Georgia hazard mitigation strategy, standard and enhanced, 2008 [Mar. 31, 2008]

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Page 2

Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy Standard and Enhanced March 31, 2008

Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of Georgia commits to reducing the devastating impacts of natural hazard events on the citizens of the state. Because Georgia has the potential to experience a wide range of natural disasters, the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) envelops the concept of all-hazards planning. Not only does all-hazards planning apply to natural disasters such as meteorological, hydrological, and geophysical events but also to anthropogenic hazards such as social disruption, technological, and biological events.
In response to this potential for disaster and in response to federal requirements, an aggregation of applicable state and federal agencies, county and local public officials, emergency management personnel, and GEMA concertedly pursues solutions to reducing or eliminating Georgia's future losses to hazard events. The result of these efforts of ensuring a safer Georgia lies within this document.
This document, Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy or Standard Plan, is a result of the State of Georgia's continued efforts to maintain eligibility for federal disaster mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Georgia's initial effort to gain eligibility under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which met approval in April of 2005, chronicled the original state planning efforts as well as presented a statewide hazard risk assessment and mitigation strategy. However, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s new guidance for the strategy's update required extensive alterations to the Standard Plan in order to maintain eligibility under the legislation. The state's sophomore mitigation planning effort is updated to include a more detailed account of the state planning process; a more detailed and methodical assessment of Georgia's hazard history, hazard risk, and social vulnerability; and an updated version of specific mitigation goals and objectives as well as a progress report of previously proposed actions. The updated Standard Plan now entails more information derived from local participation in mitigation efforts including a local capability assessment and the local mitigation plan development process. Finally, the plan includes information regarding the maintenance of the strategy throughout the eligible years and regarding the next three year update process.
As demonstrated through this plan, the State of Georgia's commitment to hazard mitigation spans decades. By reviewing its previous efforts of hazard mitigation through the plan development process, the state recognizes that effective mitigation begins with local participation and eventually leads to the modification of the hazard event and/or to the reduction of human vulnerability, which ultimately lead to the reduction of losses. By developing this document as a structure for implementing hazard mitigation efforts, the State of Georgia is given the opportunity to adjust and adapt the strategy to remain relevant. In essence, Georgia's Standard Plan remains a living document that evolves throughout each three year cycle to protect Georgia from all hazard events.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1--Introduction to Planning Process

1.1 PLAN ORGANIZATION AND OVERVIEW

3

1.2 ASSURANCES

4

1.3 STATE OF GEORGIA

4

1.4 PLAN GOALS

5

1.5 THE PLANNING AND UPDATE PROCESS

5

1.6 AGENCY PLANNING COORDINATION

7

1.7 AGENCY PLANNING COORDINATION: UPDATE

9

1.8 POST-DISASTER REVIEW: UPDATE

15

1.9 PROGRAM INTEGRATION

15

1.9.1 All Hazards Council

16

1.9.2 Georgia StormReady

16

1.9.3 Coordinated Planning Program

17

1.9.4 Safe Dams

17

1.9.5 Coastal Management

18

1.9.6 Coastal Marshland Protection

18

1.9.7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control

18

1.9.8 River Corridor Protection

19

1.9.9 Shore Protection

19

1.9.10 Emergency Watershed Protection

19

1.9.11 Federal Hazard Management Programs

20

1.9.12 EMAP Accreditation

22

1.9.13 Program Integration into Mitigation Strategy

22

CHAPTER 2--Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

2.1 OVERVIEW

25

2.2 CONTEXT

26

2.2.1 Definition of Terms

27

2.3 METHODOLOGY

28

2.3.1 Introduction to GIS Theory and Practice

28

2.4 ALL-HAZARD ASSESSMENT

30

2.4.1 Hazard Characteristics

30

2.4.2 Hazard Identification

30

2.4.3 All-Hazard Events and Associated Losses

32

2.5 HAZARD-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS

35

2.5.1 Tropical Cyclonic Systems

35

2.5.2 Storm Surge

40

2.5.3 Wind

41

2.5.4 Severe Weather

42

2.5.5 Tornadoes

44

2.5.6 Inland Flooding

48

2.5.7 Severe Winter Weather

51

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2.5.8 Drought

53

2.5.9 Wildfire

55

2.5.10 Seismic Hazards

57

2.5.11 Sinkholes

61

2.5.12 Dam Failure

62

2.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

64

2.6.1 Methods

65

2.6.2 Georgia's Social Vulnerability

67

2.7 COMPOSITE ASSESSMENT

68

2.8 LOSS POTENTIAL

70

2.8.1 State-Owned or Leased Facilities

71

2.8.2 Critical Facilities

72

2.8.3 Jurisdictions

76

2.9 CONCLUSION

77

CHAPTER 3--State Mitigation Strategy

3.1 OVERVIEW

79

3.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, TASKS, AND ACTION STEPS

80

3.2.1 Goals

80

3.2.2 Objectives, Tasks, and Action Steps

81

3.3 STATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

87

3.3.1 State Mitigation Policies, Programs, and Funding

88

3.3.2 State Capability Summary

99

3.4 LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

108

3.4.1 Local Mitigation Policies: Building Codes and Zoning 108

3.4.2 Local Mitigation Planning

110

3.5 MITIGATION ACTIVITY

112

3.5.1 Status of State Mitigation Activities

112

3.5.2 Review of Mitigation Activity and Funding

120

3.6 CONCLUSION

122

CHAPTER 4--Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning

4.1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT

124

4.1.1 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2002 125

4.1.2 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2003 126

4.1.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2005 127

4.1.4 Disaster Resistant University

128

4.2 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN UPDATES

128

4.3 PRIORITIZATION OF ASSISTANCE

128

4.3.1 Prioritization of Local Plan Funding

128

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

4.3.2 Prioritization of Project Funding

129

4.3.2 Repetitive Loss Properties

129

CHAPTER 5--Plan Maintenance

5.1 MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING METHODS

139

5.2 MITIGATION ACTIVITY MONITORING

140

CHAPTER 6--Enhanced Plan

6.1 INTERGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES

143

6.1.1 Integration with Other State Planning Initiatives

143

6.1.2 Integration with Regional Planning Initiatives

153

6.1.3 Integration with Federal Programs and Planning

Initiatives

154

6.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CAPABILITY

158

6.2.1 Eligibility Criteria

159

6.2.2 Cost Effectiveness Determination

160

6.2.3 System to Rank Projects

162

6.3 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

164

6.3.1 Application Timelines and Grant Submission

164

6.3.2 Preparing and Submitting Accurate Environmental

Reviews

169

6.3.3 Preparing and Submitting Accurate Benefit Cost

Analysis (BCA)

169

6.3.4 Quarterly Reports

171

6.3.5 Grant Completion and Closeout

171

6.4 ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

173

6.4.1 System to Assess Mitigation Actions

173

6.4.2 Strategy to Assess Mitigation Actions

174

6.5 EFFECTIVE USE OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION FUNDING

175

6.6 COMMITMENT TO A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PROGRAM 181

6.6.1 Local Mitigation Planning Support

181

6.6.2 State Legislation Supporting Mitigation

182

6.6.3 Georgia Inter-Agency Mitigation Team

182

6.6.4 Public/Private Partnerships

182

6.6.5 Mitigation Program Funding

184

6.6.6 Construction Standards

186

6.6.7 State Facilities, Infrastructure and Critical Facilities

190

6.6.8 Post Disaster Recovery Operations

191

APPENDIX

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDIX A: Hazard History

194

APPENDIX B: Hazard Risk

222

APPENDIX C: Vulnerability

234

APPEDNIX D: Composite Assessments

238

APPENDIX E: Local Mitigation

250

APPENDIX F: Adoption

262

SUB-APPENDIX A: Enhanced Plan Figures

268

SUB-APPENDIX B: Agency Annexes

384

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I

N

T

R

Page Intentionally Left Blank

O

D

U

C

T

I

O

N

T O

P L A N N I N G

P R O C E S S

Page 1

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I

N

T

Chapter 1

R

O

Introduction to Planning Process

D

U

C

T

I

O

N

T O

P L A N N I N G

P R O C E S S

Page 2

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Planning Process

N
1.1 PLAN ORGANIZATION AND OVERVIEW
T

R

This document, referred to as the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy (GHMS), is an official up-

O

date of the State of Georgia Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted to and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV in 2005. The Georgia Emergency Manage-

D

ment Agency (GEMA) is the state agency responsible for presenting this planning document on

U

behalf of the State of Georgia.

C

The contents of this document are intended to provide the framework for hazard mitigation strate-

T

gies and actions undertaken by local and state governments within the State of Georgia. The pur-

I

pose of completing these proposed hazard mitigation actions is ultimately the reduction of the overall level of exposure and risk to the citizens of Georgia as well as to the state-owned facilities

O

and infrastructure.

N
The GHMS will meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Public Law 106-390,

October 30, 2000, as stipulated in the Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4 Standard State Plan crite-

T

ria, published on February 26, 2002. Meeting the regulations will allow Georgia to maintain eligi-

O

bility and qualify to secure all federally declared disaster assistance, including certain types of Public Assistance and hazard mitigation grants available through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288, as amended).

P

The GHMS is organized to incorporate the requirements listed in the Interim Final Rule 44 CFR

L

201.4 Standard State Plan criteria in several chapters. This chapter, "Chapter 1: Introduction to

A

the Planning Process", includes an overview of the document, assurances of compliance, an over-

N

view of the characteristics of the State of Georgia, the overall goals of the plan, and details of the planning process (as stipulated by Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4(c)(1)).

N

I

Chapter 2 outlines the hazard history in terms of events and losses, identifies current hazard ex-

N

posures, assesses the State's risks and vulnerabilities, and analyzes potential losses (as stipulated by Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)).

G

Chapter 3 outlines Georgia's hazard mitigation priorities and goals, related policies, programs, and

capabilities at the state and local level, mitigation actions and activities and specific contributions,

P

and sources of mitigation project funding from all levels (as stipulated by Interim Final Rule 44

R

CFR 201.4(c)(3)).

O

Chapter 4 describes the development of local mitigation plans through state assistance, details of

C

the local mitigation plan process including timelines of completion and updates, and state criteria

E

for prioritizing the funding of local projects (as stipulated by Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4(c) (4)).

S

S

Finally, Chapter 5 outlines the process of plan maintenance including the methods and schedule

of updates, monitoring of implementation of mitigation effort, and reviewing progress of achieving

the goals outlined in Chapter 3 (as stipulated by Interim Final Rule 44 CFR 201.4(c)(5)).

The summary of changes is included in the overview section of every chapter as a table that details each section and the changes that have occurred within the section since the last approval (2005). The following table, Table 1.1, follows this format.

Page 3

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Chapter 1 Section
1.1 Plan Organization and Overview

Updates to Section
Revised to reflect new plan content.
Includes table of changes.

1.2 Assurances

No changes.

1.3 State of Georgia

Text revised, content unchanged from previous plan.

1.4 Plan Goals

No changes

1.5 The Planning and Update Process

Section updated to include narrative on the update plan development processes.

1.6 Agency Planning Coordina- Text revised, content unchanged from previous plan. tion

1.7 Agency Planning Coordina- Section added to include narrative of the update planning

tion: Update

process since the previous plan's approval.

1.8 Post-Disaster Review

Section added to address disaster events since the 2005 approval.

1.9 Program Integration

Updated to include more information regarding the
integration of state planning in the federal mitigation programs. Programs and initiative updated.

Table 1.1: Overview of updates to Chapter 1: Introduction to the Planning Process
1.2 ASSURANCES
The State of Georgia will fully comply with applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods in which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c). The GHMS will be amended according to the process and procedures listed and described in the plan maintenance section in Chapter 5, wherever necessary to reflect appropriate changes in State and Federal statues as required in 44 CFR 13.11(c) and 44 CFR 13.11(d) and as described by the State of Georgia.
1.3 STATE OF GEORGIA
According to the United States Census Bureau, the State of Georgia has over 8 million people who live in an area that is arguably exposed to the widest range of natural hazards in the country. With a low-lying coastal area, a middle piedmont area, and a mountainous northern area, Georgia's exposures range from hurricanes to drought and wildfire to severe winter weather. These

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 4

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 5

exposures coupled with the expanding sprawl of metropolitan Atlanta, increasing coastal and mountainous area development, and increasing impoverishment in agricultural communities throughout the State lead to an increased "hazardousness of place".
The geographical location of Georgia within the North American continent results in a wide range of natural hazard exposures. While many other locations throughout the country have fairly defined seasonality and, therefore, weather conditions, Georgia's citizens face a wider range of possible hazard events throughout the year, exemplified by meteorological hazards. Exposure to the coastal weather patterns from the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and the continental weather patterns driven by the jet stream allows severe weather to originate from any direction and to occur during any season.
Georgia has experienced tremendous growth recently. According to the Census Bureau, the State's population has swollen from 6.5 million in 1990 to 8.2 million in 2000, representing a 25.4% increase. This increase places Georgia 10th in total population in the United States and 6th in percentage increase from 1990 to 2000. In terms of county population percentage increase from 1990 to 2000, Georgia had 3 of the top 10 counties in the United States, which included Forsyth, Henry, and Paulding Counties. At 57,906 square miles, Georgia has the largest land area east of the Mississippi River. Also, the state has almost twice the average population density and the annual growth rate (since 2000) of the national average in 2000.
Because of the wide exposure to natural hazards and the increasing growth of population, identifying the hazards, risk and vulnerability both locally and statewide becomes critically important in the process of mitigating to protect human life and property.
1.4 PLAN GOALS
In developing this mitigation strategy, the State identifies three general mitigation goals. Within the context of these general goals are four primary objectives, all of which form the foundation of the mitigation strategy. The objectives will be accomplished through the implementation of comprehensive hazard mitigation measures undertaken by local and state governments in the State of Georgia.
The three general goals of the plan are to:
1. Reduce human vulnerability to hazard events; 2. Reduce the losses associated with hazard events; 3. Reduce the people and property of Georgia's overall exposure to hazard events.
The four primary objectives necessary to implement these goals are to:
1. Increase coordination between local, state, and federal agencies in pre-disaster planning and post-disaster recovery;
2. Increase awareness of hazard mitigation among state agencies, local governments, private sector, and general public;
3. Implement a broad range of programs and projects that promote the state's comprehensive mitigation strategy;
4. Improve the state's comprehensive strategy with periodic analysis to determine the effectiveness of program management and local and state mitigation projects, planning and initiatives.
1.5 THE PLANNING AND UPDATE PROCESS
The planning process that led to the creation of the GHMS began before the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. The foundation of the process began prior to 1994 with Georgia's 409 Plan, which established a working task force of state agency representatives named the Georgia All-Hazard Planning Committee. Shortly thereafter, the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Advisory group

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

formed in 1995. This working advisory group actively met from 1995 through 1997 and annually met from 1998 through 2000. The Georgia All Hazard Planning Committee and the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Advisory continued in function but not in name after 2000. During the remainder of the documentation of the planning process, the planning group is referred to as an interagency planning group or the interagency partners.
Following the publication of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements, GEMA held meetings in the spring and summer of 2002 to brief state agency representatives on the requirements published in the February 26, 2002 Federal Register. One of the primary functions of these meetings was to reestablish working relations between the state agencies. The primary foci of these meetings were to identify hazards and risks and assess overall state abilities and data inventories in a survey administered by GEMA. The results of the state agency surveys at the meetings, which included information on hazard exposure, state-owned buildings, and existing data, were incorporated in the body of the plan approved in 2005.
Although the state agencies participated in the planning process, the GEMA staff has primary responsibility for the completion of Georgia's 2005 mitigation strategy. The Hazard Mitigation Division and the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section staff members have primary responsibility for both state and local planning efforts undertaken to meet the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. HARA staff conducted the majority of the research, data gathering and analysis, plan draft preparation, and coordination with other state agencies in order to complete the first approved plan in 2005.
Since the 2005 approval of Georgia's Standard Plan, HARA staff continued to maintain working relationships with all state agencies in regard to planning and mitigation. These efforts take place in the form of the monthly interagency meetings spanning from August of 2006 through December of 2007 (still continuing on a monthly or quarterly basis). The role of these meetings in the update process is to allow the agencies' participation in the update of the mitigation strategy. Essentially, at every meeting, GEMA staff presented progress on the update process as well as sought input from the state agencies regarding each section of the updated plan. The input from the agencies consisted of review and analysis of the 2005 approved plan as well as suggestions and recommendation for the update.
As with the planning process for the initial 2005 plan approval, the Hazard Mitigation Division and the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section staff members have primary responsibility for the update of the Georgia's mitigation strategy. For the update process, this section's staff consisted of the Program Planning Manager, three Local Mitigation Planners, and the GIS Specialist. Essentially, the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section staff reviewed, analyzed, and updated the Standard Plan by beginning with a tabula rasa. The staff utilized the February 26, 2002 Federal Register and FEMA's Standard Plan Workbook, Guidance, and Crosswalk to create a new outline for the updated Standard Plan that would eventually become its table of contents. The previously approved plan was dissected into each chapter and read thoroughly in comparison to the newly created outline to detect the differences and similarities. Each chapter was reviewed for information that could carry into the updated Standard Plan. The information was then copied into the update document and revised grammatically and updated with new information. Following this carry over of the previous plan's content, GEMA staff generated completely new information to fill in the remaining gaps of the plan. Members of the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment staff completed each section chronologically and presented the drafts to the interagency planning group for further review and analysis. Any additions from this group were incorporated into the draft copy of the updated Standard Plan submitted to FEMA.
Because of the method used to update this document, all sections of the plan have been revised in some manner. Therefore, as was done at the beginning of this chapter, each chapter's first section will list the changes that have occurred to each.
Changes to the planning process from the initial 2005 approval to the 2008 update included increasing the frequency of the state agency meetings to monthly, increasing the participation rate

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 6

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I

by formalizing the meetings, and informing irregular participants with monthly emails consisting of

N

the previous meeting's summary. Also, in attempt to include as many agencies as possible at

every meeting, a call-in option was made available during the update planning process. There-

T

fore, agencies without the means to physically attend the meetings could stay apprised during the

R

planning process by reviewing meeting notes as well as conference calling into the meetings. In

O

regards to federal agencies, GEMA conducted individual meetings with several federal agencies in order to garner further participation in lieu of the monthly meetings.

D

U

1.6 AGENCY PLANNING COORDINATION

C

The planning process described in this document has been an ongoing effort to meet the DMA2K

T

requirements. As stated in the previous section, the current plan is based upon the solid planning

I

foundation and process that began prior to 1994 with Georgia's 409 Plan, which was provided to FEMA Region IV on January 20, 1995. Georgia's 409 Plan met federal requirements and estab-

O

lished a working task force of state agency representatives that formed the Georgia All Hazard

N

Planning Committee. Shortly thereafter, the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Advisory group formed in

1995. A list of the representing state and federal agencies is as follows:

T

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

O

Georgia Department of Defense Georgia Department of Public Safety

Georgia Forestry Commission

P

Georgia Office of Commissioner of Insurance

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

L

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division

A

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Safe Dams Program

N

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Management Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resource Division

N

Georgia Department of Transportation

I

Georgia Housing and Finance Authority

N

Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs

G

Georgia Office of Planning and Budget

Georgia Legislative Budget Office

Georgia Building Authority

P

Georgia Department of Labor

R

National Weather Service

Federal Emergency Management Agency

O

C

This working advisory group actively met from 1995-1997. From 1998-2000, the group held meet-

E

ings only on an annual basis.

S

The April 1999 State of Georgia Comprehensive Mitigation Strategy further enhanced the state

S

planning foundation by including greater detail on federal, state and local capabilities. In Decem-

ber of 2000, GEMA submitted an update of the 1999 strategy that added more depth to goals and

objectives that were broken down into tasks and action steps. The Georgia Hazard Mitigation

Strategy of 2000 was jointly reviewed by GEMA and FEMA staff that led to several collaborative

meetings in the spring of 2001.

Two interagency meeting were held in the GEMA State Operations Center (SOC) in the spring of 2002 to brief state agency representatives on DMA2K and the new federal requirements as published in the February 26, 2002 Federal Register. One of the primary functions of these meetings was to reestablish working relations between the state agencies to focus on hazard identification and assess overall ability and data inventory. A list of the agencies that participated in these meetings is as follows:

Page 7

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Board of Regents Georgia Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Safe Dams Program Georgia Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Management Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resource Division Georgia Department of Agriculture Georgia Building Authority Georgia Department of Labor Georgia Bureau of Investigation Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Forestry Commission Georgia State Fire Marshal Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Housing and Finance Authority Georgia Department of Human Resources Georgia Legislative Budget Office Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Defense National Guard Georgia Office of Planning and Budget American Red Cross BellSouth AT&T
GEMA staff compiled the results of surveys completed by the state agency representatives at these meetings that include information on hazard exposure, state-owned buildings, and existing data. This agency specific data was integrated into the body of the plan approved in 2005.
On August 31, 2004 representatives from state agencies and departments attended another interagency meeting to review the plan and provide additional comments on the ongoing state planning effort. One element discussed included the formation of the agency specific annexes to the GHMS that will be included in Georgia's Enhanced Plan. The representatives at the August 31, 2004 meeting at which the decision was made to adopt agency specific annexes in the Enhanced Plan include:
Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Board of Regents Georgia Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Safe Dams Program Georgia Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Management Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resource Division Georgia Department of Agriculture Georgia Building Authority Georgia Department of Labor Georgia Bureau of Investigation Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Forestry Commission Georgia State Fire Marshal Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Housing and Finance Authority Georgia Department of Human Resources Georgia Legislative Budget Office Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Defense National Guard Georgia Office of Planning and Budget

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 8

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 9

Georgia Public Safety Training Center Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Georgia Merit System US Army Corp of Engineers American Red Cross
This section, Section 1.6, details the coordination of agencies in the planning process by listing the participating agencies within the first phases of creating Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy for the approval in 2005. The following section details the same coordination for the update process that began in August of 2006.
1.7 AGENCY PLANNING COORDINATION: UPDATE
The first interagency meeting that occurred after the 2005 approval was held on August 3, 2006 in the State Operations Center (SOC) at GEMA's headquarters in Atlanta, GA. The August 2006 meeting drew the largest participation rate with the following agencies represented:
Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Georgia Bureau of Investigation Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Courts Automation Commission Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Georgia Department of Banking and Finance Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Corrections Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning Georgia Department of Economic Development Georgia Department of Education Georgia Department of Human Resources Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Georgia Department of Labor Georgia Department of Law Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Department of Veterans Service Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Employees' Retirement System Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Georgia Forestry Commission Georgia Merit System Georgia National Fairgrounds Georgia Office of Homeland Security Georgia Office of Planning and Budget Georgia of State Administrative Hearings Georgia Office of Treasury and Fiscal Services Georgia Ports Authority Georgia Professional Standards Commission Georgia Public Safety Training Center Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Student Finance Commission Georgia Technology Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Insurance Commissioner's Office of Georgia Jekyll Island State Park Authority Peace Officer Standards and Training Council State Board of Workers' Compensation State Ethics Commission Stone Mountain Memorial Association Subsequent Injury Trust Fund
Basically, this meeting brought together most of the agencies GEMA wanted to include in the planning process. This meeting outlined the expectations for participation from the agencies by reviewing the previously approved plan's maintenance section and planning the update timeline. The interagency group set up the schedule for monthly meetings in order to consistently work on the update planning process until the deadline of April of 2008. Also, the working group set up a method for recording the participating agencies with a sign-in sheet and a method for including as many agencies as possible with a call-in option.
The interagency meeting that occurred on September 27, 2006 at GEMA's SOC included the following attendees:
Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts Georgia Army National Guard Georgia Commission of Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Education Georgia Department of Energy Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Employees' Retirement System Georgia Office of Homeland Security Georgia Ports Authority Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Insurance Commissioner's Office of Georgia
The highlights from the September of 2006 interagency meeting included an introduction to the Building Land and Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database, which contains information on state-owned and operated buildings in Georgia. GEMA"s GIS Specialist discussed these databases as a potential resource for analyzing the potential for loss of state assets. Also, GEMA's Program Planning Manager introduced the idea of simultaneously working on both the Standard Plan and Enhanced Plan during the planning process. Several agencies, namely Georgia's Department of Public Safety, participated in a discussion about mitigating buildings on Georgia's coast for wind hazards. GEMA responded with information regarding grant applications as well as suggested that each agency participate in the planning process in order to document proposed mitigation goals and projects.
The interagency meeting that occurred on November 2, 2006 at GEMA's SOC included the following attendees:
Georgia Army National Guard Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Emergency Management Agency

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 10

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 11

Georgia Public Safety Training Center Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
At the November 2006 meeting, GEMA distributed a draft of the state agency annex template to attending members and non-attending members (via email). GEMA's Program Planning Manager explained that the completion of the annex by each agency will aid in state planning efforts as well as benefit the agencies by documenting proposed goals and projects. This documentation in an approved plan has the potential to aid those agencies in receiving federal grants to carry out mitigation activity in the future. The Program Planning Manager explained that these annexes will be included in the Enhanced Plan but the information provided will also be used in the Standard Plan. GEMA offered technical assistance in completing these annexes through direct agency visits from GEMA representatives and through the distribution of hazard and risk data. The participating agencies participated in the discussion of the template by asking of GEMA's expectations in terms of timelines.
The interagency meeting that occurred on December 7, 2006 at GEMA's SOC included the following attendees:
Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
The participating agencies in the December of 2006 meeting confirmed the reception of the previous meeting's notes as well as GEMA's email correspondences. The representative from the Department of Administrative Services addressed the provision of loss data for each state agency from the last 10 years. GEMA"s GIS Specialist updated the interagency group on the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS), which will be evolving to include not only critical facilities but also mitigated properties, repetitive loss properties, and the BLLIP data.
The interagency meeting that occurred on January 4, 2007 in the Executive Conference Room at GEMA's headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Energy Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Revenue Alcohol and Tobacco Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Office of Homeland Security Georgia Ports Authority Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Georgia Technology Authority
The focus of the January 2007 meeting was essentially the discussion of the data distributed to the group by GEMA and the agency specific hazard data that will be distributed to the group in the next few months. Upon the opening of the floor for discussion, several agencies inquired as to whether the template was absolute for each agency. GEMA responded that each agency should take ownership of their annex and that each annex is user defined. GEMA proposed having the first draft of the annex completed by the next meeting in March.
The interagency meeting that occurred on March 1, 2007 at Georgia Ports Authority headquarters in Savannah, GA included the following attendees:

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Ports Authority
GEMA addressed changes in FEMA's guidance for the Standard and Enhanced Plans as well as the ongoing effort for agency-specific templates to be included in both the Standard and Enhanced Plans. GEMA also addressed a staff change; the GIS Specialist position is open and will be filled as soon as possible. Georgia's Department of Community Affairs submitted a draft copy of the annex and GEMA assured the agencies of a complete review of the annex information. Also, GEMA gave the deadline of the end of December 2007 for the submittal of the Standard Plan to FEMA.
The interagency meeting that occurred on April 11, 2007 at the Georgia Ports Authority headquarters in Savannah, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Ports Authority Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
GEMA addressed the approval of FEMA Disaster 1686 and related Hazard Mitigation Grant Program timelines and application information for the agencies. Also, the group discussed the status of the agency-specific templates and GEMA's standing offer for assistance on completing the agency-specific annex. Georgia's Department of Public Safety had also completed a draft. Both the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Community Affairs' annexes were distributed in order to provide a suitable example for the remaining agencies. GEMA discussed the importance of these annexes as a means for the agencies to participate in the state planning process.
The interagency meeting that occurred on June 14, 2007 included the following attendees:
Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Port Authority Georgia State Patrol
GEMA addressed the timeline for submitting both the Standard Plan update and Enhanced Plan to FEMA by the end of 2007. Also, the progress of Disaster 1686 pre-application process and Fire Management Assistance Grants status were discussed. GEMA announced the filling of the GIS Specialist position and extended the offer for technical assistance to the participating agencies.
The interagency meeting that occurred on August 9, 2007 at GEMA headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Business Executives for National Security Business Force Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Office of Planning and Budget

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 12

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 13

National Resource Conservation Service
This interagency meeting addressed the submissions of Standard Plan update and the Enhanced plan to FEMA by the new first draft submittal deadline of October 12, 2007. Also, the submission deadline of the state and federal agency annex drafts remains at the end of September, so that some may be included in the Enhanced Plan by the October FEMA submission. The BLLIP data was previously distributed to the agencies and the GIS Specialist asked the agencies to examine the data for quality assurance. Several agencies, including the Department of Community Affairs, confirmed the accuracy of the BLLIP data.
The interagency meeting that occurred on September 6, 2007 at GEMA headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Corrections Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Emergency Management Agency
The September of 2007 interagency meeting addressed the current updates to parts of the Standard Plan and Enhanced Plan. The Chapters 1 and 2 of the updated Standard Plans and the first draft of the Enhanced Plan were previously sent to the participating agencies for review. The agency partners were given opportunity to comment on the updated plans, to ask questions regarding the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment, and to analyze the information given about the specific programs and projects related to their specific agency. GEMA also announced the leaving of the Program Planning Manager, who will be replaced shortly.
The interagency meeting that occurred on October 4, 2007 at GEMA headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Army National Guard Georgia Board of Regents Georgia Bureau of Investigation Georgia Department of Agriculture Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Corrections Georgia Department of Defense Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Georgia Department of Labor Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Public Safety Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Department of Veterans Services Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Georgia Technology Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Subsequent Injury Trust Fund
The October interagency meeting concentrated on the current updates to the Standard Plan and the Enhanced Plan. The risk assessment portion of the Standard Plan was the main focus of the meeting followed by a question and answer session with the state agency partners. The risk assessment information in combination with each state agency's property information was offered to

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

the state agencies that have submitted or are submitting the agency specific annex. Several agencies have already received their specified risk assessment information.
The interagency meeting that occurred on November 1, 2007 at GEMA headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Board of Regents Georgia Bureau of Investigation Georgia Department of Administrative Services Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Corrections Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Georgia Department of Revenue Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Secretary of State / Archives Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Georgia State Patrol Georgia Technology Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority Subsequent Injury Trust Fund
The November interagency meeting addressed the finalization of state agency participation in the Enhanced Plan annexes. All submissions after November were not included in the Enhanced Plan draft already submitted to FEMA but will be included in future submittals. The main focus of the meeting related to Chapter 3 and the analysis of the mitigation strategy's goals, objectives, tasks, and action steps. The status of the Standard Plan was also addressed in terms of the complete draft submittal in December of 2007. Also, the new Program Planning Manager was introduced to the interagency partners.
The interagency meeting that occurred on November 28, 2007 at GEMA headquarters in Atlanta, GA included the following attendees:
Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Corrections Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Ports Authority Georgia World Congress Center Authority
The final meeting of 2007 in November addressed the finalization of both the Standard Plan and the Enhanced Plan for submittal to FEMA for review at the end of December 2007. The main focus of the meeting related to Chapter 5 and the plan maintenance insufficiencies of the previously approved plan. The interagency working group decided to adjourn meetings until after January of 2008. GEMA reaffirmed that the completion of the agency specific annexes is essential to the completion of the Standard and Enhanced Plans. GEMA also requested the agencies to review any information in both plans that pertain to their own agency's programs and projects. Several state agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources, were contacted outside of the meeting environment in order to obtain the information included in both plans.
In addition to the numerous interagency meeting throughout the updating process, individual meetings with state and federal agencies have occurred. GEMA Hazard Mitigation Staff met with the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) on July 25, 2007 in order to combine efforts on including the USGS in the planning process, including USGS's completion of an agency annex to the Enhanced Plan. Similar meetings with other federal agencies included an August 1, 2007 meeting with the Natural Resources Conservation Society (NRCS) and an August 15, 2007 meeting with

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 14

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 15

the National Weather Service (NWS).
While the meetings previously listed are referred to as "interagency" meetings, these meetings sometimes included other interested parties such as non-profit organizations and private sector participants. These participants included the American Red Cross, BellSouth, and AT&T in 2002, the American Red Cross in 2004, the Stone Mountain Memorial Association in 2006, and the Business Executives for National Security Business Force in 2007. GEMA reached out to other interested parties in the private sector and non-profit sector. GEMA staff did not ask that the nongovernmental agencies complete an Enhanced Plan annex but did ask for participation in the review, analysis, and update process for the Standard Plan. However, with somewhat irregular participation, the non-governmental interested parties did not contribute to the update.
The interagency meetings demonstrate GEMA's attempts at coordinating among agencies in order to produce a mitigation strategy that incorporates other agency resources. Also of importance is including agencies that may implement the information presented in this document in their own mitigation efforts. Eventually, cooperation in the planning process leads to cooperation in the implementation of mitigation actions.
The purpose of the previously mentioned interagency meetings was to continue the planning process after the 2005 approval of GHMS through the three year update cycle. Other efforts to continually update the GHMS occurred during the post-disaster reviews following Georgia's receipt of several disaster declarations since the 2005 plan approval. These disaster declarations include the following: the 2005 Hurricane Katrina evacuations affecting all Georgia counties, the 2007 severe storms and tornadoes that affected counties in Southwest Georgia, and the 2007 fires that swept across South Georgia.
1.8 POST-DISASTER REVIEW: UPDATE
Since the approval of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy in 2005, two major hazard events have resulted in disaster declaration in the State of Georgia. FEMA Disaster 1686, which occurred in March of 2007, consisted of severe storms and tornadoes and impacted numerous counties. Fire Management Assistance Declarations 2685, 2686, 2688, 2693, and 2697, which occurred between April and May of 2007, consisted of numerous wildfires and impacted numerous counties in southeastern Georgia.
These disaster declarations occurred during the update planning process, which began in August of 2006. GEMA addressed these disaster declarations in the meetings that have occurred since the April of 2007 meeting. Therefore, no separate post-disaster review of the plan occurred that involved the state agencies.
However, GEMA Hazard Mitigation Division and Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section staff updated the Standard Plan's hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment (found in Chapter 2) to include the most recent disaster information and to reflect the new risks associated with the occurrence of the new disaster events.
1.9 PROGRAM INTEGRATION
Because the coordination between the agencies (presented in previous sections) may reveal opportunities for integrating planning and mitigation efforts, this section outlines existing state planning initiatives and mitigation programs that exemplify program integration. Examples include, but are not limited to: All Hazards Council, NWS Storm Ready, Coordinating Planning Program, Georgia Safe Dams Program, Coastal Management Program, Coastal Marshland Protection, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, River Corridor Protection, Shore Protection, Georgia Greenspace Program, the FEMA-funded, state-administered hazard mitigation programs, and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program. The agencies that lead or participate in these initiatives and programs had ample opportunities to review, analyze, and update the following information during

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

the interagency meetings. The information found in this section was forwarded to all state agen-

I

cies in attempts to draw participation in the planning process.

