2013 hamiton country multi hazard mitigation plain

488 33 0
2013 hamiton country multi hazard mitigation plain

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

Thông tin tài liệu

2013 Hamilton County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Prepared by: The Polis Center at IUPUI 1200 Waterway Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46202 www.polis.iupui.edu Department of Geography University of Cincinnati 401 Braunstein Hall Cincinnati, OH 45221 www.uc.edu Hamilton County EMA 2000 Radcliff Drive Cincinnati, OH 45204 www.hamiltoncountyema.org CONTENTS Executive Summary Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Prerequisites 2.1 Plan Adoption 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation Section 3: Planning Process 11 3.1 Planning Team Information 12 3.2 Review of Existing Plans 14 3.3 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources 16 3.4 Public Involvement 16 3.5 Neighboring Community Involvement 16 Section 4: County Profile 18 4.1 Topography 18 4.2 Climate 18 4.3 Demographics 18 4.4 Economy 20 4.5 Industry 20 4.6 Commuter Patterns 21 4.7 Major Lakes, Rivers, and Watersheds 22 4.8 Land Use and Future Development 24 4.8.1 Population Trends 24 4.8.2 Zoning and Land Use Maps 25 Section 5: Risk Assessment Overview 26 5.1 Identify Hazards 26 5.1.1 Existing Plans 26 5.1.2 Historical Hazards Records 27 5.1.3 Hazard Ranking Methodology 28 5.1.4 GIS and Hazus-MH Modeling 30 5.2 Assess Vulnerability 31 5.2.1 Identify Facilities 32 5.2.2 Facility Replacement Costs 32 5.3 Profiling Hazards 33 5.3.1 Tornado Hazard 33 5.3.2 Flood Hazard 50 5.3.3 Earthquake Hazard 65 5.3.4 Severe Thunderstorms 75 5.3.5 Winter Storm Hazard 85 5.3.6 Extreme Temperatures 88 5.3.7 Drought Hazard 93 5.3.8 Hazardous Materials Hazard 97 5.3.9 Fire Hazard 127 5.3.10 Landslide Hazard 130 5.3.11 Dam/Levee Failure Hazard 138 Section 6: Mitigation Strategies 145 6.1 Community Capability Assessment 145 6.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 145 6.1.2 Plans and Ordinances 147 6.2 Mitigation Goals 149 6.3 Mitigation Actions and Projects 150 6.3.1 Completed Strategies 153 6.3.2 Strategies by Community 153 6.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy Section 7: Plan Maintenance 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs 7.3 Continued Public Involvement 3 Supplemental and Referential Documents Annex: Community Snapshots Appendix A: Meeting Minutes Appendix B: Newspaper Articles Appendix C: NCDC Reports Appendix D: Historical Hazards Plot Appendix E: Adopting Resolutions Appendix F: Critical and Essential Facilities Plot Appendix G: List of Critical and Essential Facilities Appendix H: Landslide Analysis Appendix I: Hazus-MH Earthquake Global Summary Reports EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hamilton County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) was developed to guide the county in a riskbased approach to become more resilient to the impacts of natural and technological hazards through mitigation planning The plan documents historical disasters, assesses probabilistic disasters through Hazus-MH and GIS analyses, and addresses specific strategies to mitigate the potential impacts of these disasters This five-year update was a collaborative effort among the Hamilton County planning team, The Polis Center of Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis, and the University of Cincinnati The Hamilton County MHMP:  Identifies areas of risk and assesses the potential cost and magnitude  Establishes strategies and priorities to mitigate risk from natural and technological hazards  Identifies specific mitigation projects to pursue for each identified hazard  Guides the communities in their risk management activities and minimizes conflicts among agencies  Establishes eligibility for future mitigation program funds The 2013 MHMP includes the following key updates:  Historical hazards: Each hazard section within this plan documents NCDC-reported hazards within the past five years Where data are available, historical hazards are graphed by decade, showing disaster trends over the past 50 years  County profile: Demographics, social, and economic data, as well as existing and future land use descriptions, are updated to reflect the current status of the county and its jurisdictions  Planning description: The new planning team and updated planning process are described and documented  Risk assessment: The updated risk assessment includes Hazus-MH and GIS analyses that utilize site-specific data from the county It also includes new analyses of a hazardous materials release and dam and levee failure  Mitigation: The mitigation section addresses status of previous plan’s strategies in addition to new mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies Due to FEMA requirements, strategy completion dates are contingent on funding Additional updates include new sections for community snapshots and funding sources Section INTRODUCTION Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from hazards The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made reducing hazards one of its primary goals Hazard mitigation planning and the subsequent implementation of the projects, measures, and policies developed as part of this plan, is a primary mechanism in achieving FEMA’s goal The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires jurisdictions to develop and maintain a MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) to remain eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs Renewal of the plan every five years is required to encourage the continual awareness of mitigation strategies In order for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities to be eligible for future mitigation funds, they must adopt the MHMP Since the year 2000, FEMA has declared 23 emergencies and disasters for the state of Ohio Emergency declarations allow states access to FEMA funds for Public Assistance (PA), and disaster declarations allow for additional PA funding, including Individual Assistance (IA) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Hamilton County has received federal aid for PA funding for seven declared disasters since 2000 Figure 1-1 depicts the disasters and emergencies declared in Ohio by county Table 1-1 describes the disasters that have impacted Hamilton County Figure 1-1: FEMA-Declared Emergencies and Disasters in Ohio (2000-2012) Table 1-1: Hamilton County Declared Disasters (2000-2012) Disaster Number Declaration Date Incident Period 1390 08/27/01 07/17/01–07/18/01 Severe storms HM 1556 09/19/04 08/27/04–09/27/04 Severe storms IH, IA, HM 1805 10/24/08 09/14/08–09/14/08 Severe storms HM 3198 01/11/05 12/22/04–12/24/04 Snow 3250 09/13/05 08/29/05–10/01/05 Hurricane 3346 06/30/12 06/29/12–07/02/12 Severe storms 4002 07/13/11 04/04/11–05/15/11 Severe storms Incident Type *IH – Individuals and Households program IA – Individual Assistance program HM – Hazard Mitigation program Federal Funding Program(s)* FEMA Public Assistance Funds $2,768,149.98 $9,014,293.92 $1,297,057.71 $293,626.77 HM $2,735,065.97 Section PREREQUISITES The Hamilton County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which amended the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require state, local, and tribal entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts 2.1 Plan Adoption This plan represents a comprehensive description of Hamilton County’s commitment to significantly reduce or eliminate the potential impacts of disasters through planning and mitigation Adoption by the local governing bodies within the county legitimizes the plan and authorizes responsible agencies to implement mitigation responsibilities and activities To be eligible for federal mitigation funding, each participating jurisdiction must adopt the plan After thorough review, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners adopted the plan on Additional adoptions are included in Appendix E Following Federal review and approval, the participating jurisdictions in this plan intend to formally adopt the plan by Resolution or Ordinance 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation All 49 jurisdictions were invited to participate in the planning process The jurisdictions listed in Table 21 were represented by one or more municipal officials Representatives not only attended the meetings, but also participated by gathering appropriate data and historical information, completing strategy surveys, phone interviews, reviewing drafts, and participating in mitigation brainstorming sessions Names, titles, and jurisdictions of these representatives are available in Table 3-1 Table 2-1: Participating Jurisdictions Name Addyston Amberley Arlington Heights Cleves Elmwood Place Evendale Fairfax Glendale Golf Manor Greenhills Lincoln Heights Lockland Mariemont Newtown North Bend Terrace Park Woodlawn Anderson Colerain Columbia Crosby Delhi Green Harrison Miami Springfield Sycamore Symmes Whitewater Blue Ash Cheviot Cincinnati Deer Park Forest Park Harrison Indian Hill Loveland Madeira Milford Montgomery Mt Healthy North College Hill Norwood Reading Sharonville Silverton Springdale St Bernard Wyoming Type Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City Participated in 2007 Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Participated in 2013 Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The county also invited local watershed organizations to review the plan Table 2-2 lists each watershed and a description of its participation The invitation e-mail is included in Appendix A Table 2-2: Organizations Invited to Participate Organization Friends of the Great Miami River Greenacres Water Quality Project Little Miami, Inc Little Miami River Partnership Miami Conservancy District Mill Creek Restoration Project Mill Creek Watershed Council of Communities Representative Sent to website contact Anne Lyon, Water Quality Project Director Sent to website contact Sent to website contact Kurt Rinehart, Chief Engineer Sent to website contact Description of Participation Reviewed plan; no revisions Jennifer Eismeier, Executive Director Reviewed plan; no revisions Reviewed plan; no revisions Reviewed plan; no revisions Reviewed plan; no revisions Reviewed plan; no revisions Reviewed plan; no revisions The following representatives of major employers participated in the planning process Proctor & Gamble was also invited to participate but declined Table 2-3: Contributing Major Employers Employer Representative University of Cincinnati Changjoo Kim Duke Energy Marvin Blade 10 Description of Participation Developed landslide analysis as contractor, assisted Polis in peer review of plan, attended planning team meetings Reviewed plan; no revisions to current but suggested ideas for additional pipeline analyses for future planning efforts in 2005 dollars A normal retaining wall for this slide