VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT"

Transcription

1 SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 2011 UPDATE Each of the hazards in this section was reviewed and updated to reflect the revised information obtained for the updated Hazard Identification and Analysis section. Discussion of vulnerability to Mosquito Borne Diseases, Sea Level Rise and Land Subsidence, and the manmade hazards has been appended. The vulnerability discussion for sinkholes and landslides was excerpted, and all hazard names were edited to provide consistency with the Hazard Identification and Analysis. Table 5.2 was updated with available Census 2010 data, Table 5.3 was updated with new HAZUS exposure data, and Table 5.4 was updated with additional explanation included in the descriptive narrative. Table 5.5 was updated with more recent National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data, and the Development Trends section was updated using Census 2010 data. The tables at the end of the section regarding Conclusions on Hazard Risk were all updated. In addition, each of the following hazard sections was updated as follows: Floods Table 5.7 was revised to reflect the Mitigation Planning Committee s decision to change the probability from Possible to Likely. The NFIP statistics were updated with new data on policies and repetitive losses. A description of Severe Repetitive Losses is included, and maps of repetitive flood loss areas for each jurisdiction with repetitive losses were appended. Table 5.9 was updated using HAZUS flood analysis rather than GIS analysis, and the annualized flood damages were also updated. Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Loss estimate tables and corresponding narrative were updated based on a new HAZUS analysis. Severe Thunderstorms and Hail - Loss estimate table and corresponding narrative were updated based on the inclusion of recent events. Lightning The annualized loss estimate was recalculated based on the inclusion of recent events, but was determined to remain negligible. Tornadoes - Loss estimate table and corresponding narrative were updated based on the inclusion of recent events. Winter Storms and Nor easters - Loss estimate table and corresponding narrative were updated based on the inclusion of recent events. Shoreline Erosion Revised text to reflect hazard name change, and added information on the Virginia Institute of Marine Science Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program. Droughts Removed the estimate of potential losses because the methodology was unsupported. Updated the data table with most recent agricultural data to provide a time series comparison. Wildfires - Loss estimate table and corresponding narrative were updated based on the inclusion of recent events. Dam Failure Checked the National Inventory of Dams to ensure no updates were necessary. INTRODUCTION The Vulnerability Assessment section builds on the information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis by identifying community assets and development trends in the region, then assessing the potential impact and amount of damage (loss of life and/or property) that could be caused by each hazard event addressed in this risk assessment. The primary objective of this level of vulnerability assessment is to prioritize hazards of concern to the region, adding to the foundation for mitigation strategy and policy development. Consistent with the preceding sections, the following hazards are addressed in this assessment:

2 5:47 TABLE 5.47: COMPARISON OF ANNUALIZED LOSS ESTIMATES AND PRIORITY RISK INDEX VALUES QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS HAZARD ANNUALIZED LOSS ESTIMATES HAZARD PRI VALUE Sea Level Rise and Land Subsidence $281,000,000 to $620,000,000 Floods (100-Year) 3.5 Floods (100-year) $2,821,224,000 Sea Level Rise and Land Subsidence 3.2 Floods (Storm Surge) $206,624,689 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms 3.2 Urban Fires $41,149,088 Hazardous Materials Incidents 3.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms $30,443,000 Floods (Storm Surge) 3.0 Winter Storms and Nor easters $1,183,529 Winter Storms and Nor easters 3.0 Tornadoes $614,377 Biological Threats 2.9 Severe Thunderstorms and Severe Thunderstorms and $264,917 Hail Hail 2.8 Earthquakes $93,000 Tornadoes 2.7 Hazardous Materials Incidents $42,229 Lightning 2.7 Wildfires $11,758 Tsunamis 2.6 Shoreline Erosion Undetermined Terrorism 2.6 Lightning Negligible Radiological Threats 2.6 Extreme Heat Negligible Wildfires 2.5 Dam Failures Negligible Urban Fires 2.4 Mosquito Borne Diseases Negligible Droughts 2.2 Terrorism Negligible Dam Failures 2.2 Biological Threats Negligible Shoreline Erosion 2.1 Radiological Threats Negligible Extreme Heat 2.1 Droughts Undetermined Mosquito Borne Diseases 2.1 Tsunamis Undetermined Earthquakes 1.9 The conclusions drawn from the qualitative and quantitative assessments, combined with final determinations from the Mitigation Planning Committee, were inserted into three categories for a final summary of hazard risk for the region based on High, Moderate or Low designations (Table 5.48). It should be noted that although some hazards are classified as posing Low risk, their occurrence of varying or unprecedented magnitudes is still possible and will continue to be reevaluated during future updates of this Plan.

3 5:46 CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD RISK The vulnerability assessment performed for the Southside Hampton Roads region provides significant findings that allow the Mitigation Planning Committee to prioritize hazard risks and proposed hazard mitigation strategies and actions. Prior to assigning conclusive risk levels for each hazard, the Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed the results of quantitative and qualitative assessments shown in the following tables. Table 5.46 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each category for all identified hazards in the region based on the application of the Priority Risk Index (PRI) tool fully introduced in Methodologies Used. Assigned risk levels were based on historical and anecdotal data, as well as input from the Mitigation Planning Committee. The results were then used in calculating PRI values and making conclusions for the qualitative assessment. TABLE 5.46: SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT CATEGORY/DEGREE OF RISK HAZARD PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Floods (100-Year) Highly Likely Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Floods (Storm Surge) Likely Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours Sea Level Rise and Land Subsidence Highly Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Likely Catastrophic Large More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours Severe Thunderstorms and Hail Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Lightning Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 hours Tornadoes Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Winter Storms and Nor easters Likely Critical Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week Shoreline Erosion Likely Minor Small More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Earthquakes Unlikely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Droughts Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Wildfires Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours Dam Failures Unlikely Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 24 Hours Tsunamis Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Extreme Heat Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week Mosquito Borne Diseases Possible Limited Small More than 24 hours More than 1 week Hazardous Materials Incidents Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 24 hours Urban Fires Likely Limited Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Terrorism Possible Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Biological Threats Possible Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 Week Radiological Threats Unlikely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee Table 5.47 summarizes the annualized loss estimates that were generated for the applicable hazards based on the quantitative assessment and compares them with the PRI values determined for each hazard based on the qualitative assessment. The results and comparisons of both assessments aided the Mitigation Planning Committee in determining the final conclusions on overall hazard risk for the Southside Hampton Roads region.

4 5:45 TABLE 5.45: POTENTIALLY AT-RISK STRUCTURES FOR RADIOLOGICAL THREATS JURISDICTION STRUCTURES WITHIN 10 MILES OF SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STRUCTURES WITHIN 10 MILES OF NORFOLK NAVAL STATION STRUCTURES WITHIN 10 MILES OF NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH STRUCTURES WITHIN 10 MILES OF HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, NEWPORT NEWS Isle of Wight County 1, ,362 Norfolk 0 85,024 90,779 11,284 Portsmouth 0 34,343 49,338 10,154 Suffolk 0 3,911 7,686 10,844 Virginia Beach ,362 0 TOTALS 1, , ,165 40,644 Source: GIS Analysis FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future land use and zoning of structural development as discussed in previous subsections is expected to have less impact on future vulnerability to this hazard than the protection of human life through administration of proper emergency notification and evacuation planning with regard to potential radiological incidents.

5 5:44 RADIOLOGICAL THREATS PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (Less than $1,000) According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the radiological threat hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.44 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.44: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR RADIOLOGICAL THREATS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Unlikely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES According to FEMA, approximately three million shipments of radioactive materials are made each year by highway, railroad, aircraft and ship. No deaths or serious injuries have ever been attributed to the radioactive nature of any materials involved in a transportation accident. Given the lack of information on previous occurrences of this hazard, it is not possible to determine an annualized loss estimate. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY Southside communities have a variable threat risk for the radiological hazard based on proximity to Norfolk Naval Station and Surry Nuclear Power Plant. Parts of northern Isle of Wight County are located inside of the 10-mile radius known as the Emergency Protective Zone (EPZ) for Surry Nuclear Power Plant. However, the entire area within 50 miles of the station, which would include portions of each Southside community, would be assessed in the event of an accident to determine if there had been any impact on the environment or ingestion pathways. At-risk populations were estimated using the proxy of structures located within certain ranges of Surry Nuclear Power Plant, Norfolk Naval Station, Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News on the Peninsula. Potentially at-risk structures (populations), as shown in Table 5.45, are presented for each jurisdiction.

6 5:43 BIOLOGICAL THREATS PRI Value: 2.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (Less than $1,000) According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the biological threat hazard scored a PRI value of 2.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.43 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.43: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL THREATS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Possible Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Annualized losses are estimated to be negligible (less than $1,000) due to the relative infrequency of past historical occurrences and the difficulty in predicting the circumstances and materials involved in future potential biological incidents. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY At-risk populations would depend on the location and type of biological agent released as well as local meteorological conditions at the time of release and immediately afterwards. Therefore, it is not possible to identify specific at-risk populations beyond those discussed in the Demographics subsection. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future land use and zoning of structural development as discussed in previous subsections is expected to have less impact on future vulnerability to this hazard than the protection of human life through administration of proper emergency notification and evacuation planning with regard to potential biological threats.

7 5:42 TERRORISM PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (Less than $1,000) According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the terrorism hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.42 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.42: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR TERRORISM PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Possible Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Given the lack of historical occurrences of terrorism in the Southside Communities, it is difficult to predict the circumstances under which the terrorism hazard would occur and what potential losses would be reasonable to assume. While one major event may result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield an annualized loss estimate of less than $1,000. The area is considered a terrorist target, especially due to the port in Portsmouth and the large number of military assets and personnel in the region. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY At-risk populations would depend on the location and mode of attack as well as other local conditions at the time of occurrence and immediately thereafter. It is not possible to identify specific at-risk populations beyond those discussed in the Demographics subsection. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future land use and zoning of structural development as discussed in previous subsections is expected to have less impact on future vulnerability than the protection of human life through administration of proper emergency notification and evacuation planning with regard to potential terrorist attacks. Any large government or community buildings as well as large infrastructure elements such as dams, nuclear facilities or transportation lifelines constructed in the future may be more at-risk than normal development because these types of facilities present opportunities for greater potential losses in one attack.

8 5:41 TABLE 5.41: POTENTIALLY AT-RISK POPULATIONS FOR URBAN FIRE POPULATION GROUP NUMBER Children (Ages 5 and Under) 60,741 Elderly (Ages 65 and Over) 86,225 Disabled Status 141,089 Source: Census 2000 FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE The application of building codes in the design and construction of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing structures will help control future vulnerability; however, the urban fire hazard is not expected to be completely eliminated by these measures.