N

The following section describes the existing state planning initiatives and mitigation programs.

T

The final section of this chapter explains how these initiatives and programs are integrated into

R

Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy by referencing their inclusion in the subsequent chapters that address the hazard and risk assessment and the mitigation strategy.

O

D

1.9.1 All Hazards Council

U

GEMA's formation of All Hazards Councils followed the 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. GEMA organized Regional All Hazard Councils within the eight existing disaster/

C

emergency response system regions to improve local communication and terrorism preparedness.

T

Facilitated by GEMA staff and managed by an elected chairperson, these councils assimilate com-

I

munity leaders and key consequence managers for the development of regionally-specific prepar-

O

edness, response, recovery, and mitigation strategies for all disasters (natural and anthropogenic).

N

Council members may include sheriffs, police chiefs, public health directors, fire chiefs, emer-

gency medical services directors, medical examiners, 911 center directors, emergency managers,

mayors, county commissioners, and additional members from other disciplines.

T

The mission of these Regional All Hazard Councils is:

O

Improve local, state, and federal information sharing;

P

Identify critical regional infrastructure and potential terrorist targets;

L

Prepare regional response plans;

A

Facilitate mutual aid agreements for communities to share resources;

N

Identify capacity needs; Conduct training and exercises; and Bring federal Citizen Corps programs to local communities.

N I

N

These councils prove to be a valuable asset to the state and to the local communities in their con-

G

tinuing efforts in emergency management, especially their efforts in terrorism and all other hazard

preparedness.

P

1.9.2 Georgia StormReady

R

In 1999 GEMA partnered with NWS to implement the StormReady program in Georgia. Because

O

communication and safety skills are critical in saving lives and property before and during severe

C

weather, NWS in partnership with GEMA and the Emergency Management Association of Georgia (EMAG) initiated StormReady. Essentially, the program is designed to encourage communities to

E

create a severe weather action plan. StormReady personnel, coupled with emergency managers,

S

work to strengthen existing safety programs using planning, education, and awareness. Although

S

specific StormReady guidelines vary depending on the size of the community, the program gener-

ally requires the following to be designated:

Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center; Develop more than one method of receiving and disseminating severe weather warnings
and forecasts to public; Create system to monitor local weather conditions; Promote public readiness through community seminars; Develop a formal hazardous weather plan, including training severe weather spotters and
holding emergency exercises.

StormReady counties have increased by 15 counties since January of 2005, presently reaching

Page 16

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I

61 total counties. These counties (plus one TsunamiReady county) are listed below in Table 1.2.

N

T

Appling

Clayton

Evans

Jackson

Muscogee

R

Atkinson

Clinch

Fayette

Jenkins

Newton

O

Bacon

Cobb

Forsyth

Laurens

Richmond

D

Bartow

Columbia

Fulton

Liberty*

Screven

U

Berrien

C

Bibb

T

Bryan

I

Coweta Dawson DeKalb

Floyd Glynn Greene

Lincoln Long Lowndes

Tattnall Thomas Troup

O

Bulloch

Dodge

Gwinnett

Lumpkin

Union

N

Burke

Dougherty

Habersham

McDuffie

Upson

Candler

Douglas

Hall

McIntosh

Ware

T

Carroll

Early

Haralson

Mitchell

Warren

O

Chatham

Effingham

Henry

Morgan

Wayne

P

Cherokee

L

Table 1.2: StormReady counties according to NWS

A

1.9.3 Coordinated Planning Program

N

Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) 12-2-8

N

The Georgia General Assembly adopted the Georgia Planning Act in 1989 as a means to encour-

I

age better management of growth in previously developed and developing areas of the State

N

while encouraging smart development in less prosperous areas. Although supporting develop-

G

ment, the legislature still strives for the conservation and protection of natural and historic resources, protection and promotion of quality of life through proper land use planning, and protec-

tion of community facilities.

P

The cornerstone of the coordinated planning program is the preparation of a long-range compre-

R

hensive plan by each local government. This plan is intended to highlight community goals and

O

objectives as well as determine how the government proposes to achieve those goals and objec-

C

tives. The comprehensive plans are to be used to guide local government decision-making on a daily basis in the areas of economic development, natural and historic resources, community facili-

E

ties, housing, and land use.

S

With the passage of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989, all of Georgia's 159 and 529 cities were

S

designated "Qualified Local Governments". Each of these local governments must maintain their

status in order to remain eligible for a range of state and federal assistance programs. Continuing

efforts strive for integrating the local hazard mitigation planning with the local comprehensive plan-

ning process.

1.9.4 Safe Dams OCGA12-5-370

The Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978 provides for the inspection and permitting of certain dams to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Georgia residents. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for inspecting and certifying dams.

Page 17

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

1.9.5 Coastal Management OCGA 12-5-320
The Coastal Management Act provides enabling authority for the State to prepare and administer a coastal management program. The act does not establish new regulations or laws but is designed to establish procedural requirements for the sustainable development and protection of coastal resources. It establishes the Department of Natural Resources as the State agency to receive and disburse federal grant monies. It establishes the Governor as the approving authority of the program and as the person that must submit the program to the federal government for approval under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. It requires other State agencies to cooperate with the Coastal Resources Division when exercising their activities within the coastal area.
1.9.6 Coastal Marshland Protection OCGA 12-5-280
The Coastal Marshland Protection Act provides the Coastal Resources Division with the authority to protect tidal wetlands. The Coastal Marshland Protection Act limits certain activities and structures in marsh areas and requires permits for other activities and structures. Erecting structures, dredging, or filling marsh areas require a Marsh Permit administered through the Coastal Management Program. In cases where the proposed activity involves the construction on State-owned tidal water bottoms, a Revocable License issued by the Coastal Resources Division may also be required. Marsh Permits and Revocable Licenses are not issued for activities that are inconsistent with the Georgia Coastal Management Program.
The jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act extends to include marshlands, intertidal areas, mudflats, tidal water bottoms, and salt marsh areas within estuarine areas of the State, whether tidewaters reach the actual area through natural or artificial watercourses. The estuarine area is defined as all tidally influenced waters, marshes, and marshlands lying within a tideelevation range of 5.6 feet above mean high-tide level and below.
Exemptions from the jurisdiction of the act include the activities of the Georgia Department of Transportation, agencies of the United States charged with maintaining navigation of rivers and harbors, railroad of public utilities companies, Public Service Commission-regulated companies, water and sewer pipelines, and private docks (do not obstruct tidal flow).
Any agriculture or silviculture activity that directly alters lands within the jurisdictional areas of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act must meet the permit requirements of the act and must obtain a permit issued by the Coastal Resources Division on behalf of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee. The Coastal Resources Division administers permits for marinas, community docks, boat ramps, recreational docks, and piers within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act.
1.9.7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control OCGA 12-7-1
The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires that each county or municipality adopt a comprehensive ordinance establishing procedures governing land-disturbing activities based on the minimum requirements established by the act. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act is administered by the EPD of the Georgia DNR and local governments. Permits are required for specified land-disturbing activities, including the construction or modification of manufacturing facilities, construction activities, some activities related to transportation facilities, activities on marsh hammocks, and others. With certain constraints, permitting authority can be delegated to local governments.
One provision of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires that land-disturbing activities shall not be conducted with 25 feed of the banks of any State waters unless a variance is granted. Construction of single-family residences under contract with the owner is exempt from the permit

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 18

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 19

requirement but is still required to meet the standards of the act. Large development projects, both residential and commercial, must obtain a permit and meet the requirements of the act. According to the Georgia Coastal Management Act, any permits or variances issued under the Erosion and Sedimentation Act must be consistent with the Georgia Coastal Management Program. Permits within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act and the Shore Protection Act can include requirements that certain minimum water quality standards be met as a condition of the permit.
1.9.8 River Corridor Protection OCGA 12-2-1
The statute informally known as the Mountain and Corridor Protection Act authorizes DNR to develop minimum standards for the protection of river corridors (and mountains, watersheds, and wetlands) that can be adopted by local governments. The EPD administers the act. All rivers in Georgia with an average annual flow of 400 cubic feet per second are covered by the act, except those within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Some of the major provisions of the act include: requirements for a 100-foot vegetative buffer on both sides of rivers, consistency with the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act, and local governments' identification of river corridors in land-use plans developed under their respective comprehensive planning acts.
1.9.9 Shore Protection OCGA 2-5-230
The Shore Protection Act is the primary legal authority for protection and management of Georgia's shoreline features including sand dunes, beaches, sandbars, and shoals, collectively known as the sand-sharing system. The value of the sand-sharing system is recognized as vitally important in protecting the coastal marshes and uplands from Atlantic storm activity, as well as providing valuable recreational opportunities.
The Shore Protection Act limits activities in shore areas and requires a permit for certain activities and structures on the beach. Construction activity in sand dunes is limited to temporary structures on the beach. Construction activity in sand dunes is limited to temporary structures such as crosswalks, and then only by permit from the Georgia Coastal Resources Division.
Structures such as boat basins, docks, marinas, and boat ramps are not allowed in the dunes. Shore permits, which are administered by the Coastal Resources Division, are not granted for activities that are inconsistent with the Georgia Coastal Management Program. The Shore Protection Act prohibits operation of any motorized vehicle on or over the dynamic dune fields and beaches, except as authorized for emergency and government vehicles. The Shore Protection Act also prohibits storage or parking of sailboats, catamarans, or other marine craft in the dynamic dune field.
Direct permitting authority regarding any proposed facilities located within the jurisdictional area lies with the Shore Protection Committee and Georgia Coastal Resources Division.
1.9.10 Emergency Watershed Protection
The Watershed and Flood Prevention Act, PL 83-566, August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008) authorized the establishment of programs to aid in protecting the lives and property threatened by natural disasters related to watersheds (such as flooding and erosion). Prior to fiscal year 1996, separate programs addressed small watershed planning activities and cooperative river basin surveys and investigations. After the 1996 appropriations act, the activities specified under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Act were combined into the single program known as the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program.
The purpose of the EWP program is to assist federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments to protect watersheds from damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment as well as

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

to conserve and develop water and land resources. Resource concerns addressed by the program include water quality, water conservation, wetland protection and restoration, water storage capacity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industrial water needs, upstream flood damages, and water needs for wildlife and forest-based industries. Methods of planning and surveying addressed by the program include specific watershed plans, river basin surveys, flood hazard analyses, and floodplain management assistance. The purpose of the plans and surveys is to identify solutions that use land treatment and nonstructural measures to resolve resource problems.
The EWP provides traditional types of assistance such as funding to project sponsors for debris clearance from clogged waterways, vegetation restoration, and riverbank stabilization. All of the measures undertaken must meet requirements for environmental and economical soundness while benefiting more than one property owner. The Natural Resource Conservation Commission (NRCS) provides 75% of the funding need to complete such projects in conjunction with a community or local sponsor's 25% contribution.
The EWP also provides less traditional types of assistance through the floodplain easement option. This new option for agricultural land gives producers the opportunity to offer their land for floodplain easement. Eligible areas include land that has been damaged to the point that restoration costs outweigh the land value. The easements provide permanent restoration of the natural floodplain hydrology as an alternative to traditional attempts at restoring damaged levees, dams, and other structures.
1.9.11 Federal Hazard Mitigation Programs
Because GEMA administers federal hazard mitigation programs for Georgia, GEMA's planning process is inherently integrated into these federal programs, specifically the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Community Rating System (CRS), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), the Map Modernization Project, Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL).
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration in order to reduce the loss of life and property due to hazard events and to enable the implementation of mitigation measures during the immediate recovery period. Of the State of Georgia's 159 counties, 22 have received HMGP planning assistance. With the future approval of the Enhanced Plan, Georgia will receive a 33% increase in mitigation funds in the aftermath of a disaster, making additional funds available to meet the plan update funding needs. The HMGP grants are a major component of the funding Georgia will utilize to not only update plans but to implement state and local projects identified in these plans.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program was authorized by 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC. With funding provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, the PDM program assists states and local governments (including Tribal governments) in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program prior to a hazard event and disaster declaration. PDM grants are awarded on a competitive basis in areas covered by an approved state or local mitigation plan that meets the criteria of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Therefore, the development and update of state and local mitigation plans is essential in maintaining eligibility for future PDM funding. Georgia has utilized the PDM program to fund multi-jurisdictional planning grants for 121 counties.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). GEMA works closely with the DNR floodplain management staff in regards to NFIP as project eligibility requirements for mitigation grants

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 20

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

I N T R O D U C T I O N
T O
P L A N N I N G
P R O C E S S
Page 21

depends on NFIP participation. Although only about 70% of Georgia's communities participate in the NFIP, more than 97% of residents are eligible to purchase flood insurance. In an effort to increase the number of NFIP participating communities, the State requires NFIP participation to be eligible for mitigation funding. Since the inception of the HMGP, several communities have joined the NFIP in order to get HMGP funds. The majority of these new NFIP entrants can be attributed to this requirement due to the popularity of the warning grants and other statewide mitigation initiatives. Also, GEMA mitigation staff continually utilizes the floodplain mapping and flood study information in various aspects of analyzing hazard events, risk, and vulnerability.
FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) program is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements by offering premium discounts. The goals of the CRS are to reduce flood losses, to facilitate accurate insurance rating, and to promote the awareness of flood insurance. In Georgia, 30 communities participate in the CRS program. In partnership with DNR, GEMA mitigation staff promotes the CRS program at mitigation workshops and incorporates CRS information into the overall ranking of mitigation projects.
The Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program. Georgia has utilized planning, project, and technical assistance grants through the FMA program to develop flood mitigation plans and implement projects that reduce or eliminate claims against the NFIP primarily through property acquisition.
On August 16, 1999, the State of Georgia entered into a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) agreement with FEMA Region IV in which the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has accepted delegation and responsibility of the Map Modernization Program for the State of Georgia. This agreement provides that the State of Georgia will assume responsibility for the development and updating of Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) within all 159 counties in the State. Through this agreement, the State of Georgia is provided funding through FEMA for the production of DFIRMs and for the management of the DFIRM process. The amount of funding provided to the State is determined by FEMA Region IV each fiscal year, and is a function of the success of the State in producing DFIRMs, the ability of the State to obtain cost-share contributions from State or local sources, and the effectiveness of the State in linking improved floodplain management with improved floodplain mapping. The State is utilizing both state staff and consulting engineering firms to perform this work. The State's progress towards its objective is monitored quarterly by FEMA, and their agent, the National Service Provider (NSP). Through September 30, 2007, DFIRMS have been finalized for 20 counties. GEMA works closely with State floodplain management staff to advance the Map Modernization program. These improved flood maps lead to a much more refined risk assessment, which will be included in future updates to the Standard Plan. Also, these updated flood maps are currently used (where available) for completing Benefit Costs Analyses (BCAs) for various project applications.
The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). The RFC program provides funds to assist States and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance (NFIP) Fund. RFC grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. Georgia has utilized project grants in the first two years of this program's existence to permanently mitigate NFIP insured structures through property acquisition.
The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Act (NFIA) of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to

I

severe repetitive loss properties insured under the NFIP. Severe repetitive loss properties include

N

residential properties covered under the NFIP flood insurance policy that has had at least four

NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each and the cumulative amount exceeding $20,000; or two

T

separate claims with the cumulative amount exceeding the market value of the building.

R

1.9.12 EMAP Accreditation

O

D

Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) is a voluntary accreditation process for

U

state, territorial and local government programs that coordinate preparedness and response activities for natural and man-made disasters ranging from tornadoes to terrorism. It recognizes the

C

ability of a state or local government to bring together personnel, resources and communications

T

from a variety of agencies and organizations in preparation for and in response to an emergency.

I

Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) was the lead agency responsible for ensuring

O

the state's accreditation, which included a rigorous program of evaluation, documentation and on-

N

site assessment by an independent team to demonstrate it met stringent national standards.

There are 58 standards that must be met to in order to be eligible to receive compliance. Accredi-

tation is valid for five years.

T

The standards cover key areas in emergency management program elements which include: Op-

O

erations and Procedures, Logistics and Facilities, Training, Exercises, Evaluations and Corrective

Action, Communications and Warning, Crisis Communications, Public Education and Information

P

and Finance and Administration.

L

To prove compliance, GEMA began the process with completing a Baseline Assessment which

A

included self-study and self-assessments of all required standards, on-site assessments, committee reviews, and commission deliberation/decisions. GEMA then adopted a schedule to conduct

N

reviews of each of the EMAP program elements and continued through a process to improve

N

statewide preparedness.

I

1.9.13 Program Integration into Mitigation Strategy

N

G

GEMA has integrated several of the programs and initiatives previously discussed into the mitiga-

tion strategy and will continue to attempt to integrate the remaining programs and initiatives

through future updates. All of the programs and initiatives align with the overall goals of Georgia's

P

Hazard Mitigation Strategy: reducing human vulnerability to hazard events; reducing the losses

R

associated with hazard events; and reducing the people and property of Georgia's overall expo-

sure to hazard events. Also, all of the programs listed above are integral in achieving the four pri-

O

mary objectives presented in this mitigation strategy: increasing coordination between local, state,

C

and federal agencies in pre-disaster planning and post-disaster recovery; increasing awareness of hazard mitigation among state agencies, local governments, private sector, and general public;

E

implementing a broad range of programs and projects that promote the state's comprehensive

S

mitigation strategy; and improving the state's comprehensive strategy with periodic analysis to

S

determine the effectiveness of program management and local and state mitigation projects, plan-

ning, and initiatives.

More specifically, some of the mentioned programs and initiatives are directly represented in the mitigation tasks and action steps discussed in Chapter 3 of this document. Objective 1 Task 8 (OBJ1-T1) explicitly states working with the National Weather Service, United State Geological Survey, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources to increase effective warning capabilities. OBJ2-T1g states that continuing to support the StormReady Program in Georgia in partnership with the National Weather Service as an action step to work towards completing the second objective listed above. Another action step example is OBJ3-T2b, which states the continued support of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's weather radio network in Georgia.

Page 22

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

A

Z

A

Page Intentionally Left Blank

R

D

R I S K

A N D

V U L N E R A B I L I T Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 23

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

A

Z

Chapter 2

A

R

Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

D

R I S K

A N D

V U L N E R A B I L I T Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 24

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Chapter 2: Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessment

A
2.1 OVERVIEW
Z

A

The Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessment of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy pro-

R

vides the scientifically-sound foundation for the goals, objectives, tasks, and actions steps that are proposed in the plan. This chapter of the plan consists of the following sections: Context, Method-

D

ology, All-Hazard Assessment, Hazard-Specific Assessments, Vulnerability Assessment, Compos-

ite Assessment, and Loss Potential.

R

The Context section includes an outline of definitions of the terms hazard, risk, vulnerability, and

I

mitigation utilized in this plan.

S

The Methodology section outlines the processes used in data manipulation and analyses that led to

K

the presented conclusions.

The All-Hazard Assessment section discusses the hazard event and loss history for the State of

A

Georgia without regard for specific hazard types. This section includes analysis of losses associ-

N

ated with all hazard events and claims associated with Presidential Disaster Declarations (PDDs).

D

The Hazard Specific Assessments section identifies the specific hazards affecting Georgia by re-

counting each hazard's event and loss history, Presidential Disaster Declarations history, and nota-

V

ble event history. Also, this section includes hazard-specific occurrence probabilities (risk).

U

The Vulnerability Assessments section addresses both social and environmental vulnerability to

L

hazard events at a state level. This also includes an analysis of vulnerable state buildings and criti-

N

cal facilities.

E

The Composite Assessment section attempts to address the concept of "hazardousness of place"

R

by combining the composite of hazards with vulnerability in order to highlight areas of concern.

A

The last section, which relates to Loss Potential, presents the state assets and locally-defined criti-

B

cal facilities in conjunction with the composite hazard scores in order to determine the areas with

I

the highest potential for loss.

L

The summary of changes that occurred to the updated mitigation strategy from the 2005 plan is

I

recorded in the following table, Table 2.1.

T

Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 25

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Chapter 2 Section

Updates to Section

H

2.1 Overview

Revised to reflect new section's content.
Includes table of changes.

A Z

A

R

2.2 Context

Enhanced definition of terms.

D

2.3 Methodology

Explains new methodology for assessing hazards, risk,

R

and vulnerability.

I

Revised introduction to GIS, removed lengthy raster example.

S

K

2.4 All-Hazard Assessment

Revised to include hazard theory overview.

A

Hazard identification revised to include sinkholes.

N

Section added to include local planning hazard identifi-

D

cation.

Section added to address events and losses from all haz-

ards for broad analysis of the state.

V

U

2.5 Hazard-Specific Assess-

Section added for each hazard addressed in the plan.

L

ments

Content from hazard sections updated for new findings

N

and new events.

E

Content added to address losses associated with each haz-

R

ard.

A

B

2.6 Vulnerability Assessment

Section added to address new research concerning

I

social vulnerability.

L

New methods described.

I

T

2.7 Composite Assessment

Text revised and content updated from previous plan.

Y

2.8 Loss Potential 2.9 Conclusion

Section revised and updated to include estimates of loss by state facility, critical facility, and jurisdiction.
Section added to summarize the previous sections as well as show need for a mitigation strategy.

Table 2.1: Overview of updates to Chapter 2: Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessment
2.2 CONTEXT
Numerous definitions of terms like hazard, risk, and vulnerability float around academic, governmental, and practitioner circles. With everyone using varied definitions, confusion ensues. There-

A S S E S S M E N T
Page 26

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

fore, this section attempts to outline the definitions of the terms to which this plan refers: hazard,

A

risk, vulnerability, and mitigation.

Z

2.2.1 Definition of Terms

A

R

A hazard is a potential threat or actual event that impacts a population, infrastructure, or environment. Hazards are spatially and temporally definable but vary in terms of range. For example,

D

compare the examples of a flood and a tornado. Floods are more easily spatially defined than

tornadoes due the historical record (and other sources) showing a distinct pattern of flooding

R

events (within flood plain) and a less distinct pattern of tornado events (narrow down to regions of occurrence). For another example, compare earthquake events to drought events in terms of tem-

I

porality. Earthquake events have a shorter temporal impact (usually a matter of seconds) while

S

drought events by definition can have a longer temporal impact (more than a decade). A wide range of hazards exist and are sometimes categorized as either natural or anthropogenic. How-

K

ever, modern-day hazards are more complex and intertwined, with anthropogenic hazards further

complicating natural hazards. For example, a hurricane causes a levee to fail, which floods a

town and causes the deposition of toxic chemicals in the water supply. Attempting to categorize

A

this event is fruitless. This type of complexity gives validity to the recent all-hazard approaches to

N

emergency management that also account for the fact that hazards are either wholly or partly a

D

social product and, therefore, must be analyzed in context (social, political, historical, and environmental).

V

Risk is a quantifiable probability of a specific hazard event actually occurring. This probability is

typically based on hazard history profile-driven statistical modeling. Risk is as temporally and spa-

U

tially variable as hazard events. For example, the risk (probability of occurrence) of a severe win-

L

ter storm in Georgia is highly seasonal while the risk of an earthquake has no seasonality. In

N

terms of spatiality, the risk of a flood is defined in terms of types of flood plains (100 year, 500 year) while the risk of drought spans the entire State of Georgia. Calculating the risk of a hazard

E

proves difficult at times because of the absolute dependency on data availability and accuracy as

R

well as reliable statistical modeling. Further discussion on risk follows in this chapter.

A

Vulnerability is essentially the potential for loss. Vulnerability describes the ability and capacity not

B

only to survive the event but also to recover from the event's impacts in both the short and long

I

term phases. Various types of vulnerability exist including independent, social, and biophysical. Independent vulnerability refers to an individual person or structure's susceptibility to harm from

L

the hazard event. The individual's unique characteristics determine this susceptibility (such a per-

I

son's physical disability or a building's low structural integrity). Social vulnerability refers to a par-

ticular population's general susceptibility to harm from a hazard event. Typically socioeconomic

T

variables are utilized to determine this type of vulnerability. Along the same scale as social vulner-

Y

ability is the idea of the vulnerability of the built environment. In other words, the general suscepti-

bility of the infrastructures in an area versus the individual building create a broader view of vulner-

ability. Finally, geophysical vulnerability is essentially synonymous with hazard exposure and in-

A

cludes variables like magnitude, duration, frequency, impact, rapidity of onset, and proximity. Like

S

hazards and risk, vulnerability is subject to temporal and spatial variability. For example, the char-

acteristics of the infrastructure and population of an area obviously change through time. How-

S

ever, given the same time period, the characteristics depend on the scale of analysis, whether the

E

analysis occurs at a state, county, or smaller scale. Further discussion of vulnerability follows in

S

the risk assessment section of this chapter.

S

Mitigation refers to the activities undertaken to reduce or eliminate the threat, occurrence, or the

M

effects of natural hazard events. Mitigation activities serve to protect public health and property

E

and to break the damage-repair cycle in hazardous areas. Mitigation activities often fall into one of two categories: structural and non-structural. Structural mitigation approaches include con-

N

structing levees as a form of flood control while non-structural mitigation approaches include using

T

insurance to compensate for flood damage. Further discussion on mitigation follows in Chapter 3.

Page 27

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

2.3 METHODOLOGY
The primary foci of the state and local hazard mitigation planning process in the State of Georgia are hazard identification and mapping and critical facility mapping within the hazard zones. These planning efforts dovetail with other required and ongoing planning efforts within emergency management as well as other planning processes. These efforts include: Local Emergency Operations Plans (LEOP), the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan (GEOP), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC), All Hazard Councils (AHC) under Homeland Security, and Local Comprehensive Plans.
Prior to current planning efforts, hazard identification in emergency management plans consisted of a simple ranking system. Both state and local emergency management officials merely used historical records to determine the possible hazard exposure without statistically addressing hazard risk (probability of occurrence) or vulnerability (social and environmental). However, with DMA2K requirements, additional resources, and staff expertise, Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) now has a robust collection of hazard exposure and critical facility data for state and local analysis.
GEMA staff is continually committed to creating a broader understanding of the hazards affecting Georgia as well as the risk to hazards held by the state and the vulnerability of Georgia's citizens and infrastructure. Through this commitment, Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) staff has created robust hazard analyses by utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to produce layers and coverages that are being used at the local and state levels in the hazard mitigation planning process.
The point of this Methodology section is to outline general theory concerning data driven analysis of hazards, risk, and vulnerability. Methods pertaining to specific hazard and risk assessments are outlined in the individual hazard's section of the Hazard Specific Assessments.
HARA's first actions taken to develop a hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment are to inventory available data. Previous state-level inter-agency meetings reveal numerous data holes and data needs. Because the methods are data driven, the key to success is the acquisition of the best data with the finest detail possible.
Because GIS is the pivotal element in this analysis, the following subsection is an effort to outline basic theory and practice considerations concerning the analysis. The discussion below barely scratches the surface of this discipline and is only for explanatory purposes. The science behind GIS processes and analyses are complicated and typically require months to years of training for proficiency in the software and jargon. However, the basic theory behind the methods provides a baseline understanding of GEMA's methods in this Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessment portion of the Hazard Mitigation Strategy for the State of Georgia.
2.3.1 Introduction to GIS Theory and Practice
The acronym "GIS" often represents two separate but related concepts: Geographic Information Science and Geographic Information Systems. Essentially, GIScience consists of the underlying theories of geography, cartographic representation, and spatial analysis that provide a basis for the operation of GISystems and acceptance of the results as valid. Although this section will detail some underlying concepts related to GIScience, the remaining sections will concern the methods utilized in GISystems that allow analysis of Georgia's hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities. From this point forward, the acronym "GIS" will refer to geographic information systems.
The purpose of GISystems is to marry attribute data to spatial data for visual representation and statistical analysis. A simple example of this function of GIS is a county map of Georgia. The GIS may contain a spreadsheet with all the counties' name, county seat, area, population, and information spatially referencing the attribute data to a specific geographic location on earth. If one were to utilize the GIS to create a visualization of these data, one could create a map of Georgia

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 28

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 29

counties shaded various colors to represent each counties' population. Also, one could use the spatial analysis functions of the GIS to find clustering of counties with high populations, which may highlight the large metropolitan area of Atlanta.
GIS has the ability to incorporate two types of spatial data: vector and raster. Vector data consists of geometries such as points, lines, and polygons to represent spatial objects. Continuing with the example from above, a Georgia county would equal a polygon feature in GIS while a point feature represents a city in that county and a line represents a river running through that county. However, keeping issues of scale in mind, one realizes that all spatial features have area and can be represented as polygons. If one were to focus on the city as a feature at a smaller scale, it would no longer be represented by a point but a polygon feature.
Instead of using various geometries to represent physical locations on earth's surface, raster data consists of a grid of square cells linked to associated attribute data. A raster is similar to the pixels of a digital image in that each may have a unique value. The example from above of the Georgia county representation can continue to illustrate raster data. Instead of a polygon representing the county, the county consists of numerous raster cells that are associated with similar attribute data such as the county's name.
Both types of spatial data have advantages and disadvantages, which must be addressed in order to make educated decisions when using GIS. Vector data are typically easier to scale and reproject as well as combine with other layers and relate to other layers. Raster data's uniform grid surface proves more useful in more advanced analysis as well as a process known as map algebra (discussed later in relation to hazard-specific assessments). However, storing raster data occasionally become cumbersome because of storage space usage. Also, in terms of visualization, raster data may appear blocky whereas vector data resembles traditional maps.
While spatial data are discussed in terms of vectors and raster, the attribute data types align with the levels of measurement found in Stevens' theory of scale. Stevens proposed four levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal, and interval/ratio. Nominal data are simply categories or names assigned to a (spatial) object. In the example from above, a polygon or numerous raster cells representing a county have assigned nominal data: the county's name. Ordinal data are numbers assigned to a (spatial) object to represent a rank order. For example, if each county was given a ranking on total population and included in the attribute data, each county would contain ordinal attribute data. Interval data and ratio data are considered continuous data, are often called "true measurement", and have units of measurement. The county's total population and area are examples of interval/ratio data.
The discussion of theory behind GIS and various data used within the system warrants a mention of its inherent assumptions and problems. One must keep in mind that the visualization of data in a map form is a representation of reality, not reality. Although all efforts to obtain objectivity are taken, subjectivity is inherent in spatial analysis and cartography. Every map has an author who takes on liberties of categorization and visualization. Therefore, biases, although not malicious or conspicuous, exist in every map. However, the inclusion of specific methods taken and the mention of the decision process allow the viewer to make independent decisions concerning the information.
For the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment of Georgia, GEMA utilizes raster layers (some converted to raster from vector) in order to facilitate composite assessments using map algebra techniques. The composite scores consist of a raster layer in which each raster cell is given a numerical hazard score. This score is the sum of the each hazard layer's exposure score and represents to overall exposure of that particular cell to all hazards. Composite assessments, which are also combined with vulnerability measures, prove useful in decision-making. For example, a vector layer of critical facility point locations can be added to the composite score. Analysis of this layer will reveal particular structures that face the greatest amount of exposure. With this information in hand, local officials can potentially concentrate limited mitigation funding to structures with the greatest exposure.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

2.4 ALL-HAZARD ASSESSMENT
To understand the entirety of Georgia's exposure to natural hazards, the development of the most complete hazard history possible is necessary. This hazard history must consist not only of the history of hazard events affecting areas of the State but also of the total losses resulting from these hazard events. With an understanding of the hazards and the subsequent effects allows a more developed risk and vulnerability assessment.
2.4.1 Hazard Characteristics
The following characteristics are often used to describe hazard events: intensity, magnitude, frequency, duration, rate of onset, seasonality, areal extent, and spatial dispersion. Each of these characteristics is addressed separately in relation to specific hazards in the hazard-specific assessment section. However, a brief overview of the definitions of these hazard event characteristics is somewhat necessary.
Magnitude and intensity refer to the measurement of a hazard event's strength or force and hazard event's severity based on subjective human experience, respectively. An example of a magnitude measurement is the Richter scale's measurement of earthquakes. This scale provides a measure of the seismic energy released (in ergs) and allows one to compare different earthquake events. An example of an intensity measurement is the Fujita scale's measurement of tornadoes. This scale assigns a class to a tornado event based on post-event structural damage assessments.
Frequency and duration are two of the temporal characteristics of hazard events. Frequency details how often an event of a given magnitude or intensity may occur. Often in the form of recurrence intervals, this measure is usually based on available history of the event. An example of a frequency measure is the delineation of a 100-year flood. This does not mean that a flood of a given magnitude will occur one in a 100 year time period but signifies a 1% chance of the flood occurring each year. Duration describes the length of the event. This measure may appear as a continuum of events with earthquakes falling toward the shorter duration with some drought events falling toward the more prolonged events.
Two other temporal characteristics of hazard events are rate of onset and seasonality. Rate of onset is a measure of the time between the initial signs of the event and the event's peak. Often rate of onset is a characteristic that relates to warning capabilities with earthquakes having a rapid rate of onset and, therefore, no available time for the dispersion of a warning to the public. Seasonality refers to hazard events that may exclusively or probably occur during a certain season of the year. Because of the nature of hurricane formation, hurricanes have a season spanning from June 1 November 30 for the Atlantic basin.
The final two characteristics refer to the spatiality of hazard events. The areal extent of a hazard event measures the amount and location of geographic area affected. The spatial dispersion of the hazard refers to the spatial distribution of the hazard in a broader scale. For example, a hurricane event may have a larger areal extent than a tornado event, but the tornado has a wider spatial dispersion (can happen in more locations within the United States) than hurricanes.
2.4.2 Hazard Identification
Creating a list of natural hazards affecting the State of Georgia will never be comprehensive of all possible hazards. Also, hazards, though separated for the purpose of analysis, interrelate and compound with other hazards. Choosing the most prevalent hazards using hazard histories to include within this plan follows both federal regulations and, specifically, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document "386-2 `How-to' Understanding Your Risks".
The hazards included in this plan's analysis fall into three broad categories: meteorological, seis-

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 30

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 31

mic, and anthropogenic. The meteorological hazards are as follows:
Tropical Cyclonic Events (Hurricanes, Tropical Storms) Coastal Flooding Wind Severe Weather (Includes Lightning and Hailstorms) Tornadoes Inland Flooding Severe Winter Storms Drought Wildfire
The seismic hazards are as follows:
Earthquake Landslide Sinkholes
The anthropogenic hazards are as follows:
Dam Failure
Also used in evaluating the types of hazards included in this hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment is the reporting of hazards by locals. The following table was created based upon the results of reviewing 130 local hazard mitigation plans. GEMA Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section planners extracted information about hazards that the locals included in each risk assessment. Basically, the planners read the local hazard mitigation plans and noted all of the included hazards. Of the 130 plans, the percentages that address each hazard are listed in the following table, Table 2.2.