could not be used because the failure surface was too deep The concrete piers adjacent to the I-471 cloverleaf are tied back into the bedrock with a series of cables that terminate in a bedrock tunnel that parallels the pier wall Hazard Extent for Landslide Hazard The historical landslides generally happened along River moved from southwest to northeast across the county The extent of the hazard varies both in terms of the extent of the vegetation, the soil type, and the slope Risk Identification for Landslide Hazard According to FEMA’s MHIRA document, Hamilton County has 15 average annual slides (ODOT) Its potential loss is ranked high Based on historical information, the probability of a landslide is medium in terms of the resulting damage (many affecting only yard areas and not encroaching on any structures) Landslides with varying magnitudes are expected to happen In Meeting #x, the planning team determined that the potential impact of a landslide is significant; therefore, the overall risk of a landslide hazard for Hamilton County is Elevated HAZUS-MH Landslide Analysis The analysis consisted of three parts: (1) preparation of a landslide susceptibility map of Hamilton County, (2) identification of highways and roads with high landslide susceptibility within Hamilton County, and (3) assessment of building and critical infrastructure with high landslide susceptibility within Hamilton County Landslide Susceptibility Analysis for Landslide Hazard The landslide susceptibility is indicated by a susceptibility priority number (SPN) in this analysis The priority values of each factor are assigned based on the susceptibility priority model by Nandi and Shakoor (2009) where correlation of the landslide frequency with the slope angle showed that the landslide frequency increases with increasing slope angle, reaching a maximum at the 31 – 40 degree category and then decreasing beyond that range As for soil type, silty and clayey soils were most susceptible to landslide occurrence Similarly, the highly to very highly rated erodible soils and the proximity to the streams showed good correlation with the occurrence of landslides A numerical ranking is implemented as in Table and the factor maps are reclassified (Figure 3.1 to 3.6) As a result, map layers containing a continuous measurement such as slope angle or non-scaled data such as soil type are converted into certain class thematic maps with defined priority values The landslide susceptibility is indicated by a susceptibility priority number (SPN) as follows: SPN= , where (i =1 to n) are the priority values of each class (1 to 5), (i=1 to n) is the maximum priority value of the respective classes (5), and n (n=6) is the number of factors used in the analysis The SPN value ranges from to A value close to implies a more stable region and a value close to implies a more unstable zone The SPN value is reclassified into five groups: sites with SPN 0.35 are categorized as very low susceptibility sites, those with SPN between 0.35 and 0.50 as low susceptibility sites, those with SPN between 0.50 and 0.65 as moderate susceptibility sites, those with SPN between 0.65 and 0.80 as high susceptibility sites, and those with scores 0.80 as high susceptibility sites In order to find the buildings and roads with high landslide susceptibility, High and Very High landslide susceptibility are selected Table Numerical ranking of the factors Factors Slope Angle (degre e) Erodibl e Soil Proximi ty to stream (meter) Categori es Ranki ng Categorie s Ran king 0-15 Silt 15-30 Clay 30-45 Sand 45-60 Complex >60 Gravel Pit Not eroded 41.1-42.9 Eroded 0-500m 5011000m 10011500m 15012000m >2000m Factors Soil Type Precipita tion (inch) 43.0-44.7 44.8-45.6 Urban 3 Agricultur e Forest Water body Land use Figure 3.1 Slope angle Figure 3.2 Soil type Figure 3.3 Erodible soil Figure 3.4 Annual precipitation Figure 3.5 Proximity to stream Figure 3.6 Land use The landslide susceptibility to roads (Figure 4) shows the areas of high landslide susceptibility and roads passing through high landslide susceptibility areas Engineers, contractors and local residents will benefits from the maps in designing the future of the areas and where best sites to execute their development plans Planners will also benefit in identifying roads that have high landslide susceptibility so as to restrict any development in the high susceptible areas Figure Landslide Susceptibility to Roads (Hamilton County, OH) Landslide Susceptibility Analysis for Landslide Hazard Critical Facilities There are 11 critical facilities located within high landslide susceptibility The analysis predicts that three waste water facilities, two emergency planning facilities, two dams, one port, one police station, one care center, and one communication The affected facilities are identified in Table 2, and their geographic locations are shown in Figure Table Hamilton County Landslide Critical Facility Damage Facility Number of Buildings Potentially Damaged Exposed Facilities Canterbury Row Condo Asso WWTP Waste Water Northcrest Apartments WWTP Sky Ridge Condominiums WWTP The Little Clinic of Ohio, LLC - Kroger Emergency Planning Rainbow Day Care Center Eagles Cliff Lake Dam Dam Un-Named Dam No 10 Port Consolidated Terminal Logistics Contract Police Station Hamilton County Park Rangers Care The Little Clinic of Ohio, LLC - Kroger Communication Cincinnati Bell (6416 Harrison Ave) Figure Critical Facilities within High Landslide