maintains a Capital Improvements Plan through Budget Management Department. The participating jurisdictions of Lyman, Woodruff, Chesnee, Pacolet, and Spartanburg maintain their own Capital Improvements Plans. Historic Preservation Plan: A historic preservation plan is intended to preserve historic structures or districts within a community. An often overlooked aspect of the historic preservation plan is the assessment of buildings and sites located in areas subject to natural hazards, and the identification of ways to reduce future damages. This may involve retrofitting or relocation techniques that account for the need to protect buildings that do not meet current building standards, or are within a historic district that cannot easily be relocated out of harm s way. Spartanburg County does not have Historic Preservation Plans. 7:6

165 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The municipalities of Woodruff, Pacolet, and Spartanburg maintain their own Historic Preservation Plans through their planning commissions and administrations. The Town of Chesnee s Historic Preservation Plan is currently under development. Mitigation strategies such as applying for federal grant funds (i.e., PDM, FMA, and HMGP) to protect identified at-risk historic structures in Spartanburg County could be considered in any future historic planning efforts. Zoning Ordinance: Zoning represents the primary means by which land use is controlled by local governments. As part of a community s police power, zoning is used to protect the public health, safety and welfare of those in a given jurisdiction that maintains zoning authority. A zoning ordinance is the mechanism through which zoning is typically implemented. Since zoning regulations enable municipal governments to limit the type and density of development, a zoning ordinance can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified hazard areas. Spartanburg County has a zoning ordinance that is administered by the Building and Fire Code Departments. All of the municipalities also have zoning ordinances that are managed by the planning departments or the administrator s office. Subdivision Ordinance: A subdivision ordinance is intended to regulate the development of residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, including associated public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or future development. Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the exposure of future development. Spartanburg County has a subdivision ordinance that is administered by the Public Works Department. Lyman, Pacolet, and Spartanburg, all have subdivision ordinances that their administration manages. Currently, Chesnee is developing a subdivision ordinance. The Town of Landrum utilizes the County s subdivision ordinance. Building Codes, Permitting and Inspections: Building Codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits and inspections are required for new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that account for hazard risk), the type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of inspection protocols all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community. All of the participating counties and jurisdictions have adopted the South Carolina State Building Code. The building code in the County is enforced by the county s Building Codes Department. The municipalities of Landrum, Pacolet, Chesnee and Cowpens have their building codes managed by the County. The City of Woodruff is managed by their Building and Zoning Department. The City of Spartanburg has a city inspections department that enforces their building codes and Lyman s Mayor s Office manages their building code enforcement. The adoption and enforcement of building codes by local jurisdictions is routinely assessed through the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) program, developed by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). 4 In South Carolina, the South Carolina Building Codes Council which is under the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes, with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The results of BCEGS assessments are routinely provided to ISO s member private insurance companies, which in turn may offer ratings credits for new buildings constructed in 4 Participation in BCEGS is voluntary and may be declined by local governments if they do not wish to have their local building codes evaluated. 7:7

166 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT communities with strong BCEGS classifications. The concept is that communities with well-enforced, upto-date codes should experience fewer disaster-related losses, and as a result should have lower insurance rates. In conducting the assessment, ISO collects information related to personnel qualification and continuing education, as well as number of inspections performed per day. This type of information combined with local building codes is used to determine a grade for that jurisdiction. The grades range from 1 to 10, with a BCEGS grade of 1 representing exemplary commitment to building code enforcement, and a grade of 10 indicating less than minimum recognized protection Floodplain Management Flooding represents the greatest natural hazard facing the nation. At the same time, the tools available to reduce the impacts associated with flooding are among the most developed when compared to other hazard-specific mitigation techniques. In addition to approaches that cut across hazards such as education, outreach, and the training of local officials, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) contains specific regulatory measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary for local governments; however, program participation is strongly encouraged by FEMA as a first step for implementing and sustaining an effective hazard mitigation program. It is therefore used as part of this assessment as a key indicator for measuring local capability. In order for a county or municipality to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by a 100-year flood event, and that new development in the floodplain will not exacerbate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. A key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once completed, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are an important source of information to educate residents, government officials and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community. Table 7.2 provides NFIP policy and claim information for each participating jurisdiction in Spartanburg County. TABLE 7.2: NFIP POLICY AND CLAIM INFORMATION Jurisdiction Date Joined NFIP Current Effective Map Date NFIP Policies in Force Insurance in Force ($) Total Payments to Date ($) Spartanburg County 08/01/ /06/ $45,790,700 $520,699 Campobello 11/24/ /06/2011 Chesnee 01/06/ /06/2011 None Reported None Reported None Reported None Reported Duncan 05/27/ /06/ $28,000 Inman 11/24/ /06/ $350,000 None Reported None Reported None Reported None Reported 7:8

167 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Landrum 07/16/ /06/2011 None Reported None Reported None Reported Lyman 05/27/ /06/ $9,400 None Reported Pacolet 11/24/ /06/ $350,000 $1,811 Spartanburg 06/01/ /06/ $11,496,900 $184,877 None Woodruff 11/24/ /06/ $525,000 Reported Source: NFIP claims and policy information as of 08/15/11; NFIP Community Status information as of 08/15/11 Community Rating System: An additional indicator of floodplain management capability is the active participation of local jurisdictions in the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages counties and municipalities to undertake defined flood mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP, adding extra local measures to provide protection from flooding. All of the 18 creditable CRS mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and reach identified thresholds, communities can apply for an improved CRS class. Class ratings, which range from 10 to 1, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions as shown in Table 7.3. As class ratings improve (the lower the number, the better), the percent reduction in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policyholders in that community increases. TABLE 7.3: CRS PREMIUM DISCOUNTS, BY CLASS CRS Class Source: FEMA Premium Reduction 1 45% 2 40% 3 35% 4 30% 5 25% 6 20% 7 15% 8 10% 9 5% 10 0 Community participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS application process has been greatly simplified over the past several years, based on community comments intended to make the CRS more user friendly, and extensive technical assistance available for communities who request it. None of the counties or local jurisdictions currently participates in the CRS. Participation in the CRS program should be considered as a mitigation action. The program would be most beneficial to Spartanburg County. 7:9

168 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Floodplain Management Plan: A floodplain management plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for action regarding corrective and preventative measures to reduce flood-related impacts. The municipalities of Campobello, Chesnee, Lyman, Landrum, Inman, Duncan, Pacolet, Spartanburg, and Woodruff as well as the County all participate in the NFIP and are required to adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance and have adopted an ordinance. Each of these municipalities has a floodplain management plan with the exception of the City of Landrum and the Town of Pacolet s plan is under development. Open Space Management Plan: An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect and restore largely undeveloped lands in their natural state, and to expand or connect areas in the public domain such as parks, greenways and other outdoor recreation areas. In many instances open space management practices are consistent with the goals of reducing hazard losses, such as the preservation of wetlands or other flood-prone areas in their natural state in perpetuity. Spartanburg County s Open Space Management Plan is facilitated by the Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Public Works Departments. The Town of Lyman and City of Spartanburg both have developed their own open space management plan. Currently, the Town of Pacolet, City of Chesnee, and the City of Woodruff are building a plan. The Town of Cowpens does not have an open space management plan. Stormwater Management Plan: A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater runoff. The stormwater management plan is typically focused on design and construction measures that are intended to reduce the impact of more frequently occurring minor urban flooding. Spartanburg County has a Stormwater Ordinance that the Public Works Department enforces. The Towns of Lyman and Cowpens and the City of Spartanburg all have stormwater management plans and the Pacolet, Chesnee, and Woodruff are all in the process of developing their plans Administrative and Technical Capability The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies and programs is directly tied to its ability to direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability can be evaluated by determining how mitigation-related activities are assigned to local departments and if there are adequate personnel resources to complete these activities. The degree of intergovernmental coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability for the implementation and success of proposed mitigation activities. Technical capability can generally be evaluated by assessing the level of knowledge and technical expertise of local government employees, such as personnel skilled in using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on administrative and technical capability through the identification of available staff and personnel resources. Table 7.4 provides a summary of the Capability Assessment Survey results for the Spartanburg County with regard to relevant staff and personnel resources. A checkmark ( ) indicates the presence of a staff member(s) in that jurisdiction with the specified knowledge or skill. 7:10