Hazard Type Inland Flooding Tornadoes Drought Severe Winter Storms Wind Wildfire Tropical Cyclonic Events Severe Weather Hailstorm (Severe Weather) Lightning (Severe Weather) Dam Failure Heat Earthquake (Seismic) Coastal Flooding Sinkhole (Seismic) Landslide (Seismic)

% of Counties Identifying Hazard 98% 97% 91% 81% 75% 75% 53% 47% 46% 40% 30% 25% 24% 5% 4% 1%

Table 2.2: Hazard types identified by local hazard mitigation plans

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

This review of local hazard data allows the inclusion of previously ignored hazards, such as sink-

A

holes, into the updated hazard mitigation strategy. GEMA planners noticed that some local plans

addressed a hazard that was not addressed in the previously approved state plan and, therefore,

Z

included the hazard in the update. The collecting of the local hazard data serves as a validation

A

tool for the process of identifying potential hazards. The local plans will be reviewed during future updates in order to include additional hazards previously unaddressed.

R

D

However, the local risk assessment data are not utilized in the state's risk assessment due to the

problems associated with circular logic. Essentially, the local's completed the local risk assessments using the state-provided hazard and risk data. This same state data was utilized in Geor-

R

gia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy. Therefore, utilizing the local hazard data (which was acquired

I

from the state) to supplement the state hazard and risk assessment would be using circular logic.

S

2.4.3 All-Hazard Events and Associated Losses

K

This section of the plan addresses Georgia's hazard event and loss history by utilizing several

sources. The first is the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database for the United States

A

(SHELDUS) produced by the Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute of the University of South

N

Carolina. This searchable database contains hazard-specific data with each event having the location (county), beginning date, property losses, crop losses, injuries, and fatalities. This data-

D

base is derived from many national data sources including the National Climatic Data Center

(NCDC) and the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). The data covers hazard events and

V

losses from 1960 to 2005, with updates for additional years forthcoming. Prior to 1995, a hazard

event was utilized only if exceeding a $50,000 loss or 1 fatality. Therefore, only the hazard events

U

with larger impacts are included in SHELDUS, which results in an underestimation of both events

L

and losses. Although SHELDUS produces underestimated losses, the database remains valuable because it's status as the only comprehensive hazard event and loss database in the United

N

States.

E

R

The data gathered from SHELDUS are visually represented in three maps of Georgia. These maps, along with all the maps included in this document, are located in Appendix A at the end of

A

the document. The first map (Figure A.1), "Total Hazard Event", illustrates the sheer total of haz-

B

ard events that have occurred within the State from 1960-2005. Although this map does not speak to what types of hazards are occurring in each county, the map does reveal some important

I

spatial patterns. The most hazard events have occurred in the Cobb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Coun-

L

ties. Explanations for this pattern could include the fact that these populous counties have more

I

people to notice the hazard event or, when a hazard event occurs in these counties, the event is

more likely to produce at least $50,000 in losses. Also, one notices that most of the northern part

T

of Georgia seems plagued with more hazard events than the southern part of the State.

Y

The second map (Figure A.2), "Hazard-Induced Losses", illustrates the total losses from all hazard

events by county from 1960-2005. These totals take into account inflation; therefore, all amounts

A

are in 2005 dollars. The pattern is similar to that found within the hazard event total map. The

S

more metropolitan counties around Atlanta show the most loss for hazards, namely because of the

occurrence of more hazards in that area. The northern portion of the State still stands out as an

S

area with more loss. However, unlike in the hazard event map, the Southwestern corner of Geor-

E

gia appears as a region with higher losses than expected based on the hazard event map.

S

To reconcile the slight differences in the total hazard events and total loss maps, the third map

S

using SHELDUS data (Figure A.3) depicts the average loss per hazard event for each county.

M

Fulton and Clayton Counties represent the highest loss per event category with totals between one and two million dollars per hazard event. A much smaller cluster around metropolitan Atlanta

E

and in northern Georgia after the average loss is considered. The cluster in the Southwestern

N

corner of the State remains, even with the average loss considered, most likely due to crop losses rather than property losses.

T

Page 32

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Another source utilized in addressing Georgia's hazard event and loss history is the database of

A

Presidential Disaster Declarations (PDDs) and the associated claim amounts. These data are

publicly assessable through FEMA. Although similar to the SHELDUS data in that loss data are

Z

acquired, the two databases cannot be combined due to the possible overlap of data, which may

A

result in double counting some losses. However, analyzing both sets of data separately still

R

proves useful in understanding Georgia's all-hazard event and loss history. The following table, Table 2.3, details the history of PDDs for Georgia.

D

R I S K

A N D

V U L N E R A B I L I T Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 33

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Number

Declared

Description

2697 2693 2688 2686 2685 1686 3218 1560 1554 2362 1315 1311 3144 1271 1209 1076 1071 1042
1033
1020 3097 980 969 897 880 857 3089 541 3044 536 507 460 3008 425 391 370 214 180 177

05/31/2007 05/09/2007 05/05/2007 04/26/2007 04/17/2007 03/03/2007 09/05/2005 09/24/2004 09/18/2004 05/23/2001 02/15/2000 01/28/2000 09/14/1999 04/20/1999 03/20/1998 12/20/1995 10/10/1995 10/19/1994
07/07/1994
03/31/1994 03/15/1993 03/04/1993 12/01/1992 03/15/1991 10/19/1990 02/23/1990 05/11/1984 11/07/1977 07/20/1977 06/02/1977 06/11/1976 03/29/1975 03/14/1975 04/05/1974 06/11/1973 04/04/1973 03/14/1966 11/04/1964 09/10/1964

Harveytown Fire Bugaboo Scrub Fire Roundabout Fire Kneeknocker Swamp Fire Sweat Farm Road Fire Severe Storms and Tornadoes Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Tropical Storm Frances Hurricane Ivan Blounts Pasture Fire Tornadoes Winter Storm Hurricane Floyd Severe Storms and Tornadoes Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding Severe Storms, Tornadoes Hurricane Opal Heavy Rains, Tornadoes, Flooding, High Winds Tornadoes, Flooding, Heavy Rain, Tropical Storm Alberto Severe Storm, Tornadoes, Flooding Severe Snowfall, Winter Storm Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rain Heavy Rain, High Winds, Tornadoes Flooding, Severe Storm Flooding, Severe Storm Flooding, Severe Storm, Tornado Severe Storms and Tornadoes Dam Collapse, Flooding Drought Shrimp Loss Due To Cold Weather SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rains Tornadoes TORNADOES SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES TORNADOES, FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING HURRICANE DORA

150

03/26/1963

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING

110

03/02/1961

16

03/17/1954

1

05/02/1953

Table 2.3: Presidential Disaster Declarations for Georgia

FLOODS TORNADO TORNADO

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 34

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 35

As the Table 2.3 demonstrates, even the limited events that obtained a presidential declaration span the wide range of hazards previously listed as having the potential to affect the State of Georgia. Using the same format as the SHELDUS data analysis, the PDDs are mapped and located in Appendix A at the end of the document. However, from disaster number 1 through 3089 and number 2685 through 2697 are not included in the counties declared or claim amounts cartographic analysis. These disasters are either too old or still in process in terms of specific counties declared and filing claims, respectively.
The first map (Figure A.4), "Presidential Disaster Declarations", illustrates the total PDDs received by each county since 1990. Similar to the SHELDUS map, this map does not illustrate the PDDs by type of hazard event. This map reveals that no obvious spatial pattern exists for the PDD distribution across the State of Georgia. However, the map does reveal the county that has received the most declarations, Pike County in the Piedmont region of Georgia.
The second map (Figure A.5), "PDD Public Assistance Claims", illustrates the total claims produced for each county for all PDDs since 1990. Because of the limited time span, these totals do not take into account inflation and should be used for comparison within context. The pattern resembles that of the previous map concerning total number of PDDs because the more PDDs the county has, the more claims the county makes. However, in contrast to Pike County's having the most PDDs, the county's claims totaled less than many counties. The two counties with the largest Public Assistance totals are Bibb and Dougherty Counties located in the Piedmont and southern regions of Georgia, respectively.
To gain a better understanding of the phenomenon illustrated by Pike County, the average Public Assistance claim total per PDD was mapped. As Figure A.6 illustrates, Bibb and Dougherty Counties ranked highest in total claims per PDD. Three of the major counties in metropolitan Atlanta ranked in the second highest group of total claims per PDD along with Sumter in South Georgia. Other counties containing larger cities also obtained higher totals per PDD, including Chatham County (Savannah, GA) and Richmond County (Augusta, GA).
In addition to discussing all substantial hazard events (SHELDUS) and all federally-recognized hazard events (PDDs), the following hazard-specific assessment section will parse out each hazard's contribution to all hazard events found within SHELDS and all hazard events that obtained PDD status. Also, each hazard-specific assessment will contain a brief list of the more notable and notorious events that may even span to years before the coverage of SHELDUS data (19602005).
2.5 HAZARD-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS
The hazard-specific assessments contained within this section follow the subsequent order: tropical cyclonic systems (including hurricanes and tropical systems), coastal flooding, wind, severe weather (including lightning and hailstorms), tornadoes, inland flooding, severe winter storm, drought, wildfire, earthquake, and dam failure.
Within each hazard's assessment will be an event and loss history similar to the all-hazard assessment that includes SHELDUS and PDD data as well as a table of the most notable events. Also included in each hazard's section is a risk or occurrence probability assessment.
2.5.1 Tropical Cyclonic Systems
A "hurricane" is a specified strength of a tropical cyclonic system that occurs in the Atlantic Basin. Weaker tropical cyclonic systems occurring in the Atlantic Basin are referred to as tropical cyclones or tropical depressions. These tropical cyclonic systems should be distinguished from other cyclonic windstorms such as nor'easters and polar lows.
Although named differently (such as typhoon), tropical cyclonic systems occur throughout the

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

world. The spatial dispersion of this type of hazard spans not only the North Atlantic but also the

H

Northwest, Northeast, and Australian Southwest Pacific and the North and South Indian Ocean.

A

In terms of areal extent, these storms may dominate weather over thousands of square miles and

reach from the earth's surface to the lower stratosphere.

Z

A

The temporal characteristics of tropical cyclones (seasonality, rate of onset, duration, and frequency) are more defined than other hazards. In terms of seasonality, the Atlantic Basic hurricane

R

season (only basin affecting Georgia) spans from June to November with the peak of the season

D

occurring in the middle of September. The rate of onset of a tropical cyclone ranges from hours

up to a day depending on the size and speed of the storm. The duration of event also depends on the size and speed of the storm and can last from hours to days in a certain location. The duration

R

of the event in terms of its lifespan (not duration of impact) varies greatly among storms but is of-

I

ten measured in days and weeks. The frequency of tropical cyclones (how often a specific magnitude storm will occur) is more difficult to determine and is largely based upon meteorological sta-

S

tistical modeling. The environmental influences that affect the number and strength of tropical

K

cyclones in the Atlantic Basin include El Nino / La Nina, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Cycle and other

synoptic systems (such as the Bermuda High). However, the National Weather Service (NWS)

makes annual forecasts pre-hurricane season concerning the total number of named storms

A

(hurricanes and tropical storms) as well as the total number of strong hurricanes. These forecasts

N

are taken into account during the hurricane planning process throughout various levels of government.

D

The measures of magnitude and intensity of tropical cyclones are interrelated. In the Atlantic Ba-

V

sin, tropical cyclones are classified based on magnitude characteristics into tropical disturbance,

tropical depression, tropical storm, and hurricane according to the Saffir-Simpson scale (the most

U

widely used scale of magnitude in reference to tropical cyclones). Table 2.4 outlines the charac-

L

teristics of each classification of tropical cyclones as well as the further classification of hurricanes into categories in terms of magnitude and projected intensity.

N

E

R

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 36

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 37

Storm

Description

Tropical Disturbance
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm Hurricane Category 1

Slight or absent surface circulation; No closed isobars; No strong winds
Some surface circulation; One or more closed isobars
Distinct rotary circulation; Closed isobars
Pronounced rotary circulation; Closed isobars

Magnitude (wind)
Up to 29 knot sustained winds
30 63 knot sustained winds 64 - 82 knot sustained winds

Magnitude (surge)
4 5 ft storm surge (above normal)

Hurricane Category 2

Pronounced rotary circulation; Closed isobars

83 - 95 knot sustained winds

6 8 ft storm surge (above normal)

Hurricane Category 3

Pronounced rotary circulation; Closed isobars

96 - 113 knot sustained winds

9 12 ft storm surge (above normal)

Hurricane Category 4

Pronounced rotary circulation; Closed isobars

114 - 135 knot sustained winds

12 18 ft storm surge (above normal)

Hurricane Category 5

Pronounced rotary circulation; Closed isobars

Greater than 135 knot sustained winds

Greater than 18 ft storm surge (above normal)

Table 2.4: Tropical cyclonic system classifications

Projected Intensity
No real damage to building structures; Damage to unanchored mobile homes and vegetation; Some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage Some roofing, door, and window damage to buildings; Considerable vegetation damage; Considerable mobile home damage Some structural damage with minor failures; Mobile homes destroyed; Coastal flooding destroys smaller structures and damages larger structures with floating debris More extensive structural failure; Major damage to structures near coast; May require massive evacuation of areas up to 6 miles inland Complete roof and wall failures far inland; Major coastal flooding damage; Evacuation up to 10 miles inland

Tropical cyclones consist of different hazardous elements associated with the actual event, including storm surge (coastal flooding) and strong winds. Each of these hazards is distinctively addressed in the following sections. Within this section, the tropical cyclone, in terms of the hazard history and risk, is considered as one hazard. Therefore, some overlap may exist between the sections addressing tropical cyclone, coastal flooding, and wind. For example, the coastal flooding section may outline the history of coastal flooding in Georgia even though the tropical cyclonic catalyst for the surge is already addressed within this section.

The hazard event and loss history of tropical cyclones is addressed similarly to the all-hazard assessment in a previous section. The history consists of an analysis using SHELDUS data and

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

PDDs with an additional section specifying notable events.

H

A

Even though Georgia has not sustained a tropical cyclone direct hit (the storm's eye hitting the

coast) in recent record, the following analysis show the State's susceptibility to the storms. Al-

Z

though all of Georgia's counties can be affected by tropical cyclonic activity, two regions stand

A

apart when analyzed using SHELDUS data. Figure A.7, which illustrates the tropical cyclonic events per county from 1960 to 2005, highlights the two regions in Southwest Georgia and

R

Coastal Georgia. Based on SHELDUS, the counties in Southwest Georgia are most affected by

D

tropical cyclones (that enter from the Gulf of Mexico) while the counties are less affected by tropi-

cal cyclones (that enter from the Atlantic Ocean). In terms of losses associated with these events, Figure A.8 illustrates that, even with fewer events, Coastal Georgia has sustained more loss from

R

tropical cyclones. This is largely due to Coastal Georgia's greater susceptibility to both coastal

I

and inland flooding related to the storm.

S

The PDDs associated with tropical cyclonic activity are found in Table 2.5. Most of the events (in

K

this limited history) have occurred in the 1990s with the exception of Hurricane Dora in 1964.

Most of these storms impacted one of Georgia's neighbors before its impact, which typically weak-

ens the storm. These declarations demonstrate that even storms in a weakened state still pose a

A

serious threat.

N

D

Number

Declared

Description

3218 1560 1554

09/05/2005

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

V U

09/24/2004

Tropical Storm Frances

L

09/18/2004

Hurricane Ivan

N

3144

09/14/1999

Hurricane Floyd

E

1071

10/10/1995

Hurricane Opal

R

Tornadoes, Flooding,

A

1033 177

07/07/1994

Heavy Rain, Tropical Storm

B

Alberto

I

09/10/1964

HURRICANE DORA

L

Table 2.5: Tropical cyclonic system related PDDs

I

Finally, the next table details the more notable tropical cyclonic events that have affected the State

T

of Georgia. The data on the storms that occurred prior to 1900 are based on the efforts of Al San-

Y

drik and Chris Landsea with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that attempt to

expand and improve the historic land-falling hurricane database for parts of the Southeastern

United States. The following table, Table 2.6, details the more notable events in Georgia's tropical

A

cyclone history. These events are not representative of all events affecting the State, but are selected on the basis of having a great impact.

S

S

E

S

S

M

E

N

T

Page 38

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Year Name (if applicable) Area Affected

Remarks

A

1804

Savannah Area Hutchison Island inundated; 3

Z

deaths

A

1813

Coastal Georgia 28 deaths

R

1881

Savannah Area $1.5 million in damages; 335 deaths

D

1893

Savannah Area $10 million in damages; 1000 deaths

1898

R
1911
I

S

1916

K

1928

Coastal Georgia
Coastal Georgia
Southwest Georgia Savannah Area

120 deaths 18" of rain in 24 hours $2.5 million in damages
11" of rain

1940

A

1947

N

D

1959 Gracie

1964 Dora

Coastal Georgia Savannah Area Coastal Georgia Coastal Georgia

> $1 million in damages > $2 million in damages $5 million in damages $8 million in damages

V

1990 Klaus/Marco (FEMA

Central Georgia $6 million in damages

U

880) 1994 Alberto (FEMA 1033)

Statewide

Extreme flooding on Flint and

L

Ocmulgee Rivers; > $400 million in

N

damages

E

1995 Opal (FEMA 1071)

Western Georgia Widespread wind damages

R

2004 Frances, Ivan, and

Statewide

Wind / rain damage in 107 counties

A

Jeanne (FEMA 1554

B

and 1560)

I

2005 Dennis

Statewide

Wind / rain damage; Flooding

L

Table 2.6: Notable tropical cyclonic events

I

T

The risk analysis of all hazard events takes into account the recurrence interval of the hazard. Because the historical record of tropical cyclonic events is limited and subject to seasonality, a

Y

true recurrence interval is unknown and changes yearly (as demonstrated by the NWS forecast-

ing). However, using the various sources for Georgia's tropical cyclone history (NOAA,

SHELDUS), one can estimate over a 200 year period around 36 tropical cyclones affected the

A

State (not necessarily a direct hit). This translates to about an 18% chance of a tropical cyclone

S

affecting the State per year or approximately one storm every 5.5 years.

S

Most of the hazard-specific assessments include an overall hazard score map. This type of map

E

as a numerical score assigned to each raster cell that specifies the overall risk of the hazard oc-

S

curring in that area. The composite assessment compiles these hazard scores to calculate the

S

overall risk of each area of Georgia. However, as the previous data demonstrates, tropical cyclonic systems have the ability to impact the entire State of Georgia and, therefore, no hazard score

M

layer is created. The following sections that address the specific components of tropical cyclones

E

that have more defined spatial impacts (storm surge and wind) contain hazard score maps that detail areas of greater risks.

N

T

This section addressed the general characteristics of tropical cyclonic systems (dispersion, extent,

seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's

Page 39

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

history related to Georgia. Also, this section assesses the risk of the State to tropical cyclonic sys-

H

tems. As previously stated, the storm surge and wind histories and risk assessments are ad-

A

dressed in subsequent sections. As stated in the introduction to this chapter, vulnerability to all of

the hazards discussed is analyzed in another subsequent section.

Z

A

2.5.2 Storm Surge

R

The worst effect of tropical cyclonic storms, especially powerful hurricanes, comes from the sea.

D

As the storm moves coastward and crosses the continental shelf, the storm's strong winds drive

massive amounts of sea water onto land, sometimes increasing mean water level by more than 18 feet. This storm surge is often coupled with normal astronomical tides and wind waves. This

R

coastal flooding has potential to cause severe flooding that not only dampens but destroys ex-

I

posed structures.

S

The storm surge is often the catalyst behind many of the deaths associated with tropical cyclones

K

reaching shore. The more notable storm surge events causing massive fatalities include two hur-

ricanes in 1893 causing between three and four thousand deaths on South Carolina's coast and

the Gulf Coast. Another notorious storm surge event occurred in Galveston, Texas in 1900 and

A

resulted in more than six thousand deaths.

N

The spatial dispersion of storm surge events matches with that of tropical cyclone events due to

D

the storm's causing the surge. Therefore, storm surge spans not only the North Atlantic but also

the Northwest, Northeast, and Australian Southwest Pacific and the North and South Indian

V

Ocean. The areal extent of the surge impacts less area than the storm, especially considering the

highest surge exists in the first quadrant of the storm where the rotation causes the highest winds.

U

However, the surge can reach inland for miles along a vast span of coastline (depends on the size

L

and strength of the storm).

N

The temporal characteristics of tropical cyclones (seasonality, rate of onset, duration, and fre-

E

quency) mostly correspond with those of the tropical cyclones. In terms of seasonality, storm

R

surges only occur during the Atlantic Basic hurricane season. The rate of onset of a storm surge has a smaller range than the storm itself. While the storm may show signs of approach up to days

A

before the storm peaks, the storm surge will often appear somewhat suddenly. This rapid rate of

B

onset is the major contributor to the many deaths associated with storm surge. The duration of the surge event depends on the depth of the surge and other environmental factors such as drain-

I

age capability. The waters from the surge may remain for days in certain areas. The frequency of

L

storm surges of a certain magnitude greatly depends on the frequency of tropical cyclones with

I

the ability to produce the surge. As previously stated, these statistics are largely based upon me-

teorological statistical modeling.

T

Y

The measure of magnitude of storm surge is largely based upon height above mean water level.

Table 2.3 in the previous section concerning tropical cyclonic systems details the magnitude of

storm surge that often accompanies certain magnitudes of tropical cyclones. This table also lists

A

estimated damage (possible measures of intensity) of storm surge coupled with other elements of

S

tropical cyclones.

S

The hazard event and loss history of storm surge, consisting of SHELDUS data, PDDs, and nota-

E

ble events, are illustrated by the maps located in Appendix A at the end of this document and tables. Because Georgia has not sustained a direct hit from a tropical cyclonic system in the recent

S

record, Georgia's coastal counties have experienced some coastal flooding. Figure A.9 illustrates

S

the total number of events experienced by Georgia's coastal counties while Figure A.10 illustrates

M

the total property and agricultural losses associated with these events. Only Chatham County (which contains the city of Savannah) has had more than one event and none of the coastal coun-

E

ties have experienced great loss from coastal flooding. Although only minor coastal flooding has

N

occurred, Georgia's coastal counties have great potential for a massive tropical cyclone to hit directly, causing an overwhelming storm surge.

T

Page 40

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 41

No PDDs have responded to storm surge events in Georgia in this system's limited history. However, many of the notable tropical cyclone events listed in Table 2.5 have a storm surge component, especially those events with casualties. Again, the longer history (not just the PDD history) demonstrates the Georgia coast's great potential for a destructive storm surge.
The risk assessment of storm surge events impacting Georgia should take into account the information presented in the analysis of tropical cyclonic events. In other words, the same statistics apply to the occurrence of storm surges as those that apply to a tropical cyclonic impact (except that storm surge usually only affects areas directly hit by tropical cyclones). However, additional analyses of specific areas of storm surge impact exist within models of storm surge.
The Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) is a statistical model based on historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricane data (pressure, size, forward speed, track, and wind speed) that estimates storm surge heights at particular locations when impacted by a certain magnitude storm. Figure B.1 maps storm surge as modeled by the University Information Technology Outreach Services and the US Army Corps of Engineers in April 2001. The surge levels are defined by the corresponding category of hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The areas inundated by a Category 4 or 5 are combined to reflect their decreased probability of occurrence. The exact heights of the surge are not noted because horizontal positional accuracy is unknown due to no prior collection of reliable surge data in Georgia.
The values shown in Figure B.1, found in Appendix B, correspond with the hazard scores shown in Table 2.7. This storm surge hazard score is coupled with other hazard scores in order to construct the composite hazard score found in a later section of this chapter.

Hazard Score

Description

5

Inundated by a Category 1 Hurricane

4

Inundated by a Category 2 Hurricane

3

Inundated by a Category 3 Hurricane

2

Inundated by a Category 4 Hurricane

Inundated by a Category 5 Hurricane

Table 2.7: Storm surge hazard score by hurricane category

Although the SLOSH-based hazard scores stop at the inland borders of the six coastal counties, strong hurricanes have the ability to drive storm surge farther into the other non-coastal counties. This is not represented on the maps because the underlying data does not account for counties beyond the coast. Also, the SLOSH model does not account for any barriers to the storm surge such as Interstate 95's acting as a berm.

This section addresses the general characteristics of storm surge (dispersion, extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's history related to Georgia. Also, this section assesses the risk of storm surge to the State and graphically represents the spatial distribution of the risk in the form of a hazard-score map. The actual vulnerability to storm surge is addressed in later sections.

2.5.3 Wind

Wind is a unique hazard event in that it typically accompanies some other catalyst hazard event. For example, wind damage may accompany tropical cyclones events, severe weather events, and/or tornadic events. Because wind is a distinct cause of damage for several hazard types, it is considered a separate hazard event for the purpose of this analysis.

Most of the characteristics of the wind events align with the catalyst hazard. In other words the spatial dispersion and extent, the seasonality, the rate of onset, the frequency, and the duration of

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

the event all depend on whether tropical cyclones, severe weather systems, or tornadoes are

H

causing the winds. Magnitude and intensity are simply based on the speed of the winds.

A

The first map of historical wind events (Figure A.11) shows the majority of events in the northern

Z

portion of the State. These events were cited as wind hazard events and not as the hazard that

A

caused the wind (such as tropical cyclone or tornado). This fact may account for the higher reporting of wind events in the North Georgia because those nearer to the coast are typically associ-

R

ated with tropical cyclones. The historical losses map (Figure A.12) illustrates that the majority of

D

losses are found within the area cited as having the most wind events.

The recurrence interval for high winds is dependent of the recurrence intervals for the catalyst

R

hazards, which are discussed in other sections of this chapter.

I

Wind normally would not be considered a spatially defined type of hazard that the risk could be

S

mapped. However, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) calculates 50 year return in-

K

tervals for certain wind speeds for building code purposes. These contours, coupled with FEMA

publication 386-2's community shelter design zones, led to the wind field hazard map, Figure B.2.

The wind risk map illustrates the wind gust speeds that have a return interval of 50 years for the

A

counties in Georgia. These wind speeds correspond with the assigned hazard scores with values

N

ranging from 1 to 5 shown in Table 2.8. The highest risk areas are located along the Atlantic coast and the Southwestern portion of the State.

D

Hazard Score Wind Speeds

V

1

<90 mph gust (50 year return interval)

U

2

91 100 mph gust (50 year return interval)

L

3

101 110 mph gust (50 year return interval)

N

4

111 120 mph gust (50 year return interval)

E

R

5

>120 mph gust (50 year return interval)

A

Table 2.8: Wind hazard scores by 50 year wind gust return interval

B

Again, this section addresses the hazard of wind separately from the hazard events that actually

I

cause the wind. The section assesses the risk of winds of a certain speed to the State of Georgia.

L

2.5.4 Severe Weather

I

T

This section provides general and historical information about severe weather's main elements of

Y

thunderstorms, lightning, and hail. Other elements of severe weather such as tornadoes and wind

are addressed in other sections of this chapter.

A

Thunderstorms are formed when moist air near the earth's surface is forced upward through some catalyst (convection or frontal system). As the moist air rises, the air condenses to form clouds.

S

Because condensation is a warming process, the cloud continues to expand upward. When the

S

initial updraft is halted by the upper troposphere, both the anvil shape and a downdraft form. This

E

system of updrafting and downdrafting air columns is termed a "cell".

S

As the process of updrafts and downdrafts feeds the cell, the interior particulates of the cloud col-

S

lide and combine to form rain and hail which falls when the formations are heavy enough to push through the updraft. The collision of the water and ice particles within the cloud creates a large

M

electrical field that must discharge to reduce charge separation. This discharge is the lightning

E

that occurs from cloud to ground or cloud to cloud in the thunderstorm cell. In the final stage of

N

development, the updraft weakens as the downdraft-driven participation continues until the cell dies.

T

Page 42

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Each thunderstorm cell has the ability to extend several miles across its base and to reach 40,000

A

feet in altitude. Thunderstorm cells may compound and move abreast to form a squall line of

cells, extending farther than any individual cell's potential.

Z

A

In terms of temporal characteristics, thunderstorms exhibit no true seasonality in that occurrences

R

happen throughout the year. Convectively driven systems dominated in the summer while frontal driven systems dominate during the other seasons. The rate of onset is rapid in that a single cell

D

endures only 20 minutes. However, various cells in different stages of development may form a

thunderstorm that lasts up to a few hours as it moves across the surface.

R

Estimates show that at any given moment nearly 2,000 thunderstorms are actively dispersed over

I

the earth's surface. This accounts for nearly 45,000 daily thunderstorms and 16 million annual

S

thunderstorms around the world. Within the United States, annual estimates reach at least 100,000 thunderstorms. Georgia experiences thunderstorms during an average 50 to 80 days.

K

In terms of magnitude, the NWS defines thunderstorms in terms of severity. A severe thunder-

storm produces winds greater than 57 miles per hour and/or hail greater than inches in diame-

A

ter. The NWS chose these measures of severity as parameters more capable of producing con-

N

siderable damage. Therefore, these are measures of magnitude that may project intensity.

D

As previously stated two hazardous elements of thunderstorms are lightning and hail. By defini-

tion all thunderstorms produce lightning. Lightning occurs when the difference between the posi-

V

tive and negative charges of the upper layers of the cloud and the earth's surface becomes great

enough to overcome the resistance of the insulating air. The current flows along the forced con-

U

ductive path to the surface (in cloud to ground lightning) and reaches up to 100 million volts of

L

electrical potential. In Georgia, lightning strikes peak in July with June and August being second

N

highest in occurrence.

E

Hail is a form of participation that forms during the updraft and downdraft-driven turbulence within

R

the cloud. The hailstones are formed by layers of accumulated ice (with more layers creating lar-

A

ger hailstones) that can range from the size of a pea to the size of a grapefruit. Hailstones span a variety of shapes but usually take a spherical form. Hail storms mostly endanger crops but have

B

been known to damage automobiles, aircraft, and structures.

I

The hazard event and loss history for severe weather (thunderstorms, lightning, and hail) from

L

SHELDUS data are shown in Figures A.13 and A.14. The map illustrating the total events from

I

1960 2005 highlights the area around metropolitan Atlanta as having the most events. This may

be a result of urban areas' having more valuables to damage and, thus, having SHELDUS recog-

T

nize the occurrence as an event. The losses from severe weather map illustrate the fact that se-

Y

vere weather hazard events may also affect rural, farm communities to the same extent as urban

areas in terms of losses.

A

The PDDs associated with severe weather are found within Table 2.9. As evident within the table,

S

the severe weather aspect of the PDD is coupled with other types of hazards such as tornadoes

and flooding. These compounding type of hazards are separated in this plan simply for analysis.

S

E

S

S

M

E

N

T

Page 43

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Number Declared

Description

1686

03/03/2007

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

1271

04/20/1999

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

1209

03/20/1998

Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding

1076

12/20/1995

Severe Storms, Tornadoes

1020

03/31/1994

Severe Storm, Tornadoes, Flooding

897

03/15/1991

Flooding, Severe Storm

880

10/19/1990

Flooding, Severe Storm

857

02/23/1990

Flooding, Severe Storm, Tornado

3089

05/11/1984

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

507

06/11/1976

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING

391

06/11/1973

SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES

150

03/26/1963

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING

Table 2.9: Severe weather related PDDs

In terms of notable events, Georgia has experienced so many severe weather events that they become common. The more notable events are most likely those declared as disasters by FEMA.

While most of events related to severe weather are limited in terms of their impact, duration, and spatial extent, the hazard remains one of the most common in the State of Georgia. In terms of recurrence intervals, the use of the limited historical record (SHELDUS) reveals approximately 13 thunderstorms have occurred per month in Georgia with fewer associated with hail events.

Similarly to hurricanes and other subsequent hazards discussed in this chapter, severe weather is not as spatially defined as other hazards. In other words, the entire state is equally at risk to severe weather. Therefore, no hazard layer is created to represent risk to thunderstorm.

This section addressed the general characteristics of severe weather (dispersion, extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's history related to Georgia. Also, this section assesses the risk of the State to severe weather. As stated in the introduction to this chapter, vulnerability to all of the hazards discussed is analyzed in a subsequent section.

2.5.5 Tornadoes

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air (seen only when containing condensation, dust, or debris) in contact with the surface. Exceptionally large tornadoes may not exhibit the classic "funnel" shape but may appear as a large, turbulent cloud near the ground or a large rain shaft. Destructive because of strong winds and windborne debris, tornadoes can topple buildings, roll mobile homes, uproot vegetation and launch objects hundreds of yards.

Most significant tornadoes (excluding some weak tornadoes and coastal waterspouts) stem from the right, rear quadrant of large thunderstorm systems where the circulation develops between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. As circulation develops, a funnel cloud (rotating air column aloft) or tornado descends to the surface. These tornadoes are typically stronger and longer-lived. The weaker, shorter-lived tornadoes can develop along the leading edge of a singular thunderstorm.

Although tornadoes can occur in most locations, most of the tornadic activity in the United States exists in the Mid-West and Southeast. Within the State of Georgia, tornadoes can occur any-

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 44

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

where. In terms of the continuum of area of impact for hazard events, tornadoes are fairly iso-

A

lated. Typically ranging from a few feet to one or two miles across, tornadoes affect far less area

than larger meteorological events such as hurricanes, winter storms, and severe weather.

Z

A

An exact season does not exist for tornadoes; however, most occur within the time period of early

R

spring to middle summer (February June). The rate of onset of tornado events is rapid. Typically, the appearance of the first signs of the tornado is the descending funnel cloud. This sign

D

may be only minutes from the peak of the event, giving those in danger minimal sheltering time.

However, meteorological warning systems attempt to afford those in danger more time to shelter.

R

The frequency of specific tornado intensities is undetermined because no pattern seems to exist in occurrence. Finally, the duration of tornado events range from the few minutes of impact on a

I

certain location to the actual tornado lasting up to a few hours.

