Taylor County 2013-2017

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Taylor County, Georgia Cities of Butler and Reynolds 2013-2017

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Taylor County, Georgia Cities of Butler and Reynolds 2013-2017

September, 2013

Taylor County Board of Commissioners Randall Nelson, Chair Cicero Latimore Russell Pounds Clinton Perry, Jr. Jerry K. Weldon Lenda Taunton, County Manager

Butler Mayor and City Council Barry Whitley, Mayor Chas Gassett Edward Guinn Glen Harris

Amanzie Jenkins Deborah Williams Vicki Wainwright, City Clerk

Reynolds Mayor and City Council Fredrick Waller, Mayor Tameka Harris Danny Perkins Zsa Zsa Hicks Jean Slaton Gene Hodges Jim Whitley Tonya Kirksey, City Clerk

Assisted by: River Valley Regional Commission 228 West Lamar Street 1428 Second Avenue Americus, Georgia 31709 Columbus, Georgia 31902

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section V Section VI Section VII

Problem Statement and Purpose Methodology, Participants, Process Organization Hazard Risk Vulnerability (HRV) Summary Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations Adoption, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Community Data

1 2 5 5 6 7 7

Chapter 2 - Natural Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability (HRV) Summary I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Tornado Windstorm (Thunderstorm Winds) Severe Winter Storm (Snow and Ice) Tropical Storm Flood Extreme Heat Drought Wildfire Hailstorm Dam Failure

1 7 13 18 23 28 32 37 44 48

Chapter 3 - Technological Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability (HRV) Summary I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Transportation Accident Hazardous Materials Release (fixed site) Animal Diseases Radiological Event Civil Disturbance Terrorism Contamination of Water Resources Epidemic

1 6 11 15 19 23 27 31

Chapter 4 – Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives Overall Community Mitigation Goals, Policies and Values

1

Specific Mitigation Goals, Policies and Values I II III IV V VI VII

Tornado Windstorm (Thunderstorm Winds) Severe Winter Storm Tropical Storm Flood Extreme Heat Drought

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

16 22 25 28 31 35 38

VIII IX X

Wildfire Hailstorm Dam Failure

42 45 48

Chapter 5 - Technological Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Transportation Accident Hazardous Materials Release (fixed site) Animal Diseases Radiological Civil Disturbance Terrorism Contamination of Water Resources Epidemic

2 6 10 13 16 18 21 24

Chapter 6 – Execution I

Implementation A Administrative Actions B Authority and Responsibility C Prioritization D Incorporation into other Plans/Planning Measures

1 1 1 3

Evaluation A Method B Responsibility C Timeframe D Reporting

4 4 4 5

III

Multi-Jurisdictional Strategy and Considerations

5

IV

Plan Update and Maintenance A Public Involvement B Timeframe C Reporting

5 6 6

II

Chapter 7 – Conclusion Summary References Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

Worksheets Demographics Plan Executive Summaries Hazard Frequency Table Meeting Agenda, Notes and Attendance

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1-72 1-16 1-11 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Section I