9 5:40 URBAN FIRES PRI Value: 2.4 Annualized Loss Estimate: $41,149,088 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the urban fire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.4 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.39 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.39: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR URBAN FIRES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Limited Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Based on the data provided by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs, there were 5,229 building fires and 191 building exposure fires in the five year period from 2006 to Therefore, there is an annual frequency of 1,046 building fire incidents, and average annual damages of $41,149,088. TABLE 5.40: ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR URBAN FIRE NUMBER OF AVERAGE ANNUAL JURISDICTION PROPERTY DAMAGE ANNUALIZED LOSS BUILDING FIRES NUMBER OF EVENTS Isle of Wight County 155 $2,797, $559,535 City of Norfolk 756 $10,894, $2,178,957 City of Portsmouth 1,219 $23,129, $4,625,970 City of Suffolk 889 $17,980, $3,596,082 City of Virginia Beach 2,210 $150,942, $30,188,544 TOTAL 5,229 $205,745,441 1,045.8 $41,149,088 SOCIAL VULNERABILITY According to the U.S. Fire Administration, a division of FEMA, the most at-risk populations to the urban fire hazard are children, college campus residents, high-rise residents, manufactured home residents, those 65 years of age and older, people with disabilities and rural residents. Table 5.41 shows the total number of residents in Southside Hampton Roads within several of those population groups.

10 5:39 TABLE 5.38: POTENTIALLY AT-RISK STRUCTURES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS JURISDICTION STRUCTURES WITHIN 0.1 MILE OF RAILROAD STRUCTURES WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF RAILROAD STRUCTURES WITHIN 1 MILE OF RAILROAD Isle of Wight County 917 1,532 2,969 Norfolk 7,421 18,806 55,576 Portsmouth 3,592 10,841 40,017 Suffolk 4,483 10,678 24,155 Virginia Beach 3,356 9,537 44,498 TOTALS 19,769 51, ,215 Source: GIS Analysis FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future land use and zoning of structural development as discussed in previous subsections are expected to have less impact on future vulnerability than the protection of human life through administration of proper emergency notification and evacuation planning with regard to potential hazardous material incidents.

11 5:38 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS PRI Value: 3.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: $42,229 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hazardous material hazard scored a PRI value of 3.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.36 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.36: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 24 hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Based on information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region experiences an average of 20 hazardous materials incidents per year with only minor damages (generally less than $10,000 per year) reported. Table 5.37 shows hazardous materials incidents from 1998 to 2011 in the Southside Hampton Roads region (according to the United States Department of Transportation) that contribute to an annualized loss estimate of $42,229. During the period, no hazardous materials incidents were reported in the towns of Smithfield and Windsor or Isle of Wight County. TABLE 5.37: ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS AVERAGE ANNUAL JURISDICTION NUMBER OF EVENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ANNUALIZED LOSS NUMBER OF EVENTS Norfolk 91 $47, $3,815 Portsmouth 38 $118, $9,495 Suffolk 11 $292, $23,438 Virginia Beach 115 $54, $4,329 TOTAL 255 $527, $42,229 Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation; Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology SOCIAL VULNERABILITY At-risk populations were estimated using the proxy of structures located within certain ranges of high-risk railway corridors. Potentially at-risk structures (populations), as shown in Table 5.38, are presented for each jurisdiction.

12 5:37 MOSQUITO BORNE DISEASES PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (Less than $1,000) According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the mosquito borne disease hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.35 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.35: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR MOSQUITO BORNE DISEASES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Possible Limited Small More than 24 hours More than 1 week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES An outbreak of a Mosquito Borne Disease may burden local medical facilities in terms of capacity for treatment, and may burden City and County public works agencies with mosquito abatement and control responsibilities, but would not be expected to impact the built environment or community infrastructure in any way. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY Eastern Equine Encephalitis: Residents of and visitors to areas with an established presence of the virus and people who engage in outdoor work and recreational activities are at increased risk of getting the diseases. Persons over age 50 and younger than age 15 seem to be at greatest risk for developing severe disease after outbreaks begin. (Virginia Department of Health, 2011) West Nile Virus: Anyone can get WNV infection if bitten by an infected mosquito; however, even in areas where transmission of WNV is active, less than 1 percent of mosquitoes are likely to be infected. Additionally, less than 1 percent of people bitten by an infected mosquito will become seriously ill. People who are over age 50 are at greater risk of severe illness. (Virginia Department of Health, 2011) FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future land use is expected to have less impact on future vulnerability than the protection of public health through dissemination of proper individual protection measures and emergency notification with regard to mosquito borne disease outbreaks.

13 5:36 EXTREME HEAT PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the extreme temperature hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.34 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.34: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR EXTREME HEAT PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Based on the previous historical occurrences, annualized losses to the built environment are considered to be negligible (less than $1,000). Similar to the lightning hazard, loss of human life is a greater concern with extreme heat than is property damage. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be exposed to extreme heat on a comparable level to existing structures; however, this hazard typically has little to no physical impact on the built environment in terms of substantial damage to structures, essential facilities or infrastructure elements. Given the lesser nature of this hazard within the planning area, it is not expected that significant changes will be seen in the planning or construction of future building stock in response to this hazard.

14 5:35 TSUNAMIS PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tsunami hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.33 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.33: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR TSUNAMIS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Losses that could occur based on a tsunami event would probably be similar to those experienced by coastal flooding or storm surge event as discussed earlier in this section. However, because of the lack of information on previous occurrences, it is not possible to determine an annualized loss estimate. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future development in the Southside Hampton Roads region that is located close to the coast or tidal bodies of water could be exposed to the tsunami hazard in the future.

15 5:34 DAM FAILURES PRI Value: 2.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (less than $5,000) As documented in the Hazard Identification Analysis section, there are 37 major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region, defined as being 50 feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or with a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more. There is no record of any damages, deaths or injuries associated with dam failure in the region. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the dam failure hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.31 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.31: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR DAM FAILURES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Unlikely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Failure or mis-operation of a dam classified as high hazard would result in the probability of at least one death and more than $200,000 in economic damages. As documented in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, there are three major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region classified as high hazard. Table 5.32 shows the surface area, primary purpose and owner of the three major high hazard dams in the county. Annualized loss estimates for this hazard are considered to be negligible (less than $5,000). Officials from the City of Suffolk have recognized that development downstream of many of their dams, specifically, Western Branch, Burnt Mills, Lake Prince, Lake Cahoon, Lake Meade, Lake Kilby, Speight s Run and Camp Pond, has increased in recent years. TABLE 5.32: INVENTORY AND DETAILS OF MAJOR HIGH HAZARD DAMS IN THE REGION DAM NAME SURFACE AREA (ACRES) PRIMARY PURPOSE OWNER Lake Burnt Mills Dam 596 Water Supply City of Norfolk Western Branch Dam 1,282 Water Supply City of Norfolk Lake Mead Dam 590 Water Supply City of Portsmouth Source: National Inventory of Dams FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future updates to this Plan will attempt to address dam failure vulnerability in greater detail, if conditions warrant. An analysis of properties downstream of high hazard dams, in order to better determine the number of people and value of properties in inundation zones, may be possible if dam owners conduct inundation studies in the future. Suffolk officials indicate that several dam owners have conducted inundation studies, including: Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and International Paper. Lists of properties subject to inundation are a part of the Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for these jurisdictions.

16 5:33 ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region experiences an average of 14 wildfire events per year with only minor property damages (generally less than $15,000 per year) reported. Table 5.30 shows wildfire events from 1995 to 2008 in the Southside Hampton Roads region (according to VDOF) that contribute to an annualized loss estimate of $11,758 for the wildfire hazard. During the period, no wildfire events were reported in the towns of Smithfield and Windsor, or the City of Norfolk. TABLE 5.30: ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED LOSSES FOR WILDFIRES JURISDICTION NUMBER OF EVENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF EVENTS ANNUALIZED LOSSES Isle of Wight County 120 $81, $6,277 Portsmouth 1 $ $0 Suffolk 45 $71, $5,482 Virginia Beach 12 $ $0 TOTAL 177 $152, $11,758 Sources: Virginia Department of Forestry; Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future vulnerability is likely to be affected by the degree of development experienced in high wildfire hazard areas.

17 5:32 WILDFIRES PRI Value: 2.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: $11,758 According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wildfire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.28 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.28: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR WILDFIRES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. According to Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) statistics, Virginia has more than 4,000 woodland home communities. These areas are defined by VDOF as clusters of homes located along forested areas at the wildland-urban interface that could possibly be damaged during a nearby wildfire incident. In the Southside Hampton Roads region, forty six woodland home communities have been identified. Nineteen are located in Isle of Wight County, twenty-six are located in Suffolk and one is located in Virginia Beach. Table 5.29 lists the number of woodland home communities for the Southside Hampton Roads region that are located in areas identified as being either high or moderate risk for wildfires. Figure 4.26 shows the location of these woodland home communities in relation to the identified wildfire hazard areas. More information on these communities is readily available through the VDOF. TABLE 5.29: AT-RISK WOODLAND COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGION Jurisdiction High Risk Communities Moderate Risk Communities Isle of Wight County 6 12 Suffolk 3 17 Virginia Beach 0 1 Total 9 30 Source: VDOF

18 5:31 TABLE 5.27: AGRICULTURAL DATA RELATED TO DROUGHT VULNERABILITY JURISDICTION TOTAL HARVESTED CROPLAND (acres) IRRIGATED LAND (acres) MARKET VALUE OF CROPS ($1,000) TOTAL HARVESTED CROPLAND (acres) IRRIGATED LAND (acres) MARKET VALUE OF CROPS ($1,000) Isle of Wight County 49, $13,458 50, $13,798 Suffolk 53,954 1,167 $35,745 51, $51,271 Virginia Beach 21, $7,716 20, $12,570 TOTAL 124,936 2,389 $56, ,102 1,512 $77,639 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture (2002), and USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008) FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE According the U.S. Census of Agriculture (2002) and the USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008), the total harvested croplands in the City of Virginia Beach, Isle of Wight County and City of Suffolk have decreased 38.0, 7.2 and 7.9 percent respectively between 1992 and 2002, and 2.9, 1.8 and 1.0 percent between 2002 and These rates may be indicative of future changes in land use which may be peripherally related to long-term drought conditions.