Susceptibility Building Inventory Table Hamilton County Landslide Building Damage Municipal Number of Buildings Potentially Damaged Total Potential Building Damage GREEN TOWNSHIP 980 $173,968,940 MIAMI TOWNSHIP 349 $57,827,780 NORTH BEND 292 $39,885,610 DELHI TOWNSHIP 91 $14,015,340 ADDYSTON 85 $5,585,320 CINCINNATI 76 $2,374,100 CLEVES 39 $2,746,350 COLERAIN TOWNSHIP 33 $2,874,550 CROSBY TOWNSHIP $286,700 WHITEWATER TOWNSHIP $27,640 BLUE ASH N.A SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP N.A Figure Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Green Township Green Township Figure Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Green Township Miami Township Figure Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Miami Township North Bend Figure Potential Building Damage by Landslide in North Bend Delhi Township Figure 10 Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Delhi Township Addyston Figure 11 Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Addyston Cincinnati Figure 12 Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Cincinnati Cleves Figure 13 Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Cleves Colerain Township Figure 14 Potential Building Damage by Landslide in Colerain Township Transportation Infrastructure Road-fill failures and landslides constitute one of the major natural hazards for transportation networks in hilly and mountainous regions around the world (Wemple et al., 2001; Ayalew and Yamagishi, 2005; Sas et al., 2008) The road-fill failures and landslides can cause human causalities and serious road damage, which may lead to protracted road closures and costly repair expenditures The debris flows from landslides may also disturb natural habitats and ecosystems and accelerate surface erosion and sediment transport in watersheds (Wu and Sidle, 1995; Wemple et al., 2001) To reduce the economic and humanitarian losses and maintain the operation of transportation networks, it is critical to monitor, identify and predict the occurrences of landslide hazards and to assess their impacts on buildings and roads so that we can respond to the landslide disasters in advance and save lives and resources Table shows the primary roads in Hamilton County that pass through areas with high landslide susceptibility Roads include segments of I-74, I-275, Colerain Ave., State Route 128, US Route 27, Bridgetown Rd., Batavia Rd., E State Rd., Kemper Rd., W State Rd., etc Table Roads with high landslide susceptibility in Hamilton County Municipality Potentially Damaged Road Length (miles) GREEN TOWNSHIP 24.51 MIAMI TOWNSHIP 12.89 COLERAIN TOWNSHIP 5.43 NORTH BEND 4.72 DELHI TOWNSHIP 4.30 CINCINNATI 3.96 WHITEWATER TOWNSHIP 2.36 SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP 2.30 ADDYSTON 2.08 CROSBY TOWNSHIP 0.42 CLEVES 0.34 GREENHILLS 0.32 Figure 15 Roads with high landslide susceptibility in Hamilton County Green Township Figure 16 Potential Road Damage by Landslide in Green Township Miami Township Figure 17 Potential Road Damage by Landslide in Miami Township Colerain Township Figure 18 Potential Road Damage by Landslide in Colerain Township Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Landslide Hazard In the United States, it is estimated that the total dollar losses from landslides is between one and two billion dollars ($1.6 billion and $3.2 billion, year 2000 dollars) This figure is a conservative estimate, as there is no uniform method or overall agency that keeps track of or reports landslide losses The costs and negative effects associated with the landslide problem in Hamilton County, OH are substantial Landslides result in high monetary losses Analysis of Community Development Trends Until recently, mitigation plans for landslides hazards have been mostly based on regional scales The inadequacy of the previous plans limited county plans in preparing accurate and timely information for assessing the conditions and impacts of landslide occurrences at community or local scales This constrained the management activities and decision making of transportation planners and managers and often delayed corrective actions of transportation engineers and maintenance crews The landslide susceptibility analysis provides Hamilton County with low-cost and effective tools for the preparation and assessment of landslide hazards in space and time in order to mitigate and avoid the threat and damage to the infrastructure and community It will also provide a reliable assessment of landslide conditions and occurrences over a county-wide area It will improve public safety and traffic efficiency because timely corrective and remediation measures are formulated and performed Source: CJ Kim, University of Cincinnati ... Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires jurisdictions to develop and maintain a MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) to remain eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation. .. County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) was developed to guide the county in a riskbased approach to become more resilient to the impacts of natural and technological hazards through mitigation. .. eligibility for future mitigation program funds The 2013 MHMP includes the following key updates:  Historical hazards: Each hazard section within this plan documents NCDC-reported hazards within the

Ngày đăng: 01/06/2018, 14:49

Tài liệu cùng người dùng

  • Đang cập nhật ...

Tài liệu liên quan