S

As previously stated in this chapter, tornadoes are measured after the occurrence using the sub-

K

jective intensity measures. The Fujita scale (Fujita-Pearson Tornado Classification) describes the

damage and then gives estimates of magnitude in miles per hour. The following table, Table 2.10,

lists the rankings on the Fujita scale and the corresponding magnitude and intensity measures.
A

N

Fujita Scale Wind Speed Damage

D

0

40-72 mph

Gale tornado; Light damage; Broken limbs, broken signs,

damaged chimneys

V

1

U

2

73-112 113-157

Moderate tornado; Surface damage to roofs; Overturned, moved mobile homes; Moved automobiles Significant tornado; Torn-off roofs; Demolished mobile

L

homes; Snapped and uprooted trees; Light object missiles

N

3

E

4

158-206 207-260

Severe tornado; Roofs and some wall destruction; Most trees in path uprooted; Heavy automobiles lifted Devastating tornado; well-constructed houses destroyed;

R

Heavy missiles generated

A

5

B

6

261-318 > 319

Incredible damage; Houses carried off frames; Car-sized missiles; Trees debarked and thrown Not expected

I

L

Table 2.10: Fujita-Pearson Classification (measure of magnitude and intensity)

I

The hazard event and loss history of tornadic events is addressed similarly to the other hazard-

T

specific assessments in a previous section. The history consists of an analysis using SHELDUS data and PDDs with an additional section specifying notable events.

Y

Figure A.15 illustrates the tornadic events per county from 1960 to 2005. No region is highlighted

A

as an area with more occurrences than others (as were evident by other hazard event maps). This reiterates the point that within the State of Georgia, tornadoes can occur anywhere. In terms

S

of losses associated with these events, Figure A.16 illustrates that the areas with the most losses

S

from tornadoes exist in around the city of Atlanta. This phenomenon is most likely due the fact that urban areas have more potential for loss in terms of property (not necessarily including crop

E

damage).

S

S

The PDDs associated with tornadoes are included in Table 2.11. This table includes almost 20 events, some with more than one hazard included. The SHELDUS data does not include the most

M

recent event, the severe storms and tornadoes in March of 2007 that affected 15 counties in

E

Southwest Georgia (Sumter County with the most damage). The remaining declarations span a time period from the 1950s through the present. The comparably vast number of declarations re-

N

lated to tornadic events demonstrates the great potential risk of this type of hazard to Georgia.

T

Page 45

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Number 1686 1315 1271 1209 1076 1042
1033 1020

H

Declared

Description

A

03/03/2007

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

Z

02/15/2000

Tornadoes

A

04/20/1999

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

R

03/20/1998

Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding

D

12/20/1995

Severe Storms, Tornadoes

10/19/1994

Heavy Rains, Tornadoes, Flooding, High Winds

R I

07/07/1994

Tornadoes, Flooding, Heavy Rain, Tropical Storm Alberto

S K

03/31/1994

Severe Storm, Tornadoes, Flooding

980

03/04/1993

Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rain

A

969

12/01/1992

Heavy Rain, High Winds, Tornadoes

N

857

02/23/1990

Flooding, Severe Storm, Tornado

D

3089

05/11/1984

Severe Storms and Tornadoes

V

460

03/29/1975

Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rains

U

3008

03/14/1975

Tornadoes

L

425

04/05/1974

TORNADOES

N

391

06/11/1973

SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES

E

370

04/04/1973

TORNADOES, FLOODING

R

16

03/17/1954

TORNADO

A

1

05/02/1953

TORNADO

B

Table 2.11: Tornado related PDDs

I

L

The next table details the more notable tornado events that have affected the State of Georgia.

I

The data spans from the early 1900s to the present and includes storms that appear in the historical record with numerous fatalities or vast damage. Again, these events listed in the following ta-

T

ble are not a complete history of tornadic activity in Georgia but are a small sample meant to dem-

Y

onstrate the ability of tornadoes to impact the State.

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 46

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 47

Year

Area Affected

Remarks

1903 Gainesville Area

200 deaths; 400 injuries; 1500 homeless

1936 1944

Gainesville Area Hall and Franklin Counties

203 deaths; >1000 injuries; 800 homes destroyed 18 deaths

1974 Dawsonville Area

4 deaths

1992 1993 1994 1994

Lumpkin County Hall County Northwestern Georgia Camden County

FEMA 969; F4 tornado; 6 deaths; 170 injuries; >1000 homes damage; $2 million in damages FEMA 980; 44 homes damaged; $2.5 million in damages FEMA 1020; 19 deaths; >200 injuries; $67.5 million in damages FEMA 1042; F2 intensity

1995 Albany Area

FEMA 1076; 36 injured; 250 buildings damaged

1998 1999 2000

Hall County & Metropolitan Atlanta Dooly and Candler Counties
Southwest Georgia

FEMA 1209; tornadoes causing extensive damage to homes and critical facilities FEMA 1271; tornadoes causing damage to homes, especially in Vienna 18 deaths; >100 injured; $5 million in damages

2007 Southwest Georgia

2 deaths; numerous injuries; hospital destroyed in Sumter County

Table 2.12: Notable tornado events in Georgia

As both Table 2.11 and Table 2.12 illustrate, a significant tornadic event occurred in the State of Georgia since the previously approved plan. On March 1, 2007, the severe thunderstorms that moved across Central Georgia produced at least 14 tornadoes, ranging from F0 to F3. At least two of the tornadoes caused fatalities in Taylor and Sumter Counties. Sumter County sustained the most damage when the F3 tornado that tracked 38 miles across Webster, Sumter, and Macon Counties impacted the Sumter Regional Hospital as well as hundreds of homes and businesses. From this severe weather and tornado hazard event, FEMA qualified nine counties for Individual Assistance: Baker, Crawford, Dougherty, McDuffie, Mitchell, Sumter, Taylor, Warren, and Worth. Also, thirteen counties qualified for FEMA's Public Assistance including: Baker, Clay, Crawford, Hancock, McDuffie, Mitchell, Muscogee, Stewart, Sumter, Taylor, Warren, Webster, and Wilkinson. More information regarding this particular hazard event is found on the National Weather Service Forecast Office: Peachtree City, GA's website (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/html/ tor3107.shtml) or on FEMA's website (http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema? published=1&id=7646).

Typically, the risk analysis of hazard events takes into account the recurrence interval of the hazard. Because tornadoes strike in somewhat random fashion, calculating a recurrence interval proves difficult. However, using the various sources for Georgia's tornado history (NOAA, SHELDUS), one can estimate over a 100 year period around 22 tornadoes affected the State per year. This translates to about a 220% chance of a tornado per year (around 2 per month).

Similar to tropical cyclones and severe weather, the risk of tornadoes is difficult to spatially define because of their inherent ability to impact the entire State of Georgia. Therefore, no hazard layer is included in this section.

This section addressed the general characteristics of tornadoes (dispersion, extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's history related to Georgia. Also, this section assesses the risk of the State to tornadoes in terms of recurrences

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

per year and not in terms of spatial risk.

H

A
2.5.6 Inland Flooding
Z

Flooding is a temporary overflow of water on normally dry lands adjacent to the source of water

A

(river, stream, or lake). The causes of flooding include mass sources of precipitation such as tropical cyclonic systems, frontal systems, and isolated thunderstorms combined with other envi-

R

ronmental variables such as topography, ground saturation, soil types, basin size, drainage pat-

D

terns, and vegetative cover. Adverse impacts may include structural damages, temporary back-

water effects in sewers and drainage systems, and unsanitary conditions by deposition of materials during recession.

R

I

Floods are loosely classified as either coastal or riverine. Coastal flooding is addressed in the storm surge section of this chapter. Riverine flooding occurs from inland water bodies such as

S

streams and rivers. Riverine flooding is often classified based on rate of onset. The first is slow to

K

build, peak, and recede often allowing sufficient time for evacuations. The other type of riverine

flood is referred to as a "flash" flood which rapidly peak and recede but give insufficient time for

evacuations. The more dangerous flash floods are common to the mountainous, impermeable

A

surfaces of northern Georgia.

N

On a broad scale, flooding can occur around any body of water or low-lying surface given enough

D

precipitation or snow melt. The spatial extent of the flooding event depends on the amount of wa-

ter overflow but can usually be mapped because of existing floodplains (areas already prone to

V

flooding).

U

In the State of Georgia, flooding is highly dependent of precipitation amounts and is highly vari-

L

able within the State. Georgia's climate is primarily affected by latitude, proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and topography. Certain seasons are more prone to flooding due to

N

their proneness to excessive precipitation. Typically, the wet seasons are during the winter, early

E

spring and midsummer while the drier seasons are in the fall and late spring. However, this varies

R

across the State with the northern portion receiving maximum precipitation amounts during the winter as a result of frontal systems while central and coastal Georgia receive maximums in the

A

mid to late summer as a result of tropical cyclonic systems and convective thunderstorm activity.

B

As previously stated, the rate of onset and duration of flooding events depends on the type of

I

flooding (typical flood or flash flood). The frequency measure of flooding events typically refers to

L

the 100 year flood. In other words, this particular flood magnitude has the probability of occurring

I

in one out of 100 years (1% chance per year). This magnitude of flood is often mapped as 100

year floodplains, which often delineate those with substantial risk to some severe flooding.

T

Y

Figures A.17 and A.18 illustrate flooding hazard events' history and losses in the State of Georgia

from 1960 2005. Although the event totals pale compared to more frequent events such as se-

vere weather, the total losses speak to the impact of flooding on Georgia. The regions with major

A

losses from flooding include the Atlanta area, the Augusta area, and southwestern Georgia. How-

S

ever, the entire State of Georgia has experienced loss from flooding.

S

In terms of PDDs, the following table lists the declarations associated with flooding in Georgia.

E

Most of the events that are declared included some flooding aspect. The year of 1994 had 3 flood-related PDDs and was one of the costliest years in Georgia's disaster history. As this table

S

illustrates, Georgia has continually been affected by flooding.

S

M

E

N

T

Page 48

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H
Number
A

Z

1560

A

1554

R

3144

D

1209

Declared 09/24/2004 09/18/2004 09/14/1999
03/20/1998

Description Tropical Storm Frances Hurricane Ivan Hurricane Floyd
Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding

R

1071

I

1042

S

K

1033

10/10/1995 10/19/1994 07/07/1994

Hurricane Opal
Heavy Rains, Tornadoes, Flooding, High Winds
Tornadoes, Flooding, Heavy Rain, Tropical Storm Alberto

A

1020

N

980

D

969

03/31/1994 03/04/1993 12/01/1992

Severe Storm, Tornadoes, Flooding Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rain Heavy Rain, High Winds, Tornadoes

897

03/15/1991

Flooding, Severe Storm

V

880

U

857

L

541

N

E

507

R

460

10/19/1990 02/23/1990 11/07/1977 06/11/1976 03/29/1975

Flooding, Severe Storm Flooding, Severe Storm, Tornado Dam Collapse, Flooding SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING Tornadoes, High Winds, Heavy Rains

A

370

04/04/1973

TORNADOES, FLOODING

B

214

03/14/1966

FLOODING

I

180

11/04/1964

FLOODING

L

177

I

150

T

Y

110

09/10/1964 03/26/1963 03/02/1961

HURRICANE DORA SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING FLOODS

Table 2.13: Flooding related PDDs

A

Historically, flooding has been the most damaging natural hazard to the State of Georgia with re-

S

spect to damages to property and human life. Table 2.14 lists notable flooding events in Georgia

S

since the late 1800s along with an estimate of magnitude of the flood (recurrence interval).

E

S

S

M

E

N

T

Page 49

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Year Area Affected

Recurrence

Remarks

H

Interval

A

1881 Savannah Area

>100 years

335 deaths; $1.5 million in dam-

Z

ages

A

1893 Savannah Area

>100 years

2,500 deaths; $10 million in dam-

R

ages

D

1916 Chattahoochee, Coosa, and 25 to >100

8-21 inches of rain; $2.3 million

Flint Rivers

years

in damages

R

1925 Central / South Georgia

25 to >100 years

8-11 inches of rain; 2 deaths

I

S

1929 Savannah, Ogeechee, and 25 to >100

6-10 inches of rain; $3 million in

Altamaha Rivers

years

damages

K

1940 Ogeechee and Savannah 10 to 75 years 25 deaths; $850,000 in damages;

Rivers

hurricane

A

1977 Toccoa Creek

Unknown

Dam failure; 39 deaths; $2.8 mil-

N

lion in damages

D

1990 Conasauga, Chattooga,

50 to >100

9 deaths; $13.9 million in dam-

Toccoa and Oconee Rivers years

ages

V

1990 Savannah, Ogeechee and >100 years

FEMA 880; $7.6 million in dam-

U

Ohoopee Rivers

ages, tropical storm

L

N

1991 Altahama, Apalachicola, Ochlockonee, Ogeechee,

25 to 50 years

FEMA 897; $3.4 million in damages

E

Satilla, and Savannah Riv-

R

ers

A

1994 Flint, Chattahoochee, and >100 years

FEMA 1033; 31 deaths; >20

B

Altamaha Rivers

inches of rain; $400 million in damages; tropical storm

I

L

1994 Savannah area

25 to >100 years

FEMA 1042; 15 inches of rain; $10.5 million in damages

I

T

1995 Western Georgia

25 to 50 years

FEMA 1209; 5-9 inches of rain; $20 million in damages; hurri-

Y

cane

2004 Middle and South Georgia 10 to 50 years FEMA 1560; 4-9 inches of rain;

A

$20 million in damages; hurri-

cane

S

2004 Northern and Southwestern 10 to 50 years FEMA 1554; 4-9 inches of rain;

S

Georgia

$30 million in damages; hurricane

E

Table 2.14: Notable flooding events in Georgia

S

S

The risk analysis of flooding takes into account the recurrence interval of the hazard (reflected in

M

the denoting of 100 year floods, for example). Using the sources for historical data (SHELDUS, PDD), a 1094% chance of a flood exists per year. This number translates to almost 11 floods per

E

year (not taking into account the specific magnitudes of the floods). Although the majority of these

N

floods will be minor in their impact, the risk analysis demonstrates the susceptibility of Georgia to flooding events.

T

Page 50

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Similar to storm surge models, flood models are statically based on historical flooding events and

A

estimate the impact areas of certain magnitudes of floods (typically the 100 year flood). Figure

B.3 maps the 100 year floodplains for the State of Georgia based on FEMA's Q3 floodplain layers.

Z

These values are derived from FEMA's paper flood insurance rate maps (FIRMS) and carry a po-

A

tential error of 250 feet. FEMA is currently working to update the digital FIRMS for more accurate

R

base flood elevations (BFE) and floodplains.

D

Figure B.3, found in Appendix B, is the hazard score map for flood hazards in the State of Geor-

gia. This map scores areas of potential flooding (with the recurrence intervals of 100 and 500

R

years) with values ranging from 1 to 4. The following table, Table 2.15, shows the new hazard score as it relates to the Q3 zone values.

I

S

Hazard Score Q3 Zone

Description

K

4

Floodway

Floodway (within AE)

A

N

3

D

V

1% with Velocity, no BFE

VE

1% with Velocity BFE

A

1% no BFE

A99

1% Federal flood protection system

V

AE

1% BFE

U

AH

1% Ponding has BFE

L

AO

1% Sheet flow has depths

N

AR

1% Federal flood protection system

E

2

X500

0.2%

R

1

ANI

Area not included in survey

A

D

Undetermined but possible

B

I

Table 2.15: Flood hazard score by Q3 zone descriptions

L

This section addresses the general characteristics of flooding (dispersion, extent, seasonality, rate

I

of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's history related to Georgia. Also, this section assesses the risk of flooding to the State and graphically represents

T

the spatial distribution of the risk in the form of a hazard-score map.

Y
2.5.7 Severe Winter Weather

A

Severe winter storms bring the threat of ice. Freezing rain consists of falling liquid precipitation

S

freezing on contact with the surface when temperatures are below freezing. This results in an ice glazing on exposed surfaces including buildings, roads, and power lines. Sleet is easily discern-

S

able from freezing rain in that the precipitation freezes before hitting the surface. Often this sleet

E

bounces when hitting a surface and does not adhere. However, sleet can compound into suffi-

S

cient depths to pose some threat to motorists and pedestrians.

S

A heavy accumulation of ice, which is often accompanied by high winds, has the ability to devas-

M

tate infrastructure and vegetation. Destructiveness in the southern states is often amplified due the lack of preparedness and response measures. Also, the infrastructure was not designed to

E

withstand certain severe weather conditions such as weight build-up from snow and ice. Often,

N

sidewalks and streets become extremely dangerous to pedestrians and motorists. Primary indus-

T

tries such as farming and fishing suffer losses through winter seasons that produce extreme temperatures and precipitation.

Page 51

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

In terms of the spatial dispersion of severe winter weather hazards, the southern latitudes of the

H

United States are more susceptible, not because of more exposure, but because of the increased

A

vulnerability due to lack of experience. Any severe winter weather event can extend across small

regions to covering numerous states. Within Georgia, the impacts of winter storms are often con-

Z

tained in the northern part of the State. However, events like the 1993 "storm of the century" illus-

A

trated the vast impacts that one storm can have on the entire State.

R

Severe winter weather exhibits seasonal qualities in that most occur within the months of January

D

to March, with the highest probability of occurrence in February. The rate of onset and duration

varies among storms, depending on the weather system driving the storm. Severe winter weather rarely frequents the State of Georgia, however, the impacts of the storms substantiate severe win-

R

ter weather's inclusion in risk assessments for most southern states.

I

No measures exist for the magnitude and intensity of severe winter weather except for average

S

amounts of precipitation (snow fall), inches of accumulated ice, low and high temperatures, and

K

wind gust speeds.

The historical events map for severe winter weather (Figure A.19) illustrates the relationship with

A

latitude. Obviously, areas that typically have cooler temperatures are more likely to experience

N

more extreme temperatures. The map clearly delineates the southern, piedmont, and mountainous regions of Georgia. The losses incurred from severe winter weather shown in Figure A.20 do

D

not mirror the event distribution. The areas with the highest losses do not correspond with the

areas with the most events; however, all are located in North Georgia.

V

The PDDs associated with severe winter weather follow in Table 2.16. As the table shows, far

U

fewer PDDs are associated with severe winter weather than with other hazard events such as se-

L

vere weather and flooding.

N

Number

Declared

Description

E

R

1311

01/28/2000

Winter Storm

A

3097

03/15/1993

Severe Snowfall, Winter Storm

B

536

06/02/1977

Shrimp Loss Due To Cold Weather

I

L

Table 2.16: Severe winter weather related PDDs

I

The most notable of these events (in Georgia's history as well as in PDD history) is FEMA disaster

T

3097, which occurred in March of 1993. In the morning of March 12, 1993, the collision of a low pressure system from the Gulf of Mexico, an arctic high pressure system from the Great Plains,

Y

and a steep southward jet stream brought high winds, heavy rain and snow, tornadoes, record low

temperatures and blizzard conditions to the State of Georgia. Essentially, the entire Southeast

A

region, including Georgia, shut down for three day. As a result of the incident, FEMA declared Georgia counties eligible for Federal assistance to cover expenses associated with debris removal

S

and emergency protective measures.

S

In total, around 116 severe winter weather events have occurred in a 55 year time span for Geor-

E

gia. This equates to 210% chance of severe winter weather per year for the entire state (higher

S

risk at higher latitudes) or around twice per year. However, these severe winter weather occur-

S

rences are often limited precipitation that do not cause much damage and rarely qualify as an "event" in the SHELDUS database.

M

E

This section addresses the history of severe winter weather in the State of Georgia while assessing the risk of severe winter weather events occurring in any given year.

N

T

Page 52

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 53

2.5.8 Drought

Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate consisting of a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time (usually a season or more). This deficiency results in a water shortage for some social or environmental sector. Drought should be judged relative to some long-term average condition of balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration in a particular area that is considered "normal". Drought should not be viewed as only a natural hazard because the demand people place of water supply affects perceptions of drought conditions. The impacts of drought are vast, including limited water supplies in urban areas to insufficient water for farmland.

Droughts occur in virtually every climatic zone (on every continent). Because the impacts of drought conditions are largely dependent on the human activity in the area, the spatial extent of droughts can span a few counties to an entire country.

Temporal characteristics of droughts are drastically different from other hazards due to the possibility of extremely lengthy durations as well as a sluggish rate of onset. Drought conditions may endure for years to decades, which implicate droughts as having high potential to cause devastation on a given area. The duration characteristic of droughts is so important that droughts are classified in terms of length of impact. Droughts lasting 1 to 3 months are considered short term, while droughts lasting 4 to 6 months are considered intermediate and droughts lasting longer than 6 months are long term. With the slow rate of onset, most populations have some inkling that drought conditions are increasingly present. However, barring drastic response measures, most only have to opportunity to adapt to the changing environment.

Seasonality has no general impact on droughts in terms of calendar seasons. However, "wet" and "dry" seasons obviously determine the severity of drought conditions. In other words, areas are less susceptible to drought conditions if the area is experiencing a wet season. The frequency of droughts is undetermined due to the fact that the hazard spans such a long period of time. However, climatologists track periods of high and low moisture content similarly to the tracking of cooling and warming periods.
Measures of drought magnitude and intensity can be found in some of the drought indices. Dr. Michael Hays with the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) lists the drought indices currently being used as the percent of normal, Standardized Precipitation Index, Palmer Drought Severity Index, Crop Moisture Index, Surface Water Supply Index, and Reclamation Drought Index. Basically, all of these indices are comparable and not absolute measures of magnitude or intensity. In other words, the indices highlight areas that are wetter or drier using statistical calculations based on a limited climatic history.
The historical events and losses maps for drought (Figures A.21 and A.22) illustrate areas of drought being in the heart and northern portion of Georgia. This may be a result of South and Coastal Georgia's preexisting proneness to aridity. Because most indicators measure drought in terms of precipitation below average, the indicators may not differentiate between typically moist and arid areas when receiving the same amounts of precipitation. As the loss map illustrates, drought causes a drain totaling more than 5 million dollars in some counties. Most of these losses are probably crop losses in that agriculture is greatly affected by drought.
Because droughts mainly affect agriculture, PDDs associated with drought are uncommon. The following table, Table 2.17, illustrates the one declared disaster related to drought that occurred in 1977. Essentially, the drought spanned most of the Midwestern and Southeastern United States. The drought doomed many harvests of hay, corn, soybean, cotton, and peanut. The declaration included 130 of Georgia's 159 counties with costs to farmers topping $300 million (inflation rate not included).

Number

Declared

3044

07/20/1977

Table 2.17: Drought related PDDs

Description Drought

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Because droughts are "creeping" disasters, only large-scale events are considered notable. Basi-

A

cally, the most notable events besides the 1977 drought that was declared have severely affected

municipal and industrial water supplies, stream-water quality, recreation, hydropower generation,

Z

navigation, and agricultural production. The following table, Table 2.18, lists the more notable

A

droughts in Georgia' s history since the beginning of the 20th century.

R

Year

Area Affected

Remarks

D

1903-05

Statewide

Severe

R

1924-27

North-central Georgia

One of the most severe of the century

I

1930-35

Mostly statewide

Affected most of US

S

1938-44

Statewide

Regional drought

K

1950-57

Statewide

Regional drought

1968-71

Southern and Central Georgia

Variable severity

A

1985-90

North and Central Georgia

Regional drought

N

1999-2007 Statewide

Ongoing drought conditions

D

Table 2.18: Notable drought events in Georgia
V

As Table 2.18 illustrates, a notable statewide drought has been occurring in Georgia since 1999.

U

However, the drought conditions have increased in frequency, magnitude and intensity in the more recent years since the initial plan's approval. The Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, de-

L

clared a State of Emergency in Drought Executive Order 011808 on October 20, 2007 that was

N

extended on November 20, 2007 and December 19, 2007. Because the drought was declared a

E

Level 4 drought for most of the state, increased levels of drought response prove necessary.

Thus, the executive order called for the establishment of the Drought Response Unified Command

R

and the Drought Response Working Group consistent with the Georgia Emergency Operations

A

Plan. The order also called for the implementation of the State of Georgia Drought Response Strategy. More information regarding the drought response can be found on the Drought Re-

B

sponse Unified Command's website (https://www.piersystem.com/go/site/1619/) as well as the

I

Conserve Water Georgia's website (http://www.conservewatergeorgia.net/Documents/ geor-

L

gia_drought.html). Also, the most up to date drought monitoring information can be found at the

National Drought Mitigation Center's website (http://www.drought.unl.edu/index.htm).

I

T

Typically, the risk analysis of hazard events takes into account the recurrence interval of the hazard. Droughts are not measured in terms of recurrence intervals. However, drought prediction

Y

and indication models utilize historical and current meteorological and geological data in order to

determine the current and possible extent of drought conditions. These models, which can be

A

found at the NDMC website, are dynamic and, therefore, are not useful in the composite score.

Also, drought does not seem to impact portions of Georgia more than other portions and, there-

S

fore, is not a spatially-defined hazard.

S

One of the newer indices of drought is the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) which is based

E

on the probability of precipitation for any time scale. This particular index is used by many drought

S

planners because of the versatility of computing for different time scales, the ability to provide

S

early warning of drought and to assess drought severity. McKee, Doesken, and Kleist of Colorado

State University developed the SPI to include the impacts of precipitation deficits on groundwater,

M

reservoir storage, soil moisture, snowpack and streamflow. Monthly maps of the SPI are

E

downloadable from the NDMC. Figure B.4 is an example of the updated SPI maps for the Southeast United States. The bar to the right corresponds with the following table, Table 2.19.

N

T

Page 54

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 55

SPI Score +2 and above +1.5 to +1.99 +1.0 to +1.49 -0.99 to +0.99 -1.0 to -1.49 -1.5 to -1.99 -2.0 and less

Condition Extremely wet Very wet Moderately wet Near normal Moderately dry Severely dry Extremely dry

Table 2.19: SPI scores and corresponding conditions (related to Figure A.27)

Because of the slow rate of onset and long duration of droughts in Georgia, long-term management and mitigation measures are appropriate. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) publishes the Georgia Drought Management Plan, which addresses both pre-drought mitigation strategies and drought response strategies. Refer to the Drought Mitigation Plan for more details on drought assessments for the State of Georgia.

This section addresses the general characteristics of drought conditions (dispersion, extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity) as well as the hazard's history related to Georgia. Also, this section presents the distinctiveness of drought as a hazard and the valuable available resources for drought planning.

2.5.9 Wildfire

A wildfire is essentially an uncontained fire that spreads through the environment. Wildfires have the ability to consume large areas, including infrastructure, property, and resources. When massive fires, or conflagrations, develop near populated areas, evacuations possibly ensue. Not only do the flames impact the environment, but the massive volumes of smoke spread by certain atmospheric conditions also impact the health of nearby populations.

Essentially, wildfires result from the interaction of three crucial elements: fuel, ignition, and oxygen. Essentially, natural and anthropogenic forces cause the three crucial elements to coincide in a manner that produces wildfire events. Typically, fuel consists of natural vegetation. However, as the urban and suburban footprint expands, wildfires may utilize other means of fuel such as buildings. In terms of ignition, the primary natural source is lightning. However, humans are more responsible for wildfires than lightning (causing around 80% of fires). Anthropogenic sources vary from the unintentional (fireworks, campfires, machinery) to the intentional (arson). With these two elements provided, the wildfires may spread as long as oxygen is present.

Weather is the most variable factor affecting wildfire behavior. Strong winds propel wildfires quickly across most landscapes (unless fire breaks are present). Shifting winds create erratic wildfires, complicating fire management. Dry conditions provide faster-burning fuels, either making the area more vulnerable to wildfire or increasing the mobility of preexisting wildfires.

Wildfires are notorious for spawning secondary hazards, such as flash flooding and landslides, long after the original fire is extinguished. Both flash flooding and landslides result from fire consuming the vegetation that provides precipitation interception and infiltration as well as slope stability.

Wildfires occur throughout the United States, with some geographic areas having more favorable conditions. For example, California is one state prone to wildfires because of stalling high pres-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

sure systems pushing hot, dry winds through Sierra Nevada passes and valleys (Santa Ana winds) which drive the wildfires into populated areas encroaching on the wilderness. All of Georgia is prone to wildfire due to varying drought conditions that seem to affect the state continuously (refer to previous section for more drought information). The spatial extent of wildfire events greatly depends on both the factors driving the fire as well as efforts of fire management and containment. Some of the larger known wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres. For example, the Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988 burned over 700,000 acres. Within the State of Georgia, the more recent fires of 2007 engulfed over 400,000 acres and even reached into Florida.
In terms of seasonality, wildfires can occur during any season of the year. However, drier seasons, which vary within the State of Georgia, are more vulnerable to severe wildfires because of its abundant quick-burning fuels. In terms of rate of onset and duration, wildfires vary depending on the available fuels and weather patterns. Some wildfires can engulf an area in a matter of minutes from the first signs whereas others may be slower burning and moving. The frequency of wildfires is not typically measured because of the high probability of human ignition being statistically unpredictable.
Magnitude and intensity are typically only measured by size of the wildfire and locations of burning. Three classes of fires are presented: understory fires, crown fires, and ground fires. Naturally-induced wildfires burn at relatively low intensities, consuming grasses, woody shrubs, and dead trees. These understory fires often play an important role in plant reproduction and wildlife habitat renewal and self-extinguish by low fuel loads or precipitation. Crown fires, which consist of fires consuming whole living tress, are low probability but high consequence type events. Crown fires typically match perceptions of wildfires. In areas with high concentrations of organic materials in the soil, ground fires may burn, sometimes persisting undetected for long periods until the surface is ignited.
Because of the complexity within the jurisdictional landscape, a complete wildfire hazard event and loss database is essentially non-existent. A variety of federal, state, and local agencies have authority and responsibility for fire preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Response situations are further complicated by lack of uniformity in priorities, training, equipment, and experience. The SHELDUS data only presents three fire events for the time period that span only from 2004 and 2005 in three counties. However, as Table 2.20 illustrates, FEMA's PDD history contains only six events (five in 2007) that are Fire Management Assistance Declarations. None of the counties listed in the SHELDUS data correspond with the federally-recognized fire events.

Number

Declared

2697

05/31/2007

2693

05/09/2007

2688

05/05/2007

2686

04/26/2007

2685

04/17/2007

2362

05/23/2001

Table 2.20: Wildfire related PDDs

Description Harveytown Fire Bugaboo Scrub Fire Roundabout Fire Kneeknocker Swamp Fire Sweat Farm Road Fire Blounts Pasture Fire

The most notable wildfire events are most likely the most recent 2007 fires that affected the southeast quadrant of Georgia. These massive fires, the largest in Georgia's history, burned more than 400,000 acres and destroyed 18 homes. Initial estimates of Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC)'s expenditures for fire control efforts totaled more than $62 million. Figures A.23(a) and A.23(b) are products of the GFC that show the areas of Georgia affected by wildfires between March and June of 2007 and list the fires with their respectful size in acres.

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 56

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 57

Since the approval of this plan in 2005, the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, which began in 2001, has made progress. The project is worth around $1.2 million and includes 13 states in the Southeast and 3 federal partners. Essentially, this project is modeling the Level of Concern for wildfire for the Southeast by combining the existing Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index and the Fire Effects Index, both of which were developed in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Essentially, these models take into account surface fuel, canopy closure, historic fire occurrences, topography, weather influence, fire suppression effectiveness, urban interfaces, and infrastructure areas in order to calculate the Level of Concern. The final product of this project is pending and GEMA continues correspondence with the GFC in order to utilize the final product for mitigation purposes.
Because the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment is currently incomplete, this section includes another risk assessment based on the USDA Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) Fire Sciences Laboratory's "Wildland Fire Risk to Flammable Structures, V 1.0" map. These data includes variables such as housing density, potential fire exposure, and extreme fire weather potential. These values translate to the hazard scores found in the following table.

Hazard Score 4 3 2 1 0

Description High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Very Low Risk No Houses Agriculture Bodies of Water Dense Urban Development

Table 2.21: Wildfire hazard scores

The hazard scores are illustrated in the wildfire hazard risk map (B.5) found in Appendix B. As the map shows, the areas with the highest risk of wildfire affecting structures are the suburban and rural areas surrounding urban centers. These interfaces face the most risk for structural losses; however, as the 2007 fires demonstrate, fires affecting less developed areas (such as Southeast Georgia) have the ability to affect the entire state and produce drastic losses on timber and agricultural lands.

Based on the historical record, one wildfire hazard event occurs every 10 years. This equates to a 10% chance of a wildfire occurrence per year for the entire state. However, the higher risk areas are detailed in the wildfire hazard risk map (B.5). With the completion of the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, a more accurate depiction of risk and future probabilities of events will become evident.

2.5.10 Seismic Hazards

Earthquakes are generally defined as the sudden motion or trembling of the Earth's surface caused by an abrupt release of slowly accumulated strain. This release typically manifests on the surface as ground shaking, surface faulting, tectonic uplifting and subsidence, or ground failures.