19 5:30 DROUGHTS PRI Value: 2.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined Droughts can impact natural systems and the ability of cities, towns and neighborhoods to function effectively. Specific effects may include a reduction in the production of food grains and other crops, the size and quality of livestock and fish, available forage for livestock and wildlife, and the availability of water supplies needed by communities and industry. As evidenced by previous occurrences, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the drought hazard. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the drought hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.26 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.26: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR DROUGHTS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES While drought impacts agricultural, recreational, and manufacturing industries, estimating losses to the built environment is difficult because drought causes little documented physical damage to the built environment. In 2006, this plan included an annualized drought loss estimate of $2,215,839 for Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach; however, the methodology regarding how this loss estimate was developed is not clear. Annualized damages appear to have been based on changes in total harvested cropland; however, losses in harvested cropland or the market value of crops cannot be attributed entirely to drought or other weather-related conditions, especially in rural parts of the planning area that are rapidly developing. Data on drought damages from the NCDC are incomplete and, when available, apply to a very large area including jurisdictions outside of the planning region. As a result, the estimation of annualized damages due to drought is discontinued in this update. Table 5.27 provides a time series of data regarding the total harvested cropland, irrigated land, market value of crops, and percent of non-irrigated land in both 2002 and Due to a lack of agricultural information, data for the towns of Smithfield and Windsor and cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are not provided.

20 5:29 TABLE 5.25: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE BY DAMAGE STATE 16 JURISDICTION SLIGHT (%) MODERATE (%) EXTENSIVE (%) COMPLETE (%) 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be vulnerable to seismic events to a limited degree, and may also experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. 16 For more detailed description of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Earthquake Model.

21 5:28 EARTHQUAKES PRI Value: 1.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: $93,000 The annual probability of an earthquake event impacting the study area is estimated at 5 percent based on historical data. While the probability of an earthquake occurrence is relatively low, moderate losses, should a significant earthquake event occur, are possible. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the earthquake hazard scored a PRI value of 1.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.23 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.23: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR EARTHQUAKES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Unlikely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Table 5.24 provides generalized building damage estimates by jurisdiction for the 100-, 500- and 1,000- year return periods as well as annualized losses based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH. The annualized building damage estimate for the earthquake hazard is $93,000, and in that estimate residential properties suffer more than 98 percent of the total damage. TABLE 5.24: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE 100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT 1,000-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED Isle of Wight County Negligible 15 $408,000 $1,092,000 $5,000 Norfolk Negligible $2,785,000 $7,422,000 $28,000 Portsmouth Negligible $1,358,000 $2,851,000 $11,000 Suffolk Negligible $833,000 $2,104,000 $8,000 Virginia Beach Negligible $4,468,000 $11,911,000 $41,000 TOTAL Negligible $9,852,000 $25,380,000 $93,000 Source: HAZUS-MH HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 500-, and 1,000-year return periods (Table 5.25). According to the HAZUS-MH model assumptions, there should be no building damage from 100-year earthquake event. 15 Damage less than $1,000

22 5:27 Although the maps alone do not indicate potential loss from erosion, they provide areas for future study and indicate where shoreline structure protection is currently in place to protect against coastal erosion. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE It is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use in regard to this hazard. Generally speaking, future vulnerability is going to depend greatly on appropriate local site planning and permitting, as well as each community s approach to sea level rise and associated flooding problems.

23 5:26 SHORELINE EROSION PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the long term effects of shoreline erosion. Coastal erosion remains a significant hazard of concern that must continue to be addressed through sustained shoreline management practices. To date, existing strategies for shoreline hardening and the implementation of numerous renourishment projects have been successful in minimizing major coastal erosion losses within parts of the planning region 14. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the erosion hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.22 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.22: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR SHORELINE EROSION PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Minor Small More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSS It is difficult to determine the amount of property or the number of structures that are vulnerable to the erosion hazard. The jurisdictions in the region have demonstrated, through past projects such as the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project that they are willing to take on projects to protect coastal residences and commercial buildings in the hazard zone. The Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program (CCI) at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is creating a new GIS shoreline database to develop revised Shoreline Situation Reports (SSR) for cities and counties in the region. SSRs were developed by VIMS in the 1970s, and are available online at: for Isle of Wight County, Virginia Beach and Suffolk. These reports have been the foundation for shoreline management planning in the region for more than 30 years. CCI has developed new protocols for collecting, disseminating, and reporting data relevant to shoreline management issues today. New SSRs are being generated on a county by county basis and are currently available online at: for Norfolk and Portsmouth. The data inventory developed for the new SSRs is based on a three-tiered shoreline assessment approach. In most cases this assessment characterizes conditions that can be observed from high resolution imagery. A small boat navigating along the shoreline was used to verify the remotely sensed data and collect features that could not be ascertained from the imagery. The three tiered shoreline assessment approach divides the shore zone into three regions: 1) the immediate riparian zone, evaluated for land use; 2) the bank, evaluated for height, stability, cover and natural protection; and 3) the shoreline, describing the presence of shoreline structures for shore protection and recreational purposes. Final prepared maps are available at the site for Norfolk (45 total plates) and Portsmouth (40 total plates). 14 The Norfolk District of the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $82 million in damages were prevented during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 through the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. This includes $52 million in damages to residential property, $15 million to commercial interests and $15 million to infrastructure.

24 5:25 WINTER STORMS AND NOR EASTERS PRI Value: 3.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $1,183,529 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to winter storm activity, including heavy snow, ice, extreme cold, freezing rain, and sleet. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the winter storm hazard scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.20 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.20: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR WINTER STORMS AND NOR EASTERS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Critical Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because winter storms typically affect large areas beyond county and municipal boundaries, it is not possible to map geographic locations at specific risk from this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $55,529,902,000 for all buildings and contents within the Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted by the winter storm hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past 17 years (June 1993 to May 2010), an annualized loss estimate of $1,183,529 was generated for the winter storm hazard. This annualized loss is presented in Table 5.21 along with annual probability. Potential losses may be inflated by additional, difficult to calculate factors such as the costs associated with the removal of snow from roadways, debris clean-up, or indirect losses from power outages. Because winter weather impacts the region uniformly, no winter storm vulnerability maps have been created. For maps of critical facilities and infrastructure that could potentially be impacted, see Appendix AB. TABLE 5.21: ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED LOSSES ANNUAL PROBABILITY ANNUALIZED LOSSES 165% $1,183,529 Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Because of the geographic location, all future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the winter storm hazard and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section.

25 5:24 TORNADOES PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: $614,377 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to tornado activity, which is often associated with other severe weather events such as thunderstorm or tropical cyclone activity. 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 5.18 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.18: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR TORNADOES PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado may strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $55,529,902,000 for all buildings and contents within the Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the tornado hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past 61 years (1950 to 2011), an annualized loss estimate of $614,377 and annual probability of 96.7 percent were generated for the tornado hazard. The substantial increase in annualized losses compared to the $309,725 annual loss estimate from the 2006 version of this plan is a result of the severe tornado damages on both April 28, 2008 (Suffolk), and April 16, 2011 (Isle of Wight). The annualized losses and probabilities are presented in Table 5.19 by jurisdiction. TABLE 5.19: ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED LOSSES MAGNITUDE OF EVENT ANNUAL PROBABILITY ANNUALIZED LOSSES Isle of Wight County 13.3% $40,721 Norfolk 30.0% $26,738 Portsmouth 8.3% $42,016 Smithfield 3.3% $410 Suffolk 21.7% $498,311 Virginia Beach 23.3% $6,180 Windsor N/A N/A TOTAL 96.7% $614,377 Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the tornado hazard and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section.

26 5:23 LIGHTNING PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to lightning activity, which is often associated with severe thunderstorms that impact the region. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the lightning hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.17 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.17: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR LIGHTNING PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where lightning will strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $55,529,902,000 for all buildings and contents within the Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the lightning hazard. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Because of the random nature of occurrence of the lightning hazard, it is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use with regard to this particular hazard. In general, all buildings built in the future in this region and all future populations will be exposed and therefore at risk to the lightning hazard.

27 5:22 SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS AND HAIL PRI Value: 2.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: $264,917 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to severe thunderstorm activity, including related hail that often accompanies these severe weather events. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the severe thunderstorm hazard scored a PRI value of 2.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.15 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.15: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS AND HAIL PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where severe thunderstorms and hail may occur, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $55,529,902,000 for all buildings and contents within the planning area is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by this hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past 60 years (1950 to 2010), an annualized loss estimate of $264,917 was generated for severe thunderstorm and hail damages combined with an annual probability of 785 percent in the planning area. These annualized loss and probability estimates are presented in Table 5.16 by jurisdiction. TABLE 5.16: ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED LOSSES JURISDICTION ANNUAL PROBABILITY ANNUALIZED LOSSES Isle of Wight County 101.7% $3,100 Norfolk 125.0% $169,817 Portsmouth 86.7% $1,233 Smithfield 25.0% $900 Suffolk 186.7% $4,600 Virginia Beach 248.3% $85,083 Windsor 11.7% $183 TOTAL 785.0% $264,917 Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to severe thunderstorms and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section.

28 5:21 TABLE 5.14: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE BY DAMAGE STATE 13 BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE MINOR (%) MODERATE (%) SEVERE (%) DESTRUCTION (%) 100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR Isle of Wight County 425 1, Norfolk 7,016 22,171 1,056 7, Portsmouth 2,984 10, , Suffolk 1,425 3, Virginia Beach 17,197 46,820 2,414 16, , ,735 TOTAL 29,047 84,618 3,940 29, , Source: HAZUS-MH FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to hurricane and tropical storm-force winds and may also experience damage not accounted for in the loss estimates presented in this section. 13 For detailed definitions of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Hurricane Model.

29 5:20 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS PRI Value: 3.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: $30,443,000 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to damaging hurricane and tropical storm-force winds. As discussed in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, 111 hurricanes and tropical storms have passed within 75 miles of the region since This equates to a 69 percent annual chance that a storm will impact the region. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hurricane and tropical storm hazard scored a PRI value of 3.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.12 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.12: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Catastrophic Large More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Detailed loss estimates for the wind damage associated with the hurricane and tropical storm hazard were developed based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH (Level 1 analysis). 12 Table 5.13 shows estimates of potential building damage for the 100- and 500-year return periods, as well as annualized losses. In summary, the Southside Hampton Roads region may be susceptible to an estimated total of approximately $444 million in building damages from a 100-year wind event, increasing up to $2.7 billion for a 500-year event. Annualized losses are estimated to be approximately $30 million. These figures are based on worst-case scenarios. TABLE 5.13: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE WIND ONLY BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE 100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED Isle of Wight County $6,027,000 $28,002,000 $422,000 Norfolk $121,613,000 $716,982,000 $7,941,000 Portsmouth $38,216,000 $220,560,000 $2,638,000 Suffolk $16,570,000 $88,141,000 $1,180,000 Virginia Beach $261,600,000 $1,659,725,000 $18,262,000 TOTAL $444,026,000 $2,713,410,000 $30,443,000 Source: HAZUS-MH HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 100- and 500-year return periods (Table 5.14). For the 100-year event, 9.72 percent of the buildings is expected to experience minor damage, while 0.03 percent is expected to be completely destroyed. For the 500-year event, percent of the total number of buildings is expected to suffer minor damage, while 0.91 percent is expected to be completely destroyed. 12 According to FEMA s HAZUS Web site, a Level 1 analysis yields a rough estimate based on the nationwide database and is a great way to begin the risk assessment process and prioritize high-risk communities.