Problem Statement and Purpose

1

Section II

Methodology, Participants, Process

2

Section III

Organization

5

Section IV

Hazard Risk Vulnerability (HRV) Summary

5

Section V

Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations

6

Section VI

Adoption, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation

7

Section VII

Community Data

7

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

Taylor County-Butler-Reynolds

Section 1

Problem Statement and Purpose

According to a top provider of property and casualty reinsurance in the U.S., the number of natural disasters tripled between 1990 and 2010; 2010 being a record breaker with almost 250 events. Average thunderstorm losses increased fivefold between 1980 and 2010. During the first half of 2011 thunderstorm losses totaled $20 billion, up from the previous three-year average of $10 billion. April, 2011, ranks as the most active tornado month on record with 875 tornadoes, breaking the previous record of 542 set in 2003. Prime wildfire conditions prevailed across much of the nation in 2011, with nearly six million acres burned As the nation’s by mid-year; double the ten-year mid-year average. 1 communities continue to expand, carrying with them physical development farther across the landscape, the number of lives and value of property in the path of natural hazards increases significantly. Consequently, the loss of life and property has seemingly increased annually, and survivors of these calamities turn to government for redress, increasing the financial burden placed on the nation’s taxpayers. In an effort to reduce such losses, communities are being prompted to identify how, where and why they are susceptible to disasters, and take measures to mitigate or eliminate exposure to them and the loss of life and property that so frequently occurs. Preparation of this document is the response of Taylor County, Georgia, and the Cities of Butler and Reynolds to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, an amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This law authorizes release of federal financial assistance to communities that have experienced a disaster of such severity as to warrant a presidential disaster declaration. Simply stated, the referenced amendment establishes an additional eligibility requirement; after November 1, 2004, to be eligible for federal financial disaster assistance a community 2 must not only have been declared a disaster area by the president of the United States, but must have prepared and adopted a federally approved pre-disaster mitigation plan. The reader should not infer that mitigation is novel to this community. In recent years several local mitigation activities has been successfully implemented (p.7). Continuation of some previously initiated mitigation projects are incorporated herein as a testament to their current relevance. The current effort expands upon those of previous years by placing an increased emphasis on reducing the losses which commonly occur as a result of disaster so the cost of response and recovery will also be less. This plan is not intended as a comprehensive identification and assessment of all potential hazards; only those considered to pose the greatest threat to the 1

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website; NOAA’s National Weather Service taking action to build a ‘Weatherready nation, 8-17-2011. ‘Federal Disaster Assistance Budgeting: Are We Weather-ready?’, 7-28-2011. 2 As used throughout this document, “community” is plural; a collective reference to the three political jurisdictions.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1- 1

community. It is recognized the community could be assailed by a disaster not specifically addressed herein. Furthermore, the community lacks the financial resources necessary to implement virtually all of the structural improvements identified. Neither does it specifically address the local impacts which may result from a disaster occurring elsewhere, such as the burden placed on Taylor County accommodating evacuees of distant communities. Section II

Methodology, Participants, Process

The Taylor County Board of Commissioners directed the County Emergency Management Director to oversee this planning effort. Residents of the community, most of whom had no previous experience in emergency response, preparedness or planning, served in task-oriented areas of greater personal interest or expertise. Subcommittee functions were as follows. Critical Facilities Subcommittee – identified and compiled an exhaustive inventory of critical facilities and their characteristics; address, building size, contact information, etc. Identifying/Profiling Hazards Subcommittee – identified and described the natural disasters most likely to occur in the three participating jurisdictions. Assessing Vulnerability/Estimating Potential Losses Subcommittee – reviewed hazard event profiles and critical facilities information to assess community vulnerability to specific hazards and the potential loss from each. Mitigation Goals & Objectives Subcommittee – identified and developed mitigation goals, objectives, tasks and related action steps. Working subcommittees convened on an as-needed basis rather than on a regular schedule. Subcommittees met in the same sequence as listed above, except that much of the work performed by the Critical Facilities and Identifying/Profiling Hazards Subcommittees occurred simultaneously. Work products of these two groups were, in turn, used by the subsequent subcommittees. Committee members represented the following entities. Taylor County Board of Commissioners Butler Mayor/members of City Council Reynolds Mayor/members of Council Taylor County Manager Butler City Clerk Reynolds City Clerk Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

Taylor County Planning & Zoning Director Family and Children’s Services Director Health Department Director & Prog. Assts Public Health Nurses Nursing Home Administrator Community Services Director 1- 2

EMA/EMS Director Butler & Reynolds Public Works Director Sheriff and Chief Deputy Butler Police Chief City and County Fire Chiefs Development Authority Director

Georgia Ctr. for Youth, Prog. & Bus. Mgrs. Regional E-911, Exe. Dir. Georgia Power Area Manger Georgia Emergency Mgt. Agency Rep Regional Health Dist. Emergency Planner Regional Commission Staff