The manifestation that causes the majority of damage within the United States is ground shaking. The vibrations from the seismic waves that propagate outward from the epicenter may case failure

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

in structures not designed to withstand earthquakes. Because the seismic waves have different frequencies of vibration, the waves disseminate differently through sub-surface materials. For example, high frequency compression and shear waves arrive first whereas lower frequency Rayleigh and love waves arrive later. Not only are speeds varied between seismic waves but also the types of movement. The surface vibration may be horizontal, vertical, or a combination of the two, which causes a wider array of structures to collapse.
Another manifestation of earthquakes is surface faulting. This phenomenon is defined as the offset or tearing of the earth's surface by a differential movement across a fault. Structures build across active faults tend to sustain damage regularly. Because the faults in Georgia are considered inactive, damage due to surface faulting is highly improbable with the state.
The third earthquake phenomenon that causes damage is tectonic uplift and subsidence. Tectonic uplift can cause shallowing of harbors and waterways while tectonic subsidence can cause permanent or intermittent inundation similar to the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. Again, this type of earthquake manifestation is not wholly relevant to the State of Georgia because the nearest edge of the North American tectonic plate is hundreds of miles away in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean and south of Cuba.
The fourth earthquake damage-causing phenomena are earthquake-induced ground failures, including liquefaction and landslides. During an earthquake, the areas that have clay-free sand and silt as well as groundwater within 30 feet of the surface temporarily behave as viscous fluids. Structures built on these materials will settle, topple, or collapse as the ground spreads laterally or flows. Landslides form when earthquake shaking or seismic activity dislodges rock and debris on steep slopes triggering rock falls, avalanches, and slides. Also, slopes consisting of clay soils lose shear strength when disturbed by ground shaking and fail, resulting in a landslide.
The last of earthquake-induced phenomena are tsunamis, seismic waves conducted through large bodies of water. Typically, tsunamis are caused by a sudden displacement of a large volume of water (by underwater earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption). The waves produced by the energy release travel outward in all directions from the origin at speeds of 300 to 600 miles per hour. In open and deep water, tsunamis have short amplitudes (wave heights) and long wavelengths. However, as the waves reach shallower water near land, the speed diminishes while the amplitude drastically increases. Upon impact with a shoreline, the wave inundates the land rapidly engulfing everything in its path. Successive wave crests follow, typically arriving 10 to 45 minutes later. Although highly improbable, the possibility of tsunamis striking the Atlantic coast exists. For example, a severe earthquake in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland on November 18, 1929 generated tsunami waves that caused considerable damage in coastal Newfoundland and reached as far south as Charleston, South Carolina. Another example occurred in the Caribbean with a large earthquake on November 18, 1867 that caused tsunamis over 20 feet in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
In order to describe the characteristics of earthquake events, spatial dispersion and spatial extent are addressed. Earthquake activity east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States is relatively low compared to the West due to the distance of the North American Plate and Caribbean Plate faults. Major zones of activity in the eastern United States consist of the New Madrid fault centered on the Mississippi River and faults associated with the Appalachian Mountains. Both have the ability to affect Georgia. The spatial extent of specific earthquakes largely depends on its magnitude (discussed below). For example, the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812, centered between St. Louis and Memphis on the Mississippi River, caused damage as far away as Cincinnati and Richmond and were felt as far as Boston. Georgia's greatest risk for earthquakes occurs in four different seismic areas: the New Madrid fault in Missouri, the southwest Appalachians (Northwest Georgia), the city of Charleston in South Carolina, and the Georgia Piedmont (Clark Hill, Oconee, and Sinclair). The seismic areas actually within the State of Georgia consists of six distinct faults, all extending southwest to northeast north of the Columbus, Macon, and Augusta fall line. These faults, presently considered inactive because of the lack of seismic activity,

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 58

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

still have the ability to produce future tremors and significant earthquakes.

A

The temporal characteristics of earthquakes include seasonality, rate of onset, duration, and fre-

Z

quency. Because earthquakes are a seismic hazard as opposed to meteorological, no high or low

A

season exists. In terms of rate of onset and duration, earthquakes rapidly peak (measured in sec-

R

onds to minutes) and endure for a matter of seconds to minutes (not including subsequent aftershocks). Even though specific frequencies of earthquakes cannot be determined, some return

D

intervals are based upon the historical records of certain spaces. For instance, the likelihood that

San Francisco will experience a high magnitude earthquake is greater than Atlanta due to the lo-

R

cation of larger and more active faults.

I

The remaining characteristics, magnitude and intensity, are addressed with the Richter and the

S

Mercalli scales, respectively. The Richter scale, from seismologist Charles R. Richter in 1935, truly reflects magnitude with seismographs, which measure releases of energy. The Richter scale

K

expresses magnitude only in terms of a specific point (the epicenter) and, therefore, does not

change with distance. The Richter scale of earthquake magnitude is logarithmic. Therefore, each

increase of one unit corresponds to a tenfold increase in the amplitude of ground vibrations and

A

about a thirty-fold increase in the energy release. A table describing the Richter scale follows in

N

Table 2.22.

D
Richter Magnitudes Descrip- Effects

tion

V

<2

Micro

Not felt

U

2.0 2.9

Minor

Not felt; Recorded

L

3.0 3.9

N

4.0 4.9

E

R

5.0 5.9

A

6.0 6.9

B

7.0 7.9

I

8.0 8.9

L

I

9.0 9.9

Minor Light
Moderate
Strong Major Great
Great

Felt; Rarely causes damage
Noticeable shaking of indoor items; Significant damage unlikely Damage to poorly constructed buildings near epicenter; Possible slight damage to well-constructed Destructive in area up to 100 miles across
Serious damage over large area
Serious damage in areas several hundred miles across Devastating in areas several thousand miles across

T

>10

Great

Never recorded

Y

Table 2.22: Richter scale of magnitude

Because accounts of earthquakes occurring before the 1960's relied upon those experiencing the

A

event rather than seismographs, the Modified Mercalli intensity scale is used to evaluate and com-

S

pare events. The Modified Mercalli scale is a qualitative measure of the degree of shaking which

S

an earthquake incurs on people, structures, and the ground at a particular location. Due to this reliance on subjectivity, Mercalli values of intensity vary for each event (as opposed to the stead-

E

fast Richter scale). Below is a table illustrating the Modified Mercalli scale of intensity (Table.

S

2.23).

S

M

E

N

T

Page 59

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Mercalli Intensity Description

Effects

H

A

I

Instrumental

Detected only by sensitive instruments

II

Feeble

Felt by few persons (upper floors)

Z

A

III

Slight

Felt noticeably indoors; Similar to passing truck

R

IV

Moderate

May awaken sleeping; Household items possibly disturbed

D

V

Rather Strong Felt by nearly all; Broken household items

VI

Strong

Felt by all; Chimney damage; Slight other damage

R

VII

Very Strong

Difficult to stand; Considerable damage in poorly

I

constructed buildings

S

VIII

Destructive

Considerable damage in average buildings with partial collapse; Chimneys, stacks, columns fall

K

IX

Ruinous

General panic; Damage to all structures

X

Disastrous

Rails bent; More collapse and damage to all types

A

of structures

N

XI

Very Disastrous Few masonry structures standing; Bridges destroyed

D

XII

Catastrophic

Total damage; Ground moves in waves or ripples;

Objects airborne

V

Table 2.23: Modified Mercalli scale of intensity

U

SHELDUS reports no earthquake events, meaning that no events occurred in Georgia during

L

1960 2005 that caused at least $50,000 in losses. However, Georgia has been seismically ac-

N

tive throughout that time period, consisting of minor to light earthquakes. Also, no disasters have been declared for the State of Georgia related to earthquake events due most likely to the lack of

E

losses associated with seismic activity.

R

Georgia's earthquake history, however, demonstrates Georgia's potential for damaging seismic

A

activity, even with events occurring outside of the state line. Table 2.24, shown below, lists nota-

B

ble events that have affected Georgia since the late 19th century. Note the magnitude value is

I

estimated based on the historical record or Mercalli scale of intensity rating.

L

I

Year

Magnitude Area Affected

Remarks

T

1811

7.3 7.8 New Madrid

XI intensity; Rerouted Miss. River; Dam-

Y

1812

age in Richmond; Felt in Boston

1886

6.9

Charleston, SC

X intensity near Savannah; V in western/

northwestern Georgia

A

1914

5

North Georgia

Caused little damage

S

1964

4.5

Lake Sinclair

Tremors every 2-3 years

S

1972

4.5

Clarks Hill Reservoir Quakes felt every 20 seconds

E

1976

Toombs County

Intensity V

S

1985

3.0-3.5

Columbus

S

1996

2.4

DeKalb County

Norris Lake area

M

2003

4.9

North Georgia / Ala- Some power outages; Felled trees; Minor

E

bama border

household damage

N

Table 2.24: Notable earthquake events affecting Georgia

T

Page 60

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 61

These more notable events are included in Figure A.24, which illustrates notable earthquakes from 1568 through 1996 for parts of the Southeast and Midwest United States (possibly affecting Georgia). These data are included in the GIS software used for the risk assessment (ESRI ArcMap).
Although frequency, and thus risk, is difficult to determine with earthquakes, estimates are produced about possible return intervals. An earthquake of 6.0 magnitude or greater is likely to occur every 80 years at the New Madrid fault. However, this number is based upon an average of seismic activity over extended geologic history (up to 1 million years). Therefore, the last large magnitude earthquake in 1895 in New Madrid is not necessarily followed 80 years later. The same seismic activity return intervals apply to the other faults of the region in northwestern Georgia.
Figure B.6 is a USGS seismic map that portrays spectral acceleration for a 0.2 second period with the probability of exceedance at 10 percent in 50 years for the conterminous United States. This map illustrates the several regions of potential seismic activity that could affect the State of Georgia: the New Madrid fault, Southern Appalachia, and Charleston, SC.
The Georgia-specific earthquake hazard risk map (Figure B.7) uses the data presented in the USGS seismic hazard map for the conterminous United States. This map, like the USGS map, presents the 0.2 second spectral acceleration as a percent of gravity. In other words, the seismic contour lines delineate areas of higher risk of exceeding a certain intensity of earthquake. The areas of greater risk include the mountainous counties of northwest Georgia as well as the counties along the Savannah River (because of proximity to Charleston, SC).
In order to input this information into the composite assessment, the spectral acceleration value ranges are converted to the hazard scores found below in Table 2.25.

Hazard Score 4

Description 50 83% g value

3

33 50% g value

2

17 33% g value

1

0 17% g value

Table 2.25: Earthquake hazard score descriptions

This section concerning seismic hazards and risk for the State of Georgia addresses the general characteristics of seismic events, including spatial dispersion, spatial extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity. Also, this section addresses seismic hazard history in the State of Georgia while providing a comprehensive hazard-specific risk assessment.

2.5.11 Sinkholes

Sinkholes are generally defined as a natural depression or hole in the surface topography formed by mechanisms such as the gradual removal of soluble bedrock by percolating water, the collapse of cave roofs (due to some seismic activity), or the lowering of the water table. These natural phenomena occur in areas where the subsurface rock consists of evaporites (salt, gypsum, and anhydrite) and carbonates (limestone and dolomite). However, the correlation between sinkholes and land-use practices reveal that sinkholes are often human-induced through over pumping groundwater and through altering natural water drainage patterns.

In the State of Georgia, sinkholes occur due to the underlying carbonate rock beneath the area running along the fall line (border between coastal plain and piedmont region of Georgia) and the area of the southern Appalachian Mountains. The spatial dispersion of sinkholes in Georgia and the United States is found in Figure B.8 in Appendix B at the end of this document. In terms of

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

spatial extent, sinkholes can affect areas from less than one meter to several hundred meters in diameter and depth.
Temporal characteristics greatly depend on the underlying bedrock excluding seasonality. In other words, seasonality has not affect on sinkholes because the hazard is not meteorological. The rate of onset and duration of the event greatly depend on the type of sinkhole forming. Subsidence and solution sinkholes typically form gradually in areas of thin overburden or exposed carbonate rock, respectively. Collapse sinkholes occur rapidly in areas with thick overburden after the confining layer is breached. Therefore, the rate of onset is slow for subsidence and solution sinkholes while rapid for collapse sinkholes; and the duration is longer for subsidence and solution sinkholes and shorter for collapse sinkholes. Finally, no frequency estimates exist for sinkholes except that sinkholes are more likely in the areas depicted with soluble bedrocks.
Official measures and scales of magnitude and intensity do not exist for sinkholes. However, the magnitude may be measured by the areal extent of the sinkhole while intensity may be estimated by the losses involved with the hazard event.
Within the databases utilized for the hazard and risk assessment to account the hazard history in terms of events and losses (SHELDUS, PDD), no sinkhole events exist. This relates to the fact that no sinkholes have caused significant losses in the State of Georgia at least since 1960. However, one notable sinkhole event exists in recent history. During the 1994 flooding of Albany, Georgia in Dougherty County from Tropical Storm Alberto, numerous sinkholes formed under the floodwaters. Notable sinkholes occurred in Riverside and Oakview Cemeteries in downtown Albany, where a combination of flood waters and subsiding terrain released disturbed gravesites. Although disturbed by both floodwaters and sinkholes, the federal and state declarations and subsequently administered grants for Dougherty County for this event only pointed to flooding as the hazard event.
In order to provide a risk assessment or probability of future occurrence for sinkhole events, a detailed history of sinkholes through some period of time must be known. Currently, Georgia has no detailed history of sinkhole events for the entire state. With no recorded losses from sinkhole events besides those sinkholes compounded by other hazards (such as the Albany floods, the sinkhole hazard threat in the State of Georgia is not significant enough to warrant further analysis or inclusion in the composite assessment at the end of this chapter.
2.5.12 Dam Failure
A dam is a constructed barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows the velocity of the water, creating a reservoir, lake, or impoundment. Generally, the structure's purpose is to simply retain water for a variety of purposes such as generating power, providing water for irrigation or water supply, or controlling flooding.
The threat of dam failures is triggered by carelessness of design, construction, and maintenance. The integrity of older dams, often affected by weathering, mechanical changes, and the influence of chemical agents, is deteriorating. Not only is dam failure risk increasing (with aging infrastructure) but the population vulnerable to this hazard is also increasing due to downstream development. Even structures outside of the known 100 year floodplain may prove affected by dam failures because of the water's often sudden release and velocity.
Dam failures are generally grouped into three classifications: hydraulic, seepage, and structural. Generally, the three types of failure compound upon one another to create complex and interrelated hazard events.
Hydraulic failures are a result of the uncontrolled flow of water over and around the dam structure as well as the erosive action on the dam and its foundation. The uncontrolled flow causing the failure is often classified as wave action, toe erosion, or gullying. Earthen dams are particularly susceptible to hydraulic failure because earthen materials erode at relatively slow velocities. This

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 62

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 63

type of failure constitutes approximately 40% of all dam failures.
While all dams exhibit some seepage, the velocity and amount of water are controlled to prevent failure. Seepage occurs through the structure and its foundation and erodes the structure from within. Seepage accounts for approximately 4% of all dam failures.
Structural failure involves the rupture of the dam or the foundation by water movement, earthquake, or sabotage. Large earthen dams and dams constructed with weak materials (such as silt) are especially susceptible to structural failure. This type of failure accounts for approximately 30% of all dam failures.
In terms of spatial dispersion, dams are located throughout the United States. In fact, the exact number of dams in the country is currently unknown due to numerous privately owned and operated dams that serve agricultural communities. In the State of Georgia, all of the major rivers are dammed at least once before leaving the boundaries. Also, numerous smaller dams, including agricultural dams, exist throughout the state. Therefore, the possibility of dam failure hazards exists throughout the country and state. The spatial extent of the dam failure event highly depends on the amount of water within the dammed reservoir and the downstream topography. Because of the high velocity of the water, flooding can strike beyond known floodplains.
Dam failures often have a rapid rate of onset, leaving little time for evacuation. The first signs of the failure may go unnoticed upon visual inspection of the dam structure. However, continual maintenance and inspection of dams often provides knowledge on the possibility of failure with certain precipitation amounts. The duration of the flooding event caused by the failure also depends on the amount of water and downstream topography. Given smaller volumes of water and a topography suited for transporting the water rapidly downstream, the event may only last hours. Because of the lack of seasonality and other predictive factors, the frequency of dam failures cannot be determined.
In terms of magnitude and intensity of the flooding event caused by dam failures, no measures actually exist. However, the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) produces rankings and definitions of dam structures based on potential impact. The following table, Table 2.26, lists the dam categories and potential impact of dam failure.

Classification High (Cat I) Significant (Cat II) Low (Cat III)

Loss of Human Life Probable, >1 None expected None expected

Table 2.26: Dam classification from NDSP

Economic, Environmental, or Lifeline Loss Yes (not necessary for classification) Yes Low and generally limited to owner

The historical events and losses for dam failures for the State of Georgia (Figures A.25 and A.26) only show one event from 1960-2005 as does the PDD table, Table 2.27.

Number

Declared

541

11/07/1977

Table 2.27: Dam failure related PDDs

Description Dam Collapse, Flooding

This particular event, probably the most famous in Georgia, is the 1977 failure of the Kelly Barnes Dam in Toccoa. The original structure consisted of a rock crib dam built in 1899 in order to create a small reservoir for a hydroelectric plan. The Toccoa Falls Bible Institute built an earthen dam over the original rock crib dam in 1937 in order to develop a more stable electric power source. The dam structure was raised several times, reaching 42 feet above the rock foundation by 1957,

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

when power production was halted and the reservoir was solely utilized for recreation. At around 1:30 am on Sunday, November 6, 1977, the Kelly Barnes Dam failed. This collapse resulted in a flash flood that swept downstream causing 39 fatalities and caused $2.3 million in property damage. The sole cause of the failure is undetermined but the probable causes include a local slide on the steep downstream slope probably associated with piping (form of seepage) and a localized breach in the crest followed by progressive erosion, saturation of the downstream embankment, and the subsequent total collapse of the structure.
Other dam failures have occurred in Georgia with some related to the spring of 1990 flooding and the July of 1994 flooding associated with Tropical Storm Alberto. However, these dam failures were not documented as having a significant contribution to already flooded conditions.
In order to complete a risk assessment for dam failures in the State of Georgia, the location of all the potential sources of the hazard (the dams) must be located and evaluated using some categorization of failure potential (risk). In attempts to meet this criterion, the Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978 established Georgia's Safe Dams Program. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for administering the program. The purpose of the program is to provide for the inspection and permitting of certain dams in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all citizens of the state by reducing the risk of failure of such dams. The program has the two main functions of inventorying and classifying dams and regulating and permitting high hazard dams.
The dams presented in Figures B.9 and B.10 are considered watershed dams in that they meet Georgia's definition of a dam (any structure 25 feet or more in height or one impounding 100 acre area of water at the top of the dam) that was built with 100% federal money on private land through the coordination of USDA NRCS and local Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) districts. These data, provided by NRCS and representing a small portion of dams that exist within the State of Georgia, allows analysis to determine the counties with the most impact potential (based on mere existence of dams). The dam impact potential map, Figure B.9, illustrates the NRCS classified watershed dam locations within Georgia coupled with a summary of total dams per county. The highest concentration of watershed dams are within Georgia counties occurs in Cherokee and Carroll Counties while most of the watershed dams are in the northern portion of the State. The dam failure risk map, Figure B.10, utilizes a NRCS risk analysis that includes an indicator of failure potential, population at risk, structures at risk, and interstates and secondary roads at risk to calculate an overall risk index for each of the 351 watershed dams shown in Figure B.9. All of the dams' risk values within each county were combined to calculate each county's overall dam failure risk. The counties with the highest risk include Gwinnett, Cobb, and Muscogee. This map also illustrates the State's higher risk located in the northern portion of Georgia.
This section concerning dam failure hazards and risk for the State of Georgia addresses the general characteristics of dam failure events, including spatial dispersion, spatial extent, seasonality, rate of onset, frequency, duration, magnitude, and intensity. Also, this section addresses the limited dam failure history in the State of Georgia while providing a somewhat narrow hazard-specific risk assessment due to incomplete dam location data.
2.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
As discussed in the definition of terms section, vulnerability is essentially the potential for loss. Although the term may refer to independent and biophysical vulnerabilities to hazards, the concept of social vulnerability is utilized in this risk assessment. Social vulnerability refers to a particular population's social condition which determines the general susceptibility to harm and ability to recover from a hazard event. The basis for the concept of social vulnerability is that the inequalities among people and places are the cause of variance in responses to hazard events.
In attempts to address the variance in populations that cause unequal reactions to hazard events, Dr. Susan Cutter at the University of South Carolina's Hazard & Vulnerability Research Institute has created the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI), which measures the social vulnerability of spa-

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 64

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

tial units (counties) within the United States to environmental hazards. SoVI is a comparative met-

A

ric that facilitates the examination of the differences in social vulnerability among Georgia coun-

ties. The index, when mapped in GIS, graphically illustrates the geographic variation in social vul-

Z

nerability by highlighting the uneven capacity for preparedness, response, and recovery among

A

counties. SoVI possibly proves useful for effectively allocating resources that reduce the pre-

R

existing vulnerability.

D

The SoVI methods, described in the following section, drastically differ from those utilized in the

previous plan's attempt to address vulnerability. Essentially, the previous plan indiscriminately

R

interchanges the various types of vulnerability. The previous plan defines vulnerability correctly, but then persists in only generally describing biophysical vulnerabilities to some hazards while

I

calculating "populations at risk" (number of people in high risk areas) for other hazards. Essen-

S

tially, the assessments of vulnerability by hazard were scattered and inconsistent in the previous plan. Therefore, in this update, GEMA staff systematically addressed the hazard history and the

K

risk for every hazard type and quantitatively addressed issues of social vulnerability for all haz-

ards. Even though the terms social vulnerability seemingly only refers to social aspects of a popu-

lation, the metric (described below) includes factors related to infrastructure and development den-

A

sities. Essentially, the updated methodology for addressing vulnerability is an improvement over

N

the previous plan in that the updated methodology is systematic and repeatable as well as com-

D

prehensive of the concept of vulnerability.

2.6.1 Methods

V

The Social Vulnerability Index, which was originally published as "Social Vulnerability to Environ-

U

mental Hazards" in the Social Science Quarterly volume 82 issue 2 by Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley

L

in 2003, synthesizes 42 socioeconomic and built environment variables that have emerged from

N

research literature as contributing factors to a community's ability to prepare, respond, and recover. Cutter, et al. collected most of the original SoVI variables from the United States Census

E

Bureau and collected the remaining variables from various national data sources including the

R

Department of Labor Statistics, Federal Election Data Project, and American Hospital Association.

A

Although these data do not stem from the local risk assessments, the data are locally produced, especially in reference to the Census Bureau data. The 42 socioeconomic variables included in

B

SoVI are found in Table 2.28.

I L I T Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 65

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

SoVI Variables

SoVI Variables

H

Hospitals

Black population

A

Z

Recent Immigrants

Asian population

A

Urban population

Hispanic population

R

Manufacturing establishments

Young population (under 5)

D

Industrial earnings

Old population (over 65)

Housing

Female population

R

Commercial establishments

Unemployed

I

Median age

Per capita income

S

Party affiliation

People per household

K

Birthrate

Wealthy population ( over $100,000)

A

Local government debt

Poor population (below poverty line)

N

Farm land

Housing value

D

Population change

Rented housing

New construction

Rent rates

V

Farm earnings

Physician access

U

Transportation industry employment Rural farm population

L

Service industry employment

Female headed households

N

Institutionalized population

Mobile homes

E

R

Social security recipients

Uneducated population

A

Primary industry employment

Civilian labor force participation

B

Native American population

Female labor force participation

I

Table 2.28: Variables included in the SoVI analysis

L

The 42 variables are standardized and input into a principle components analysis, reducing the

I

number of variables into a smaller set of multi-variant factors. In other words, the factor analysis

T

determines that a certain percentage of the variance in the original variable dataset can be ex-

Y

plained by the resulting factors, which are varyingly influenced by all the variables. The reduction

of data resulted in a total of 11 multi-variant factors that explain 76.4% of the variance within the

original dataset. Each factor's directionality (positive, negative) was analyzed to insure each cor-

A

responded with its effect on vulnerability. For example, the factor including the variables related to

S

wealth indicators load negatively because increased wealth decreases vulnerability.

S

With the directionality of factors determined, the factors are placed in an additive model, resulting

E

in a numerical social vulnerability score for each county. For SoVI 2000, from which Georgia counties' scores were extracted, the 42 variables produced 11 significant factors that explain

S

76.4% of the variance in the data. These factors include socioeconomic status, age, development

S

density, rural agriculture, race, gender, ethnicity, and single-sector employment. These methods for calculating SoVI for the State of Georgia are illustrated in Figure C.1 in Appendix C as a data

M

flow diagram.

E

N

T

Page 66

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

2.6.2 Georgia's Social Vulnerability

A

After completing the SoVI methods, the results are tabulated and mapped in GIS. The following

Z

table, Table 2.29 lists the counties with the highest and lowest SoVI scores for the State of Geor-

A

gia.

R

D

Highest Vulnerabil- SoVI Score Lowest Vulnerability SoVI Score ity

Clayton County

9.99

Echols County

-7.53

R

Washington County 7.18

Banks County

-5.99

I

Clay County

6.94

Gilmer County

-5.80

S

Randolph County

6.29

Dawson County

-5.78

K

Burke County

5.94

Harris County

-4.81

A

Jefferson County

5.78

Wayne County

-4.25

N

Warren County

5.70

Habersham County

-4.15

D

Terrell County

5.50

Brantley County

-4.10

Glascock County

5.16

Baldwin County

-3.94

V

Fayette County

5.15

Oglethorpe County

-3.93

U

Table 2.29: SoVI scores for most and least vulnerable counties in Georgia

L

N

Variables that contribute to Clayton County's being the most vulnerable county in Georgia include

E

high percentages of minority populations (African American, Hispanic, and Asian), high densities of manufacturing and commercial establishments, high percentage of renters, high average peo-

R

ple per housing unit, high urban population percentage, high density of housing, high birthrate,

A

and high recent immigration population. In contrast, Echols County, the least vulnerable county in Georgia according to SoVI, has low minority populations (African American and Asian), low manu-

B

facturing and commercial establishment density, low local government debt, low urban population,

I

low birthrate, low housing density, and low farm land percentage.

L

The map of relative SoVI scores, Figure C.2, represents the remaining social vulnerability for the

I

State of Georgia. The scores are categorized based on standard deviations from the mean. In

T

other words, the mean of the SoVI scores equals 0.38 with the standard deviation equaling 2.79. Given these values, average SoVI scores range from -2.41 to 3.17 and encompass 68.2% of all

Y

the scores. The scores falling within this average are labeled as "Average" on Figure C.2. Those

labeled as "High" or "Low" vulnerability include scores that are either 1 to 2 standard deviations

A

greater or less than average, respectively. In other words, scores ranging from 3.18 to 5.96 are considered to have high vulnerability while scores ranging from -2.42 to -5.2 are considered to

S

have low vulnerability. The "High" and "Low" scores encompass 27.2% of all the scores. Finally,

S

those counties with SoVI scores greater or less than 2 standard deviations away from the mean were labeled "Extremely High" and "Extremely Low", respectively. These scores encompass the

E

remaining 4.6% of the county SoVI scores. This method of categorization, using standard devia-

S

tions, allows SoVI to remain a relative measure. In other words, Clayton County's having a 9.99

S

score does not mean anything without comparison to Echols County's having a -7.53 score.

M

As previously stated in the introduction section, the State of Georgia has experienced tremendous

E

recent growth and development. Also, the state has almost twice the annual growth rate (since 2000) of the national average. Of the most vulnerable jurisdictions (counties) listed in Table 2.29,

N

Fayette and Clayton Counties have a higher than average population growth rate since 2000 in

T

the State of Georgia. While variables related to growth such as population change, birthrate, and

recent immigration as well as variables related to development such as densities of establish-

Page 67

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ments and new construction are included in the SoVI, the index does not focus on simple changes

H

in development. Therefore, examining the population change since 2000 according to Census

A

Bureau estimates allows the illumination of highly vulnerable jurisdictions that are experiencing

growth.

Z

A

This section outlines the concept of social vulnerability and the methods of measuring social vulnerability with the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). Also, this section presents the results of run-

R

ning the SoVI analysis on the counties within the State of Georgia. The results, found in Table

D

2.27 and Figure C.2, highlight the counties with the most and least vulnerability to hazards. In

other words, counties like Clayton, Washington, Randolph, and Clay have lower than average (for the State of Georgia) capacity for preparedness, response, and recovery. In contrast, counties

R

like Echols, Gilmer, Dawson, and Banks have higher than average capacity for preparedness, re-

I

sponse, and recovery in relation to hazards. This vulnerability assessment, when coupled with a composite hazard assessment, should be utilized in determining the allocation of mitigation re-

S

sources.

K

2.7 COMPOSITE ASSESSMENT

A

Combining the hazard risk scores detailed in the hazard-specific assessments and the Social Vul-

N

nerability Index (SoVI) scores detailed in the previous section provides a broader understanding of an area's hazardousness of place. In other words, knowing the potential for hazard and the po-

D

tential for loss allows the targeting of mitigation and other efforts to areas with the most need.

V

The first map, Figure D.1 in Appendix D, illustrates the composite of the hazard scores. The val-

ues, ranging from 3 to 23, represent the least to the most hazardous areas in the state, respec-

U

tively. This composite map includes the hazards that are spatially constricted or exhibit a strong

L

spatial pattern: storm surge, wind, inland flooding, wildfire, and seismic activity. The remaining hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe weather, tornadoes, winter weather, and drought pose

N

threat to the entire State of Georgia. The composite of hazard scores highlights areas of greater

E

hazard potential in the red hues. This map proves useful in sub-county assessments as the

R

scores are somewhat continuous data (not confined by an arbitrary boundary).

A

For a county assessment, the average hazard score proves more useful in combining with the

B

SoVI score (calculated at the county level). Figure D.2 illustrates the average hazard score by county and include the same hazards listed above. This map allows one to pinpoint certain coun-

I

ties as having substantially more risk to hazard events than other counties. For example, the

L

coastal region of Georgia and the mountainous northern portion of Georgia are at more risk than

I

the interior. Because the hazards are not weighted in terms of impact (storm surge being more

hazardous than wind, for example), these similarities in risk are caused by different hazards. For

T

example, the coast is mainly at risk to flooding events (storm surge and inland flooding) while the

Y

mountainous north is more at risk to seismic events (earthquake and landslide) along with inland

flooding. The most at risk counties (based on average) and their respective scores are found in

Table 2.30.

A

S

S

E

S

S

M

E

N

T

Page 68

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

County

Average Hazard

A

Score

Z

Chatham

16.5

A

McIntosh

16.0

R

Glynn

15.9

D

Camden

14.8

Liberty

14.5

R

Whitfield

14.4

I

Fannin

14.4

S

K

Dade

14.4

Bryan

14.1

A

Catoosa

13.5

N

Table 2.30: Counties with highest average hazard scores

D
Typically, this average hazard score by county map may provide the basis for mitigation efforts. In

other words, more mitigating efforts are concentrated to the areas with the most risk. However,

V

this method ignores the potential for loss of the communities within the hazardous areas. For ex-

U

ample, two counties of equal risk may encompass vastly different populations. One population may consist of wealthy and educated people who have the ability to prepare for, respond to, and

L

recover from hazard events. In contrast, the other population may consist of poorer and more un-

N

educated people who lack the ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazard events.

E

In this situation, perhaps the social vulnerability should hold more sway in the allocation of mitigation efforts.

R

A

The social vulnerability assessment completed in the previous section allows the differentiation among similarly at risk areas. Figure D.3 combines the average hazard score with the SoVI score

B

in an additive model. These scores are categorized by quantiles (equal units in each category)

I

into five groups. The red and orange counties represent the most at risk and vulnerable counties

L

within the State of Georgia while the green counties represent the least at risk and vulnerable. The counties with the highest combined score are listed in Table 2.31.

I

T

County

Composite Score (Risk + SoVI)

Y

Chatham

19.1

Clayton

18.1

A

Towns

16.5

S

Liberty

16.4

S

McIntosh

16.1

E

S

Burke

16.0

S

Glynn

15.3

M

Cobb

14.8

E

Washington 14.4

N

Jefferson

14.1

T

Table 2.31: Counties with highest composite score (including risk score and SoVI score)

Page 69

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

With the addition of social vulnerability into the composite assessment, some counties became

H

significantly more or less apparent as needing mitigating efforts. Figure D.4 illustrates those coun-

A

ties with significant change. Counties with less risk, such as the cluster found in Southwest Geor-

gia, increased in score because of high SoVI scores. Although hazard events are less likely to

Z

occur, the ability of the population to prepare, respond, and recover is reduced. In contrast, some

A

counties in North Georgia are at relatively more risk to hazard events, however, these counties exhibit greater potential for preparation, response, and recovery.

R

D

Also of importance is the change in development in these higher risk and vulnerability jurisdictions.

Of the most at risk and vulnerable jurisdictions (counties) listed in Table 2.31, Clayton, Towns, and Cobb Counties have a higher than average population growth rate since 2000 in the State of

R

Georgia. These counties have a significant change in development due to an influx in population

I

since 2000. If these changes in development continue, the changes may impact future risk and vulnerability assessments. However, because variables related to growth and development are

S

included in SoVI and, therefore, included in the composite assessment, the ranking of the most

K

vulnerable and most at risk remain unaltered for this update.

These composite analyses (hazard and hazard/vulnerability composites) not only summarize the

A

findings of Chapter 2 but also provide the basis for the remaining portions of the Georgia Hazard

N

Mitigation Strategy. These findings allow the formation of the mitigation strategy goals and objectives as well as provide a basis for prioritizing the distribution of mitigation resources.

D

2.8 LOSS POTENTIAL

V

Because analyzing all at risk structures on a state-wide basis in unfeasible, this section first fo-

U

cuses on loss potential in relation to two types of facilities: state-owned or leased facilities and

L

locally-reported critical facilities. This analysis derives state facility data from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and state-

N

leased (operated) structures. The analysis derives critical facility data from the Georgia Mitigation

E

Information System (GMIS), which allows authorized users from local governments to add local

R

critical facility data to an accessible database. Completion of each county's critical facility data is required by GEMA through the local planning process. This section then focuses on loss potential

A

by state jurisdiction (counties).

B

Because complete information regarding the attributes of both the state-owned and leased facili-

I

ties and locally-reported critical facilities is currently unavailable for analysis, the individual vulner-

L

ability of the facilities is undetermined. As previously stated, the term vulnerability refers to the

I

potential for loss. When referring to the facilities in the State of Georgia, the terms independent

and biophysical vulnerability are applicable. Because independent vulnerability refers to an indi-

T

vidual building's structural integrity, analysis requires particular and detailed data about each

Y

building. Although each facility's individual vulnerability remains unaddressed, GEMA Hazard

Analysis and Risk Assessment section planners addressed the biophysical vulnerability in the two

following sections. As defined, biophysical vulnerability is essentially synonymous with hazard

A

exposure; therefore, assessing the hazardousness of the each facility's location and categorizing

S

this hazardousness (as in the tables above) meets the requirements of assessing at least one as-

pect of vulnerability.

S

E

The biophysical vulnerability has the potential to increase or decrease because of changes in development. Therefore, as vulnerability changes because of development, the estimates of loss

S

change as well. Obviously, with increases in development in the higher hazard areas, the esti-

S

mates of loss will increase accordingly. Essentially, the more facilities and infrastructure in harm's

M

way, the more potential for loss exists. With the inclusion of the monetary potential for loss for both state facilities and critical facilities in this update, future updates may address the impacts of

E

development on these numbers by calculating the changes in value at risk and standardizing the

N

difference using an indicator of development such as population change.