30 5:19 FIGURE 5.22: PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY OF HAMPTON ROADS TO 30 CM SEA LEVEL RISE Source: Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment,

31 5:18 million at present to between $281 million and $326 million under a 1-foot rise scenario, and to between $417 million to $620 million under the 3-foot rise scenario. However, the FEMA study assumes that the current elevation distribution of post-firm construction relative to the 100-year flood elevation holds steady for future construction, when in fact many communities in the region are implementing freeboard requirements, such as the 1.5 feet of freeboard now required in Portsmouth. An impending coastal flood study by FEMA over the next decade in the Chesapeake Bay region may result in changes to the 100-year flood elevations which set the standard for new construction. Also, the obsolescence of buildings is not accounted for in the FEMA predictions; realistically, the number of pre-firm and post-firm buildings built to outmoded floodplain management standards should decline with time. Replacement structures must be in compliance with NFIP regulations in effect at the time of their construction. Thus, loss expectations based on the FEMA formula are likely overestimated, but provide a basis for decision making in this planning environment. FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE In Vulnerability of Hampton Roads, Virginia to Storm-Surge Flooding and Sea-Level Rise, Kleinosky, Yarnal and Fisher (Natural Hazards, 2006) compare data on the location of socially and economically vulnerable populations with storm surge flood risk exposure in order to map areas with the highest social vulnerability to storm surge in the future. The study premise is that sea level rise will cause an increase in the land area susceptible to storm surge flooding. Results indicate highest social vulnerability in much of Norfolk (including downtown), downtown Portsmouth, and several small pockets in central Virginia Beach. The article and maps are copyright-protected and cannot be provided herein, but are available online at: Figure 5.22 contains the results of the same case study regarding physical vulnerability of the Hampton Roads region to sea level rise. The map used SLOSH output data and a digital elevation model to create a visual representation of vulnerability as it changes over the region. All infrastructure and structures built in the current 100-year and 500-year floodplains of the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to increased flooding damage resulting from hurricanes, tropical storms, and nor easters as sea level rises in the future.

32 5:17 SEA LEVEL RISE AND LAND SUBSIDENCE PRI Value: 3.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: $281 million to $326 million (1 foot rise by 2100) $417 million to $620 million (3 foot rise by 2100) Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is already experiencing some degree of sea level rise. As discussed in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, data from Sewells Point at the Norfolk Naval Base indicate that sea level in the past 70 years has risen at a rate of approximately 4.44 millimeters per year. Although there is no guarantee that this rate will remain constant in the future, the rate of land subsidence is expected to remain somewhat steady, and that rate is a major component of the relative sea level rise experienced in Hampton Roads. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the sea level rise and land subsidence hazard scored a PRI value of 3.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.11 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.11: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE AND LAND SUBSIDENCE PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Detailed economic loss estimates for sea level rise and land subsidence are extremely difficult to develop because the response of individual property owners to sea level rise is inherently unpredictable and variable over both time and space. The lack of detailed elevation information for the existing pre-firm and post-firm building inventory in Hampton Roads hinders any effort to calculate detailed future average annual flood damages using increasing 100-year flood elevations. For example, calculations of sea level rise losses may be supported by the argument that areas below a certain elevation will be permanently inundated and evacuated; however, regional experience over the past 50 years alone indicates that shoreline protection measures will be reinforced to protect threatened structures, hindering the ability of wetlands and shorelines to adjust naturally as the water level rises. So models based on permanent inundation dramatically overstate losses. A recent project conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) created maps depicting the likelihood of shore protection along the Virginia coast as part of a nationwide study reporting on the development of coastal land most vulnerable to rising sea level (Environmental Research Letters, 2009). The purpose of the project was to motivate dialogues about the appropriate measures to rising sea level by creating maps that depict the likely response given current practices and policies. The maps divide coastal low lands in Southside Hampton Roads into four categories: developed (shore protection almost certain), intermediate (shore protection likely), undeveloped (shore protection unlikely), and conservation (no shore protection) (Figures 5.16 thru 5.21). One methodology for estimating average annual losses expected from sea level rise is supported by FEMA. In 1991, FEMA issued a report to Congress documenting the estimated impact of relative sea level rise on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The agency estimates that existing development in the coastal zone would experience a 36 to 58 percent increase in annual damages for a 1-foot rise in sea level by 2100, and a 102 to 200 percent increase resulting from a 3-foot rise by Based on this estimate, average annual flood damages from storm surge could be expected to increase from $207

33 5:16 FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE For both the coastal flood and storm surge flooding hazards, future vulnerability will be determined, in part, by local officials. Flood hazard and SLOSH maps have been developed to indicate what areas of the jurisdictions are most vulnerable to these hazards. All of the SLOSH maps for Southside communities and flood hazard maps for Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach have been updated since the initial plan was developed and can be used to help guide development away from hazardous areas. Local officials are responsible for enforcing local floodplain management regulations, flood damage prevention ordinances and other forms of development policies that restrict new development in flood hazard areas.

34 5:15 ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES HAZUS-MH was used to model the damage expected in association with the 100-year coastal flood in the region, assuming a stillwater elevation of 10 feet mean sea level with no wave setup. These parameters were set to take advantage of available data, and may not exactly duplicate the parameters used to model the 100-year flood shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Table 5.9 provides a detailed listing of the number of structures expected to be damaged, and the dollar losses expected. An annualized loss estimate of $2,821,224,000 was determined based on this loss estimate for the 100-year flood. This annualized estimate likely overstates the annual losses, and the calculation could be made more precise through the inclusion of community damage assessment data and flood height data from smaller floods as part of future updates to this plan. The estimated number of pre-firm structures (constructed prior to a community joining the NFIP) was tallied, based on provided tax assessor data for communities. There are an estimated 11,207 pre-firm structures in Norfolk, 595 in Suffolk, and 4,182 in Virginia Beach. TABLE 5.9: HAZUS-MH LOSS ESTIMATES FOR 100-YEAR FLOOD EVENT JURISDICTION NUMBER OF BUILDINGS MODERATELY DAMAGED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS DESTROYED BUILDING LOSSES BUSINESS INTERRUPTION LOSSES TOTAL LOSSES Isle of Wight County $187,590,000 $780,000 $188,370,000 Norfolk 27, $4,616,920,000 $70,080,000 $4,687,000,000 Portsmouth 4, $719,600,000 $16,440,000 $736,040,000 Suffolk 1, $216,080,000 $1,680,000 $217,760,000 Virginia Beach 48, $5,637,400,000 $48,630,000 $5,686,030,000 TOTAL 83,061 1,379 $11,377,590,000 $137,610,000 $11,515,200,000 Sources: HAZUS-MH, local GIS data Following a detailed analysis of the study area using best available GIS data including SLOSH model data, 156,042 properties were determined to be at risk to storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, amounting to a total net present worth of approximately $25,828,086,183 in exposure. Table 5.10 provides a detailed listing of the estimated number of parcels, number of developed parcels, number of structures and assessed values of structures at risk to surge from a Category 3 event. An annualized loss estimate of $206,624,689 was determined using best available local property tax data, and assuming that the worst case scenario storm surge event for a Category 3 hurricane has a recurrence interval of 150 years. TABLE 5.10: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIALLY AT-RISK PROPERTIES FLOODS (STORM SURGE) CATEGORY 3 STORM SURGE INUNDATION ZONE JURISDICTION NUMBER OF PARCELS DEVELOPED PARCELS NUMBER OF STRUCTURES VALUE OF STRUCTURES Isle of Wight County 2, $54,221,100 Norfolk 115,535 91,358 85,754 $16,293,288,040 Portsmouth 35,343 22,733 49,102 $1,240,970,150 Smithfield $21,886,200 Suffolk 3,723 1,481 2,069 $313,003,000 Virginia Beach 42,941 39,788 74,373 $7,904,717,693 Windsor $0 TOTAL 200, , ,045 $25,828,086,183 Sources: Southside Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (SLOSH data); Local GIS data

35 5:14 defined by the NFIP have been identified within the Southside Hampton Roads region. These 1,393 properties have experienced a total of 3,632 individual insured losses. Table 5.8 provides details for each jurisdiction with regard to the community s number of NFIP policies, total coverage, number of repetitive loss properties, total number of losses, total dollar amount of repetitive losses and average payment per repetitive loss claim. TABLE 5.8: NFIP STATISTICS AND REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSSES NUMBER OF NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL PROPERTIES VALUE OF JURISDICTION OF NFIP OF COVERAGE (residential / LOSSES POLICIES LOSSES non-residential) AVERAGE PAYMENT PER CLAIM Isle of Wight County 396 $115,417, / 2 $1,055, $25,752 Norfolk 12,021 $2,906,787, / 27 $31,136,110 1,840 $16,922 Portsmouth 3,944 $886,654, / 6 $7,318, $15,875 Smithfield 119 $35,402,000 3/0 $71,415 7 $10,202 Suffolk 1,055 $306,327,000 10/3 $1,450, $40,302 Virginia Beach 25,268 $6,323,000, / 8 $21,812,396 1,247 $16,864 Windsor 7 $1,379,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 42,810 $10,574,966,000 1,347 / 46 $62,844,832 3,632 $125,917 Sources: NFIP (as of 1/29/2011) A severe repetitive loss (SRL) property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: (a) has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or (b) has at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) made, with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. For both (a) and (b), at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. The City of Norfolk has 32 SRL properties with a total of 164 claims. Total claims for these 32 properties are over $3.4 million. Portsmouth has 5 SRL properties with a total of 33 claims totaling $722,315. Virginia Beach has 24 SRL properties with a total of 149 claims totaling over $3.6 million. Figure 5.6 through Figure 5.15 contain maps of the region s repetitive loss areas, including the properties on the repetitive loss list and all adjacent properties with the same or similar flooding conditions. Additional detail on the geographic boundaries of repetitive loss areas in each community, as well as the number of structures included in those areas, is available by contacting the Planning Department in each community. In each of the repetitive loss areas in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, the primary cause of flooding is coastal storm surge and nor easters. The secondary source is sea level rise and land subsidence. In Isle of Wight, repetitive loss areas 1 thru 6 are flooded due to riverine flooding, while areas 7 thru 12 are flooded due to storm surge and nor easters. In Suffolk, repetitive loss areas 1 thru 3 are flooded due to storm surge and nor easters, and areas 4 thru 10 are flooded due to riverine flooding and inadequate storm drainage. Portsmouth has completed repetitive flood loss area mapping separately from this plan and the maps can be found in the 2010 Portsmouth Floodplain Management Plan available online at: Final-Draft.pdf.