169 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE 7.4: RELEVANT STAFF / PERSONNEL RESOURCES Staff / Personnel Resource Planners with knowledge of land development / land management i Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human- SPARTANBURG COUNTY Chesnee Cowpens Landrum Lyman Pacolet Spartanburg Woodruff * Emergency Manager Floodplain Manager Land Surveyors Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Staff with education or expertise to assess the community s vulnerability to hazards Personnel skilled in GIS and/or Hazus Resource development staff or grant writers Fiscal Capability The ability of a local government to take action is often closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects. This may take the form of outside grant funding awards or locally-based revenue and financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily to staff time or administrative costs associated with the creation and monitoring of a given program. In other cases, direct expenses are linked to an actual project such as the acquisition of flood-prone homes, which can require a substantial commitment from local, state and federal funding sources. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on the region s fiscal capability through the identification of locally available financial resources. 7:11

170 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 7.5 provides a summary of the results for Spartanburg County with regard to relevant fiscal resources. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the given fiscal resource is locally available for hazard mitigation purposes (including match funds for state and federal mitigation grant funds). TABLE 7.5: RELEVANT FISCAL RESOURCES Planning / Regulatory Tool SPARTANBURG COUNTY Chesnee Cowpens Landrum Lyman Pacolet Spartanburg Woodruff Capital Improvement Programming Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Special Purpose Taxes (or taxing districts) Gas / Electric Utility Fees Water / Sewer Fees Stormwater Utility Fees Development Impact Fees General Obligation, Revenue, and/or Special Tax Bonds Partnering Arrangements or Intergovernmental Political Capability One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact meaningful policies and projects designed to reduce the impact of future hazard events. Hazard mitigation may not be a local priority, or may conflict with or be seen as an impediment to other goals of the community, such as growth and economic development. Therefore the local political climate must be considered in designing mitigation strategies, as it could be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in accomplishing their adoption and implementation. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on political capability of Spartanburg County and its municipalities. Survey respondents were asked to identify some general examples of local political capability, such as guiding development away from identified hazard areas, restricting public investments or capital improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards that go beyond minimum state or federal requirements (e.g. building codes, floodplain management, etc.). Some survey responses provided examples of development regulations that go beyond minimum state or federal requirements. The responses included information on the enforcement of ordinances and building standards as well. Past mitigation activities in Spartanburg County are described in the next section under Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures. 7:12

171 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Local Self Assessment In addition to the inventory and analysis of specific local capabilities, the Capability Assessment Survey asked the County and local jurisdictions within the County to conduct a self assessment of their perceived capability to implement hazard mitigation activities. As part of this process, local officials were encouraged to consider the barriers to implementing proposed mitigation strategies in addition to the mechanisms that could enhance or further such strategies. In response to the survey questionnaire, county officials classified each of the aforementioned capabilities as either limited, moderate or high. Table 7.6 summarizes the results of the self assessment process for Spartanburg County and its participating jurisdictions. TABLE 7.6: SELF ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY Jurisdiction Planning and Regulatory Capability Administrati ve and Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Political Capability OVERALL CAPABILITY SPARTANBURG COUNTY Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Chesnee High High High High High Cowpens Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Landrum Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Lyman Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Pacolet Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Spartanburg High High High High High Woodruff Limited Limited Limited Moderate Limited 7.4 CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILITY In order to form meaningful conclusions on the assessment of local capability, a quantitative scoring methodology was designed and applied to results of the Capability Assessment Survey. This methodology, further described in Appendix B, attempts to assess the overall level of capability of Spartanburg County to implement hazard mitigation actions. The overall capability to implement hazard mitigation actions varied among the participating jurisdictions. For planning and regulatory capability, the jurisdictions were in the moderate or high range. The administrative and technical capabilities varied widely among the jurisdictions, with larger jurisdictions generally having greater staff and technical resources. The jurisdictions were split with fiscal capability, Spartanburg County, City of Woodruff, and the City of Spartanburg had a high range for fiscal capability while the other municipalities are in the low to moderate range. 7:13

172 SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 7.7 shows the results of the capability assessment using the designed scoring methodology. The capability score is based solely on the information provided by local officials in response to the Capability Assessment Survey. According to the assessment, the average local capability score for all responding jurisdictions is 44.6, which falls into the moderate capability ranking. Table 7.7: Capability Assessment Results Jurisdiction Overall Capability Score Overall Capability Rating SPARTANBURG COUNTY 61 High Chesnee 59 High Cowpens 14 Limited Landrum 16 Limited Lyman 36 Moderate Pacolet 41 Moderate Spartanburg 63 High Woodruff 57 High As previously discussed, one of the reasons for conducting a Capability Assessment is to examine local capabilities to detect any existing gaps or weaknesses within ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. These gaps or weaknesses have been identified, for each jurisdiction, in the tables found throughout this section. The participating jurisdictions used the Capability Assessment as part of the basis for the Mitigation Actions that are identified in Section 9; therefore, each jurisdiction addresses their ability to expand on and improve their existing capabilities through the identification of their Mitigation Actions Linking the Capability Assessment with the Risk Assessment and the Mitigation Strategy The conclusions of the Risk Assessment and Capability Assessment serve as the foundation for the development of a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying specific mitigation actions to pursue, the SCHMPC considered not only each jurisdiction s level of hazard risk but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. 7:14

173 SECTION 8 MITIGATION STRATEGY This section of the Plan provides the blueprint for the participating jurisdictions in Spartanburg County to follow in order to become less vulnerable to its identified hazards. It is based on general consensus of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SCHMPC) and the findings and conclusions of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. It consists of the following five subsections: 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Mitigation Goals 8.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques 8.4 Selection of Mitigation Techniques for Spartanburg County 8.5 Plan Update Requirement 8.1 INTRODUCTION The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide Spartanburg County with the goals that will serve as guiding principles for future mitigation policy and project administration, along with an analysis of mitigation techniques deemed available to meet those goals and reduce the impact of identified hazards. It is designed to be comprehensive, strategic and functional in nature: In being comprehensive, the development of the strategy includes a thorough review of all hazards and identifies extensive mitigation measures intended to not only reduce the future impacts of high risk hazards, but also to help the county achieve compatible economic, environmental and social goals. In being strategic, the development of the strategy ensures that all policies and projects proposed for implementation are consistent with pre-identified, long-term planning goals. In being functional, each proposed mitigation action is linked to established priorities and assigned to specific departments or individuals responsible for their implementation with target completion deadlines. When necessary, funding sources are identified that can be used to assist in project implementation. The first step in designing the Mitigation Strategy includes the identification of mitigation goals. Mitigation goals represent broad statements that are achieved through the implementation of more specific, mitigation actions. These actions include both hazard mitigation policies (such as the regulation of land in known hazard areas through a local ordinance), and hazard mitigation projects that seek to address specifically targeted hazard risks (such as the acquisition and relocation of a repetitive loss structure). The second step involves the identification, consideration and analysis of available mitigation measures to help achieve the identified mitigation goals. This is a long-term, continuous process sustained through the development and maintenance of this Plan. Alternative mitigation measures will continue to be considered as future mitigation opportunities are identified, as data and technology improve, as mitigation funding becomes available, and as this Plan is maintained over time. 8:1

174 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY The third and last step in designing the Mitigation Strategy is the selection and prioritization of specific mitigation actions for Spartanburg County (provided separately in Section 8: Mitigation Action Plan). Each participating jurisdiction has its own Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) that reflects the needs and concerns of that jurisdiction. The MAP represents an unambiguous and functional plan for action and is considered to be the most essential outcome of the mitigation planning process. The MAP includes a prioritized listing of proposed hazard mitigation actions (policies and projects) for the Spartanburg jurisdictions to complete. Each action has accompanying information, such as those departments or individuals assigned responsibility for implementation, potential funding sources and an estimated target date for completion. The MAP provides those departments or individuals responsible for implementing mitigation actions with a clear roadmap that also serves as an important tool for monitoring success or progress over time. The cohesive collection of actions listed in the MAP can also serve as an easily understood menu of mitigation policies and projects for those local decision makers who want to quickly review the recommendations and proposed actions of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. In preparing each Mitigation Action Plan for Spartanburg County, officials considered the overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate the effects of hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment process, in addition to meeting the adopted mitigation goals and unique needs of the community. Prioritization of the proposed mitigation actions was based on the following five (5) factors: Mitigation Action Prioritization For the 2011, the SCHMPC members were tasked with establishing a priority for each action. Prioritization of the proposed mitigation actions was based on the following six (6) factors: Effect on overall risk to life and property Ease of implementation Political and community support A general economic cost/benefit review 1 Funding availability Continued compliance with the NFIP (if applicable) Using these criteria, actions were classified as high, moderate, or low priority by the participating jurisdiction officials. 8.2 MITIGATION GOALS 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(i): The mitigation strategy shall include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. The primary goal of all local governments is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. These goals are meant to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to current and future citizens 1 Only a general economic cost/benefit review was considered by the SCHMPC through the process of selecting and prioritizing mitigation actions. Mitigation actions with high priority were determined to be the most cost effective and most compatible with the participating jurisdictions unique needs. A more detailed cost/benefit analysis will be applied to particular projects prior to the application for or obligation of funding, as appropriate. 8:2