T

Page 70

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 71

2.8.1 State-Owned or Leased Facilities
The BLLIP database provides information on state-owned and leased properties provided and sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GTS), Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission for a New Georgia in collaborations with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. Currently, the database includes 14,887 structures with 13,222 being state-owned and 1,665 being state-leased structures. Of these structures, those with adequate location information (latitude and longitude) are illustrated on Figure D.5 in Appendix D at the end of this document.
The BLLIP database is designed to include a plethora of information regarding state-owned and leased facilities. However, even though the database accounts for the majority of structures, the attribute data of each structure is mostly incomplete. The authorities listed above continue to improve the database so that all the attribute data is complete. These attributes include the following: the locational information, occupying entity, owning entity, total floors, square footage, percentage occupied, construction year, insured value, estimated value, fire code compliance, historic value, contents value, historical value, and contact information. Although the attributes do not include a "type" of facility, the building description and the occupying entity attribute sometimes includes information lending to the "type" of facility. Based on this information, all of the state agencies' buildings are represented, including structures ranging from main buildings used as headquarters for human resources to various sized sheds used for storage of equipment resources. The state-owned and leased facilities may include some facilities that qualify as critical (such as state hospitals or prisons); however, all state-owned and leased facilities are included in the BLLIP
database. The most consistently complete of the attributes was the estimated value. Therefore,
this attribute was reported in the following tables to illustrate the amount at risk in the hazard categories.
Including the BLLIP data in the GIS allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the composite hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls. For example, the spatial joining assigns GEMA's Building 5 the hazard score of 6 (on a scale of 25).
In terms of statewide analyses, the BLLIP data are used to summarize percentages of state facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard scores) as well as summarize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. These summaries are found in the following tables, Tables 2.32 and 2.33.

Hazard Category High
Moderate
Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

% Owned
5.1% 44.5% 50.4%

% Leased
46.9% 25.0% 28.2%

Table 2.32: State facility percentages in hazard categories

% Total Facilities 9.8%
42.3%
47.9%

Hazard Category High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

Estimated Value at Risk $762,923,400
$4,654,530,500
$6,717,923,500

Table 2.33: State facility value at risk according to hazard categories

% Total Value 6.3% 38.4% 55.4%

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

As the tables illustrate, approximately half the total structures and approximately half the esti-

A

mated value of those structures reside in the high and moderate hazard zones. The high hazard

areas included in the tables represent those areas that have substantially higher hazard scores.

Z

With scores ranging from 18 to 25, these areas are must be impacted by either all the hazards

A

utilized in the composite assessment at a moderate to high level or at least three hazards at the highest level. Most likely, the facilities that are located in the highest hazard areas are located in

R

the counties with the highest average composite risk: the coastal counties in eastern Georgia and

D

the mountainous counties in northern Georgia.

Note that the value totals and facility totals are based on the BLLIP data, which is not completely

R

whole. In terms of the state facility percentages in the various hazard zones, only 89.3% of the

I

state-owned structures and 53.6% of the state-leased structures are represented. In terms of the estimated value of structures at risk, only 43.7% of the structures are represented. Therefore, one

S

may assume that the estimated value at risk in each category is underrepresented substantially.

K

As previously stated, the authorities sponsoring the BLLIP database are continually updating and

improving the data. Because they compiled the database after the 2005 plan approval, the data

A

were only included in this updated document. By the next update, the BLLIP data should have

N

improved dramatically and be integrated into GEMA's GMIS critical facility database. This integration will allow further and more detailed analysis of state facilities and critical facilities in the State

D

of Georgia.

V
2.8.2 Critical Facilities
U

Critical facility data for this analysis include structures that should continue to function and provide

L

services in some capacity (not necessarily normal purpose) to surrounding populations during and after a hazard event. Typical critical facilities include hospitals, fire stations, police stations, critical

N

record storage, schools, and similar facilities. Currently (as of October 2007), the GMIS database

E

includes 14,626 locally-reported critical facilities. All of the locally-reported critical facilities in the

R

GMIS database are included in Figure D.6.

A

The GMIS database is also designed to include numerous attributes to each locally-reported criti-

B

cal facility. As implied, the accuracy of the facility information relies on the local official participation in using the GMIS. Therefore, as locals continue to add to the database, the data continue to

I

improve. These attributes may include the following: the locational information, census informa-

L

tion, occupancy type, square footage, construction year, building value, occupancy totals, and

I

contact information. In order for the record to be considered complete in the GMIS system, all of

the attributes must have been reported by the local officials. However, these analyses include the

T

incomplete records as well in order to complete the risk assessment for the critical facilities. The

Y

information presented below utilizes the attributes of the estimated value and the occupancy type

because these attributes were the most complete within the system. Note that the data used for

the following tables is incomplete at this juncture. Essentially, the first 33 counties to have ap-

A

proved hazard mitigation plans did not have the opportunity to use the GMIS system in the plan-

S

ning process. Therefore, the data for these 33 counties is incomplete along with the 29 counties

yet to draft copies of local plans. Therefore, these values are solely based on current data and will

S

change with future updates.

E

As with the state facility data, including the locally-provided GMIS data in the GIS allows the spa-

S

tial joining of the critical facility data with the composite hazard assessment. Also, the GMIS data

S

are used to summarize percentages of critical facilities located in specific hazard categories (high

M

to low composite hazard scores) as well as summarize the estimated value of the critical facilities at varied risk to hazards. These summaries are found in the following tables, Tables 2.34 and

E

2.35.

N

T

Page 72

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

Hazard Cate-

Hazard Score Total Facilities % Total Facili-

A

gory

Range

ties

Z

High

18-25

32

0.2%

A

Moderate

9-17

6,559

44.8%

R

Low

0-8

8,035

54.9%

D

Table 2.34: Critical facility percentages in hazard category zones

R

Hazard Category

Hazard Score Range Estimated Value at % Total Value

I
High
S

18-25

Risk $94,941,800

0.2%

K

Moderate

9-17

$41,499,346,900

67.4%

Low

0-8

$19,980,635,500

32.4%

A

Table 2.35: Critical facility value at risk according to hazard categories

N

As the tables illustrate, approximately half the total critical facilities and more than half the esti-

D

mated value of those critical facilities reside in the high and moderate hazard zones. All of the

facilities are included in the spatial join with the composite hazard assessment. In terms of the

V

estimated value of critical facilities at risk, 97.5% of the facilities are represented. Therefore, one may assume that the estimated value at risk in each category is accurately represented.

U

L

In order to evaluate the occupancy and types of buildings included in the assessment of critical facility's potential for loss, the following table, Table 2.36, includes a list of percentage of buildings

N

associate with the type. As the previous tables show, only 32 of 14,626 critical facilities are lo-

E

cated in the high hazard areas. Of the 32 high hazard buildings, 27 are associated with a public

R

university, Savannah State. As this information demonstrates, most of the critical facility occupancy types listed in the following table are located either in moderate or low hazard areas.

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 73

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Building Type

% of Total

Other

23.1

Public University

11.3

Water System

10.8

Fire Station

10.2

Elementary School

4.5

City Hall

3.6

Wastewater Treatment Plant

3.5

Emergency Services

2.6

Police Station

2.6

Private School

2.5

Library

2.2

MSWL

2.0

High School, Public

1.8

High School

1.7

Middle School

1.5

Courthouse

1.5

Public Four-Year College

1.3

Public Two-Year College

1.3

Hospital, Admissions

1.1

Sheriffs Office

1.1

Other School

1.0

Airport

0.9

County Jail

0.9

Pre-Kindergarten

0.8

SL

0.6

State Prison

0.5

City Jail

0.4

Landfill

0.4

Public Vocational Technical

0.4

School

Federal Penitentiary

0.4

Psychoeducational

0.4

C&D

0.4

Private Four-Year College

0.3

Primary School

0.3

Hospital, Emergency

0.3

Private University

0.3

County Correctional Institution

0.3

Recycling Center

0.3

Adult Education Center

0.2

Middle/High School

0.2

Alternative School

0.2

Transfer Station

0.1

Private Two-Year College

0.1

Marshals Office

0.1

Table 2.36: Critical facility types: percentage of total reported

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 74

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

A

These percentages reveal the types of critical facilities that counties are reporting into the GMIS.

All of these facilities fit the definition of critical facility: structures that should continue to function

Z

and provide services in some capacity (not necessarily normal purpose) to surrounding popula-

A

tions during and after a hazard event.

R

In order to evaluate the monetary potential for loss by jurisdiction, the locally-reported critical facil-

D

ity data was utilized in conjunction with the average composite hazard scores. Again, note that

the data used for the following tables is incomplete at this juncture. Essentially, the first 33 coun-

R

ties to have approved hazard mitigation plans did not have the opportunity to use the GMIS system in the planning process. Therefore, the data for these 33 counties is incomplete along with

I

the 29 counties yet to draft copies of local plans. Therefore, these values are solely based on cur-

S

rent data and will change with future updates. This evaluation results in the following table which ranks the counties based on the highest value per facility, the highest average risk score per facil-

K

ity, and a combination of the two.

A

Rank High Avg. Value / Facility High Avg. Risk / Facility High Avg. Standardized

N

1 Habersham County

Chatham County

Habersham County

D

2 City of Millen

City of Brunswick

City of Millen

3 City of Marietta

Glynn County

City of Marietta

V

4 Effingham County

Liberty County

Schley County

U

L

5 Town of Portal

Bryan County

Town of Portal

N

6 City of Rome

Fannin County

Heard County

E

7 Schley County

McIntosh County

Effingham County

R

8 Cobb County

A

9 Bulloch County

B

City of Gillsville Town of Alto

City of Jefferson
Columbus-Muscogee County

I

10 City of Kingsland

City of Hull

Cobb County

L

Table 2.37: Rankings of potential for loss by jurisdiction

I

T

As the table illustrates, these jurisdictions have potential for higher losses to the self-reported critical facilities due to having a high average value per facility, a high average risk score per facility,

Y

and high average standardized score (the average value standardized by the average risk).

The next table lists the jurisdictions with the highest total value in critical facilities, as reported in

A

the GMIS.

S

S

E

S

S

M

E

N

T

Page 75

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Ran High Avg. Value / Facility k
1 Habersham County
2 City of Marietta
3 City of Millen
4 Cobb County
5 Augusta-Richmond County
6 Fulton County
7 Columbus-Muscogee County
8 City of Rome
9 Bulloch County
10 Effingham County
Table 2.38: Rankings of total value of critical facilities by jurisdiction
2.8.3 Repetitive Loss Properties
As introduced in Chapter 1, the State of Georgia utilizes several federal hazard mitigation programs to mitigate repetitive and severe repetitive loss properties. These programs include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), the PreDisaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) program, the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) program, and the newly formed Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program. The various federal programs have the ability to provide funds to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that multiple claims to the National Flood Insurance Fund. Eligible mitigation activities include property acquisition (includes either demolition or relocation, where the property is deed restricted for open space in perpetuity), property elevation, dry flood proofing of non-residential structures, and minor localized flood control projects.
In order for this strategy to target repetitive loss properties, including severe repetitive loss properties, those properties must be documented and mapped for further analysis. Within this section of the hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment, the repetitive loss properties are illustrated in a series of maps that analyze the municipalities in terms of repetitive loss properties and claim payments.
Figures D.7 through D.11 illustrate various aspects of the repetitive loss properties in Georgia. The first map, Figure D.7 illustrates the total losses per property using graduated symbols. As this map indicates, clusters of repetitive loss properties are located in the metropolitan Atlanta area as well as in the Savannah/Chatham County area. Also, the map indicates the location of properties with losses exceeding 10 in the cities of Rome and Augusta. The second map, Figure D.8, illustrates the municipalities with the highest totals of repetitive loss properties while Figure D.9 illustrates the municipalities with the highest sums of insurance claim payments to the repetitive loss properties. According to these figures, Cobb, DeKalb, Richmond, Lee, and Dougherty Counties as well as the cities of Atlanta, Savannah, and Albany remain constant. In other words, these communities top the list in terms of total repetitive loss properties and sums of insurance claim payments. However, the total properties and total payments do not represent the entire situation. Figures D.10 and D.11 depict averages of losses per property and payments per property, respectively. In terms of the average number of losses per property, the Counties of Gwinnett, Newton, Upson, Houston, and Grady top the list along with the Cities of Carrollton, College Park, Chamblee, Fitzgerald, and Waycross. In terms of the average claim payment amounts per property, Decatur County along with the Cities of LaFayette, East Ellijay, Calhoun, Canton, Powder Springs, Tyrone, Leesburg, Tifton, and Vidalia top the list. With the analyses shown on these maps in Ap-

H A Z A R D
R I S K
A N D
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
A S S E S S M E N T
Page 76

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H

pendix D, GEMA has the ability to focus mitigation efforts on those communities not only with high

A

totals but also those communities with high averages.

Z

In order to assess the risk associated with the repetitive loss properties, the point location of every

A

property was aligned with the inland flood hazard score previously discussed. The results follow

R

in Table 2.39.

D

Flood Hazard Category Hazard Total

% Total

Score

RLPs

RLPs

R

Floodway / Velocity

4

168

13.8%

I

100 Year Floodplain

3

450

36.9%

S

500 Year Floodplain

2

82

6.7%

K

Undetermined / Possible 1

518

42.5%

Table 2.39: Repetitive loss properties in flood hazard zones
A

N

The first column in this table refers back to Table 2.15 in Chapter 2 that details the flood hazard

D

scores. In reference to repetitive loss properties, this table reveals that over 40% of the repetitive loss properties are not currently mapped as being in either a 100 or 500 year floodplain. However,

with the continuing federal Map Modernization program efforts, this information may change dras-

V

tically by the next Standard Plan update cycle.

U

2.9 CONCLUSION

L

This section of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy provides the assessments of Georgia's haz-

N

ards, risks to those hazards, and social vulnerability in order to provide a scientifically-sound foundation for the goals, objectives, tasks, and actions steps that are proposed in the next chapter of

E

the plan.

R

This chapter outlines of definitions of the terms hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation; outlines

A

the processes used in data manipulation and analyses; discusses the hazard event, loss, and dis-

B

aster declaration history for the entire State of Georgia and each specific hazard type; estimates

I

recurrence probabilities (risk); addresses social vulnerability to hazard events; provides a composite analysis of all hazard types that provides a numerical ranking of areas in terms of its hazard-

L

ousness; and presents state buildings and critical facilities in junction with the composite hazard

I

scores in order to determine the areas with the most potential to lose state assets.

T

Y

A S S E S S M E N T

Page 77

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S

T

Chapter 3

A

T

State Mitigation Strategy

E

M I T I G A T I O N

S T R A T A G Y

Page 78

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Chapter 3: State Mitigation Strategy

S

T

3.1 OVERVIEW

A

Basically, the purpose of Chapter 3 is to provide the State of Georgia's strategy for reducing the

T

impacts (including losses) of hazard events discussed in the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assess-

ment (Chapter 2). In order to fulfill this purpose, Chapter 3 includes discussions of the following:

E

mitigation goals, objectives, tasks, and action steps; state pre- and post-disaster hazard manage-

ment including state policies, programs, capabilities, and local progress; mitigation activities; and

M

mitigation funding.

I

The summary of changes that have occurred to Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy since the

T

2005 approval are listed in the following table, Table 3.1.

I

Chapter 3 Section

G

3.1 Overview

A

Updates to Section Revised to reflect new plan content. Includes table of changes.

T

I

3.2 Goals, Objectives, Tasks, Goal text revised, content unchanged from previous plan.

O

and Action Steps

Revision of objectives, tasks, and action steps to meet

N

the recommendations of the interagency planning group.

S

3.3 State Capability Assess- Enhanced state capability assessment to address more

T

ment

policy and funding information.

R

A

3.4 Local Capability Assess- Enhanced local capability assessment to address local

T

ment

A

mitigation policies such as building codes and zoning laws.

G

Y

3.5 Mitigation Activity

Section updated to address the status of the mitigation activities presented in the last approval.

3.6 Conclusion

Section added to summarize the previous sections.

Page 79

Table 3.1: Summary of changes to Chapter 3 of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy
In order to understand the State's mitigation strategy, the concept and approaches of mitigation are discussed. Essentially, mitigation is a combination of sustained measures and actions that attempt to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from hazards. The main methods of mitigation include (1) modifying the hazard event; (2) reducing human vulnerability; and (3) reducing losses.
Methods of modifying the hazard event often fall into one of two basic forms: structural and nonstructural. Structural hazard mitigation involves physical changes undertaken to control the actual hazard event. Examples include constructing flood control structures such as dams, seawalls, levees, and drainage systems and constructing seismic-resistant infrastructure. Non-structural hazard mitigation includes methods of preventing an adverse human-environmental interaction such as planning, zoning, and building code enforcement as well as methods of protection for

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

property (land acquisition and flood-proofing) and for natural resources (erosion control and wetland restoration).
Methods of reducing vulnerability often intersect with modifying the hazard. However, these methods focus more on human agency. Forms of reducing human vulnerability include preparedness, planning, and education efforts. Examples of preparedness include enhancing emergency service warning and response capability. Examples of planning intersect with the non-structural mitigation methods of zoning and enforcing building codes. Examples of education include public outreach efforts to inform the community about risk and mitigation.
The overall benefits of mitigation planning include the reduction of losses from a hazard event and the facilitation of recovery after a hazard event. Essentially, communities become sustainable and disaster-resistant. Also, mitigation planning establishes funding priorities at all levels of administration. Finally, mitigation planning provides the community with an awareness of their inherent risks as well as promotes taking personal responsibility in risk reduction.
Considering the concept of mitigation and the categories of mitigation approaches, GEMA undertakes three basic approaches to mitigation in this strategy:
Consistent with the most basic form of mitigation, avoid the intersection of spatially definable natural hazards with human activity and built environment.
With spatially indefinable natural hazards, mitigation efforts must concentrate on lessening the vulnerability of human activities to the hazards.
In heavily invested hazard-prone areas, mitigation efforts can concentrate on physically shielding the area from the hazard, encourage retreat from the hazard, and limit human activity to areas of lesser damage.
The State of Georgia's mitigation strategy is an ongoing effort to identify the goals, objects, tasks and actions that will reduce or eliminate losses from natural hazard events. This strategy is firmly based upon the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment and encourages the non-structural approach to mitigation as opposed to the structural approach.
3.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, TASKS, AND ACTION STEPS
The following sections outline the various goals, objectives, tasks, and actions steps proposed by the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy (GHMS). Each is narrower in focus than the last. In other words, the goals of the GHMS are purposely designed as broad while the objectives, strategies, and action steps are progressively narrower. This design intends to eventually describe particular efforts (action steps) that lead to beneficial and cost-efficient mitigation actions.
3.2.1 Goals
Each of the State of Georgia's mitigation goals interrelate while aligning with the definition of mitigation. Because these mitigation goals are meant to encompass the entire purpose of mitigation, they remain broad. The goals are as follows:
1) Reduce human vulnerability to hazard events. 2) Reduce the losses associated with hazard events. 3) Reduce overall exposure to hazard events for Georgia citizens and their property.
The types of mitigation methods associated with these goals are discussed in the previous section and include community planning, outreach efforts, structural and non-structural activities. These three broad goals are supported by the objectives, tasks, and action steps discussed in the following section.
The content of these goals remains unchanged since the 2005 approval of Georgia's Haz-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 80

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ard Mitigation Strategy. GEMA's Hazard Mitigation staff, in conjunction with the interagency part-

S

ners, reviewed and analyzed the mitigation goals during first interactions of the update process.

T

These goals were compared to the methods of mitigation and GEMA's general approach to mitigation previously outlined in this chapter. The mitigation goals abridged the mitigation methods and

A

GEMA's mitigation methods into a succinct yet comprehensive purpose of this strategy. After

T

comparison, Hazard Mitigation staff and the interagency partners found this strategy's broad goals

remain valid and basically unchanged for the update process.

E

3.2.2 Objectives, Tasks, and Action Steps

M

The purpose of the objectives, tasks, and action steps is to narrow down the scope of miti-

I

gation activity. The state's mitigation goals are supported by the objectives, which are further sup-

T

ported by the tasks and action steps. The status of the objectives and tasks are discussed in the

following section while the completed tasks and action steps are further discussed in the

I

"Mitigation Activity" section of this chapter.

G

A

Objective 1: (OBJ1) Provide coordination between local, state, and federal agencies in pre-disaster planning and post-

T

disaster recovery.

I

Task 1: (OBJ1-T1)

O

Support a coordinated hazard mitigation planning process by providing direct

N

technical assistance with GEMA Hazard Mitigation staff.

Task 2: (OBJ1-T2)

S

Integrate local hazard mitigation planning information into Georgia's mitigation

T

strategy consistent with the plan maintenance process.

R

Task 3: (OBJ1-T3)

A

This task has been combined with OBJ4-T2.

T

Task 4: (OBJ1-T4)

A

Identify public and private sector incentives that encourage the implementation of

G

sound hazard mitigation measures.

Y

Task 5: (OBJ1-T5)

Coordinate with state and federal agencies to identify potential funding assistance

to implement mitigation measures for local governments.

Task 6: (OBJ1-T6) During disaster operations, deploy staff to ensure continued working relationships with local, state and federal agencies in the implementation of all available hazard mitigation programs.

Task 7: (OBJ1-T7) This task is combined with OBJ2-T3.

Task 8: (OBJ1-T8) Work with National Weather Service (NWS), United States Geological Survey (USGS), Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other agencies to increase effective warning capabilities.

Action Step: (OBJ1-T8a) Support the expansion of the Flood Tracking Chart Project developed for the Flint River Basin to the other river basins, ensuring greater availability of information to the emergency management community and public.

Page 81

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Task 9: (OBJ1-T9) Support Georgia Forestry Commission Forest Protection Programs by integrating relevant and applicable concepts into the local and state planning process.
Action Step: (OBJ1-T9a) This action step has been combined with OBJ1-T9.
Objective 2: (OBJ2) Increase awareness of hazard mitigation programs among state agencies, local municipalities, private sector, and general public.
Task 1: (OBJ2-T1) Increase public awareness on disaster risks and effective mitigation actions that protect life and decrease property damages.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1a) Distribute Hazard Mitigation materials to interested parties including the general public and private sector trade groups.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1b) Conduct hazard mitigation training workshops in various regions in order to reach more state and local officials (i.e. permitting boards, conservation commissions, building inspectors, and other code officials).
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1c) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T1a.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1d) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T1b.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1e) Expand outreach activities through GEMA website to provide the latest information on hazard mitigation programs and funding.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1f) Continue to utilize the GEMA Public Information Office (PIO) to distribute news on hazard mitigation initiatives.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1g) Continue to support the StormReady Program in Georgia in partnership with National Weather Service (NWS).
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1h) Continue to support the Severe Weather Awareness Week and the Prescribed Fire Awareness Week campaigns in partnership with the Office of the Governor.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T1i) Continue to update training materials for state and local governments on the development of cost-effective mitigation projects.
Task 2: (OBJ2-T2) Continue to support and promote participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Community Rating System (CRS).
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2a) Coordinate with DNR to deliver needed or available technical assistance to local governments in order to improve the enforcement of floodplain management re-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 82

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 83

quirements.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2b) Support DNR in their efforts to increase participation in the NFIP and CRS programs through combined efforts (i.e. workshops, briefings, and local planning).
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2c) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T2b.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2d) Continue to require communities remain in good standing in the NFIP to be eligible for hazard mitigation funding.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2e) Continue to give mitigation funding priority to CRS communities.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T2f) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T2b.
Task 3: (OBJ2-T3) Develop a statewide hazard mitigation training program for local government officials, state agencies, and targeted private sector participants.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3a) Coordinate with DCA on incorporating hazard mitigation information into their building inspector workshops and training programs.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3b) Provide technical assistance to state agencies and local governments to incorporate hazard mitigation measures into their plans and programs.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3c) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T1a & T1b.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3d) Continue hazard mitigation outreach efforts to numerous state agencies and local governments via current mechanisms such as the GEMA Emergency Manager.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3e) This action step has been deleted.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T3f) Continue to support the coordination of hazard mitigation planning and project initiatives with Regional Development Centers (RDC) throughout the State of Georgia.
Task 4: (OBJ2-T4) Increase the awareness of the negative impacts of repetitive loss properties and the benefits of mitigation actions.
Action Step: (OBJ2-T4a) Incorporate repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss data in the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS).
Action Step: (OBJ2-T4b) Provide additional training on the utilization of the GMIS tool set to state and local government officials for completing and updating mitigation plans.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Action Step: (OBJ2-T4c) Conduct outreach in coordination with state and local NFIP coordinators to local governments on mitigation measures and funding opportunities.
Objective 3: (OBJ3) Implement a broad range of programs and projects that promote the state's comprehensive mitigation strategy.
Task 1: (OBJ3-T1) This task is combined with OBJ4-T2.
Task 2: (OBJ3-T2) Continue to increase the warning and communication capabilities of both the state agencies and local governments.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2a) Continue supporting local warning projects with available initiative funds.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2b) Continue to support awareness of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radio network in Georgia.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2c) Continue to support interagency research concerning severe weather early detection systems.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2d) Continue to promote and assist local governments to achieve the National Weather Service (NWS) StormReady certification.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2e) Continue to support the use of state of the art warning technology.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2f) Continue partnership with NWS on Mesonet efforts, including the increase of existing network and public outreach.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T2g) Develop and update plans, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters, acts of terrorism and special events to enhance the protection of Georgia Citizens and visitors.
Task 3: (OBJ3-T3) Continue to update procedures to streamline the delivery of federal and state Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL).
Action Step: (OBJ3-T3a) Continue to work with FEMA on MOAs to shorten HMGP application and approval timelines.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T3b) Continue to provide technical assistance to local communities in identifying and developing hazard mitigation projects.

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 84

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 85

Action Step: (OBJ3-T3c) Continue to update documents that facilitate HMGP, PDM, RFC, FMA and SRL processing and administration.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T3d) This action step has been combined with OBJ3-T3c.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T3e) This action step has been combined with OBJ2-T1e.
Task 4: (OBJ3-T4) This task is relocated to OBJ4-T3.
Task 5: (OBJ3-T5) Support and administer programs that protect critical services, buildings, facilities, and infrastructure from the impacts of natural hazards in order to reduce losses to the community.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5a) Support cost-effective mitigation activities that minimize damages to critical facilities, utilities, and personal property with an emphasis on non-structural methods.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5b) This action step has been combined with OBJ3-T7.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5c) Continue to give priority to projects identified in local mitigation plans that minimize damages to critical facilities.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5d) Support cost-effective mitigation activities that minimize damages to state-owned or operated assets.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5e) Support cost-effective mitigation activities that increase the storm shelter (tornado and severe wind shelters) capabilities of state and local governments.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T5f) Continue to support implementation of mitigation strategies identified in the Georgia Drought Management Plan.
Task 6: (OBJ3-T6) Reduce claims against the NFIP through the mitigation of repetitive loss properties and severe repetitive loss properties.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T6a) Provide technical assistance to local governments to identify cost-effective mitigation methods for repetitive loss properties and severe repetitive loss properties.
Action Step: (OBJ3-T6b) Support all local government cost-effective requests through all available grant opportunities to mitigate repetitive loss properties with priority given to severe repetitive loss properties and removal of repetitive loss properties from regulatory floodway.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Action Step: (OBJ3-T6c) Continue to maintain the mitigated properties database to track the completed activities on repetitive loss structures.
Objective 4: (OBJ4) Improve the state's mitigation strategy through periodic analysis.
Task 1: (OBJ4-T1) Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation programs.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T1a) Conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of mitigation programs and recommend courses of action if necessary.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T1b) This action step has been combined with OBJ4-T1a.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T1c) This task has been combined with OBJ4-T1d.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T1d) Survey our mitigation customers on an annual basis to determine effectiveness of mitigation programs.
Task 2: (OBJ4-T2) Continue supporting state and local hazard mitigation planning with improvements in the hazard mitigation strategy.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2a) Improve data collection at local and state levels.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2b) Continue working with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia on data collection tools.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2c) Continue developing the comprehensive database of critical facilities, repetitive loss structures, and mitigated properties in the State of Georgia.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2d) This action step has been removed.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2e) Continue incorporating multi-hazard mitigation planning into state and local plan updates.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2f) This action step has been combined with OBJ4-T3c.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2g) Require the inclusion of mitigated properties information in future local plan updates.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2h) Utilize lessons learned from analysis of the mitigated properties database in other publications, documents, and presentations.

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 86

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 87

Action Step: (OBJ4-T2i) This action step has been combined with OBJ4-T4c.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2j) Continue post-disaster analysis in order to improve local and state mitigation planning.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2k) Continue coordinated efforts with Georgia's DNR Safe Dams program for resources-sharing in order to mitigate the risk of dam failure in Georgia.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T2l) This action step has been combined with OBJ4-T3k.
Task 3: (OBJ4-T3) Continue developing the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment by utilizing updated technology, new data acquisitions, and improved data resources.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T3a) Explore improvements in statewide Digital Elevation Models (DEM) in coordination with USGS, Georgia DNR, and other state agencies.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T3b) Coordinate with Georgia DNR on flood mapping, map modernization, and Safe Dam programs to ensure local governments mapping and data needs are properly addressed.
Action Step: (OBJ4-T3c) Research new and improved data resources to integrate into the state mitigation strategy and into local planning efforts.
3.3 STATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The state capability assessment includes discussion on Georgia's pre- and post-disaster hazard management including policies, programs, and funding. The first subsection concerns the role of various state agencies in relation to pre- and post-disaster hazard management within Georgia. This includes mitigation-related policies, programs, and funding availability. Following the discussion of state agency roles within Georgia is a discussion of federal agency roles, including policies, programs, and funding opportunities.
Using contacts within the Georgia General Assembly, GEMA initiates legislation that is of direct interest to the agency as well as tracks and supports legislation that is of interest to the public safety, homeland security, and emergency management communities. GEMA also works closely with other agencies and organizations such as the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, the Georgia Municipal Association, the Georgia Fire Chiefs Association, the Georgia Sheriffs' Association, the Georgia Police Chiefs Association, and the Departments of Public Safety and Natural Resources to support legislation of common interest.
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated or OCGA is the compendium of all laws enacted in Georgia. Within the OCGA lie numerous legislative rules supporting mitigation. The following legislation relates to hazard mitigation in the State of Georgia:
Georgia Coastal Management Act, OCGA 12-5-320 Georgia Coastal Marshland Protection Act, 12-5-280 Georgia River Corridor Protection Act 12-2-1

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Shore Protection Act 2-5-230 Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978, OCGA 12-5-370 to 385 Georgia Planning Act of 1989, OCGA 12-2-8 Erosion and Sedimentation Act, OCGA 12-7-1 Georgia Emergency Management Act of 1981, as amended, OCGA 38-3-1 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law, OCGA 2-6-20 & 2-6-27 Georgia Environmental Policy Act, OCGA 12-16-1 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Act, OCGA 12-5-70 Georgia Housing Codes, OCGA 8-2-20 The Uniform Standards Code for Manufactured Homes Act and Installation of Manu-
factured and Mobile Homes, OCGA 8-2-130 and 8-2-160
Georgia Records Act, OCGA 50-18-93 Georgia Forest Fire Protection Act, OCGA 12-6-80 to 12-6-93
Georgia Prescribed Burning Act, OCGA 12-6-145
As stated, the legislation listed above relates to hazard mitigation in the State of Georgia. The first seven of the legislative acts listed were previously discussed in Chapter 1's section concerning program integration. Several of the remaining acts are discussed below under the corresponding state or federal agency and under the state capability summary.
3.3.1 State Mitigation Policies, Programs, and Funding
Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) is the lead state agency for disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. GEMA's strives to provide a comprehensive all-hazards approach to homeland security initiatives, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, and special events. The purpose of GEMA's mission is to protect life and property and to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of natural and anthropogenic hazard events in Georgia. GEMA is responsible for advising the Governor, state government officials, and local governments of the characteristics and possible effects of hazards.
In keeping with the mission, GEMA implements numerous programs (including federal programs) in the area of hazard mitigation. These programs are both pre- and post-disaster, including Public Information, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM), Repetitive Flood Claims, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Grant Program. The federal programs are administered within the State of Georgia by GEMA. GEMA's hazard mitigation staff offers technical assistance to local governments with project identification as well as project application meeting eligibility requirements. While GEMA administers these federal programs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for making all final funding decisions on eligible projects.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the pre- and post-disaster programs implemented by GEMA, some of each program's performance in the State of Georgia is discussed below.
Since the 2005 approval of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the State has implemented the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for three presidential disaster declarations. The following table, Table 3.3, provides a HMGP project summary as of September 30, 2007 for each presidential disaster declaration. The table includes the total approved HMGP projects as well as federal funds managed by the State of Georgia. Disasters 1554 and 1560 are the only two disasters not closed as of September 30, 2007 but are projected to close in the next federal fiscal year. Disaster 1686 is not included in this table as the project submissions and approvals have yet to occur.

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 88

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S

Disaster

Approved Pro- Open Projects Closed Pro-

Expended Fed-

T

A

0857

jects 3

jects 0

eral Funds

3

796,538

T

0880

2

0

2

455,147

E

0897

5

0

5

178,870

0969

1

0

1

72,572

M

0980

I

1020

T

1033

I

1042

G
1071
A

T

1209

I

1271

O

1311

1

0

1

52,857

4

0

4

837,277

190

0

190

60,955,469

9

0

9

2,210,706

14

0

14

2,834,575

64

0

64

8,780,109

4

0

4

495,343

8

0

8

5,289,650

N

1315

11

0

11

662,973

1554

6

5

1

765,374

S

1560

6

5

T

Subtotal

328

10

R

A

Table 3.3: Summary of HMGP performance in Georgia

1

867,291

318

85,254,751

T

The following example is provided in order to further demonstrate the State of Georgia's ability to

A

submit HMGP applications ahead of schedule. In an effort to expedite the delivery of HMGP, GEMA and FEMA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in March of 2000 in order to

G

recognize the State of Georgia's program management capability and to streamline the HMGP

Y

process by accelerating the project approval and obligation process for acquisition projects funded

through Disaster 1311. Through this MOA, Georgia submitted six projects with four obligated in

July 2000, 5 months after the disaster declaration date. The results of this pilot were successful

as implementation of the HMGP was fast-tracked months ahead of the normal schedule. In total,

local governments mitigated 65 residential properties by acquisition, 40 of which were repetitive

loss properties.

Since the 2005 approval of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the state has taken advantage of the numerous pre-disaster mitigation programs offered by FEMA. The following tables, Tables 3.4 through 3.6, provide project summaries as of September 30, 2007 for the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM), and the Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC). The tables include the total approved projects as well as the federal funds managed by the State of Georgia for each program.