36 5:13 FLOODS FLOODS (100-YEAR) PRI Value: 3.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: $2,821,224,000 FLOODS (STORM SURGE) PRI Value: 3.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $206,624,689 The vulnerability assessment for the flood hazard includes the findings of the qualitative assessment conducted, an overview of NFIP statistics, repetitive loss properties (as defined and identified by the NFIP), estimates of potential losses, and future vulnerability and land use. As described in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the NCDC has records for 41 significant flood events in the past 16 years for the Southside Hampton Roads region, amounting to approximately $7,750,000 in reported property damage. Also discussed in the Hazard Identification and Analysis are historic storms such as Hurricanes Isabel, Floyd and the 1933 hurricane that each caused flooding in the region. Historically, the region is vulnerable to the flood hazard and flood events occur on a frequent basis. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the flood hazard scored a PRI value of 3.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.6 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR FLOODS (100-YEAR) PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Highly Likely Catastrophic Moderate More Than 24 Hours More Than 1 Week Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. The storm surge hazard was analyzed separately from the 100-year coastal flood hazard, and scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.7 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category. TABLE 5.7: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR FLOODS (STORM SURGE) PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION Likely Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee. Please refer to Table 5.1 for an explanation of the terms used. NFIP STATISTICS AND REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES Throughout the planning jurisdictions, there are 42,810 flood insurance policies in place, providing a total of $10,574,966,000 in coverage, almost doubling from $5,793,863,900 in Currently, there are over 132,000 repetitive loss (RL) properties nationwide. Reducing the number of RL properties insured by the NFIP is a nationwide emphasis of FEMA. An RL property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling ten-year period, since An RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. A total of 1,393 repetitive loss properties as

37 5:12 33 percent increase and the Town of Smithfield with a 28 percent increase. Portsmouth experienced a loss in population with a -5 percent growth rate from 2000 to In the areas of population increase, new housing construction tends to create jobs and stimulate the local economy. Local employment and retail sales for these communities continue to look positive for the immediate future. However, in the areas of population decline, unemployment and loss of businesses could continue to negatively impact the area in terms of economic growth. AGRICULTURAL VULNERABILITY While most of the Southside Hampton Roads region is urbanized or developed, much of Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and portions of Virginia Beach remain undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. Row crops constitute 13.7 percent of the total land use in the Southside Hampton Roads region (Isle of Wight County 25.3 percent, Suffolk, 22.9 percent and Virginia Beach 17.1 percent). The following crops are grown in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach: Corn Cotton Peanuts Soybeans Tall Fescue Wheat Areas where agriculture is the primary land use are typically more vulnerable to the drought hazard because of the dependency of agriculture on water. These areas can also experience losses that are difficult to capture for other hazards such as flooding and hurricanes.

38 5:11 ZONING AND LAND USE In order to regulate current and future land use and guide overall development patterns, all of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region have adopted a zoning ordinance that enforces standards for designated zoning districts. Zoning maps are useful planning tools, demonstrating the type and location of projected community development. Because of the number of jurisdictions participating in this Plan, and the many differences in zoning designations across the region, it is not feasible to show a regional map of the various zoning districts across the region. MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND THE AGE OF BUILDINGS The vulnerability of manufactured homes versus those built on-site can vary due to several factors. These include the age of construction, the materials and construction techniques used, the adherence to past and current building codes, and the method of installation. In the case of manufactured housing, proper installation can significantly affect vulnerability. For instance, with regard to wind-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, estimates based on regional trends show that 50 percent of manufactured homes built prior to 1976 are not secured with tie downs. Of the manufactured homes built between 1976 and 1993, 25 percent have no tie downs. Of those built from 1994 to 2004, 1 percent has no tie downs. These statistics demonstrate that older manufactured homes, specifically those with no tie downs, are at greater risk from high wind hazards (Blue Sky Foundation of North Carolina). A similar logic applies to the age of buildings and flood hazard vulnerability. As shown in Table 5.5, the communities in the Southside Hampton Roads region joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) either in the early 1970 s or early 1990 s. In order to join the NFIP, each participating jurisdiction is required to adopt and enforce its own floodplain management ordinance. As a result, structures built after joining the NFIP are assumed to be less vulnerable to flood hazards than those built prior to joining, assuming other environmental conditions remain constant. TABLE 5.5: NFIP ENTRY DATE AND CURRENT EFFECTIVE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) JURISDICTION NFIP ENTRY DATE CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM Isle of Wight County 8/19/1991 9/4/2002 Norfolk 8/1/1979 9/2/2009 Portsmouth 7/2/1971 9/25/2009 Smithfield 12/5/1990 9/4/2002 Suffolk 11/16/1990 9/4/2002 Virginia Beach 4/23/1971 5/4/2009 Windsor 8/1/1990 9/4/2002 Source: FEMA DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Two factors that contribute to an overall understanding of development trends are population change and economic growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average rate of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region between 1990 and 2000 was 7.1 percent, and between 2000 and 2010, the rate was 5.3 percent. This rate is slower than the state average of 14.4 percent for the period 1990 to 2000, and 13.0 percent from 2000 to Between 2000 and 2010, the Town of Windsor experienced the greatest population growth rate with a 187 percent increase, followed by Suffolk with a

39 5:10 Schools (particularly those designated as shelters) Hazardous materials facilities Water (and wastewater) facilities Energy facilities (electric, oil and natural gas) Communication facilities Critical facility data were acquired from the HAZUS-MH database of critical facilities for each jurisdiction. Figures AB1 through AB-5 (located in Appendix B) show the general location of critical facilities in each jurisdiction. Table 5.4 shows the results of a general analysis of the critical facilities that are located in the high wildfire risk area, 100-year floodplain, Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) and the Storm Surge Zone for a Category 3 hurricane. The critical facility data points from the HAZUS-MH software were used for this analysis. This analysis was updated in 2011 for the communities with newly designated 100-year floodplains and V Zones (Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach), and for the new SLOSH storm surge maps. Suffolk officials verified that there are no critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain, so the single school previously listed was deleted from the list. TABLE 5.4: CRITICAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN HAZARD AREAS Jurisdiction Facility Type High Wildfire Risk 100-year Floodplain Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) Storm Surge Category 3 Isle of Wight County Fire/Rescue Station Police Facility Water Facilities Norfolk Fire/Rescue Station Schools Water Facilities Police Facilities Medical Facilities Portsmouth Water Facilities Schools Police Facilities Medical Facilities undetermined Fire/Rescue Station Suffolk Water Facilities Schools (elevated above BFE) Smithfield None Windsor None Virginia Beach Fire/Rescue Station Police Facilities Water Facilities Schools Medical Facilities

40 5:9 GENERAL ASSET INVENTORY The total dollar exposure of buildings within the Southside Hampton Roads region is estimated to be $55,529,902,000. This figure is based on an estimated 298,941 residential, commercial, and other buildings located throughout the region, derived from HAZUS-MH data 4 (Table 5.3). The data provide an estimate of the aggregated replacement value for the region s assets. Figures 5.3 through 5.5 illustrate geographically the concentration of commercial and residential dollar exposure in the Southside Hampton Roads region based on HAZUS-MH data. TABLE 5.3: BUILDING INVENTORY IN SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS JURISDICTION NUMBER OF BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OTHER TOTAL Isle of Wight County 12, ,367 Norfolk 68,652 4,261 2,112 75,025 Portsmouth 36,197 1, ,752 Suffolk 24,737 1, ,732 Virginia Beach 135,297 6,619 3, ,065 TOTAL 277,223 14,472 7, ,941 JURISDICTION BUILDING AND CONTENTS VALUES (2006 dollars) RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OTHER TOTAL Isle of Wight County $1,434,666,000 $230,137,000 $306,972,000 $1,971,775,000 Norfolk $11,412,898,000 $3,047,094,000 $1,534,019,000 $15,994,011,000 Portsmouth $4,615,686,000 $844,288,000 $468,004,000 $5,927,978,000 Suffolk $2,818,959,000 $645,703,000 $340,904,000 $3,805,566,000 Virginia Beach $22,326,642,000 $3,961,084,000 $1,542,846,000 $27,830,572,000 TOTAL $42,608,851,000 $8,728,306,000 $4,192,745,000 $55,529,902,000 Source: HAZUS-MH CRITICAL FACILITIES There is no comprehensive database of critical facilities and infrastructure for the Southside Hampton Roads region. Moreover, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes critical facilities and infrastructure, nor is one associated with FEMA and DMA 2000 planning requirements. However, for purposes of this Plan, critical facilities and infrastructure are identified as those facilities or systems whose incapacity or destruction would present an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety or have a debilitating effect on the economic security of the region. This includes the following facilities and systems based on their high relative importance for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions in the Southside Hampton Roads region: Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) Hospitals and medical care facilities Police stations Fire stations 4 HAZUS uses Census 2000 and Dunn and Bradstreet (2002) data for its default inventories.

41 5:8 OVERVIEW OF SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS VULNERABILITY DEMOGRAPHICS According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Southside Hampton Roads region in 2000 was 860,870; in 2010 the total population was 906,902, an increase of 5.3 percent. The average number of persons per square mile was 811 and the average housing units per square mile was 318. These numbers are significantly higher than the state average. The City of Virginia Beach contains the greatest population and housing units among cities and towns in the planning area. Table 5.2 provides a summary of population and demographic characteristics for the region from the 2000 Census and the limited 2010 Census data available at the time of this update. TABLE 5.2: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS JURISDICTION TOTAL POPULATION 2000 TOTAL POPULATION 2010 (% change) UNDER 18 YEARS OLD (2000) 65 YEARS AND OVER (2000) DISABILITY STATUS (2000) Isle of Wight County 29,728 Norfolk 234,403 Portsmouth 100,565 Smithfield 6,324 Suffolk 63,677 Virginia Beach 425,257 Windsor 916 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2010) 35,270 (19%) 242,803 (4%) 95,535 (-5%) 8,089 (28%) 84,585 (33%) 437,994 (3%) 2,626 (187%) 23% 12% 20% 21% 11% 24% 24% 14% 25% 24% 14% 22% 26% 11% 24% 24% 8% 15% 22% 12% 20% Figure 5.2 shows the distribution of this population across the planning area based on the number of persons per census block, based on Census 2000 data. 3 3 Graduated coloring used to show persons living in each census block can be visually misleading. Highly populated areas may appear scarcely populated because population is divided into many small census blocks. Likewise, large census blocks may show large population but cover more land area.