Non-profit participation was solicited, but limited staff resources in this small, rural community prevented direct involvement. None of the faculty at the local post-secondary institution reside in-county, and class schedules precluded participation by academia. The River Valley Regional Commission assisted the committees with data collection, research and analysis, facilitated all committee meetings and the advertised public meetings for plan review, and compiled the final written document. Via local newspaper notice the public was invited to attend the kick-off meeting and to participate in the update process. The stakeholder list from the original plan was used as the base list and supplemented for the current effort. Stakeholders received e-mail notices of the first meeting and subsequent work sessions. Virtually all organizations asked to participate had representation involved at some point in the update. Near project completion copies of the draft were sent to the Emergency Management Directors of each of the seven adjoining counties and the district office of the Georgia Department of Transportation for comment prior to local adoption. The general public was invited via local newspaper notice to a second public meeting to hear a brief presentation of, and given an opportunity to comment on, the draft prior to adoption by all three jurisdictions. Because of their responsibility for providing for the general public welfare and emergency response services, there was strong local government involvement in plan development. These existing planning documents were reviewed: Taylor County Joint Comprehensive Plan 2009 Taylor County Emergency Operations Plan 2012 River Valley Regional Commission Regional Plan 2013 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2012 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy 2011 As is customary, the joint comprehensive and regional plans addressed community facilities; most, if not all, of which are identified in this document as critical facilities. In addition, there are numerous similar “action steps” in the Comprehensive Plan and this document; some examples include, (1) better coordination of communications between emergency response agencies, (2) timely replacement critical emergency response equipment and vehicles, (3) enhanced housing and environmental code enforcement, (4) post enhanced Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1- 3

mitigation information on an enhanced web site, (5) duplicate and securely store critical records, and (6) the need for subdivision ordinances. Readers of this document and the local Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) will see numerous mitigation activities repeated; among them, (1) public education, (2) promotion of public participation/involvement, (3) coordination of amateur radio operators with emergency communications, (4) networking with support and regulatory entities, (5) creating and maintaining current inventories of critical personnel and material, (6) coordinated training between the public and private sectors, and (7) the need for continuity of operations. The work program in the Regional Plan also has numerous statements of support for local pre-disaster mitigation planning. Examples include; (1) encourage local government participation in NFIP and assist with preparation of the required flood damage prevention ordinance, (2) encourage green belt development along major rivers to limit flood damage potential, (3) encourage development of drought contingency plans, (4) encourage adoption of subdivision ordinances, (5) encourage implementation of the state minimum construction code, (6) promote implementation of BMPs related to stormwater management, and (7) assist local governments with disaster preparedness activities. Review of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan revealed duplication of numerous mitigation recommendations; among them, adequate buffers or defensible space around facilities, appropriate code enforcement, training for emergency responders, acquisition of emergency response equipment, increased public awareness and education and increased use of fire breaks. No mitigation conflicts between the two plans were identified. Review of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy validated numerous local goals and actions; among them, increasing public awareness of potential disasters and effective mitigation actions, emphasizing non-structural mitigation, institutionalizing mitigation through code enforcement, promoting safe-rooms, identifying (mapping) potential dam-failure risks, increased effective warning capabilities, and post-disaster and annual plan reviews. No conflicts with the state document were identified. No Flood Insurance Study or Flood Mitigation Assistance Plan is known to have been prepared or requested, to be underway or anticipated. The Joint Comprehensive Plan has some text entitled “Executive Summary”. The nearest similar texts in the local EOP and Regional Plan are an “Introduction” and a “Regional “Vision”. All three are presented in Appendix C. Numerous other sources were used in plan preparation, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Georgia Emergency Management Agency, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Extension Service, Georgia

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1- 4

Forestry Commission, Georgia Department of Transportation, Georgia Tornado Database, Flint Electric Membership Corporation, The Tornado Project, National Climatic Data Center, National Weather Service, Taylor County News, law enforcement and local interviews. The overwhelming majority of information obtained from these sources was used to compile the hazard events’ histories and, to a lesser degree, profiling individual hazards. Two publicly advertised “hearings” were held during plan development. Documentation of each is presented in Appendix E. The first “hearing” was held to solicit public participation in the update process; the second was held to present the draft update to the general public and invite public comment prior to formal adoption. Attendance at the “hearings” consisted primarily of committee members active in plan preparation. An additional ten-day comment opportunity immediately preceding local adoption did not elicit any public response. Section III