175 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY and infrastructure within Spartanburg County. Prior to the Mitigation Strategy Meeting in, officials made two minor changes to the existing goals from the previous plan: Objective 2.2: with personnel and equipment was added Objective 7.1: and tourists was added The SCHMPC reviewed the goals at the mitigation strategy meeting. The Committee had no changes to the goals and felt they were still applicable to the county and jurisdiction. The final goals and objectives decided by the county are as follows: TABLE 8.2: SPARTANBURG COUNTY MITIGATION GOALS Goal Goal 1 Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Objective 1.3 Goal 2 Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Objective 2.3 Objective 2.4 Objective 2.5 Goal 3 Objective 3.1 Objective 3.2 Local government will have the capability to develop, implement and maintain effective mitigation programs The effectiveness of mitigation initiatives implemented in the community will be measured and documented. There will be a program to derive mitigation lessons learned from each significant disaster event occurring in or near the community. Up-to-date technical skills in mitigation planning and programming will be available for the community. The community will have the capability to initiate and sustain emergency response operations during and after a disaster Designated evacuation shelters will be retrofitted or relocated to ensure their operability during and after disaster events Emergency services organizations will have the capability with personnel and equipment to detect emergency situations and promptly initiate emergency response operations. Emergency services facilities will be able to withstand the structural impacts of disasters. Response capabilities will be available to protect visitors, special needs individuals, and the homeless from a disaster s health and safety impacts. Utility and communications systems supporting emergency services operations will be retrofitted or relocated to withstand the impacts of disasters. The continuity of local government operations will not be significantly disrupted by disasters Buildings and facilities used for the routine operations of government will be retrofitted or relocated to withstand the impacts of disasters. Important local government records and documents will be protected from the impacts of disasters. 8:3

176 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY Objective 3.3 Objective 3.4 Goal 4 Objective 4.1 Objective 4.2 Objective 4.3 Objective 4.4 Objective 4.5 Goal 5 Objective 5.1 Objective 5.2 Objective 5.3 Objective 5.4 Objective 5.5 Goal 6 Objective 6.1 Objective 6.2 Objective 6.3 Plans will be developed, and resources identified, to facilitate reestablishing local government operations after a disaster. Redundant equipment, facilities, and/or supplies will be obtained to facilitate reestablishing local government operations after a disaster. The community will have the capability to initiate and sustain emergency response operations during and after a disaster Adequate systems for notifying the public at risk and providing emergency instruction during a disaster will be available in all identified hazard areas. Facilities in the community posing an extra health or safety risk when damaged or disrupted will be made less vulnerable to the impacts of a disaster. Public and private medical and health care facilities in the community will be retrofitted or relocated to withstand the impacts of disasters Structures, facilities and systems serving visitors to the community will be prepared to meet their immediate health and safety needs There will be adequate resources, equipment and supplies to meet victims health and safety needs after a disaster. The policies and regulations of local government will support effective hazard mitigation programming throughout the community All reconstruction or rehabilitation of local government facilities will incorporate techniques to minimize the physical or operational vulnerability to disasters. Land use policies, plans and regulations will discourage or prohibit inappropriate location of structures or infrastructure components in areas of higher risk. Local governments will establish and enforce building and land development codes that are effective in addressing the hazards threatening the community. New local government facilities will be located outside of hazard areas and/or will be designed to not be vulnerable to the impacts of such hazards. There will be adequate resources, equipment and supplies to meet victims health and safety needs after a disaster. The availability and functioning of the community s infrastructure will not be significantly disrupted by a disaster Local governments will encourage hazard mitigation programming by private sector organizations owning or operating key community utilities Routine maintenance of the community s infrastructure will be done to minimize the potential for system failure because of or during a disaster Transportation facilities and systems serving the community will be constructed and/or retrofitted to minimize the potential for disruption during a disaster 8:4

177 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY Objective 6.4 Goal 7 Objective 7.1 Water and sewer services in the community will not fail because of a disaster All members of the community will understand the hazards threatening local areas and the techniques to minimize vulnerability to those hazards through public education An education program will be developed to inform residents and tourists of the risks posed to the community, help them understand their vulnerability to disasters, and provide ideas for effective mitigation techniques. 8.3 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 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 effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. In formulating the Mitigation Strategy for Spartanburg County, a wide range of activities were considered in order to help achieve the established mitigation goals, in addition to addressing any specific hazard concerns. These activities were discussed during the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meetings. In general, all activities considered by the SCHMPC can be classified under one of the following six (6) broad categories of mitigation techniques: Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects, Emergency Services, and Public Awareness and Education. These are discussed in detail below Prevention Preventative activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse, and are typically administered through government programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. They are particularly effective in reducing a community s future vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not occurred or capital improvements have not been substantial. Examples of preventative activities include: Planning and zoning Building codes Open space preservation Floodplain regulations Stormwater management regulations Drainage system maintenance Capital improvements programming Riverine / fault zone setbacks Property Protection Property protection measures involve the modification of existing buildings and structures to help them better withstand the forces of a hazard, or removal of the structures from hazardous locations. Examples include: Acquisition Relocation Building elevation Critical facilities protection Retrofitting (e.g., windproofing, floodproofing, seismic design techniques, etc.) 8:5

178 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY Safe rooms, shutters, shatter-resistant glass Insurance Natural Resource Protection Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their protective functions. Such areas include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and sand dunes. Parks, recreation or conservation agencies and organizations often implement these protective measures. Examples include: Floodplain protection Watershed management Riparian buffers Forest and vegetation management (e.g., fire resistant landscaping, fuel breaks, etc.) Erosion and sediment control Wetland preservation and restoration Habitat preservation Slope stabilization Structural Projects Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environmental natural progression of the hazard event through construction. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. Examples include: Reservoirs Dams / levees / dikes / floodwalls Diversions / detention / retention Channel modification Storm sewers Emergency Services Although not typically considered a mitigation technique, emergency service measures do minimize the impact of a hazard event on people and property. These commonly are actions taken immediately prior to, during, or in response to a hazard event. Examples include: Warning systems Evacuation planning and management Emergency response training and exercises Sandbagging for flood protection Installing temporary shutters for wind protection Public Education and Awareness Public education and awareness activities are used to advise residents, elected officials, business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples of measures to educate and inform the public include: Outreach projects Speaker series / demonstration events Hazard map information Real estate disclosure Library materials School children educational programs Hazard expositions 8:6

179 SECTION 8: MITIGATION STRATEGY 8.4 SELECTION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY In order to determine the most appropriate mitigation techniques for the communities in Spartanburg County, the SCHMPC members thoroughly reviewed and considered the findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessmen to determine the best activities for their respective communities. Other considerations included the effect of each mitigation action on overall risk to life and property, its ease of implementation, its degree of political and community support, its general cost-effectiveness, and funding availability (if necessary). 8.5 PLAN UPDATE REQUIREMENT In keeping with FEMA requirements for plan updates, the Mitigation Actions identified in the Spartanburg County plan were evaluated to determine their 2011 implementation status. Actions were only devised for Spartanburg County in the previous plan. Updates on the implementation status of each action are provided. The mitigation actions provided in Section 9: Mitigation Action Plan include the mitigation actions from the previous plans as well as any new mitigation actions proposed through the 2011 planning process. 8:7