Page 89

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Program Year Approved Pro- Open Projects Closed Pro-

Expended Fed-

jects

jects

eral Funds

S

FMA97

5

0

5

171,993

T

FMA98

2

0

2

39,600

A

FMA99 FMA00

1

0

1

18,789

T

1

0

1

21,200

E

FMA01 FMA02 FMA03 FMA04 FMA05 FMA06 FMA07 Subtotal

4

0

4

0

3

0

4

4

3

3

10

10

4

4

41

21

Table 3.4: Summary of FMA performance in Georgia

4

397,653

M

4

224,338

I

3

186,386

T

0

90,722

I

0

122,332

G

0

330,590

A

T

0

0

I

20

1,801,903

O

N

FEMA has considered all of the submitted applications for the FMA program eligible for funding consideration. Since the 2005 approval of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy, 17 FMA pro-

S

jects were approved with an associated $452,922 in federal funding expended.

T

R

Program Year

Approved Projects

Open Projects Closed Projects Expended Federal Funds

A

PDM02

2

0

2

493,659

T

PDM03 PDMC03 PDMC05

3

3

14

11

11

11

0

251,063

A

3

4,259,853

G

0

3,360,658

Y

PDMC06

4

4

0

184,459

PDMC07

5

5

0

0

Subtotal

39

34

5

8,549,692

Table 3.5: Summary of PDM performance in Georgia

The State of Georgia has submitted a total of 51 applications in the PDM Program since its inception in 2002. FEMA has selected and awarded federal funds to 39 or 76% of these project applications. In the PDMC03 program year, three of the approved projects consisted of developing Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 compliant plans in 104 counties. In the PDMC05 program year, one of the approved projects consisted of developing Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 compliant plans in 17 counties. These four project awards were administered as an individual planning award to 121 counties. Since the 2005 approval of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy, 20 PDMC projects have been approved with an associated $3,545,117 in federal funding expended.

Page 90

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 91

Program Year
RFC06 RFC07 Subtotal

Approved Pro- Open Projects Closed Pro-

Expended Fed-

jects

jects

eral Funds

2

2

0

8,057

2

2

0

0

4

4

0

8,057

Table 3.6: Summary of RFC performance in Georgia

FEMA has considered the four applications submitted by Georgia in the Repetitive Flood Claims Program eligible for funding since the program's inception in 2006. Since the 2005 approval of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the RFC program was created. Georgia has had 4 projects approved with an associated $8,057 in federal funding expended.

As the previous discussion details, the implementation of the pre- and post-disaster programs by GEMA is highly effective in the State of Georgia. In total, Georgia effectively administers programs that include 412 approved projects, 69 open projects, and 343 closed projects with a total expenditure of federal funds totaling over 95.5 million dollars. The administration of these programs has resulted in the development of hazard mitigation plans in 121 of 159 counties in the State of Georgia, greatly assisting in statewide planning efforts. The specifics about each program, including the specific litigation, are detailed in the FEMA section that follows.

Another example of state capability as it relates to Georgia Emergency Management Agency is the use of the Georgia Mitigation Information System. GEMA contracts with the University of Georgia's Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) in developing an online data entry and display system for local planning efforts that evolved into the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS). The GMIS, in a web-based environment, provides easy access and maintenance without requiring extensive knowledge of GIS applications and software. As an online database, GMIS only allows authorized access to the application through a login process. As an authorized user, one may manipulate critical facility data (based on access level), view maps, and download data and reports for analysis. In order to enter critical facility data, the authorized user utilizes a web-based form that includes drop-down boxes and other methods of validating user-input, which minimizes training and improves data quality. As new data are entered, the database updates to provide the most recent information available. In addition to critical facilities, other layers are available within the GMIS including transportation corridors, political boundaries, hydrology, or hurricane surge zones. Screenshots and additional information concerning the GMIS are available in Appendix E as figures E.5 through E.7 and additional information is found within Chapter 4.1.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

The following programs and initiatives that related to the State of Georgia's capability assessment in hazard mitigation are the responsibility of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Although these programs and initiatives are briefly described below, further information is found through the DNR at the DNR website.

The Georgia Community Greenspace Program evolved from Senate Bill 399 (as passed), which establishes a framework in which developed and rapidly developing counties and their municipalities can preserve community greenspace. The bill became officially effective on July 1, 2000; however, for rule-making purposes, it became effective on April 16, 2000 with Governor Roy Barnes' signature. This bill promotes the adoption of policies and rules that enable the preservation of at least 20% of county or municipal land area as connected and open greenspace usable for informal recreation and natural resource protection. Created with the statute is the Georgia Greenspace Commission that reviews and approves community greenspace programs submitted by eligible counties and municipalities and a Georgia Greenspace Trust Fund that includes appropriated state, federal, and donated funds.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The Georgia Land Conservation Act, a landmark initiative to encourage the long-term conservation and protection of the state's natural resources, was announced in January of 2005 by Governor Sonny Perdue. The legislation establishes the Georgia Land Conservation Trust Fund and the Georgia Land Conservation Revolving Loan Fund that provides up to $100 million in state, federal and private funding to local governments and the Georgia DNR for the purchase of conservation lands. The legislation also establishes the Georgia Land Conservation Council, which reviews all project proposals and makes recommendations on fund distribution. The responsibilities of the Georgia DNR under this legislation include establishing a state land geographic information system database for conservation activities and providing technical support to local governments.
The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of Georgia DNR implements a river basin management planning approach for the 14 major river basins in Georgia. A written plan is required and updated on a five-year cycle to coincide with national Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting.
The Coastal Resources Division (CRD) implements provisions of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970, the Shore Protection Act, the Revocable Licenses Program, the Coastal Zone Management Act and others. These existing authorities provide protection for critical marshes, water bottoms, beaches, sand dunes, and submerged lands. Both the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970 and the Shore Protection Act provide emergency provisions in a natural hazard event that includes the implementation of emergency orders that allow debris removal, damaged structure repair, and the suspension of applications for unnecessary projects. Members of the CRD staff are also available to assist hazard response and damage assessments.
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides funding assistance to states with approved Coastal Management Programs for the purpose of program implementation and administration. As part of the Georgia Coastal Management Program, the Georgia DNR CRD contributes approximately 60% of administrative allocation to eligible entities as Coastal Incentive Grants, which allows the definition and address of regional and local coastal issues at a local level. The Coastal Advisory Committee establishes the annual themes and funding criteria to fulfill the program's mission of balancing economic development in coastal areas with the preservation of natural, historic, archaeological and recreational resources.
The Water Protection Branch is responsible for protecting Georgia's surface waters by regulating wastewater discharges, non-point source pollution, storm water discharges, erosion and sedimentation. The branch regulates the use of Georgia's surface and ground water resources for drinking water, impoundment, agricultural irrigation, and other non-agricultural uses.
Georgia's DNR is the primary state agency in state floodplain management. Essentially, the program attempts to provide workshops for community officials, developers, and others concerning floodplain regulation, good building practices, and risks of floodplain development; provide flood maps and other literature as well as telephone questions concerning floodplains; provide technical assistance in enforcement of floodplain regulation to local officials as requested; assist with complaints concerning improper floodplain development; review local enforcement of floodplain regulations; publish newsletters containing public awareness items related to floodplains; and coordinate map modernization efforts.
Because Georgia's DNR is the primary agency in floodplain management, DNR assists in the Community Rating System, a voluntary program through which National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities are rewarded for beneficial floodplain management that exceed minimum NFIP requirements. Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are adjusted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community activities that meet the three goals of CRS: reducing flood losses; facilitating accurate insurance ratings; and promoting the awareness of flood insurance. The CRS classifies communities based on a point system with the first class (Class 1) receiving the largest premium reduction and the last class (Class 10) receiving no reduction. CRS recognizes 18 credible flood mitigation activities that fall under four broad categories: public infor-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 92

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 93

mation, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction, and flood preparedness. The following table, Table 3.7, lists the total CRS communities in Georgia as of May 2007.

CRS Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total CRS Communities

Total Communities 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 12 8 2 30

Table 3.7: Georgia CRS communities and rankings

Participating in the CRS program benefits communities by providing enhanced public safety, reducing damage to public and private property, avoiding economic losses and disruption, and protecting the local environment. The program also allows the evaluation of local programs in comparison to a nationally recognized benchmark. The following table, Table 3.8, lists the Georgia communities participating in the CRS program as of May 2007.

CRS Communities Albany, City of Cartersville, City of Cherokee County College Park, City of Columbus, City of Crisp County DeKalb County Duluth, City of Fayette County Fulton County Gwinnett County Paulding County Pooler, Town of Savannah, City of Waynesboro, City of Table 3.8: CRS Communities in Georgia

Brunswick, City of Chatham County Cobb County Columbia County Covington, City of Decatur, City of Dougherty County Douglas County Fayetteville, City of Glynn County Jekyll Island, State Park Authority Peachtree City, City of Roswell, City of Tybee Island, City of Worth County

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Another program of Georgia's DNR is Safe Dams with a primary mitigation focus. The Georgia Safe Dams Act intends to provide for the inspection of permitting of certain dams in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Georgia citizens by reducing the risk of dam failure. The Safe Dams program includes numerous mitigation activities such as the following: inventorying all dams within the state; classifying dams based on probability of fatalities upon failure; reinventorying dams at regular intervals; forcing compliance to state specifications of high hazard dams; notifying appropriate entities (GEMA, local EMA's, dam owners) of high hazard dams; digitizing dam inventory; conducting Emergency Action Plan workshops; and permitting Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Dams.
Georgia DNR approved the Georgia Drought Management Plan on March 26, 2003. This plan consists of pre-drought mitigation strategies as well as drought response strategies. While the pre-drought mitigation strategies predominantly include water conservation measures, the drought response strategies include various measures and actions to be implemented during various stages of a drought. The plan in its entirety is available on Georgia's DNR website for review.
This section outlined the numerous programs of DNR and the state policies shaping those programs that relate to hazard mitigation. Further information regarding Georgia's DNR is found on Georgia's DNR website.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Georgia's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has the ability to fund hazard mitigation projects using the Federal Community Development Block grant program. While primarily targeting low and moderate income groups, DCA administers portions of these grants to repair public facilities, to repair public and private housing, to provide relocation assistance for displaced households, to assist in business loans to support threatened jobs, and to provide engineering and technical assistance to local governments.
The DCA also has an Immediate Thread and Danger (ITD) program available though the Community Development Block Grant Program of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These grants (usually limited to $20,000) are available to qualifying local governments with a 50% provision of funding for activities designed to meet community development needs.
Besides this federal grant program, with the passing of the 1989 Georgia Planning Act, the DCA created the State Comprehensive and Coordinated Planning Program to encourage effective growth management. This program includes the development and updates of minimum standards for local and regional planning. The DCA provides planning grants while the Regional Development Centers (RDC) assist in the preparation of comprehensive and specific plans. The DCA and this program have major responsibilities for the implementation of the statewide coordinated planning program. Many opportunities exist with this program to encourage and promote the implementation of local government hazard mitigation programs or measures in connection with the state-required preparation and implementation of local government plans. This comprehensive and vertically-integrated planning approach is especially applicable to floodplain management and construction standards (mitigation approaches).
The Local Building and Industrialized Building Codes division of the DCA maintains and updates the State of Georgia's minimum standard building codes for construction. These codes are designed to help protect the life, health, and property of all Georgians from faulty design and unsafe construction. The Uniform codes Act is codified in Chapter 2 of Title 8 of The Official Code of Georgia Annotated. O.C.G.A. Section 8-2-20(9)(B) identifies the fourteen "state minimum standard codes". Each of these separate codes typically consists of a base code and a set of state amendments to the base code. Georgia law further dictates that eight of these codes are mandatory (applicable to all construction) or permissive (applicable if local government adopts and enforces). DCA periodically reviews, amends, and updates the state minimum standard code.

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 94

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 95

Within the DCA exists the Geographic Information Systems Mapping and Codification Systems program. Georgia's DCA provides support and training as well as maintains a database for the identification of local and regional facilities, developments, and land use characteristics through a standardized computer mapping and codification system.
The DCA is also concerned with the Local Development Fund, a state-appropriated grant program that provides matching grants to fund community improvement activities. Examples of eligible activities include downtown development projects, public parking facilities, historic preservation projects, tourism and related marketing activities, recreation improvements, community facilities (museums, community centers), limited solid waste activities (recycling), activities implementing approved comprehensive plans, and preservation improvements to historic public buildings (courthouses, city halls).
This section detailed the policies, programs, and funding abilities of Georgia's DCA in relation to hazard mitigation. Further information is found on Georgia's DCA website.
Georgia Forestry Commission
The Georgia Forestry Commission seeks to mitigate the factors related to interface fires by offering training, pre-planning, educational awareness programs, and support services to Georgians through a network of area and county offices. Having a basic responsibility in wildfire suppression, the Commission sponsors annual mock disaster drills and provides cross-training to fire departments. The Commission also has approximately 700 fire control employees as well as mobile communications, statewide radio network, paging systems, and limited aircraft capability in place. The Commission's other capabilities include equipment and manpower reserves, priority status for forest cost-sharing through the ASCS, forestry assistance to individual landowners, inventory of timber salvagers and consulting foresters, tax information on timber losses, evaluations of wildfire risk from downed timber, and debris clearance.
Further information regarding the Georgia Forestry Commission's role in hazard mitigation is found on the Georgia Forestry Commission's website.
Georgia Department of Transportation
The Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) plans, constructs, maintains, and improves the state's road and bridge network; provides planning and financial support for other modes of transportation such as mass transit and airports; provides airport and air safety planning; and provides air travel to state departments. Georgia's DOT also provides administrative support to the State Tollway Authority and the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority.
Since Hurricane Floyd in 1999, extensive evacuation planning has been completed by the state in response to the large influx of evacuees on the interstate system. When tropical systems threaten neighboring states, Georgia's DOT is prepared for potential influx of evacuees as well as the potential hazard events associated with the tropical system. Georgia DOT also plans and prepares for contra-flow interstates, including planning crossovers, ramp entrance closings, and regular flow exchanges. Georgia's DOT website provides a host of information concerning preparation for emergency evacuation including evacuation routes, emergency supply lists, emergency shelter locations, and contact information for the Georgia NaviGAtor Transportation Management Center.
Further information regarding Georgia's DOT's policies, programs, and funding related to hazard mitigation is located on the DOT website.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with reducing the loss of life and property by protecting the country from all hazards by leading and supporting a national risk-based, comprehensive emergency man-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

agement system of preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-707, signed into law November 23, 1988,

S

amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288, and constitutes the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially those pertaining to FEMA and FEMA pro-

T

grams.

A

T

Numerous programs within FEMA are applicable to hazard mitigation. These programs include

the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Public

E

Assistance Grant Program (PA), the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), the National

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program and the Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program.

M

I

Public Law 106-390, signed October 30, 2000, which is known as the Disaster Mitigation Act of

T

2000, amended the Stafford Act of 1988 and created the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM).

PDM provides funds to states, territories, tribal governments, communities, and universities for

I

hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event.

G

The funding reduces overall risks to the population and infrastructure as well as reduces reliance on disaster declaration funding.

A

T

The Stafford Act, Section 404, created the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to provide

I

grants to states and local governments for the implementation of long-term hazard mitigation

measures post-disaster declaration in order to reduce the losses related to natural disasters.

O

HMGP provides for a federal share of grant money up to 75% of the cost of hazard mitigation

N

measures that are identified in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 compliant state hazard mitiga-

tion strategy.

S

The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) also authorizes funding for cost-effective hazard miti-

T

gation measures on facilities damaged by disaster events. This program provides supplemental

federal disaster grant assistance for disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and certain pri-

R

vate non-profit organizations' facilities.

A

The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), created as part of the National Flood Insurance

T

Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4101, attempts to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP by

A

assisting states and communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term

G

risk of flood damage to structures insurable by NFIP. The program makes three types of grants

available: planning grants, project grants, and technical assistance grants. Planning grants aid in

Y

the preparation of flood mitigation plans. Project grants are used to implement measures to re-

duce flood losses in NFIP participating communities with an approved flood mitigation plan while

the technical assistance grants aid in administering the FMA program and activities.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) includes the following components: flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping. Communities voluntarily participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management measures to reduce future flood damage and losses. In exchange, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to individuals in the community.

The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, P.L. 108264, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). FEMA makes up to $10 million RFC funds available annually to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had repetitive claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss properties insured under the NFIP.

Page 96

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

S

T

The Army Corp of Engineers participates in many mitigation activities throughout the country. A few of these activities include the following: state or local sponsored small erosion control projects;

A

repair or rehabilitation of flood control works and coastal protection structures; feasibility studies

T

for flood control projects; technically advising or assisting states or communities on flood hazards

and flood losses; bank protection projects; snagging and clearing projects; and assisting compre-

E

hensive planning for development and conservation. While the Corps has historically been in-

volved with structural mitigation solutions, the recent trends point towards non-structural mitigation

M

activities.

I

Natural Resources Conservation Service

T

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a federal agency of the U.S. Department

I

of Agriculture that works to conserve and sustain natural resources. The NRCS provides technical

G

and financial assistance in planning, designing, and installing watershed improvements and in

A

flood prevention, irrigation, drainage, and sedimentation control. Cost-sharing requirements vary according to the type of activity.

T

I

Under the NRCS's River Basin Program, the agency provides specialized services and technical

assistance to local or state water resource agencies for development of water and water-related

O

land resources programs. Priority is often given to projects concerning environmental sedimenta-

N

tion, flooding and floodplain management, and agricultural water management.

The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program provides technical and financial assistance

S

to aid in the preservation of life and property threatened by excessive erosion and flooding caused

T

by natural disasters. The proposed measures must meet standards of environmental and eco-

nomical soundness and must generally benefit more than one property owner. Up to 75% of fund-

R

ing comes from the NRCS under the EWP program with the remainder provided by the community

A

or local sponsor.

T

The NRCS offers a New Floodplain Easement Option, which gives producers the opportunity to

A

offer land for floodplain easement. For eligibility, flooding must have damaged the land to the ex-

G

tent that restoration costs outweigh the land value. The easements provide permanent restoration

of the natural floodplain hydrology as a beneficial alternative.

Y

The Watershed Surveys and Planning program's purpose is assisting federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments to protect watersheds from damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment as well as to conserve and develop water and land resources. Resource concerns addressed by the program include water quality, water conservation, wetland and water storage capacity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industrial water needs, upstream flood damages, and primary industry water needs. Types of surveys and plans include watershed plans, river basin surveys and studies, flood hazard analyses, and flood plain management assistance, all of which focus on land treatments and nonstructural measures.

The NRCS established the Flood Risk Reduction program to allow farmers to voluntarily enter into contracts to receive payments on lands with high flood potential in exchange for forgoing certain U.S. Department of Agriculture program benefits in order to move farming operations from frequently flooded lands.

The Small Watershed program works through local government sponsors to help participants solve natural resource problems on a watershed basis with both technical and financial assistance. Projects include watershed protection, flood prevention, erosion and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watersheds smaller than 250,000 acres.

Page 97

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

S

The Federal Highway Administration provides construction grants to states in order to aid in the cost of rebuilding flood-damaged highway facilities on the federal aid system and to assist in sur-

T

veying roadway damage in flood-stricken areas.

A

T
Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration
E

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) provides a variety of loans to assist individuals and

local organizations in recovery losses from disasters and for watershed protection. FmHA is authorized to make rural housing loans and grants through section 502 and 504 programs to elevate

M

and relocate individual structures. Also, FmHA assists farmers, ranchers, and aqua culture opera-

I

tors in covering losses due to natural disasters, supports local sponsoring agencies in water re-

T

source management; and local sponsors with providing the local share of watershed improvement

works.

I

G

Small Business Administration

A

The Small Business Administration (SBA) makes low-interest disaster loans to homeowners, rent-

T

ers, and non-farm businesses of all sizes. Loans may be increased to incorporate mitigation

I

measures to protect the damaged real property from similar future disasters.

O

Department of Housing and Urban Development

N

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding through the Com-

munity Development Block Grant program for hazard mitigation related projects. Under two parts

S

of the program, states and cities receive funding for a variety of mitigation-related activities, includ-

T

ing acquisition, rehabilitation of certain public works facilities, housing rehabilitation, code enforce-

ment, relocation assistance, and urban renewal.

R

A

U.S. Geological Survey

T

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts mapping programs and assists communities and

A

state agencies in collecting, developing, and computing basic data for floodplain engineering stud-

G

ies and investigations. Information available from the USGS includes water gauge heights, dis-

charge runoff, times of travel, sediment discharges, historic flood peaks, and inundated areas.

Y

The topographic survey and mapping program of the USGS provides map products for use in miti-

gation planning and recovery. Through the water resources investigation program, the USGS pro-

vides technical information related to the development and management of water resources. The

volcanic hazards program provides technical information on potential hazards from specific volca-

noes. The flood hazard studies provide maps and pamphlets identifying flood prone areas

throughout the country.

Department of Commerce, National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Both the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provide a multitude of services concerning hazard event preparedness and mitigation. The NWS provides forecasting and issues warnings of meteorological, hydrometeorological, and hydrological events to the public. The local NWS offices responsible for issuing severe weather warnings in Georgia are located in Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Tallahassee, Florida. Also, the NWS and NOAA provide data and analyses to governments, major industries, and individuals.

Page 98

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

National Park Service

S

T

The National Park Service (NPS) controls the Rivers, Trains, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA), a national program aimed at aiding citizens in the creation of recreational opportuni-

A

ties and in the protection of natural and cultural resources. The RTCA is not a grant program but

T

aids the coordination of planning and project work among residents, landowners, government

agencies, and private organization in a certain area. By partnering with a range of other organiza-

E

tions, the RTCA provides the critical energy to move a conservation project from conception to

completion.

M

3.3.2 State Capability Summary

I

T

The information provided in the previous section details the State of Georgia's mitigation policies,

programs, and funding in relation to specific state and federal agencies. These agencies include

I

Georgia's Emergency Management Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of

G

Community Affairs, Forestry Commission, and Department of Transportation and Federal Emer-

A

gency Management Agency, Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, Small Business

T

Administration, Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Com-

I

merce National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Na-

tional Park Service. The previous section also outlined hazard mitigation related legislation pro-

O

duced by the Georgia General Assembly that is found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.

N

Of the legislation listed, several policies relate to the development of hazard prone areas. These

policies include the Georgia Planning Act of 1989, Coastal Management Act, Coastal Marshland

S

Protection Act, Erosion and Sedimentation Act, River Corridor Protection Act, and Shore Protec-

T

tion Act. The specifics of each policy are described in Chapter 1's Program Integration Section.

However, the following table, Table 3.9, lists information specifically regarding development in

R

each policy.

A

T

A

G

Y

Page 99

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Legislation
GA Planning Act of 1989

Policy Purpose
Encourage better growth management and smart growth

Methods
Local long-range comprehensive planning

GA Coastal Management Act

Encourage sustainable development and protection of coastal resources

GA DNR able to receive and disburse federal grant monies

GA Coastal Marshland Protection Act
GA Erosion and Sedimentation Act
GA River Corridor Protection Act
GA Shore Protection Act

Protect tidal wetlands
Limit land-disturbing activities near state waters
Protect river corridors
Protect and manage GA's shoreline features (sand-sharing system)

Limit certain activities and structures in marsh areas through permitting
Local adoption of comprehensive ordinances governing land-disturbing activities based on minimum requirements
Major provisions include minimum vegetative buffers and local identification of river corridors in land use planning
Limits certain activities and structures in sand--sharing system

Table 3.9: Georgia legislation related to development

Administration
Local governments must maintain designation of "Qualified" in order to remain eligible for assistance programs Coastal Resources Division and GA DNR established as governing bodies for developing a coastal management program Coastal Resources Division grants permits for activities in protected tidal wetlands. GA DNR EPD and local governments administer ordinances' requirements for landdisturbing activities near state waters
GA DNR EPD administers the act's minimum standards to all rivers in GA with at least 400 ft3/s average annual flow Coastal Resources Division grants permits for activities and structures consistent with the GA Coastal Management Program

The State of Georgia's policies regarding development in hazard prone areas specifically cover the areas prone to inland and coastal flooding hazards. These policies neglect to cover development in areas prone to other hazards such as wind and seismic hazards. However, the Georgia legislation does include building code standards that regulate the actual structure instead of the development of the area. These policies are discussed in the following section of this chapter that concerns local capabilities. Other Georgia legislation concerns wildfire management, however, the legislation does not address development in wildfire prone areas. Other hazards such as tornadoes, severe weather, winter storms, and drought are not addressed by development-regulating legislation due to the hazards' not being spatially definable. In other words, all areas of the State of Georgia could be considered prone to tornadoes, severe weather, winter storms, and drought; therefore, the general development policy (Georgia Planning Act of 1989) applies statewide. By including the statewide Planning Act of 1989 and additional legislation that addresses development in flooding-prone areas, the State of Georgia's policies related to development in hazard prone areas is effective and increases the state's hazard mitigation capabilities.

In terms of the State of Georgia's own funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects, the state provides a portion of the non-federal match for HMGP and other mitigation projects. Each of the

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 100

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 101

statewide projects GEMA implemented had the funds provided by the state through the Governor's Emergency Fund. The following Table 3.10 reflects the monetary investment in mitigation programs made by the state since 1990.

Date
Feb. 1990 Oct. 1990 Mar. 1991

Disaster
857-GA 880-GA 897-GA

Total Approved 3,859,193
852,388
331,504

Federal Share 750,805
426,194
165,752

State Share 0
337,220
76,696

Local Share
3,108,388 88,974 89,056

Dec. 1992

969-GA

133,574

66,787

66,787

0

Mar. 1993 Mar. 1994 July 1994 Oct. 1994

980-GA 1020-GA 1033-GA 1042-GA

96,826 1,449,892 82,961,614 2,937,394

48,412 798,913 59,604,213 2,128,044

48,414 19,750 1,926,685 4,452

0 631,229 21,430,716 704,898

Oct. 1995

1071-GA

4,064,689

2,716,735

8,302

1,339,652

Mar. 1998 Apr. 1999 Feb. 2000

1209-GA 1271-GA 1311-GA

11,632,172 769,804 6,819,536

8,520,026 467,466 5,114,653

516,872 158,857 1,048,273

2,586,274 143,481 656,610

Feb. 2000 Sept. 2004

1315-GA 1554-GA

983,907 1,726,316

620,630 1,294,739

149,639 25,000

213,638 403,013

Sept. 2004 Mar. 2007 Total

1560-GA 1686-GA

1,424,230 119,934,039

1,064,249 9,471,221 83,787,618

20,000 10% 4,406,947

340,301 31,736,230

Table 3.10: Federal, state, and local shares supporting HMGP projects for PDDs

The State makes available to the counties and their municipalities grant funding opportunities in regard to all types of disasters including severe repetitive loss properties. In the past Georgia has provided 10% of the 25% non-federal match on all post disaster grants. Georgia's SRL accreditation will reduce the counties requirement for non-federal share match down from 25% to 10%. The accreditation will reduce the expense to the state considerably. Georgia made no application for SRL grants in 2008, however, changes in weather may require it to in the future.

Since the 2005 approval of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the 1686-GA disaster occurred which led to the last entry seen in Table 3.10. Because the application and approval process is currently active, the total funds approved and shared by the state and locals are unknown. This disaster will be completely updated after the next plan's update cycle.

Section 3.3 essentially addressed the State of Georgia's capability based on state mitigation policies, programs, and funding. In assessing capability, specific state and federal agencies as well as specific state legislation were discussed. Since the 2005 Standard Plan approval, the hazard management capabilities of the State of Georgia have not changed in terms of the addition of new policies and programs. However, Georgia's hazard management capabilities have increased consistent with the improvement of the programs inherent with the experience gained through the past 3 years, including the plan update process.

A review or evaluation of the federal and state policies, procedures and programs listed above in

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

regard to severe repetitive loss strategies or capabilities indicates that the State of Georgia has

taken great strides to reduce potential losses to structures susceptible to flood damage. The State

S

has incorporated numerous programs including PDM, HMGP, PA, FMA, NFIP, RFC and SRL to address this issue. Mitigative actions and projects in areas with the highest concentration of se-

T

vere loss properties are given top priority in project scoring.

A

T

As indicated in Section 2.8.3, GEMA has identified all the SRL properties in Georgia and is ac-

tively working with the counties to mitigate these locations. State policies are consistent with the

E

primary goal of mitigation to avoid the intersection of spatially definable natural hazards with hu-

man activity and built environment. The State of Georgia and counties with severe repetitive properties have done everything in their power to help mitigate these properties and have developed

M

projects on nearly half.

I

T

I

G

A

T

I

O

N

S T R A T A G Y

Page 102

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Table 3.11, below identifies federal and state programs that are affected by the Severe Repetitive

S

Loss Program.

T

A

FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS AFFECTED BY

T

SRL

E

Department

Program

Description

Affected Repeti-

tive

M

Flood

I

Loss /

T

FEDERAL AGENCIES

SRL

I

G

FEMA

The National Flood Insurance

Includes the following components:

X

Program

flood insurance, floodplain man-

A

agement, and flood hazard mapping

T

I

O

The Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration Makes low-interest disaster loans to homeowners, renters, and non-

N

farm businesses of all sizes

S

The Department of Housing and Urban

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Provides funding through the Community Development Block Grant

T

Development

program for hazard mitigation related projects

R

A

The U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey

Conducts mapping programs and assists communities and state

T

agencies in collecting, developing, and computing basic data for

A

floodplain engineering studies and

investigations

G

Y

Department of Com-

the National Weather Service and Provide a multitude of services

merce

the National Oceanic and Atmos- concerning hazard event prepared-

pheric Administration

ness and mitigation

The National Park Service

the Rivers, Trains, and Conservation Assistance Program

A national program aimed at aiding citizens in the creation of recreational opportunities and in the protection of natural and cultural resources

Page 103

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

STATE AGENCIES
S

Georgia Department The Georgia Community

Establishes a framework in which

X

of Natural Resources Greenspace Program

developed and rapidly developing

T

counties and their municipalities

A

can preserve community green-

space

T

The Georgia Land Conserva- Encourage the long-term conserva-

E

tion Act

tion and protection of the state's

natural resources

M

The River Basin Management Implements a river basin manage-

I

Planning Program

ment planning approach for the 14

major river basins in Georgia

T

I

The Coastal Resources Division (CRD)

Provide protection for critical marshes, water bottoms, beaches,

G

sand dunes, and submerged lands

A

The Coastal Marshlands Pro- Provide protection for critical

T

tection Act of 1970

marshes, water bottoms, beaches, sand dunes, and submerged lands

I

O

The Shore Protection Act

Provide protection for critical

N

marshes, water bottoms, beaches,

sand dunes, and submerged lands

S

The Revocable Licenses Program

Provide protection for critical marshes, water bottoms, beaches,

T

sand dunes, and submerged lands

R

A

T

The Coastal Zone Management Act

Provide protection for critical marshes, water bottoms, beaches,

A

sand dunes, and submerged lands

G

The Federal Coastal Zone

Provides funding assistance to

Y

Management Act

states with approved Coastal Man-

agement Programs for the purpose

of program implementation and

administration

The Water Protection Branch

Protecting Georgia's surface waters by regulating wastewater discharges, non-point source pollution, storm water discharges, erosion and sedimentation

GDNR

Primary state agency in state flood-

X

plain management and assists in

the Community Rating System

The Georgia Safe Dams Act

Provides for the inspection of permitting of certain dams in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Georgia citizens by reducing the risk of dam failure.

Page 104

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Department The Georgia Drought Management Consists of pre-drought mitigation

S

of Natural Resources Plan

strategies as well as drought re-

sponse strategies
T

A

Georgia Department The Federal Community Develop-

While primarily targeting low and

X

T

of Community Affairs ment Block Grant Program

moderate income groups, DCA administers portions of these grants to

E

repair public facilities, to repair public and private housing, to provide

relocation assistance for displaced

households, to assist in business

M

loans to support threatened jobs,

I

and to provide engineering and technical assistance to local govern-

T

ments

I

Immediate Thread and Danger (ITD) These grants (usually limited to

Program

$20,000) are available to qualifying

G

local governments with a 50% provi-

A

sion of funding for activities designed to meet community develop-

T

ment needs

I

The State Comprehensive and Co- To encourage effective growth man-

O

ordinated Planning Program

agement

N

The Local Building and Industrial-

Maintains and updates the State of

ized Building Codes Division

Georgia's minimum standard build-

S

ing codes for construction

T

The Geographic Information Sys-

Provides support and training as

R

tems Mapping and Codification Sys- well as maintains a database for the

tems Program

identification of local and regional

A

facilities, developments, and land use characteristics through a stan-

T

dardized computer mapping and

A

codification system

G

The Local Development Fund

A state-appropriated grant program that provides matching grants to

Y

fund community improvement activi-

ties

Georgia Emergency The Public Assistance Grant ProManagement Agency gram

Authorizes funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures on facilities damaged by disaster events

The Flood Mitigation Assistance

Created as part of the National

X

Program

Flood Insurance Reform Act of

1994, 42 U.S.C. 4101, attempts to

reduce or eliminate claims under the

NFIP by assisting states and com-

munities in implementing measures

to reduce or eliminate the long-term

risk of flood damage to structures

insurable by NFIP

Page 105

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Emergency The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) FEMA makes up to $10 mil-

X

Management Agency grant program

lion RFC funds available an-

S

nually to assist states and

T

communities in reducing flood damages to insured

A

properties that have had re-

T

petitive claims to the National Flood Insurance Program

E

(NFIP).

The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Authorized by the Bunning-Bereuter-

X

M

grant program

Blumenauer Flood Insurance Re-

form Act of 2004, which amended

I

the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 to provide funding to

T

reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe re-

I

The Georgia Forestry

petitive loss properties insured un-

G

der the NFIP.