Organization

A detailed analysis of natural hazards is presented in Chapter 2. The analysis consists of a description of the hazard and the damage potential, historical frequency and probability of future occurrence, an inventory of assets exposed to the hazard and an estimate of potential loss, land use patterns as they relate to each hazard, and any aspects of hazards which may be unique to any of the jurisdictions. A detailed analysis of technological hazards is presented in Chapter 3. The analysis consists of a description of the hazard and the damage potential, historical frequency and probability of future occurrence, an inventory of assets exposed to the hazard and an estimate of potential loss, land use patterns as they relate to each hazard, and any aspects of hazards which may be unique to any of the jurisdictions. Presented in Chapter 4 is an itemized list of goals, objectives, tasks and action steps which are proposed for implementation to mitigate likely adverse impacts of specific natural hazard events. Presented in Chapter 5 is an itemized list of goals, objectives, tasks and action steps which are proposed for implementation to mitigate likely adverse impacts of specific technological, or man-made, hazard events. Chapter 6 describes how the plan will be implemented, monitored and maintained. Chapter 7 consists of a concluding statement, followed by appendices. Section IV

Hazard Risk Vulnerability (HRV) Summary

This plan identifies and assesses community exposure to certain natural and technological hazards (see below), and identifies how to reduce exposure to them. The assessment provides the factual basis for activities proposed to reduce losses, including a description of the type, location, and extent of natural and technological hazards deemed most likely to befall Taylor County. Reference was made to the historical record to compile information on previous events and for use in estimating the probability of hazard recurrence.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1- 5

Natural Hazards Tornado Thunderstorm Winds Severe Winter Storm Tropical Storm Extreme Heat Drought Flood Wildfire Hailstorm Dam Failure

Technological Hazards Transportation Accident Hazardous Materials Release Animal Diseases Radiological Civil Disturbance Terrorism Water Contamination Epidemic

Vulnerability includes a summary of past events and their impacts. This is quantified by describing the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in identified hazard prone/susceptible areas. Estimates of the potential dollar losses that could reasonably be expected to result from a specified hazard event are also presented. Land uses and development trends were reviewed for the purpose of identifying mitigation options that can be considered in future land use decisions to reduce each jurisdiction’s specific risk. Based on these assessments, a blueprint for reducing potential losses was developed, incorporating expansion and improvement on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources. The blueprint includes goals and objectives to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to hazards. Overall community goals include; (1) Protect the public health and safety, (2) Reduce, and to the extent possible eliminate, community exposure to hazards, (3) Reduce loss and damage to private property and public infrastructure resulting from hazards, (4) Maintain continuity of public and private sector operations during and after hazard events, and (5) Respond promptly, appropriately and efficiently in the event of hazard. The end product is a prioritized action plan with specific steps to achieve stated goals. This, in turn, is supplemented with a maintenance process to monitor, evaluate, and update the mitigation plan over a five-year timeframe. Section V

Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations

This document has been developed for unincorporated Taylor County, and the Cities of Butler and Reynolds. The plan includes an identification and analysis of a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions needed to reduce the adverse effects of specific hazards in each jurisdiction. With few exceptions, all three jurisdictions are susceptible to the same natural and technological hazards. Where applicable; however, specific mitigation actions have been identified for each jurisdiction.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

1- 6

Section VI

Adoption, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation

The Taylor County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan was formally adopted (see accompanying resolution) by the Taylor County Board of Commissioners, Butler City Council and Reynolds City Council after receiving notification from the Georgia Emergency Management Agency that the plan complied with applicable federal regulations. Presented in Chapter 6 is a description of plan implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and update activities, public participation, and the process of incorporating mitigation into other planning and administrative functions of the three local governments. This section details the process that will ensure the Taylor County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan becomes an integral part of local governance and life in the community. Section VII

Community Data

Jurisdiction

Population1

Per Capita Income2

8,906 1,972 1,086

$25,442 n/a n/a

Taylor County Butler Reynolds 1 2

2010 Census 2009, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Educational Attainment1 – 2000 Census Jurisdiction Taylor 1

graduate or professional degree 3%

some Associate Bachelor’s 100 º, # days n/a >100 º, # days n/a

Cost 0 0 0 0

Damage 0 0 0 0

* Reflects change in data source reporting format Source: National Climatic Data Center

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan

2 - 28

C.

Community Exposure A larger proportion of the local population is more susceptible to heat stress than is true across the state. While the proportional size of the local infant and young children (