180 SECTION 9 MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy shall include an action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. This section of the Plan includes the listing of the mitigation actions proposed by the participating jurisdictions in Spartanburg County. 9.1: Overview 9.2: Evaluation and Selection of Proposed Mitigation Action 9.3: Mitigation Action Plans 9.1 OVERVIEW As described in the previous section, the Mitigation Action Plan, or MAP, provides a functional plan of action for each jurisdiction. It is designed to achieve the mitigation goals established in Section 8: Mitigation Strategy, and will be maintained on a regular basis according to the plan maintenance procedures established in Section 10: Plan Maintenance Procedures. Each proposed mitigation action has been identified as an effective measure (policy or project) to reduce hazard risk for Spartanburg County and the participating jurisdictions. Each action is listed in the MAP in conjunction with background information such as priority, hazard(s) addressed and estimated cost. Other information provided in the MAP includes potential funding sources to implement the action should funding be required (not all proposed actions are contingent upon funding). Most importantly, implementation mechanisms are provided for each action, including the designation of a lead agency or department responsible for carrying the action out as well as a timeframe for its completion. These implementation mechanisms ensure that the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan remains a functional document that can be monitored for progress over time. The proposed actions are not listed in priority order, though each has been assigned a priority level of high, moderate or low as described below and in Section 8 (page 8.2). Actions are included for Spartanburg County, the participating jurisdiction, and, although not required, the American Red Cross. Each jurisdiction includes at least one separate action for its jurisdiction in a separate mitigation action plan, and will be responsible for implementing and administering each chosen action. For those jurisdictions participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, an additional action was developed to address their participation in this program. Several actions were developed for Spartanburg County from the existing plan. Each of these actions has been reviewed to provide a current status of ongoing, complete, deleted, deferred, or otherwise. Significant changes and deletions can be found in Appendix E Changes to Mitigation Actions. 9:1

181 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Table 9.1 describes the key elements of the Mitigation Action Plan. Table 9.1: Key Elements of the Mitigation Action Plan Jurisdiction Name Mitigation Action Number Hazard(s) Addressed: Title of Action (Description of action to be undertaken.) Hazard which the action addresses. Category: Category of Mitigation Strategy that is met: Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects, Emergency Services, Public Education and Awareness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): In preparing their own individual Mitigation Actions Place, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate natural hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment process, in addition to meeting the adopted countywide mitigation goals and the unique needs of the unique needs of their community. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was based on the following five (5) factors: (1) effect on overall risk to life and property; (2) ease of implementation; (3) political and community support; (4) a general economic cost/benefit review; and (5) funding availability. This process is also described on page 8:2, Section 8: Mitigation Strategy. Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department responsible for undertaking the action. Estimated Cost: Anticipated cost of the action. Potential Funding Sources: Local, State, or Federal sources of funds are noted here, where applicable. Implementation Schedule: Date by which the action the action should be completed. More information is provided when possible. Implementation Status (2011): An indication of completion, progress, deferment, or no change since the previous plan. If the action is new, that will be noted here. 9:2

182 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN 9.3 MITIGATION ACTION PLANS The mitigation actions proposed by each of the participating jurisdictions are listed in fifteen individual MAPs on the following pages. Table 9.2 shows the location of each jurisdiction s MAP within this section as well as the number of mitigation actions proposed by each jurisdiction. TABLE 9.2: INDIVIDUAL MAP LOCATIONS Location Page Number of Mitigation Actions Spartanburg County 9:6 34 Campobello 9:19 3 Chesnee 9:21 2 Cowpens 9:22 1 Duncan 9:23 2 Inman 9:24 3 Landrum 9:26 2 Lyman 9:28 3 Pacolet 9:29 3 Reidville 9:30 1 Spartanburg 9:31 4 Wellford 9:33 1 Woodruff 9:34 3 American Red Cross 9:36 2 9:3

183 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN SPARTANBURG COUNTY MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 1 Work with local relief groups (i.e. the Red Cross) to promote public training classes and events related to hazard preparation. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 1/Objective 1.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County EPD Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 3-5 years Implementation Status: Continuing Effort Comments OEM/CERT has conducted over 300 PR Events since 2005 in an effort to promote public training classes and events related to Hazard Mitigation. In addition, over 630 people have completed the CERT program since August Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 2 Utilize the existing Local Emergency Planning Committee to meet following disasters and to review response effectiveness and mitigation needs. All Hazards Emergency Services, Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 1/Objective 1.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Moderate High County EPD Unknown Local Funds Ongoing Continuing Effort When possible, the LEPC is utilized to review response effectiveness and mitigation needs. The Hazard Vulnerability Subcommittee plays a vital role is assessing local industry and making them safer prior to hazards occurring. 9:4

184 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 3 Develop a tracking system for mitigation activities that reviews effectiveness following disaster events. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 1/Objective 1.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Moderate High County EPD Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years Completed within 5 years We need to establish a tracking system for all mitigation activities. Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 4 Review local government stormwater regulations to assess how well they prevent hazardous situations due to stormwater flooding. All Hazards Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 1/Objective 1.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Administration/County Engineering Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 3-5 years Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 5 Identify special needs populations and establish procedures for providing transportation to shelters in the case of a natural disaster. All Hazards Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: High High County EPD Unknown Local Funds Immediate Ongoing 9:5

185 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Comments SCOEM has added a Special Needs Registry but more must be done to promote awareness of this Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 6 Provide emergency back-up power to critical facilities: emergency generators, secondary feeds, etc. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 3/Objective 3.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate County EPD, American Red Cross Unknown Local Funds 2-3 years Ongoing SCOEM must generate a list of critical facilities that don't have backup power. In addition, SCOEM with assistance from the Red Cross, must identify shelter without power and take various approaches to address this issue. One potential approach is lessening the dependence of churches for sheltering and increase dependence on schools. Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 7 Structurally analyze all buildings or rooms identified as shelters and strengthen these as necessary. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Property Protection, Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate County EPD Unknown, American Red Cross Local Funds 3-5 years Ongoing The Red Cross, with assistance from Emergency Management (as needed) must analyze their shelter locations and determine what hazard mitigation measure can be taken to address any potential problems. 9:6

186 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 8 Review communications procedures on a regular basis to ensure communication between response agencies is maintained during a disaster. All Hazards Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD, EMS, Police, Fire, 911 Unknown Local Funds Ongoing Ongoing Reviewing Communication Procedures to ensure interoperability and maintained communications during a disaster is an ongoing effort. Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 9 Update communications equipment, especially the E-911 Center, as needed and funding is available. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal/Objective 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD, EMS, Police, Fire Unknown Local Funds Ongoing Currently taking place Communications/911 is currently evolving to the "Next Generation" 911 system 9:7

187 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 10 Inventory Emergency Response personnel and equipment to identify areas where the community is deficient in disaster response and establish actions to remedy the situation. All Hazards Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing On a bi-annual basis, Emergency Management should take an inventory of all Emergency Response Agency Resources (equipment and personnel). However, all agencies can refuse to participate, therefore 100% participation is not likely. Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 11 Establish a program to provide disaster training for all first responders. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD, EMS, Police, Fire, ESA Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing With the cooperation of our Emergency Services Academy and all our first responders, continue to provide disaster training that is NIMS/ICS compliant 9:8

188 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 12 Survey critical emergency response facilities (fire stations, law enforcement centers, and emergency headquarters) to identify risks posed to structures and seek funding to mitigate the problems. All Hazards Emergency Services, Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 3/Objective 3.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate County EPD, EMS, Police, Fire, County Risk Manager Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing Our County Risk Manager, in conjunction with First Response Agencies, should identify these risks and with EM assistance, seek funding to mitigate these problems. Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 13 Establish data backup options (i.e. laptops, off-site backups) for critical data that are easily removed and accessed at different locations in case evacuation of public facilities is necessary. All Hazards Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 3/Objective 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Moderate Moderate County Administration, County IT Unknown Local Funds 2-3 years Ongoing IT is still in the process of doing this Action 14: Deleted, Same as Action 6 (Appendix E) 9:9

189 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 15 Establish procedures and location for setting up an operations center for local government in the event a natural disaster forces the evacuation of local government buildings and the primary Emergency Operation Center. All Hazards Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 3/Objective 3.3 and 3.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 3-5 years Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments The primary and alternate EOC locations have been selected - We are currently updating the procedures to setting these locations up Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 16 Provide information to residents about the community warning systems and how to respond in case of a disaster. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 4/Objective 4.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EMD Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing SCOEM constantly explores all options to educate the public about Community Warning Systems Action 17: Deleted, Same as Action 7 (Appendix E) 9:10

190 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 18 Evaluate medical facilities within the community to ensure they are protected from the threats posed by natural disasters. All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 4/Objective 4.3 and 4.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate Hospital Systems, County EMD Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years Ongoing Continuing Effort - SCOEM has conducted an HVA of the Hospital and Restorative care and would like to do so on a biannual basis Action 19: Deleted, Same as Action 10 (Appendix E) Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 20 Develop informational pamphlets to notify tourists of the location of local shelters they can utilize in case of a disaster. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 4/Objective 4.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County EPD / American Red Cross Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 1-2 years Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments In conjunction with ARC, develop informational pamphlets about local sheltering, with reliable contact information since our local Red Cross will not release shelter locations prior to a disaster 9:11