42 5:7 TABLE 5.1: SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RISK INDEX (PRI) PRI CATEGORY Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration 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 3 Highly Likely 100% annual probability 4 Minor Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. 1 Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in Limited affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete 2 shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25% Critical of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more 3 than one week. High number of deaths/injuries possible. More Catastrophic than 50% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities 4 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 4 Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee ASSIGNED WEIGHTING FACTOR 30% 30% 20% 10% 10%

43 5:6 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY The qualitative assessment relies less on technology and more on historical and anecdotal data, community input and professional judgment regarding expected hazard impacts. The qualitative assessment completed for the Southside Hampton Roads region is based on the Priority Risk Index (PRI), a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular planning area. The PRI is also used to assist community officials in ranking and prioritizing those hazards that pose the most significant threat to their area based on a variety of factors deemed important by the Mitigation Planning Committee and other stakeholders in the hazard mitigation planning process. While the quantitative assessment focuses on using best available data, computer models and GIS technology, the PRI system relies more on historical data, local knowledge and the general consensus of the Mitigation Planning Committee. The PRI is used for hazards with no available GIS data or relevant information to perform quantitative analyses, and also provides an important opportunity to compare the results with hazards that do have historical data. The PRI results 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 2, as summarized in Table 5.1. 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 applied for the Southside Hampton Roads region, the highest possible PRI value is 4.0. Prior to being finalized, PRI values for each hazard were reviewed and accepted by the Mitigation Planning Committee. The Committee analyzed and approved the PRI for each hazard as part of the 2011 update. SUMMARY Using both the qualitative and quantitative analyses to evaluate the hazards that impact the region provides members of the Mitigation Planning Committee with a dual-faceted review of the hazards. This allows officials to recognize those hazards that may potentially be costly, but also to plan and prepare for hazards that may not cause much monetary damage, but could put a strain on the local resources needed to recover. All conclusions of the vulnerability assessment completed for the region and participating jurisdictions are presented in Conclusions on Hazard Risk at the end of this section. Findings for each hazard are detailed in the hazard-by-hazard vulnerability assessment that follows, beginning with an overview of general asset inventory and exposure data for the Southside Hampton Roads region. 2 The Mitigation Planning Committee based upon any unique concerns for the planning area may also adjust the PRI weighting scheme.

44 5:5 The use of the statistical risk assessment methodology provides a determination of estimated annualized loss 1 for the following hazards: Severe Thunderstorms and Hail Lightning Tornadoes Winter Storms and Nor easters Wildfires Urban Fires Hazardous Materials Incidents When possible, quantitative hazard loss estimates are compared with historical damage data as recorded through the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and other reliable data sources. The first step in conducting this analysis included the collection of relevant GIS data from local, state and national sources. These sources include the various Town, City and County GIS Departments, FEMA, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Once all data were acquired, ESRI ArcGIS was used to assess specific risks to people, public buildings and infrastructure using digital hazard data in combination with the locally-available GIS data layers. Primary data layers included Census 2000 data, along with geo-referenced point locations for public buildings, critical facilities, hazardous materials sites and infrastructure elements. Using these data layers, risk was assessed and described by determining the parcels and/or point locations that intersected with the delineated flood hazard areas. At the time of this plan update, detailed Census 2010 data and Census 2010 geographic data were not available. 1 By annualizing estimated losses, the historic patterns of frequent smaller events are coupled with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the long-term risk.

45 5:4 FIGURE 5.1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HAZUS MH METHODOLOGY Sources: FEMA This risk assessment used HAZUS-MH to produce regional profiles and estimated losses for three of the hazards addressed in this section: 100-year coastal flood, hurricane winds and earthquakes. For each of these hazards, HAZUS-MH was used to generate probabilistic worst case scenario events to show the extent of potential damages. Explanation of GIS-based (Non-HAZUS MH ) Risk Assessment Methodology For hazards outside the scope of HAZUS-MH, a statistical risk assessment methodology was designed and applied to generate potential loss estimates. The approach is based on the same principals as HAZUS-MH, but does not rely on readily available automated software. First, historical data are compiled for each hazard to relate occurrence patterns with existing hazard models. Statistical evaluations are then applied in combination with engineering modeling to develop damage functions that generate annualized losses.

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION The Vulnerability Assessment section builds upon the information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis

More information

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT HAMPTON ROADS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 UPDATE Each of the hazards was reviewed and updated to reflect both the revised information obtained for the updated Hazard Identification

More information

Southwest Florida Healthcare Coalition

Southwest Florida Healthcare Coalition Southwest Florida Healthcare Coalition Hazards Vulnerability Assessment 2018 1 Table of Contents Summary 3 EmPower Maps and Data 5 Social Vulnerability Index Maps 19 Suncoast Disaster Healthcare Coalition

More information

Town of Montrose Annex

Town of Montrose Annex Town of Montrose Annex Community Profile The Town of Montrose is located in the Southwest quadrant of the County, east of the Town of Primrose, south of the Town of Verona, and west of the Town of Oregon.

More information

Village of Blue Mounds Annex

Village of Blue Mounds Annex Village of Blue Mounds Annex Community Profile The Village of Blue Mounds is located in the southwest quadrant of the County, north of the town of Perry, west of the town of Springdale, and south of the

More information

SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Advisory Committee Meeting September 12, 2012

SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Advisory Committee Meeting September 12, 2012 SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Advisory Committee Meeting September 12, 2012 AGENDA FOR TODAY Purpose of Meeting Engage All Advisory Committee Members Distribute Project

More information

Natural Hazards Risks in Kentucky. KAMM Regional Training

Natural Hazards Risks in Kentucky. KAMM Regional Training Natural Hazards Risks in Kentucky KAMM Regional Training Floodplain 101 Kentucky has approximately 92,000 linear miles of streams and rivers Approximately 31,000 linear miles have mapped flood hazards

More information

Sussex County All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Plan Executive Summary

Sussex County All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Plan Executive Summary Sussex County All Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Executive Summary March 2010 SUSSEX COUNTY ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY March 2010 For questions and to make comments on this document, contact: Joseph

More information

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Data Collection Questionnaire. For Local Governments

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Data Collection Questionnaire. For Local Governments Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Data Collection Questionnaire County: For Local Governments Jurisdiction: Return to: Marcus Norden, Regional Planner BRP&EC Please complete this data collection

More information

APPENDIX D PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX D PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX D PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION This appendix includes the following: 1. Meeting Agendas 2. Meeting Minutes 3. Meeting Sign-In Sheets 4. Public Survey Summary Results 1) Introductions AGENDA

More information

Garfield County NHMP:

Garfield County NHMP: Garfield County NHMP: Introduction and Summary Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment DRAFT AUG2010 Risk assessments provide information about the geographic areas where the hazards may occur, the value

More information

COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF CENTRAL CITY

COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF CENTRAL CITY This document provides a summary of the hazard mitigation planning information for the City of Central City

More information

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Data Collection Questionnaire. For School Districts and Educational Institutions

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Data Collection Questionnaire. For School Districts and Educational Institutions Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Data Collection Questionnaire For School Districts and Educational Institutions County: School District / Educational Institution Name: Return by: Please complete

More information

Risk Assessment Planning Team Meeting April 5, 2016

Risk Assessment Planning Team Meeting April 5, 2016 Risk Assessment Planning Team Meeting April 5, 2016 Welcome and Introductions Project Overview & Kickoff Meeting Summary Capability Assessment, Evaluation of Identified Hazards & Risks, NFIP Review Risk

More information

COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF LISBON

COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF LISBON COMMUNITY SUMMARY LINN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF LISBON This document provides a summary of the hazard mitigation planning information for the City of Lisbon that will

More information

Hazard Mitigation Planning

Hazard Mitigation Planning Hazard Mitigation Planning Mitigation In order to develop an effective mitigation plan for your facility, residents and staff, one must understand several factors. The first factor is geography. Is your

More information

Hazard Identification

Hazard Identification RISK OVERVIEW Hazard Identification... 1 Overview of Hazard Analysis... 4 HAZUS MH... 5 Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology... 5 Loss Estimates... 7 Vulnerability Essential Facilities, Infrastructure

More information

SECTION 6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SECTION 6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SECTION 6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This section identifies and quantifies the vulnerability of the MEMA District 6 Region to the significant hazards identified in the previous sections (Hazard Identification

More information

Aquidneck Island Resilience Strategy Issue Paper 4. Issue: RESIDENTIAL FLOODING

Aquidneck Island Resilience Strategy Issue Paper 4. Issue: RESIDENTIAL FLOODING Aquidneck Island Resilience Strategy Issue Paper 4 Issue: RESIDENTIAL FLOODING Description of Concern: While much of Aquidneck Island s geography lies outside the reach of coastal flooding, some of the

More information

CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy

CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy Chapter 3 Section All Sections Updates to Section Revised Natural Hazards Introduction and all Sections to change Natural Hazards Subcommittee to Committee.

More information

APPENDIX H TOWN OF FARMVILLE. Hazard Rankings. Status of Mitigation Actions. Building Permit Data. Future Land Use Map. Critical Facilities Map

APPENDIX H TOWN OF FARMVILLE. Hazard Rankings. Status of Mitigation Actions. Building Permit Data. Future Land Use Map. Critical Facilities Map APPENDIX H TOWN OF FARMVILLE Hazard Rankings Status of Mitigation Actions Building Permit Data Future Land Use Map Critical Facilities Map Zone Maps Hazard Rankings (From Qualitative Assessment and Local

More information

Prerequisites for EOP Creation: Hazard Identification and Assessment

Prerequisites for EOP Creation: Hazard Identification and Assessment Prerequisites for EOP Creation: Hazard Identification and Assessment Presentation to: Advanced Healthcare Emergency Management Course Objectives Upon lesson completion, you should be able to: Understand

More information

Planning Process Documentation

Planning Process Documentation Appendix D Planning Process Documentation This appendix includes: 1. Meeting Agendas 2. Meeting Minutes 3. Meeting Sign-In Sheets AGENDA Wake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan West Wake

More information

Appendix F: Ozark special Road District Addendum

Appendix F: Ozark special Road District Addendum Appendix F: Ozark special Road District Addendum F-1: Introduction and Planning Process F-1.1 Purpose The Christian County 2016 Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is an updated version

More information

Section II: Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation

Section II: Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation Section II: Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation 1. Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (facility name) should conduct a thorough Hazard Vulnerability Analysis to help determine what events or incidents may

More information

Assessing Risk: Shifting Focus from Hazards to Capabilities. Jane Coolidge Kara Walker CMRHCC April 2017