191 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 21 Establish local regulations regulating development within floodplains for all new development. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 and 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County, Engineering, and Municipalities Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 3-5 years Implementation Status: COMPLETED Comments Completed 2004 and updated December, 2010 Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 22 Acquire updated floodplain maps (current SCDNR mapping project in process) that more accurately reflect current flood areas for use in reviewing development proposals. All Hazards Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Engineering Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 5 years Implementation Status: COMPLETED. FIRMS dated January 6, Comments Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 23 Strictly adhere to the ISO 9000 Building Code adopted in the community. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 and 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Building Codes Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments 9:12

192 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 24 Review all public building projects to prevent location in hazardous areas and ensure construction mitigates the risks of potential hazards. All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 and 5.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 25 High High County Engineering and County Planning, County Building Codes Unknown Local Funds Ongoing Continuing reviews of all projects Examine ways to identify and acquire parcels of land subject to the effects of disasters that could provide for parks and open space in the community. All Hazards Property Protection, Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 and 5.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Moderate Moderate County Administration, Parks and Recreation Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years Ongoing Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 26 Review local codes to determine whether they address the hazards identified for the community. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Building Codes, Municipalities Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments 9:13

193 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action 27: Deleted, Spartanburg County cannot dictate how the utility company maintains its infrastructure. (Appendix E) Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 28 Inspect water and sewer infrastructure for vulnerability to natural hazards. Identify and elevate vulnerable equipment and electrical controls at wastewater and potable water treatment facilities. All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate County Sewer Commission, Water Providers Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years New Ongoing Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 29 Include utility providers in all planning and drills for mitigation planning. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Property Protection, Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD, Utility Providers Unknown Local Funds Ongoing Ongoing Continuing effort to invite utility companies to EM exercises and special events 9:14

194 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 30 Indentify roadways and traffic systems susceptible to natural hazards (i.e. flooding) and prioritize improvement projects to minimize disruption to the roadways. All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate SCDOT, County Public Works Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years Ongoing. Continuing effort Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 31 Determine whether there are incremental mitigating improvements that can be made to facilities as part of ongoing maintenance and performance enhancement. All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High Moderate Facilities Maintenance, EM, and local municipalities Unknown Local Funds 3-5 years Ongoing Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 32 Replace low bridges or other obstructions that may induce flooding of houses or businesses. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Low Lead Agency/Department Responsible: SCDOT, County Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 5 years Implementation Status: Ongoing Comments 9:15

195 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 33 Develop a display to be used at public events. The display will provide information on natural hazards that threaten the area and what individuals can do to reduce these risks. Existing brochures and manuals from FEMA and SCEMD would be available for distribution. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing Continuing effort to modify and enhance public relations campaign as funding permits Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 34 Utilize the media for the distribution and publication of hazard information. Send news releases and regular public relations pieces to local newspapers and radio stations. Promote pre-disaster planning. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing 9:16

196 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 35 Provide information to residents of the community regarding flood insurance available. Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Engineering Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: Ongoing, Continuing Effort Comments Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 36 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Develop informational brochures in conjunction with the visitor s bureau that informs tourists of the natural hazards present in the community and what they should do in case one occurs. This information would be available at welcome centers, hotels, and other tourist attractions. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Moderate High County EPD Unknown Local Funds 1-2 years Ongoing Ongoing, Continuing Effort 9:17

197 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 37 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: In conjunction with the LEPC, identify facilities in the community posing serious health/safety risk on the community when damaged and identify mitigation measures that can taken to lessen the impact. All Hazards Property protection, prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 4/Objective 4.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments High High County EPD, LEPC Unknown Local Funds 1-5 years New Work with LEPC to identify facilities and then work with these facilities that can post large health/safety risk when damaged Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 38 Hazard(s) Addressed: Address resource needs for victims during times of disaster by taking pre-disaster measures All Hazards Category: Property protection, prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 4/Objective 4.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County EPD, LEPC Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: 1-5 years Implementation Status: New Comments Work with LEPC to identify facilities and then work with these facilities that can post large health/safety risk when damaged 9:18

198 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Town of Campobello Action Plan Campobello Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Departments Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Implementation Schedule: Initiative will begin in 9/2012 and will be continuing Implementation Status: New Comments For more information, contact Chief Chad McNeil at Campobello Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Conduct drainage improvements to Old Mill Rd for the purpose of mitigating flooding. Flooding Category: Prevention; Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Street Maintenance Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Grant Project Implementation Schedule: Currently in planning stage Anticipate completion within 5 years Implementation Status: New Comments For more information, contact Chief McNeal at :19

199 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Campobello Mitigation Action 3 The Town will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:20

200 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN City of Chesnee Mitigation Action Plan Chesnee Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Departments Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Implementation Schedule: Initiative will begin in 9/2012 and will be continuing Implementation Status: New Comments For more information, contact Chief Swofford at Chesnee Mitigation Action 2 Conduct drainage improvements to Richland St to California Ave for the purpose of mitigating flooding Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Category: Prevention; Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Street Maintenance Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Potential Mitigation Grant Project Implementation Schedule: Currently in planning stage Anticipate completion within 5 years Implementation Status: New Comments For more information, contact Becky Hood at :21

201 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Town of Cowpens Mitigation Action Plan Cowpens Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Identify and analyze all buildings identified as shelters and strengthen these as necessary. Ice storms, tornadoes, and all other hazards that require citizens to leave their residences. Emergency services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: American Red Cross Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Municipal local funds Implementation Schedule: 1-2 years Implementation Status: New Comments At the present time, there is only one designated shelter in our area and it is approximately 4-5 miles outside of our town limits 9:22

202 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Town of Duncan Mitigation Action Plan Duncan Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Departments Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments General Fund Ongoing New Duncan Mitigation Action 2 Pass an ordinance that will not let building or rebuilding a structure in the flood zone area take place. (NFIP action) Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Category: Prevention and property protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 and 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Zoning and Planning Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: None Implementation Schedule: 4 years Implementation Status: New Comments This will prevent damage to structure due to flooding in the flood zone area. 9:23

203 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN City of Inman Mitigation Action Plan Inman Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Conduct drainage improvements to Mill St for the purpose of mitigating flooding. Flooding Prevention; Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Street Maintenance Estimated Cost: $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Grant Currently in planning stage Anticipate completion within 5 years New Comments For more information, contact Chief Cothran at Inman Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards. All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: General Fund Initiative will begin in 9/2012 and will be continuing New Comments For more information, contact Chief Cothran at :24

204 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Inman Mitigation Action 3 The Town will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:25

205 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN City of Landrum Mitigation Action Plan Landrum Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Develop a debris removal coordination plan with Spartanburg County for the removal and storage of storm debris due to ice storm/wind damage that has fallen in the County rights-of-way in the City of Landrum disrupting travel. The County will designate a debris removal contractor for this purpose and the City of Landrum has designated a large city-owned property to store the debris until it can be chipped into mulch. During an ice/wind event the Landrum City Administrator will identify which County roads in the city that require debris removal and will notify the County Director of Road Maintenance. Ice and wind damage Emergency services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6, Objective 6.3. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Spartanburg County with assistance from the City of Landrum Estimated Cost: Minimal to moderate Potential Funding Sources: City and County General Fund with possible assistance from FEMA Implementation Schedule: Immediate, November 2011 Implementation Status: New Comments Landrum Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Beginning in January of 2012 the City of Landrum will prepare an annual report summarizing all development approved within the flood zones for the previous calendar year and will submit it to the County Office of Emergency Management. (NFIP action) Flooding Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5, Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City of Landrum Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: City General Fund Implementation Schedule: January 2012 Implementation Status: New 9:26

206 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Comments The City of Landrum has an adopted Flood Ordinance that was deemed compliant by FEMA in December of The City conducts a zoning review before Building Permits are issued and inspections are conducted by Spartanburg County. Any development in a flood zone must meet the construction and elevation requirements of our ordinance. 9:27

207 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Town of Lyman Mitigation Action Plan Lyman Mitigation Action 1 Purchase and install a generator for use at the Lyman Town Hall which will serve as Emergency Operations Center. Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storms, Tornadoes and other hazards Category: Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.1 and 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Police Estimated Cost: $ Potential Funding Sources: Searching for grants Implementation Schedule: As soon as possible Implementation Status: New Comments Lyman Mitigation Action 2 Identify stormwater drainage system failures and improve/repair capability of system to prevent flooding of property Stormwater Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.2 and 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments Stormwater problems are continually being assessed and addressed. 9:28

208 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Lyman Mitigation Action 3 The Town will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments Town of Pacolet Mitigation Action Plan Pacolet Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Address alternate power shortfalls at alternate municipal location All Hazards Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.2 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Services (Continuity of Operations) High Low Estimated Cost: $30000 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Town of Pacolet Grant Currently in planning stage Anticipate completion within 5 years New Comments For more information, contact Chief Worthy at :29

209 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Pacolet Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: High High Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Fire Department General Fund Initiative will begin in 9/2012 and will be continuing New Comments For more information, contact Chief Worthy at Pacolet Mitigation Action 3 The Town will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:30

210 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Town of Reidville Mitigation Action Plan Reidville Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Conduct PR Campaign to educate public about potential local hazards All Hazards Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: General Fund Initiative will begin in 9/2012 and will be continuing New Comments For more information, contact Chief Evatt at City of Spartanburg Mitigation Action Plan Spartanburg Mitigation Action 1 Strictly adhere to the building and fire codes adopted by the State and local government Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Prevention Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.2 and 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Building Codes and Fire Service Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:31

211 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg Mitigation Action 2 Review all public building projects to prevent location in hazardous areas and ensure construction mitigates the risk of potential hazards All Hazards Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning Dept./Building/Fire Codes Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments Spartanburg Mitigation Action 3 Provide information to residents of the community regarding flood insurance available Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards Category: Public Education Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility (High, Moderate, Low): High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Engineer/Storm Water Mgr. Estimated Cost: Unknown Potential Funding Sources: Local Funds Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:32

212 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Spartanburg Mitigation Action 4 The City will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments City of Wellford Mitigation Action Plan Wellford Mitigation Action 1 Conduct drainage improvements to blocked storm drain on Main St in Startex Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Flooding Prevention; Property Protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.2 and 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Street Maintenance Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Grant Project Currently in planning stage Anticipate completion within 5 years For more information, contact Mayor Tommy Watson at :33

213 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN City of Woodruff Mitigation Action Plan Woodruff Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Review and improve drainage to prevent localized flooding Heavy rains, hurricanes, flooding Prevention, Property protection Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 6/Objective 6.2 and 6.4 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Effect on overall risk to life and property (Medium) High Estimated Cost: $50,000 to $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Woodruff Public Works Department, SC DOT, and Spartanburg County Roads and bridges City of Woodruff, State of South Carolina, South Carolina C- Funds, and Spartanburg County existing funding and future funding Expected to begin immediately and will be an on-going process. New This action will allow for all drains to be cleared and damages noted. Damages will be repaired. All ditches will be inspected and either cleared or reshaped to ensure adequate water flow. Roads that have poor drainage will be identified and referred to the proper agency for repairs. Building owners in areas that are at high risk of localized standing water during a heavy rain event will be notified and provided information on how to prepare for future events. 9:34

214 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Woodruff Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Education of Woodruff citizens on preparedness for natural disasters and resources for after a disaster. All natural disasters Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 7/Objective 7.1 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Feasibility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Implementation Status: Comments Effect on overall risk to life and property (High) Political and community support (Medium) High Woodruff Fire Department and Police Department $ $2500 in materials costs and advertisements City of Woodruff Expected to begin immediately and will be an on-going process each year. New This action will allow the City Public Safety agencies to make people in the community aware of how to prepare for a disaster and what to do in the event of a disaster. This will be done through educational information distributed during events and city sponsored activities. This will also be accomplished through the schools. It will also provide for a review of the City s policies and response activities. Woodruff Mitigation Action 3 The Town will continue to work with the County to enforce the floodplain ordinance within its jurisdiction. (NFIP action) Flood Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 5/Objective 5.3 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Floodplain Manager Responsible: Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: unknown Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments 9:35

215 SECTION 9: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN American Red Cross Mitigation Action Plan American Red Cross Mitigation Action 1 Hazard(s) Addressed: Evaluate all new shelters and update current shelters to: Ensure structural soundness, including facility construction and safety Compliance is ADA requirements Considerations for pet sheltering Fire and AED Safety Sanitation, utilities, power to include back-up generators Accessibility for entering, drop off, parking, feeding Primary or Priority Shelter status All Hazards Category: Property protection, Emergency Services Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: American Red Cross in conjunction with County Emergency Management Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: NA Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Implementation Status: New Comments This action ties to Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 7 and 17 American Red Cross Mitigation Action 2 Hazard(s) Addressed: Develop community wide information to notify tourists traveling on the interstates through the upstate South Carolina area as well as local residents of the location of local shelters they can utilize in case of a disaster. All Hazards Category: Public Education and Awareness Goal/Objective Addressed Goal 2/Objective 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Feasibility High Lead Agency/Department Responsible: American Red Cross in conjunction with County Emergency Management Estimated Cost: Minimal Potential Funding Sources: NA Implementation Schedule: 1-2 years Implementation Status: New Comments This action ties to Spartanburg County Mitigation Action 20. 9:36

216 SECTION 10 PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan shall include a plan maintenance process that includes a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. This section discusses how the Spartanburg County Mitigation Strategy and Mitigation Action Plan will be implemented and how the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan will be evaluated and enhanced over time. This section also discusses how the public will continue to be involved in a sustained hazard mitigation planning process. It consists of the following three subsections: 10.1 Implementation and Integration 10.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement 10.3 Continued Public Involvement 10.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND INTEGRATION Each agency, department or other partner participating under the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions as prescribed in the Mitigation Action Plan. Every proposed action listed in the Mitigation Action Plan is assigned to a specific lead agency or department in order to assign responsibility and accountability and increase the likelihood of subsequent implementation. In addition to the assignment of a local lead department or agency, an implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. The County and jurisdictions in the County will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environments. When applicable, potential funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in the Mitigation Action Plan. The participating jurisdictions will integrate this Hazard Mitigation Plan into relevant City and County government decision-making processes or mechanisms, where feasible. This includes integrating the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Plan (including the mitigation strategy) into other local planning documents, processes or mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The members of the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SPHMPC) will remain charged with ensuring that the goals and mitigation actions of new and updated local planning documents for their agencies or departments are consistent, or do not conflict with, the goals and actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will not contribute to increased hazard vulnerability in Spartanburg County. 10:1

217 SECTION 10: PLAN MAINTENANCE Since the previous plan was adopted in 2005, the County has worked to integrate the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms where applicable/feasible. Examples of how this integration has occurred have been documented in the implementation status discussion provided for each of the mitigation actions found in Section 9. Specific examples of how integration has occurred include: Integrating the mitigation plan into reviews and updates of County emergency operations plans Integrating the mitigation plan into our daily emergency operations to include the creation of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), Voluntary Organization Active in Disaster (VOAD), and the public awareness campaign Opportunities to further integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future meetings of the SCHMPC, individual jurisdiction and county meetings, and the annual review process described herein. Examples to be explored include zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and capital improvement plan. Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms, the development and maintenance of this stand-alone Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to implement local hazard mitigation actions at this time MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND ENHANCEMENT Periodic revisions and updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan are required to ensure that the goals of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. In addition, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with applicable federal and state regulations. Periodic evaluation of the Plan will also ensure that specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to the Mitigation Action Plan. When determined necessary, the Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee shall meet in August of every year to evaluate the progress attained and to revise, where needed, the activities set forth in the Plan. The findings and recommendations of the SCHMPC shall be documented in the form of a report that can be shared with interested City and County Council members. The SPHMPC will also meet following any disaster events warranting a re-examination of the mitigation actions being implemented or proposed for future implementation. This will ensure that the Plan is continuously updated to reflect changing conditions and needs within the County which includes the participating jurisdictions. The County Emergency Management Coordinator will be responsible for reconvening the SCRHMPC for these reviews. Five (5) Year Plan Review The Plan will be thoroughly reviewed by the SCHMPC every five years to determine whether there have been any significant changes in the County that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. New development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, an increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect the necessary content of the Plan. The plan review provides SCHMPC officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures. The plan review also provides the opportunity to address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented as assigned. The County Emergency Management Coordinator will be responsible for reconvening the SCHMPC and conducting the five-year review. During the five-year plan review process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan: 10:2