Assessing Risk: Shifting Focus from Hazards to Capabilities. Jane Coolidge Kara Walker CMRHCC April 2017 Assessing Risk: Shifting Focus from Hazards to Capabilities Jane Coolidge Kara Walker CMRHCC April 2017 Hazards Vulnerability Analysis (HVA): Overview To identify jurisdictional hazards To assess hazard

More information

PART 3 LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS

PART 3 LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS PART 3 LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS Local Mitigation Plan requirements in 44 CFR, Part 201.6 of the Interim Final Rule (the Rule) apply to both local jurisdictions and Tribal governments that elect to participate

More information

G318 Local Mitigation Planning Workshop. Module 2: Risk Assessment. Visual 2.0

G318 Local Mitigation Planning Workshop. Module 2: Risk Assessment. Visual 2.0 G318 Local Mitigation Planning Workshop Module 2: Risk Assessment Visual 2.0 Unit 1 Risk Assessment Visual 2.1 Risk Assessment Process that collects information and assigns values to risks to: Identify

More information

Town of Pleasant Springs Annex

Town of Pleasant Springs Annex Town of Pleasant Springs Annex Community Profile The Town of Pleasant Springs is located in the southeast quadrant of Dane County, west of the Town of Christiana, north of the town of Dunkirk, and east

More information

Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-Year Update Progress Report Chippewa County Taskforce Committee January 29, 2013

Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-Year Update Progress Report Chippewa County Taskforce Committee January 29, 2013 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-Year Update Progress Report Chippewa County Taskforce Committee January 29, 2013 Allegan County, June, 2010 Photo courtesy Peter Olson Chapter Updates Chapter 1 Introduction»

More information

9.10 HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP

9.10 HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP 9.10 HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Heidelberg Township. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax Email Primary Point

More information

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEMA REGION 2 Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Address:

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET FEMA REGION 2 Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Address: REVIEW AD APPROVAL TATU Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Local Plan submitted by: Address: Title: Agency: Phone umber: E-Mail: tate Reviewer: Title: Date: FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: FEMA QA/QC: Title: Date:

More information

A Practical Framework for Assessing Emerging Risks

A Practical Framework for Assessing Emerging Risks A Practical Framework for Assessing Emerging Risks John Bowman, MBCI Enterprise Business Continuity Management Share one approach to assess the current level of business continuity risk in your organization.

More information

HAZUS -MH Risk Assessment and User Group Series HAZUS-MH and DMA Pilot Project Portland, Oregon. March 2004 FEMA FEMA 436

HAZUS -MH Risk Assessment and User Group Series HAZUS-MH and DMA Pilot Project Portland, Oregon. March 2004 FEMA FEMA 436 HAZUS -MH Risk Assessment and User Group Series HAZUS-MH and DMA 2000 Pilot Project Portland, Oregon March 2004 FEMA FEMA 436 Page intentionally left blank. Risk Assessment Pilot Project Results for DMA

More information

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA DISASTER RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY INTRUDUCTION Republic of Bulgaria often has been affected by natural or man-made disasters, whose social and economic consequences cause significant

More information

Appendix E: Mitigation Action Worksheet Template

Appendix E: Mitigation Action Worksheet Template This appendix provides the Action Worksheet template, including instructions for its completion, used by the participating jurisdictions to document applicable projects identified in their mitigation strategy,

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Onondaga County Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Onondaga County Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Onondaga County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan was prepared in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). DMA 2000 requires states and local governments

More information

Northern Kentucky University 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public Kick-Off Meeting March 20, 2018

Northern Kentucky University 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public Kick-Off Meeting March 20, 2018 Northern Kentucky University 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Kick-Off Meeting March 20, 2018 Agenda Welcome Hazard Mitigation Planning 101 Hazard Identification Exercises Next Steps Jeff Baker, NKU

More information

ANNEX B: TOWN OF BLUE RIVER

ANNEX B: TOWN OF BLUE RIVER ANNEX B: TOWN OF BLUE RIVER B.1 Community Profile Figure B.1 shows a map of the Town of Blue River and its location within Summit County. Figure B.1. Map of Blue River Summit County (Blue River) Annex

More information

2015 Mobile County, Alabama Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendices

2015 Mobile County, Alabama Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendices 2015 Mobile County, Alabama Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan A - Federal Requirements for local Mitigation Plans B - Community Mitigation Capabilities C - 2009 Plan Implementation Status D - Hazard Ratings

More information

Chapter 1 NATURAL HAZARDS AND DISASTERS

Chapter 1 NATURAL HAZARDS AND DISASTERS Chapter 1 NATURAL HAZARDS AND DISASTERS MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1. People live in dangerous areas for what reasons? a. for the views b. because of cheap land c. because the land is fertile d. for proximity

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Greater Greenburgh Planning Area Planning Process

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Greater Greenburgh Planning Area Planning Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Greater Greenburgh Planning Area All-Hazards Mitigation Plan was prepared in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). DMA 2000 requires states and local governments

More information

T-318. Hazard Mitigation Section TDEM Recovery, Mitigation, and Standards

T-318. Hazard Mitigation Section TDEM Recovery, Mitigation, and Standards T-318 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirements Hazard Mitigation Section TDEM Recovery, Mitigation, and Standards Raymond Mejia, Lead Hazard Mitigation Planner Samantha Aburto, Hazard Mitigation Planner

More information

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a general introduction to the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) District 9 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It consists of the following five subsections:

More information

Detailed Identification and Classification of Hazards and Disasters for Effective Hazard. Vulnerability Assessments. Abstract

Detailed Identification and Classification of Hazards and Disasters for Effective Hazard. Vulnerability Assessments. Abstract 1 Detailed Identification and Classification of Hazards and Disasters for Effective Hazard Vulnerability Assessments. Abstract The identification and classification of the terms hazard, incident, and disaster

More information

Multi-Hazard Risk Management Project The Smithsonian Institution (SI)

Multi-Hazard Risk Management Project The Smithsonian Institution (SI) Multi-Hazard Risk Management Project The Smithsonian Institution (SI) Over 700 facilities worldwide dedicated to research, exhibit, and outreach 18 museums and galleries in Washington DC and NYC wide variety

More information

FACILITY NAME. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ANALYSIS FORMS The following instructions were modified from the Kaiser Permanente HVA tool

FACILITY NAME. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ANALYSIS FORMS The following instructions were modified from the Kaiser Permanente HVA tool FACILITY NAME CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ANALYSIS FORMS The following instructions were modified from the Kaiser Permanente HVA tool 1) Change "Facility Name" at the top of this Instruction Tab

More information

9.2 ALBURTIS BOROUGH. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Alburtis Borough. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

9.2 ALBURTIS BOROUGH. This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Alburtis Borough. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT 9.2 ALBURTIS BOROUGH This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Alburtis Borough. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax Email Primary Point of

More information

HAZARD DESCRIPTION... 1 LOCATION... 2 EXTENT... 4 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES... 6 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS... 6 VULNERABILITY AND IMPACT...

HAZARD DESCRIPTION... 1 LOCATION... 2 EXTENT... 4 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES... 6 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS... 6 VULNERABILITY AND IMPACT... DAM FAILURE HAZARD DESCRIPTION... 1 LOCATION... 2 EXTENT... 4 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES... 6 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS... 6 VULNERABILITY AND IMPACT... 6 Hazard Description Dams are water storage, control

More information

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA

More information

PHASE 2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

PHASE 2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT Prioritize Hazards PHASE 2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND After you have developed a full list of potential hazards affecting your campus, prioritize them based on their likelihood of occurrence. This step

More information

The Citadel. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Disaster Resistant University Plan

The Citadel. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Disaster Resistant University Plan The Citadel Multi-Hazard Mitigation Disaster Resistant University Plan Project Objective To Develop a Disaster Resistant University Hazard Mitigation Plan Identify Hazards Profile Hazards Inventory Assets

More information

9.8 FOUNTAIN HILL BOROUGH

9.8 FOUNTAIN HILL BOROUGH 9.8 FOUNTAIN HILL BOROUGH This section presents the jurisdictional annex for Fountain Hill Borough. A. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Name Title/ Department Address Telephone Fax Email Primary

More information

Adaptation Practices and Lessons Learned

Adaptation Practices and Lessons Learned Adaptation Practices and Lessons Learned Increased Flooding Risk Due To Sea Level Rise in Hampton Roads: A Forum to Address Concerns, Best Practices and Plans for Adaptation Nov. 16, 2012 Virginia Modeling,

More information

Section 1: Introduction

Section 1: Introduction [THREE RIVERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 1: Introduction Three Rivers Electric Cooperative (Three Rivers) was established in 1939 to provide electric service to the rural areas of central

More information

Managing the Impact of Weather & Natural Hazards. Council Best Practice natural hazard preparedness

Managing the Impact of Weather & Natural Hazards. Council Best Practice natural hazard preparedness Managing the Impact of Weather & Natural Hazards Council Best Practice natural hazard preparedness The Impact of Natural Hazards on Local Government Every year, many Australian communities suffer the impact

More information

in coordination with Peoria County, Planning and Zoning Department

in coordination with Peoria County, Planning and Zoning Department Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management Program in coordination with Peoria County, Planning and Zoning Department The purpose of hazard

More information

APPENDIX 1 FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS

APPENDIX 1 FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS APPENDIX 1 FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS 2016 FEMA FUNDING POSSIBILITIES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON Overview For public entities in Washington, including school districts, FEMA mitigation funding

More information

9.35 VILLAGE OF TULLY

9.35 VILLAGE OF TULLY 9.35 VILLAGE OF TULLY This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Village of Tully. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Elizabeth L. Greenwood, Mayor 5833 Meetinghouse

More information

Mapping Flood Risk in the Upper Fox River Basin:

Mapping Flood Risk in the Upper Fox River Basin: Mapping Flood Risk in the Upper Fox River Basin: Vulnerable Populations and Adverse Health Effects Presented by: Angelina Hanson STUDY AREA: Wisconsin's Upper Fox River Basin Total Population 139,309.

More information

DeSoto Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Kick-off Meeting. February 16, 2016 Grand Cane, LA

DeSoto Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Kick-off Meeting. February 16, 2016 Grand Cane, LA DeSoto Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Kick-off Meeting February 16, 2016 Grand Cane, LA Introductions Officials Mitigation Steering Committee members SDMI team members GOHSEP hazard mitigation team

More information

PUBLIC SURVEY FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

PUBLIC SURVEY FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING PUBLIC SURVEY FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING We need your help! The Counties of Cherokee, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Swain, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are currently engaged in a planning process

More information

SUMMARY NOTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 MEETING OF THE OZAUKEE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN LOCAL PLANNING TEAM

SUMMARY NOTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 MEETING OF THE OZAUKEE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN LOCAL PLANNING TEAM SUMMARY NOTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 MEETING OF THE OZAUKEE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN LOCAL PLANNING TEAM INTRODUCTION The February 13, 2018 meeting of the Ozaukee County Hazard Mitigation Plan Local

More information

Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012

Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012 Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012 Introduction The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally supported flood insurance in communities that regulate development in floodplains.

More information

Emergency Management. December 16, 2010

Emergency Management. December 16, 2010 Applications of Hazus-MH for Emergency Management December 16, 2010 What is Hazus-MH? Free ArcGIS extension Facilitates a risk-based approach to mitigation Identifies and visually displays hazards and

More information

ANNEX F REQUIRED PLANNING DOCUMENTATION CHATHAM COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION PRE-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DECEMBER 2015

ANNEX F REQUIRED PLANNING DOCUMENTATION CHATHAM COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION PRE-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DECEMBER 2015 ANNEX F REQUIRED PLANNING DOCUMENTATION CHATHAM COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION PRE-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DECEMBER 2015 Chatham County Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan Annexes F-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY

More information

C o p e r n i c u s E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t S e r v i c e f o r R i s k p l a n n i n g a n d R e c o v e r y

C o p e r n i c u s E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t S e r v i c e f o r R i s k p l a n n i n g a n d R e c o v e r y C o p e r n i c u s E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t S e r v i c e f o r R i s k p l a n n i n g a n d R e c o v e r y Copernicus Service Copernicus EU Copernicus EU Copernicus EU www.copernicus.eu

More information

September 8, RE: Application for Planned Unit Development and Special Exemption Permit by Bluff Point Holdings LLC

September 8, RE: Application for Planned Unit Development and Special Exemption Permit by Bluff Point Holdings LLC September 8, 2011 Northumberland County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 129 Heathsville, VA 22473 RE: Application for Planned Unit Development and Special Exemption Permit by Bluff Point Holdings LLC Dear

More information

Section 1: Introduction

Section 1: Introduction Section 1: Introduction [SEMO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 SEMO Electric Cooperative (SEMOEC) was established in 1938 to provide electric service to the rural areas of southeast Missouri. SEMOEC

More information

Section 9. Emergency Management Accreditation Program

Section 9. Emergency Management Accreditation Program Section 9. Emergency Management Accreditation Program 2014 Plan Update Changes The Emergency Management Accreditation Program is a new section. In the 2011 Plan, EMAP information was found following each

More information

Truckloads (at 25 tons/truck) of building debris 90

Truckloads (at 25 tons/truck) of building debris 90 Marlborough Marlborough is a rural community in Hartford County covering a land area of 23.3 square miles and with an estimated population of 6,410. Elevation ranges from about 160 to 800 feet. The Town

More information

Dade County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Dade County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Introduction to Mitigation Definition of Mitigation Mitigation is defined by FEMA as "...sustained action that reduces or eliminates longterm risk to people and property from natural hazards and their

More information

Section 1: Introduction

Section 1: Introduction [PEMISCOT-DUNKLIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 1: Introduction Pemiscot-Dunklin Electric Cooperative (PDEC) was established in 1937 to provide electric service to the rural areas of southeast

More information

9.4 VILLAGE OF CAMILLUS

9.4 VILLAGE OF CAMILLUS 9.4 VILLAGE OF CAMILLUS This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Village of Camillus. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Kurt Brunger, Mayor 37 Main Street,

More information

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Oswego County HMP Update Working Group Kickoff Meeting September 27, 2017 Agenda Welcoming Remarks Oswego County Emergency Management DHSES FEMA Introduce Executive Committee

More information

DRAFT Revised Guide to the National CDEM Plan 2015 July 2015

DRAFT Revised Guide to the National CDEM Plan 2015 July 2015 2. Hazards and risks Summary The National CDEM Plan 2015 identifies core functions for national management of the consequences of emergencies. It may also address the management of consequences of other

More information

Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Kankakee County, Illinois Executive Summary

Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Kankakee County, Illinois Executive Summary 1. Introduction Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Kankakee County, Illinois Executive Summary Kankakee County is subject to natural hazards that threaten life, safety, health, and welfare and cause extensive

More information

9.36 TOWN OF VAN BUREN

9.36 TOWN OF VAN BUREN 9.36 TOWN OF VAN BUREN This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Van Buren. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact David J. Pringle, Code Enforcement

More information

Regional Healthcare Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

Regional Healthcare Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Regional Healthcare Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Prepared by: The Northwest Healthcare Response Network June 5, 2017 2017 Northwest Healthcare Response Network. Regional Healthcare Hazard Vulnerability

More information

2. Hazards and risks. 2 HAZARDS AND RISKS p1

2. Hazards and risks. 2 HAZARDS AND RISKS p1 2. Hazards and risks Summary The National CDEM Plan 2015 identifies core functions for national management of the consequences of emergencies. It may also address the management of consequences of other

More information

Simsbury. Challenges Capitol Region Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update - Page 356

Simsbury. Challenges Capitol Region Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update - Page 356 Simsbury Simsbury is a suburban community of about 23,600 located in the western portion of the Capitol Region. Its land area encompasses 33.9 square miles. Elevation in town generally ranges from about

More information

A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT

A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT 9.6 TOWN OF CLAY This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Town of Clay. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Mark Territo, Commissioner of Planning & Development

More information

A Multihazard Approach to Building Safety: Using FEMA Publication 452 as a Mitigation Tool

A Multihazard Approach to Building Safety: Using FEMA Publication 452 as a Mitigation Tool Mila Kennett Architect/Manager Risk Management Series Risk Reduction Branch FEMA/Department of Homeland Security MCEER Conference, September 18, 2007, New York City A Multihazard Approach to Building Safety:

More information

9.12 VILLAGE OF FABIUS

9.12 VILLAGE OF FABIUS 9.12 VILLAGE OF FABIUS This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the Village of Fabius. A.) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Melanie Vilardi, Town Supervisor P.O.

More information

APPENDIX A: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX A: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX A: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION Region 2 1 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 Appendix C Appendix C Today s Agenda What is Hazard Mitigation? Process Review Goals Review Review of Current

More information

PLANNING PROCESS. Table of Contents. List of Tables

PLANNING PROCESS. Table of Contents. List of Tables PLANNING PROCESS Table of Contents 1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process... 1-1 1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement... 1-7 1.2.1 Steering Committee Participant Solicitation... 1-7 1.2.2

More information

Hazard Vulnerability Assessment for Long Term Care Facilities

Hazard Vulnerability Assessment for Long Term Care Facilities Hazard Vulnerability Assessment for Long Term Care Facilities Dave Seebart WHEPP Reg. 3, Project Manager April 23, 25, & 26, 2013 1 Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) for Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF)

More information

1 Rare Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years. 2 Occasional Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years

1 Rare Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years. 2 Occasional Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years 5.3 HAZARD RANKING After the hazards of concern were identified for Onondaga County, the hazards were ranked to describe their probability of occurrence and their impact on population, property (general

More information

SECTION 6 - RANGE OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS CONSIDERED

SECTION 6 - RANGE OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS CONSIDERED SECTION 6 - RANGE OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS CONSIDERED For this hazard mitigation plan to be approved by FEMA, each participating jurisdiction was required to identify and analyze a comprehensive

More information

Agenda Item B.8 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: May 19, 2015

Agenda Item B.8 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: May 19, 2015 Agenda Item B.8 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: May 19, 2015 TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: Mayor and Councilmembers Jennifer Carman, Planning and Environmental Review Director Anne Wells, Advance Planning

More information

Challenges. Estimated Damages from 100-Year Flood

Challenges. Estimated Damages from 100-Year Flood Newington Newington is a fully suburban town in central Connecticut with a population of about 30,562. The Town encompasses 13.2 square miles and ranges in elevation from 40-350 feet above sea level. The

More information

Managing the Risk of Catastrophes: Protecting Critical Infrastructure in Urban Areas

Managing the Risk of Catastrophes: Protecting Critical Infrastructure in Urban Areas Federal Reserve Bank of New York 33 Liberty Street, 10 th Floor, Benjamin Strong Room Friday November 1, 2013 Managing the Risk of Catastrophes: Protecting Critical Infrastructure in Urban Areas Session

More information

Methods and Applications of Risk Assessment

Methods and Applications of Risk Assessment Document 1, The 3rd Meeting, Working Group on Voluntary Efforts and Continuous Improvement of Nuclear Safety, Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy Methods and Applications of Risk Assessment

More information

Tangipahoa Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mitigation Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting. September 9, 2014 Hammond, LA

Tangipahoa Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mitigation Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting. September 9, 2014 Hammond, LA Tangipahoa Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mitigation Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting September 9, 2014 Hammond, LA Introductions Officials Mitigation Steering Committee members SDMI team members

More information

FLOOD HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT UTILIZING HYDRAULIC MODELING AND GIS TECHNOLOGIES IN URBAN ENVIRONMENT

FLOOD HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT UTILIZING HYDRAULIC MODELING AND GIS TECHNOLOGIES IN URBAN ENVIRONMENT Proceedings of the 14 th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology Rhodes, Greece, 3-5 September 2015 FLOOD HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT UTILIZING HYDRAULIC MODELING AND GIS TECHNOLOGIES

More information

Overview of Climate Risk Reduction in the US Pacific Islands Hazard Mitigation Planning Efforts

Overview of Climate Risk Reduction in the US Pacific Islands Hazard Mitigation Planning Efforts Hazards, Climate, and Environment Program Social Science Research Institute University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Title: Overview of Climate Risk Reduction in the US Pacific Islands Hazard Mitigation Planning

More information

Section 1: Introduction

Section 1: Introduction [SE-MA-NO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE] May 18, 2012 Section 1: Introduction Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative (Se-Ma-No) was organized in 1945 as a member-owned, non-profit cooperative to supply electricity to rural

More information

Hazard Mitigation FAQ

Hazard Mitigation FAQ Hazard Mitigation FAQ What is Hazard Mitigation? Actions taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people, property, or the environment from hazards and their effects. Examples: Hazardous Area

More information

School District Mitigation Planning 101 April 28 th 30 th 2014

School District Mitigation Planning 101 April 28 th 30 th 2014 School District Mitigation Planning 101 April 28 th 30 th 2014 Kenneth A. Goettel Goettel & Associates Inc. 1732 Arena Drive Davis, CA 95618 (530) 750-0440 KenGoettel@aol.com What is Hazard Mitigation?

More information

County of Kaua'i Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan, 2015 Update

County of Kaua'i Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan, 2015 Update Executive Summary: County of Kaua'i Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan Introduction to the Mitigation and Resilience Plan In this third plan, the longer term needs for sustaining mitigation efforts

More information