218 SECTION 10: PLAN MAINTENANCE Do the goals address current and expected conditions? Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed? Are the current resources appropriate for implementing the Plan? Are there implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or coordination issues with other agencies? Have the outcomes occurred as expected? Did County departments participate in the plan implementation process as assigned? Following the five-year review, any revisions deemed necessary will be summarized and implemented according to the reporting procedures and plan amendment process outlined herein. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment process, the Spartanburg County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at the South Carolina Emergency Management Division (SCEMD) for final review and approval in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Disaster Declaration Following a disaster declaration, the will be revised as necessary to reflect lessons learned, or to address specific issues and circumstances arising from the event. It will be the responsibility of the Spartanburg County Emergency Management Coordinator to reconvene the SCHMPC and ensure the appropriate stakeholders are invited to participate in the plan revision and update process following declared disaster events. Reporting Procedures The results of the five-year review will be summarized by the SCHMPC in a report that will include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan and any required or recommended changes or amendments. The report will also include an evaluation of implementation progress for each of the proposed mitigation actions, identifying reasons for delays or obstacles to their completion along with recommended strategies to overcome them. Plan Amendment Process Upon the initiation of the amendment process, the SCHMPC will forward information on the proposed change(s) to all interested parties including, but not limited to, all directly affected county and jurisdiction departments, residents, and businesses. Information will also be forwarded to the South Carolina Emergency Management Division. This information will be disseminated in order to seek input on the proposed amendment(s) for no less than a 45-day review and comment period. At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment(s) and all comments will be forwarded to the SCHMPC for final consideration. The Planning Committee will review the proposed amendment along with the comments received from other parties, and if acceptable, the committee will submit a recommendation for the approval and adoption of changes to the Plan. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a Plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered by the SCHMPC: There are errors, inaccuracies or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs in the Plan New issues or needs have been identified which are not adequately addressed in the Plan There has been a change in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the Plan is based Upon receiving the recommendation from the SCHMPC and prior to adoption of the Plan, the participating jurisdictions will hold a public hearing, if deemed necessary. The governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction will review the recommendation from the SCHMPC (including the factors listed above) and any 10:3

219 SECTION 10: PLAN MAINTENANCE oral or written comments received at the public hearing. Following that review, the governing bodies will take one of the following actions: Adopt the proposed amendments as presented Adopt the proposed amendments with modifications Refer the amendments request back to the SCHMPC for further revision, or Defer the amendment request back to the SCHMPC for further consideration and/or additional hearings 10.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Public participation is an integral component to the mitigation planning process and will continue to be essential as this Plan evolves over time. As described above, significant changes or amendments to the Plan shall require a public hearing prior to any adoption procedures. Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts may include: Advertising meetings of the SCHMPC in local newspapers, on public bulletin boards and/or County office buildings as well as websites Designating willing and voluntary citizens and private sector representatives as official members of the SCHMPC Utilizing local media to update the public on any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place Utilizing the county website to advertise any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place, and Keeping copies of the Plan in public libraries 10:4

220 Appendix A: Plan Adoption 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(5): The plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the local governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan. This section of the Plan includes a copy of the local adoption resolution passed by the participating jurisdictions in the Spartanburg County: Jurisdiction Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg County Wellford Woodruff Spartanburg County Multi-Juridictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

221 Appendix B: Planning Tools This section of the Plan includes three (3) Items: 1. A Blank Public Participation Survey 2. A Blank Capability Assessment Survey 3. Scoring Criteria for the Capability Assessment

222 We need your help! PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Spartanburg County is currently engaged in a planning process to become less vulnerable to natural disasters, and your participation is important to us! Spartanburg County, along with participating local jurisdictions, is now working to prepare a multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of this Plan is to identify and assess our community's natural hazard risks and determine how to best minimize or manage those risks. Upon completion, the Plan will represent a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the county. This survey questionnaire provides an opportunity for you to share your opinions and participate in the mitigation planning process. The information you provide will help us better understand your hazard concerns and can lead to mitigation activities that should help lessen the impact of future hazard events. Please help us by completing this 15-question survey by Sunday, August 14, 2011 using the link below: Mitigation-Planning-Spartanburg-County 1. Where do you live? Unincorporated Spartanburg County Campobello Chesnee Cowpens Duncan Inman Landrum Lyman Pacolet Reidville Spartanburg Wellford Woodruff Other

223 2. Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster? Yes No a. If Yes, please explain: 3. How concerned are you about the possibility of our community being impacted by a disaster? Extremely concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned 4. Please select the one hazard you think is the highest threat to your neighborhood: Acts of Terror Dam / Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Remnants Land Subsidence Landslide Lightning Severe Winter/Ice Storm Severe Thunderstorm / High Wind Tornado Wildland Fire 5. Please select the one hazard you think is the second highest threat to your neighborhood: Acts of Terror Dam / Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Remnants Land Subsidence Landslide Lightning Severe Winter/Ice Storm Severe Thunderstorm / High Wind Tornado Wildland Fire 6. Is there another hazard not listed above that you think is a wide-scale threat to your neighborhood? Yes (please explain): No Page 2 of 5

224 7. Is your home located in a floodplain? Yes No I don t know 8. Do you have flood insurance? Yes No I don t know a. If No, why not? Not located in floodplain Too expensive Not necessary because it never floods Not necessary because I m elevated or otherwise protected Never really considered it Other (please explain): 9. Have you taken any actions to make your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards? Yes No b. If Yes, please explain: 10. Are you interested in making your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards? Yes No 11. Do you know what office to contact regarding reducing your risks to hazards in your area? Yes No Page 3 of 5

225 12. What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more resistant to hazards? Newspaper Television Radio Internet Mail Public workshops/meetings School meetings Other (please explain): 13. In your opinion, what are some steps your local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future hazard damages in your neighborhood? 14. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important? Page 4 of 5

226 15. A number of community-wide activities can reduce our risk from hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important you think each one is for your community to consider pursuing. Category 1. Prevention Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, open space preservation, and floodplain regulations. 2. Property Protection Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, relocation, elevation, structural retrofits, and storm shutters. 3. Natural Resource Protection Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Examples include: floodplain protection, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, riparian buffers, and forest management. 4. Structural Projects Actions intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the natural progression of the hazard. Examples include dams, levees, detention/retention basins, channel modification, retaining walls and storm sewers. 5. Emergency Services Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Examples include warning systems, evacuation planning, emergency response training, and protection of critical emergency facilities or systems. 6. Public Education and Awareness Actions to inform citizens about hazards and the techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples include outreach projects, school education programs, library materials and demonstration events. Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important 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: Page 5 of 5

227 Local Capability Assessment Survey Jurisdiction/Agency: Point of Contact: Phone: 1. PLANNING AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY - Please indicate whether the following planning or regulatory tools (plans, ordinances, codes or programs) are currently in place or under development for your jurisdiction by placing an "X" in the appropriate box. Then, for each particular item in place, identify the department or agency responsible for its implementation and indicate its estimated or anticipated effect on hazard loss reduction (Strongly Supports, Helps Facilitate or Hinders) with another "X". Finally, please provide additional comments or explanations in the space provided or with attachments. Planning / Regulatory Tool In Place Under Development Department / Agency Responsible Effect on Loss Reduction Strongly Supports Helps Facilitate Hinders Comments Hazard Mitigation Plan Comprehensive Land Use Plan (or General, Master or Growth Mgt. Plan) Floodplain Management Plan Open Space Management Plan (or Parks & Rec./ Greenways Plan) Stormwater Management Plan / Ordinance Natural Resource Protection Plan Flood Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Evacuation Plan Other Plans (please explain under Comments) Page 1 of 6

228 Local Capability Assessment Survey Planning / Regulatory Tool In Place Under Development Department / Agency Responsible Effect on Loss Reduction Strongly Supports Facilitates Hinders Comments Disaster Recovery Plan Capital Improvements Plan Economic Development Plan Historic Preservation Plan Floodplain Ordinance (or Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Unified Development Ordinance Post-disaster Redevelopment / Reconstruction Ordinance Building Code Fire Code National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) NFIP Community Rating System (CRS Program) Page 2 of 6

229 Local Capability Assessment Survey 2. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY - Please indicate whether your jurisdiction maintains the following staff members within its current personnel resources by placing an "X" in the appropriate box. Then, if YES, please identify the department or agency they work under and provide any other comments you may have in the space provided or with attachments. Staff / Personnel Resources Yes No Department / Agency Comments Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards Emergency manager Floodplain manager Land surveyors Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community Staff with education or expertise to assess the community s vulnerability to hazards Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or FEMA's HAZUS program Resource development staff or grant writers Page 3 of 6

230 Local Capability Assessment Survey 3. FISCAL CAPABILITY - Please indicate whether your jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use the following local financial resources for hazard mitigation purposes (including as match funds for State of Federal mitigation grant funds). Then, identify the primary department or agency responsible for its administration or allocation and provide any other comments you may have in the space provided or with attachments. Financial Resources Yes No Department / Agency Comments Capital Improvement Programming Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Special Purpose Taxes (or taxing districts) Gas / Electric Utility Fees Water / Sewer Fees Stormwater Utility Fees Development Impact Fees General Obligation, Revenue and/or Special Tax Bonds Partnering arrangements or intergovernmental agreements Other: Page 4 of 6

231 Local Capability Assessment Survey 4. POLITICAL CAPABILITY - Political capability can be generally measured by the degree to which local political leadership is willing to enact policies and programs that reduce hazard vulnerabilities in your community, even if met with some opposition. Examples may include guiding development away from identified hazard areas, restricting public investments or capital improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards that go beyond minimum State or Federal requirements (e.g., building codes, floodplain management, etc.). Please identify some general examples of these efforts if available and/or reference where more documentation can be found. Page 5 of 6

232 Local Capability Assessment Survey 5. SELF-ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY - Please provide an approximate measure of your jurisdiction's capability to effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities. Using the following table, please place an "X" in the box marking the most appropriate degree of capability (Limited, Moderate or High) based upon best available information and the responses provided in Sections 1-4 of this survey. LIMITED DEGREE OF CAPABILITY MODERATE HIGH Planning and Regulatory Capability Administrative and Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Political Capability OVERALL CAPABILITY Page 6 of 6

233 Points System for Capability Ranking 0-24 points = Limited overall capability points = Moderate overall capability points = High overall capability I. Planning and Regulatory Capability (Up to 43 points) Yes = 3 points Under Development = 1 point No = 0 points Hazard Mitigation Plan Comprehensive Land Use Plan Floodplain Management Plan Participate in NFIP Participate in CRS Program Yes = 2 points Under Development = 1 point No = 0 points Open Space Management / Parks & Rec. Plan Stormwater Management Plan Natural Resource Protection Plan Flood Response Plan Emergency Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Evacuation Plan Disaster Recovery Plan Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Post-Disaster Redevelopment / Reconstruction Ordinance Yes = 1 point No = 0 points Capital Improvements Plan Economic Development Plan Historic Preservation Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Unified Development Ordinance Building Code Fire Code

234 II. Administrative and Technical Capability (Up to 15 points) Yes = 2 points No = 0 points Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards Emergency manager Floodplain manager Yes = 1 point No = 0 points Land surveyors Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community Staff with education or expertise to assess the community s vulnerability to hazards Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or HAZUS Resource development staff or grant writers III. Fiscal Capability (Up to 10 points) Yes = 1 point No = 0 points Capital Improvement Programming Community Development Block Grants Special Purpose Taxes Gas / Electric Utility Fees Water / Sewer Fees Stormwater Utility Fees Development Impact Fees General Obligation/ Revenue/ Special Tax Bonds Partnering arrangements or intergovernmental agreements Other IV. Self-Assessment of Overall Capability (Up to 10 points)

235 High = 2 points Moderate = 1 points Low = 0 points Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Administrative Capability Political Capability Overall Capability

236 Appendix C: Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk This section of the Plan includes a completed Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk.

237 Appendix D: Planning Process Documentation This section of the Plan includes three (3) items: 1. SCHMPC Meeting Agendas 2. SCHMPC Sign in Sheets 3. Public Meeting Documentation

238 AGENDA Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting August 17, :00 AM 1) Introductions 2) Recap / Status Update 3) Risk Assessment Findings a) Hazard Identification & Analysis b) Vulnerability Assessment 4) Capability Assessment Findings 5) Public Involvement Activities a) Public Participation Survey Update 6) Mitigation Strategy Development a) Review of Existing Plan Goals and Objectives b) Mitigation Action Worksheets (Existing Actions) c) Identification of New Actions 7) Discussion on Plan Maintenance / Implementation 8) Wrap-up and Next Steps

239 AGENDA Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Kick-off Meeting May 12, Introductions 2. Project Overview a. Overview of Hazard Mitigation/Disaster Mitigation Act b. Icebreaker Exercise c. Project Tasks d. Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee e. Project Schedule f. Data Request g. Roles and Responsibilities 3. Questions/Concerns 4. Next Steps

240 Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update J\TKINS Kick-off Meeting-May 12, 2011 Name Dept/Org Phone Number Address Pr\~ ~t,,,,(\~~,~ \I"'bt,»f\ {}~ ll ~ \~"w 43< S1"") O\<J/J cc:- L'-{~ 1e.<cA- 4'l!>5. ()Z.:~'z.. lotnf\/ o~ (Ii csf'ltt: ~pvl-4,-y s.l: I 'Piet- I Ir'o/ 1.(7J. 2((Y'.~.~ :~L\-~Lp-~ =:,~~(Ybv- I KV!.k-5f2". I - - I ~r, ~,5fr:ttfu~-:P,~fi1f1!!!!::~O ~~'j~-31~2

241 z OJ 3 td C td "C ~ o "'" (JQ S ~: OQ' Q) r+ 0' ::J "'0 Qj" :::J C "0 0.. Q) r+ ro m 3 OJ -.-»a.. a....., td \I) In

242 .\ Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update J\TKINS Mitigation Strategy Meeting: August 17, 2011 Name Dept/Org Phone Number Address - KC- 5"83-goCJO c: ~A 0+' Cb.6m Gv-eP~ I tc(f- ~(L \ /6 VVN of'. Cow'~ Itf~ I tb~~ \ I JI. rv I "" ()r ":>lf7l0r) I $~&-~3/ s-z: 566. :;S.f;.9 ~,... ->. '9(.,-"'3 l q 2> S:-96 - ~ I.tJ9' 'L?".. ~ 72 - tf;"z~ 0 AA vaal ISi'M:"o/ La.AN fy I '1/r- 6.rL( b _ n - ow i c z_ L o."'-q~u ~ IV s+c'-"~. w Jocl.u<-.;) i c t.(8 Cl+;t ",-II!~-tj)ft<JvV\ C0""'"1 I

243 m 3 QJ

244 Office of Emergency Management County of Spartanburg Post Office Box 5666 Spartanburg SC Fax Doug Bryson Coordinator Press Release for Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-Off Meeting May 11, 2011 CONTACT: Doug Bryson, Emergency Management Coordinator Office of Emergency Management (office) (cell) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Spartanburg, SC, May 11, 2011 We are beginning to prepare our Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Every 5 years the plan has to be updated in order to maintain our eligibility for disaster assistance funds following any type of Federal Disaster Declaration. This allows for the ability for funds to come back to County and the constituents! The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the hazards and risks within the County and determines exactly what the County can do to mitigate some of the potentials damages in the future due to a disaster event whether it be winter weather or a storm. The Plan requires public involvement so that all of the appropriate parties can be included on issues that affect everyone in the County since this plan benefits the County and community as a whole. This plan serves as a guide for floodplain management and can help prevent losses in that area also. The important kickoff meeting for this initiative will take place in the County Council Chambers (366 North Church St, Spartanburg SC 29303) on Thursday, May 12 at 10:00am.

245 Office of Emergency Management County of Spartanburg Post Office Box 5666 Spartanburg SC Fax Doug Bryson Coordinator Press Release for Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-Off Meeting August 4, 2011 CONTACT: Doug Bryson, Emergency Management Coordinator Office of Emergency Management (office) (cell) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Spartanburg, SC, August 17, 2011 We are still in the process of updating our Spartanburg County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Every 5 years the plan has to be updated in order to maintain our eligibility for disaster assistance funds following any type of Federal Disaster Declaration. This allows for the ability for funds to come back to County and the constituents! The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the hazards and risks within the County and determines exactly what the County can do to mitigate some of the potentials damages in the future due to a disaster event whether it be winter weather or a storm. The Plan requires public involvement so that all of the appropriate parties can be included on issues that affect everyone in the County since this plan benefits the County and community as a whole. This plan serves as a guide for floodplain management and can help prevent losses in that area also. The next important meeting for this initiative will take place in the County Council Chambers (366 North Church St, Spartanburg SC 29303) on Wednesday, August 17 at 10:00am.