Seeks to mitigate the factors related

A

Commission

to interface fires offering training, pre-planning, educational aware-

T

ness programs, and support services to Georgians through a net-

I

work of area and county offices

O

The Georgia Department of Transportation

Plans, constructs, maintains, and

N

improves the state's road and bridge

network; provides planning and

financial support for other modes of transportation such as mass transit

S

and airports; provides airport and air safety planning; and provides air

T

travel to state departments. Geor-

R

gia's DOT also provides administra-

tive support to the State Tollway

A

Authority and the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority

T

A

G

Y

Page 106

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The Army Corp of

S

Engineers

T

A

T

E

M

The Natural Re-

I

sources Conservation

Service

T

I

G

State or local sponsored small erosion control projects; repair or rehabilitation of flood control works and coastal protection structures; feasibility studies for flood control projects; technically advising or assisting states or communities on flood hazards and flood losses; bank protection projects; snagging and clearing projects; and assisting comprehensive planning for development and conservation
Works to conserve and sustain natural resources, provides technical and financial assistance in planning, designing, and installing watershed improvements and in flood prevention, irrigation, drainage, and sedimentation control

A

NRCS's River Basin Program

Provides specialized services and

T

technical assistance to local or state water resource agencies for devel-

I

opment of water and water-related

land resources programs

O

N

The Natural Re-

The Emergency Watershed Protec- Provides technical and financial

sources Conservation tion (EWP) program

assistance to aid in the preservation

Service

of life and property threatened by

S

excessive erosion and flooding

caused by natural disasters

T

R

A

T

A

G

Y

Page 107

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

New Floodplain Easement Option

Gives producers the opportunity to offer land for floodplain easement

The Department of Transportation
The Department of Agriculture

The Watershed Surveys and Planning Program

Assists federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments to protect watersheds from damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment as well as to conserve and develop water and land resources

Flood Risk Reduction Program The Small Watershed Program

Allows farmers to voluntarily enter into contracts to receive payments on lands with high flood potential in exchange for forgoing certain U.S. Department of Agriculture program benefits in order to move farming operations from frequently flooded lands
Works through local government sponsors to help participants solve natural resource problems on a watershed basis with both technical and financial assistance

The Federal Highway Administration

Provides construction grants to states in order to aid in the cost of rebuilding flood-damaged highway facilities on the federal aid system and to assist in surveying roadway damage in flood-stricken areas

The Farmers Home Administration

Provides a variety of loans to assist individuals and local organizations in recovery losses from disasters and for watershed protection

Table 3.11 Federal and State Programs Affected by SRL
3.4 LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The local capability assessment includes discussion of local policies governing building codes and zoning that relate to hazard mitigation. This is followed by a discussion on the history and purpose of local mitigation planning, which increases local capability. Details of the current progress of local planning as well as the specific status of each Georgia County are further discussed in Chapter 4 of this document.
3.4.1 Local Mitigation Policies: Building Codes and Zoning
Of the state legislation listed in previous sections, several policies relate to the construction standards or building codes enforced at the local level. These policies include Georgia Housing Codes (the Uniform Codes Act) and the Uniform Standards Code for Manufactured Homes and Installation of Manufactured and Mobile Homes Act.
Essentially, Georgia's uniform construction codes are designed to help protect the life and property of citizens from faulty design and construction; unsafe, unsound, and unhealthy structures and conditions; and the financial hardship resulting from rebuilding after a hazard event. In other words, these codes require a minimum standard of construction which minimally mitigates certain hazards. The Uniform Codes Act identifies the ten "state minimum standard codes" with each code typically consisting of a base code and a set of state amendments. Georgia law dictates that eight of the 10 codes are mandatory (applicable to all construction regardless of local enforcement) and two are permissive (only applicable if the local government chooses to adopt and en-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 108

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 109

force). The codes are as follows: Mandatory Codes:
Georgia State Minimum Standard Building Code (International Building Code with
Georgia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard One and Two Family Dwelling Code (International
Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings with Georgia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Fire Code (International Fire Code with Georgia
Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Plumbing Code (International Plumbing Code with
Georgia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Mechanical Code (international Mechanical Code
with Georgia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Gas Code (international Fuel Gas Code with Geor-
gia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Electrical Code (National Electrical Code with Geor-
gia Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Energy Code (International Energy Conservation
Code with Georgia Supplements and Amendments)
Permissive Codes:
International Property Maintenance Code International Existing Building Code
As previously noted, the building, one and two family dwelling, fire, plumbing, mechanical, gas, electrical and energy codes are mandatory codes. Essentially, Georgia law dictates that any structure built in the state must comply with these codes regardless of the local government's decision to locally enforce. Though local governments do not adopt the mandatory codes, the local government must adopt administrative procedures in order to enforce the codes. However, the local government has the ability to choose which mandatory codes are enforced. The remaining codes, known as permissive codes, must be adopted by either ordinance or resolution by the local jurisdiction in order for the local government to enforce.
In order to properly administer and enforce the state minimum standard codes, local governments must adopt reasonable administrative provisions including procedural requirements for code enforcement, provisions for hearings and appeals, and other procedures necessary for the proper local administration and enforcement of the state minimum standard codes. The power to adopt these administrative procedures is set forth in OCGA Section 8-2-26(a)(1) and includes powers such as:
Building and structure inspection ensuring code compliance; Inspector and personnel employment ensuring proper code enforcement;
Permit issuance and related charges; and Contracting with other local governments for code enforcement.
Georgia's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) periodically reviews, amends, and updates the state minimum standard codes. If a local government chooses to enforce any of the codes, the latest edition and the amendments adopted by DCA must be used.
The Uniform Codes Act provides that local governments may adopt local amendments to the state minimum standard codes under certain conditions. In order to enforce the local amendment, DCA must review the proposal. Several requirements exist for local code amendment, which are as

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

follows:
The proposed local amendment requirement cannot be less stringent that the requirement in the state minimum standard code;
The local requirement must be based on local climatic, geologic, topographic, or public safety factors;
The legislative findings of the local governing body must identify the need for the more stringent requirement; and
The local government must submit the proposed amendment to DCA at least 60 days prior to the proposed adoption of the amendment.
After the submittal of the proposed local amendment, DCA has 60 days in which to forward its recommendations to the local government. The recommendations are in favor of adoption, against adoption, or neutral with no comment. Following adoption by the local governing authority, copies of local amendments must be filed with DCA.
Appendix E contains Figure E.1, a map produced by DCA that details Georgia communities' enforcement of construction codes as of 2004 (to be updated in 2008). As the map illustrates, 112 of Georgia's 159 counties issue permits and enforce the state minimum construction codes.
Theoretically, the primary purpose of zoning is to segregate incompatible land uses. Practically, zoning consists of locally-produced laws and ordinances that regulate development by dividing a community into zones that are regulated by development criteria. For example, zoning may regulate which activities are acceptable in a certain zone such as open space, residential, agricultural, commercial, or industrial. Zoning has the potential to inhibit inappropriate development in hazardprone areas as well as designate certain areas for conservation, open space, and public use.
Zoning laws vary immensely by jurisdiction and, in the State of Georgia, have no standard basis like the construction codes. The DCA monitors the communities in Georgia that produce zoning ordinances. The status of Georgia communities in regards to zoning ordinances is found in Appendix E as Figure E.2. As the map illustrates, 111 of Georgia's 159 counties enact zoning ordinances at the local level.
3.4.2 Local Mitigation Planning
Prior to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Georgia developed a mitigation strategy to address the unacceptable losses associated with natural hazard events. In November of 1997, GEMA began requiring all 159 Georgia county emergency management agencies to submit a local mitigation plan addressing the natural hazards facing each county.
These hazard mitigation strategies were developed with the following goals in mind: assess the effectiveness of ongoing programs and activities in the community; identify deficits in existing mitigation strategies; identify additional measures to undertake in order to lessen exposure to future hazard events; and outline a strategy for implementing the identified new measures.
The primary objectives of the local mitigation planning process were as follows: to evaluate specific hazards that threaten each county; to describe and analyze local hazard mitigation programs and capabilities; to allow community elected officials to establish priority hazard mitigation goals and objectives; to identify hazard mitigation strategies, programs, and actions to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerability to all hazards; and to institute methods to implement, monitor, evaluate, and update the plan.
The local mitigation planning process produces 129 county submittals of mitigation strategies. Within these strategies, the most commonly recommended projects included warning and communication systems, structural improvements (drainage), and property acquisition (floodplain management).

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 110

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 111

Although this preliminary local mitigation planning process produced somewhat mediocre results in terms of plan quality, the process contributed to improving the quality and efficiency of the methods of local planning utilized in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
The first local mitigation plan approvals under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 occurred on January 12, 2005 with three counties: Columbia, Houston, and Upson. As of December 14, 2007, Georgia has 97 federally approved local mitigation plans with 5 in the federal review process. Also, 31 Georgia counties have already submitted plans for state review, leaving 26 counties in the plan development stage. In other words, 61% of Georgia counties' local mitigation plans are approved with an additional 23% in the approval process. The status of each county is found in Figure E.3 within Appendix E at the end of this document. The remaining unapproved local mitigation plans will obtain federal approval by the end of fiscal year 2008.
As was done with the local reporting of hazards in the local hazard mitigation plans, the Hazard Mitigation Division also collected the local reporting of mitigation actions suggested in the hazard mitigation plans. The following table lists the percentage of counties proposing various mitigation activities out of the 130 plans surveyed.

Mitigation Action Public Outreach

% of Counties Identifying Action 94%

Planning / Zoning

88%

Warning / Communication

86%

Flood Programs

85%

Structural Retrofit Equipment Acquisition Flood Control

83% 82% 78%

Preparedness Efforts

77%

Additional Analysis

63%

Fire Programs

61%

Broad Cooperation

60%

Emergency Response Operations 58%

Property Acquisition

36%

Property Relocation / Elevation

28%

Dam Management

26%

Wetland Protection

22%

Greenspace Preservation

18%

Table 3.12: Mitigation actions identified by local hazard mitigation plans

The mitigation actions listed in Table 3.11 are broad and, therefore, encompass many specific activities and projects proposed by the local hazard mitigation plans. For example, "Flood Control" may include drainage improvements, floodplain ordinances, flood control structures, flood control equipment, and river and creek improvements. "Flood Programs" may include floodplain map modernization, flood modeling, and NFIP and CRS participation. "Warning / Communication" may include warning systems, reverse 911, StormReady participation, communications initiatives, and NOAA weather radio acquisitions.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Currently no county plans address severe repetitive loss due to the newness of the program.

S

However, plans have been made to include this program and it's policies into the plan updates of each county. GEMA is working with the counties that have severe repetitive loss properties to

T

develop grant funding to assist in mitigation activities that will reduce or eliminate these problems.

A

Many of the counties have addressed issues such as zoning, property acquisition, relocation and

T

elevation to help in this area.

E

Further discussion on the process of local mitigation planning as well as the state's support of this

planning is found in Chapter 4.

M

3.5 MITIGATION ACTIVITY

I

T

While the previous section of Chapter 3 discussed the state and local capabilities in terms of poli-

cies, programs, and funding as well as the local process of mitigation planning, this section out-

I

lines the activities that are guided by this hazard mitigation policy. Within this section, each task

G

and action step outlined in section "3.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Action Steps" are discussed in terms of status and the specific activities completed leading to that status.

A

T

3.5.1 Status of State Mitigation Activities

I

While the general status of the objectives, tasks, and actions steps is discussed here, the report-

O

ing of specific tasks and actions steps completed is discussed in the subsequent Section 3.5. The

N

following table, Table 3.12, lists the objectives, tasks, and action steps followed by an indication of

whether the item is complete, ongoing, deferred, combined with another, deleted, or new. Many of

the items are indicated as being completed and ongoing due to the fact that several activities have

S

taken place while others remain in process.

T

R

A

T

A

G

Y

Page 112

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Item

Com-

Ongoing Deferred Com-

S

pleted

bined

T

OBJ1

X

X

A

OBJ1-T1 X

X

T

OBJ1-T2 X

X

E

OBJ1-T3

X

OBJ1-T4

X

M

OBJ1-T5 X

X

I

OBJ1-T6 X

T

OBJ1-T7

X

I

G

OBJ1-T8 X

X

A

OBJ1-

X

T8a

X

T

OBJ1-T9 X

X

I

OBJ1-

X

O

T9a

N

OBJ2

X

X

OBJ2-T1 X

X

S

OBJ2-

X

X

T

T1a

OBJ2-

X

X

R

T1b

A

OBJ2-

X

T

T1c OBJ2-

X

A

T1d

G

OBJ2-

X

X

Y

T1e OBJ2-T1f X

X

Deleted New

Priority H
H
H

H H

H H H
H H H H

H H

Page 113

OBJ2-T1g

X

X

OBJ2-T1h

X

X

OBJ2-T1i

X

X

OBJ2-T2

X

X

OBJ2-T2a

X

X

OBJ2-T2b

X

X

OBJ2-T2c

OBJ2-T2d

X

X

OBJ2-T2e

X

X

OBJ2-T2f

OBJ2-T3

X

X

OBJ2-T3a

OBJ2-T3b

X

X

OBJ2-T3c

OBJ2-T3d

X

X

OBJ2-T3e

OBJ2-T3f

X

X

OBJ2-T4

OBJ2-T4a

OBJ2-T4b

OBJ2-T4c

OBJ3

X

X

OBJ3-T1

OBJ3-T2

X

X

OBJ3-T2a

X

X

OBJ3-T2b

X

X

OBJ3-T2c

X

OBJ3-T2d

X

X

OBJ3-T2e

X

OBJ3-T2f

X

X

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

H
S

H

T

H

A

H

T

H

E

X
X X

H

M

I

T

H

I

H

G

A

T

H

I

L

O

H

N

X

S

H

T

R

X

A

H

T

X

H

A

X

H

G

Y

X

H

X

H

H X
H H

H

H

H

H

H

Page 114

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

S

T

OBJ3-

A

T2g OBJ3-T3 X

T

E

OBJ3T3a

OBJ3-

X

M

T3b

OBJ3-

X

I

T3c

T

OBJ3-

I

T3d

OBJ3-

G

T3e

A

OBJ3-T4

T

OBJ3-T5 X

I

OBJ3-

X

O

T5a

N

OBJ3-

T5b

OBJ3-

X

S

T5c

T

OBJ3-

X

T5d

R

OBJ3-

A

T5e

T

OBJ3-T5f

A

OBJ3-T6

G

OBJ3-

Y

T6a

OBJ3-

T6b

OBJ3T6c

X X
X X
X X X X X X X X

X

H

H L

H

H

H H

H

H

X

H

X

H

X

H

X

H

X

H

X

H

Page 115

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

OBJ4

X

X

OBJ4-T1 X

X

OBJ4-

X

X

T1a

OBJ4-

X

T1b

OBJ4-

X

T1c

OBJ4-

T1d

OBJ4-T2 X

X

OBJ4-

X

T2a

OBJ4-

X

X

T2b

OBJ4-

X

X

T2c

OBJ4-

T2d

OBJ4-

X

T2e

OBJ4-T2f

X

OBJ4-

X

T2g

OBJ4-

X

T2h

OBJ4-T2i

X

OBJ4-T2j

X

OBJ4-

X

T2k

OBJ4-T2l

X

OBJ4-T3 X

X

OBJ4-

X

X

T3a

OBJ4-

X

X

T3b

OBJ4-

X

X

T3c

Table 3.13: Status of objectives, tasks and actions steps

H H H

X

H

H H

H

H

X

H

H H

H H

H H H H

Each objective listed contributes to each of the state mitigation goals, which include the following:

1) Reduce human vulnerability to hazard events; 2) Reduce the losses associated with hazard events; and 3) Reduce overall exposure to hazard events for Georgia citizens and their property.

Because each objective contributes in some manner to all of the state mitigation goals, each subsequent task and action step also contributes the all of the state mitigation goals. All of the objec-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 116

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

tives, tasks, and action steps are named to represent their association with each other in a tiered

S

system. For example, the name of action step "OBJ-4T2h" illustrates that this action step relates

T

to the second task listed under the fourth objective, which ultimately contributes to each of the state's mitigation goals.

A

T

Of the 92 objectives, tasks and action steps listed in Table 3.12, 18 are "combined" and 2 are de-

leted. In other words, the planning team that included GEMA and interagency partners found that

E

18 of the preexisting objectives, tasks, and action steps completely aligned with others and found

2 irrelevant. Therefore, only 72 remain in the descriptions at the beginning of this chapter. Of the

M

72 objectives, tasks, and action steps, 12 were added in the update process. In order to evaluate these activities, 58 are ongoing, completed, or a combination of the two, which equates to over

I

80% of the total activities. Those activities that have not reached "Complete" status are not fully

T

implemented due to a variety of reasons. The activity may be "Ongoing" in that continued small

actions are implemented that leave room for more mitigation activity under that objective, task, or

I

action step. The activity may be "New" in that the planning team recently included the activity in

G

the updated Standard Plan for future implementation. The activity may be "Deferred" for later due

A

to the implementation of higher priority activities. Finally, the activity may be "Deleted" due to the planning team's finding the activity to be irrelevant for this update cycle.

T

I

The FEMA guidance calls for a prioritization of the listed objectives, tasks, and action steps.

Therefore, a column is included in Table 3.12 that lists the priority of each objective, task, and ac-

O

tion step previously detailed at the beginning of this chapter. All activities that were marked as

N

"Ongoing" or "New" are marked as "H" or high priority. Activities that have been completed or

combined with other activities were left unmarked. Finally, all activities marked as "Deferred" were

marked as "L" or low priority.

S

T

The following table, Table 3.13, details the activities completed in order for the task or action step

to be marked "Completed" or "Ongoing" in the previous table. The final column indicates which of

R

the projects are identified in local plans as being relevant to local mitigation efforts.

A

T

A

Task

Action Step

Completed Activity

Local Identification

G

OBJ1-T1

Five full time staff positions provide technical as-

Y

sistance to all Georgia counties in developing or

updating hazard mitigation plans.

OBJ1-T2

Information from 130 counties has been incorporated into the state plan update.

OBJ1-T5

Monthly interagency meetings were completed with state and federal partners on mitigation programs. Opportunities for FEMA, NRCS, and GFC projects/programs were completed in the aftermath of declared disaster events in 2007.

OBJ1-T6

Activities were completed in support of FEMA1686-DR-GA.

OBJ1-T8 OBJ1-T8a The Flood Tracking Chart for the Chattahoochee River Basin/Metropolitan Atlanta Area is complete.

OBJ1-T9

To date, 98 counties have identified wildfire haz-

X

ard and 79 have identified mitigation actions to

address this hazard. GEMA and GFC staffs are

currently working on improvements to the state-

wide risk assessment.

Page 117

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

OBJ2-T1 OBJ2-T1a Hazard mitigation materials were distributed in

support of HMGP for GEMA-1686-DR-GA.

S

OBJ2-T1b Hazard mitigation training included a Disaster

T

Response and Recovery course, New Directors Briefings, various workshops at the Governor's

A

Emergency Management Conference, and

T

HMGP applicant briefings.

E

OBJ2-T1e The GEMA website reflects updates to enhance

access to mitigation information.

OBJ2-T1f GEMA utilized the Public Information Office in

M

support of HMGP for FEMA-1686-DR-GA, PDM,

I

FMA, and RFC programs as well as distributing

updated NOAA weather radio brochures.

T

OBJ2-T1g Ongoing support of the StormReady program has

X

I

resulted in 15 additional counties recognized for a total of 61 recognized counties.

G

OBJ2-T1h Severe Weather Awareness Week and the Pre-

A

scribed Fire Awareness Week campaigns are

T

completed each year in February.

OBJ2-T1i Training materials concerning cost-effective miti-

X

I

gation are provided as pre-application updates

O

and training to local governments as requested.

N

OBJ2-T2 OBJ2-T2a In support of local government plans and pro-

X

jects, GEMA coordinates with DNR to deliver

technical assistance in floodplain management.

S

OBJ2-T2b Mitigation staff supported the Map Modernization

T

and Floodplain Management workshops as requested and also supported DNR with maps and

R

analysis of NFIP participating communities.

A

OBJ2-T2d Georgia continues to require NFIP participation

X

as a condition of receiving mitigation funding.

T

OBJ2-T2e Georgia continues to include CRS participation

X

A

and rating in the prioritization of mitigation fund-

G

ing.

Y

Page 118

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

OBJ2-T3 OBJ2-T3b GEMA has provided technical assistance to 16

S

state agencies to incorporate hazard mitigation

T

measures into mitigation plans and programs.

A

Ongoing activity exists with each state agency participating in the state plan update.

T

OBJ2-T3d Emergency Manager continues to be published

E

quarterly with input from the Hazard Mitigation

Division on projects and initiatives.

OBJ2-T3f GEMA Hazard Mitigation staff continues to assist

X

M

RDCs in the development of local mitigation

I

plans and projects.

OBJ3-T2 OBJ3-T2a All of the available initiative funding from the past

X

T

three disasters since the previous plan's comple-

I

tion have been utilized. Seven warning projects

G

supported with FEMA-1554-DR-GA and FEMA1560-DR-GA funds. Eighteen warning projects

A

are under development with FEMA-1686-DR-GA.

T

OBJ3-T2b NOAA weather radio brochures updated to sup-

X

I

port warning initiatives from FEMA-1686-DR-GA.

OBJ3-T2d Georgia continues to support the StormReady

X

O

program with HMGP initiative funding.

N

OBJ3-T2f Georgia continues to support the NWS efforts to

expand Mesonet in the state.

S

OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T3b GEMA has provided technical assistance primar-

X

ily consisting of site visits to support project iden-

T

tification and application development for FEMA-

R

1554-DR-GA, FEMA-1560-DR-GA, FEMA-1686-

A

DR-GA, FMA, PDM, and RFC programs for FY05-FY07.

T

OBJ3-T3c The pre-application and project worksheets are

A

updated to facilitate application development.

G

Y

Page 119

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5a Non-structural approaches to mitigation continue

X

to be a prioritized activity for all mitigation grants

administered by GEMA. The majority of projects

recommended and funded have been non-

structural in nature, primarily consisting of property

acquisition.

OBJ3-T5c FEMA-1686-DR-GA funds prioritized to support

X

projects identified in local mitigation plans that

minimize damages to critical facilities.

OBJ3-T5d FEMA-1315-DR-GA funds were utilized to in-

crease protection of Department of Correction fa-

cilities. FEMA-1686-DR-GA funds may be utilized

to increase protection of Department of Public

Safety facilities.

OBJ4-T1 OBJ4-T1a An annual review of mitigation programs is com-

pleted in January of each year.

OBJ4-T2 OBJ4-T2b The GMIS was developed to facilitate data collec-

tion of facilities. Improvements to the GMIS com-

pleted include expanding to include mitigated

properties and repetitive loss data.

OBJ4-T2c The initial data collection activity has been com-

X

pleted in all counties with 97 counties completed

in GMIS.

OBJ4-T3 OBJ4-T3a Work is underway with USGS and Georgia DNR

to improve the DEM for Georgia.

OBJ4-T3b Significant progress on map modernization include

the finalization of DFIRMs for 20 counties while

the planning and surveying efforts have been

completed for half the remaining counties. Safe

Dams continues to provide GEMA, local govern-

ments, and dam owners with classification and

information on regulated dams.

OBJ4-T3c Newly incorporated data resources include the

SHELDUS database, Census Bureau data, and

updated FEMA data. Methodologies stemming

from recent academic publications were also in-

cluded such as methods of analyzing social vul-

nerability and hazard event histories.

Table 3.14: Completed activity related to the described tasks and actions steps

In order for the projects listed in both Table 3.12 and Table 3.13 to have been considered, each must have met minimal standards of cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, and environmental soundness. These standards are listed below in the following section.

3.5.2 Review of Mitigation Activity and Funding

In order for the State of Georgia to consider mitigation actions or activities, the cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, and environmental soundness of the actions or activities are analyzed where applicable. GEMA's methods of analysis for these criteria include benefit cost analyses (BCA) and environmental reviews.

Benefit Cost Analyses (BCA) incorporate various data to determine the cost effectiveness of a project or activity. Essentially, the BCA determines whether the current cost of investing in a pro-

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 120

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ject will result in sufficiently reduced damages in the future. Only projects with a benefit-cost ratio

S

(BCR) exceeding 1.0 are ranked for further review and forwarded to FEMA for funding considera-

T

tion. GEMA Hazard Mitigation staff work closely with project applicants to determine each project's cost effectiveness. The basic information the state obtains to conduct accurate BCAs in-

A

cludes, but is not limited to the following:

T

E

Flood Insurance Study data or historical flood data (flood frequency, discharge, and elevation);

Past damages to the project site or in the project area;

M

Well-documented cost-estimates for the project;

I

Useful life of the project; Square footage of the building with replacement and content values;

T

Facility function;

I

Associated future maintenance costs;

G

Displacement costs; Temporary relocation costs;

A

Loss of use; and

T

Elevation Certificates or land surveyor certification of finished floor elevation.

I

All of the projects completed to meet the state's mitigation goals (listed in Table 3.12) must have

O

met the minimum BCR of 1.0 in order to garner funding (where applicable). Georgia's success in

N

all funding rounds to date of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and Repetitive Flood Claims Program demonstrates GEMA's Hazard Mitiga-

tion staff's ability to complete accurate BCAs. The State of Georgia has submitted a total of 54

S

projects since 2003 that have been reviewed at the national level in the competitive grant pro-

T

gram. A total of 41 projects applications have been selected and awarded. Of the non-awarded projects, ten were deemed eligible but not selected due to funding constraints.

R

A

As previously stated, not only do projects have to meet standards of cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility, but also environmental soundness. The State of Georgia relies on the staff at

T

FEMA Region IV to conduct environmental reviews and prepare the environmental documentation

A

on all submitted mitigation applications. As part of the application process, the state requires

G

documentation from the sub-applicant to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and standards, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), PL 91-190, as amended.

Y

Georgia provides information to each applicant on the necessary environmental coordination that

must be completed as part of the application process. The state reviews each applicant's environ-

mental documentation prior to forwarding it to FEMA. The State of Georgia has successfully

worked with each applicant on obtaining the required environmental documentation to comply with

the NEPA process.

Not only does GEMA account for a project's cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, and environmental soundness but also for the reflection of the action or project in local mitigation plans. The following table, Table 3.14, lists the mitigation action types identified by the local hazard mitigation plans currently received by GEMA.

Page 121

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Mitigation Type Public Outreach

% of Counties Identifying Action 94%

Planning / Zoning

88%

Warning / Communications

86%

Flood Programs Structural Retrofit Equipment Acquisition

85% 83% 82%

Flood Control

78%

Preparedness Efforts

77%

Additional Analysis

63%

Drought Management

62%

Fire Programs

61%

Broad Cooperation

60%

Emergency Response Operations 58%

Property Acquisition

36%

Property Relocation/Elevation

28%

Dam Management

26%

Wetland Protection

22%

Greenspace Preservation

18%

Table 3.15: Local identification of mitigation activities

As illustrated, GEMA takes into account each proposed mitigation activity's potential for costeffectiveness, technical feasibility, environmental soundness, and local applicability. All of the variables are analyzed in some manner before pursuing funding for each activity or project.

The State of Georgia currently uses several funding sources to implement hazard mitigation activity. Primarily, these funds stem from federal, state, and local sources, which include the programs discussed in Section 3.3.1's assessment of state mitigation policies, programs, and funding and Section 3.3.2's assessment of approved funding and funding shares for disaster declarations. The State of Georgia is interested in continuing to pursue these federal, state, and local funding sources throughout the future implementation of the mitigation strategy as well as in pursuing additional private sources. The pursuit of additional private sources of funding may lead to an exchange of in-kind services instead of specified amounts of funding with groups such as the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) and the Geographical Information Systems Coordinating Committee (GISCC).

3.6 CONCLUSION This section of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy provides the mitigation strategy, which includes specific goals, objectives, tasks, and action steps. Following the overview of the general strategy, Chapter 3 includes both a state and a local capability assessment. The state capability assessment includes discussion of the state's pre- and post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and funding including the role of state agencies with a focus on GEMA. The local capability assessment includes discussion on local policies such as building codes and zoning and on local mitigation planning. Finally, Chapter 3 includes an assessment of the status of the proposed mitigation activity. This broad assessment of Georgia's mitigation strategy and capabilities based on the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment provides the basis and method for enacting mitigation activity in the State of Georgia.

S T A T E M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T A G Y
Page 122

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C

O

O

R

D

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

I

N

A

T

I

O

N

O F

L O C A L

M I T I G A T I O N

P L A N N I N G
Page 123

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Chapter 4: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the local mitigation planning requirements are an attempt to accumulate greater knowledge of local hazard exposure, available critical facilities (especially those with high hazard exposure), and potential mitigation policies, programs, and projects. The following sections detail the approval and update process of local mitigation planning. Following these sections is a discussion concerning the state's prioritization of local assistance.

Chapter 4 Section
4.1 Local Mitigation Plan Development

Updates to Section
Revised to reflect new plan content. Includes table of changes. Revised to include information regarding the plan de-
velopment process and timeline. Revised to detail chronologically the use of PDM funding for local plan development.

4.2 Local Mitigation Plan Updates

Revised to include information regarding the update cycle of the local mitigation plans and to include a update priority map.

4.3 Prioritization of Assistance

Revised to include a prioritization method for local plan funding and project funding including the incorporation of repetitive loss property.

Table 4.1: Summary of changes to Chapter 4 of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy
4.1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) Hazard Mitigation staff has proactively worked on meeting the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 since January of 2002. At that time, the staff began a series of mitigation planning meetings to strategize methods of meeting the new federal requirements at both the state and local level.
As previously stated, the first local mitigation plan approvals occurred in January of 2005. By December of 2007, 97 of 159 Georgia counties have federally-approved mitigation plans. The status of all Georgia counties is found in Figure E.3 in Appendix E.
The development process is captured in Figure E.4 found in Appendix E at the end of this document. This flow chart details the process by which the State of Georgia and local jurisdiction typically follow during the funding of planning projects. Imbedded in this flowchart is the timeline associated with the mitigation plan development process. As the chart illustrates, the first section is the pre-application period that lasts 3 months for those plans funded by the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) and 12 months for those plans funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The pre-application period includes outreach, calls for applications, and GEMA assistance with application development. The second period, the grant review process, lasts from 3 to 6 months and includes the submittal to FEMA and FEMA's review and response that ultimately ends in the project's receiving or not receiving funding. The third period, the notification and initialization, lasts from 2 to 3 months and includes the signing of grantee-subgrantee agreements and the distribution of guidance packages. The fourth period, the plan development phase, lasts around 12 months with extensions available and includes GEMA's provision of technical as-

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 124

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 125

sistance with the receipt of quarterly reports, payment requests, and plan draft copies. The final period, the second plan development phase, lasts around 12 months with extensions available and includes GEMA's review, county adoption, FEMA review, FEMA approval, and the notifications of approval. Following the completion of the local mitigation plan, GEMA continues to monitor annually the updates provided in the maintenance of plan cycle detailed in each plan.
4.1.1 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2002
Before receiving official guidance on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program from FEMA, GEMA initially created a 3 year strategy encompassing a 53 county per year approval timeline as well as a rough budget. Also, GEMA created a county ranking system based upon 9 variables to determine the order of the counties' receiving assistance for local mitigation planning. This original ranking system is further discussed in section "4.3: Prioritization of Assistance".
Using the criteria later discussed, GEMA identified the initial 53 counties to target for the first round of local mitigation planning. Of those 53 counties, 33 were awarded Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fiscal Year 2002 (PDM-FY02) funded grants that included financial and staffing resources. The specific breakdown for the PDM-FY02 funding is as follows: 15 counties funded through FEMA1311-DR-GA funds; 15 counties funded through PDM planning funds; and 3 counties funded through redirected Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) funds.
After the publishing of the February 26, 2002 Federal Register, GEMA aggressively pushed forward stressing a quality planning process and product. With the support of GEMA's director, GEMA dedicated resources in the field including on-site technical assistance and in-county service through field-stationed planners. GEMA also redirected human resources to focus on mitigation planning. Three hazard mitigation specialists, who were formally tasked with grants administration, were reallocated to the planning team. Also, the Hazard Mitigation Division hired two new planners bringing the total staff to five people. These staff comprised the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) section officially created in June of 2002 and partially funded by redirected FEMA-1209-DR-GA funds. Following a series of 12 applicant briefings and meetings across the state to provide on-site assistance for completing applications, GEMA accelerated the initial application process with a 30-day application period during May 2002. Within this time period, GEMA had a record number of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program applicants with 98 counties. Following a three week review period, GEMA submitted the applications for the PDM-FY02 monies and the FEMA-1311-DR-GA planning funds to FEMA.
During FEMA's review process, GEMA's HARA staff reviewed other states' efforts with local planning funding. By evaluating states like North Carolina and Florida's methods of obtaining past disaster declaration funding to support local planning initiatives, the HARA staff compiled a collection of funding ideas for the remaining Georgia counties.
The PDM-FY02 funds in addition to the FEMA-1311-DR-GA funds allowed GEMA to pass over $850,000 in the first year to fund the 33 local mitigation plans chosen with the ranking methods discussed in a following section. After receiving FEMA's approval, HARA staff spent August and September of 2002 constructing grantee/subgrantee agreements with the local governments as well as preparing information for the initial meetings. HARA staff spent September and October of 2002 holding regional and local meetings throughout the state that included providing materials such as FEMA "How to" guidance and GEMA information. GEMA's materials included a series of documents referred to as the "L series" that intended to streamline the planning process and included a local plan template, a highlighted February 26, 2002 Federal Register, a crosswalk, and a template supplement.
Throughout the local planning process, Regional Development Centers (RDC) worked with local government officials on the local mitigation plans. RDC traditionally assist counties with local comprehensive plans, greenspace plans, water management plans, and many other planning ini-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

tiatives. Because of the RDC's participation in many local planning activities, local hazard mitigation plans are often interwoven into the other planning activities and are often including information from the other planning activities.
During the local mitigation planning process, GEMA HARA staff actively worked with local planners by attending local meetings, providing on-site technical assistance, and providing detailed preliminary reviews of working drafts to all 33 funded counties. Also, GEMA HARA staff met on several occasions with FEMA Region IV planning staff to review local planning efforts.
All 33 local county hazard mitigation plans were successfully processed through GEMA HARA methods of review, revisions, adoption, and submittal to FEMA. Subsequently, FEMA Region IV reviewed and approved all of the 33 local mitigation plans. Within these federally approved plans, the 33 counties and local governments who participated in PDM-FY02 funded planning activities identified specific mitigation projects and activities, some of which were funded in the PDM-FY03 national competitive grant program.
Building on the initial success of the PDM-FY02 local mitigation planning initiative, GEMA continued to encourage local governments to apply for subsequent PDM funding and other redirected funding to complete federally-approved local mitigation plans.
4.1.2 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2003
Following the tremendously successful PDM-FY02 activities, GEMA vigorously pursued funding for an additional 104 counties through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) fiscal year 2003 (FY03) application process. GEMA submitted three separate applications for 104 counties to receive planning monies to complete Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 compliant plans.
By the spring of 2004, all three submitted applications were federally approved, awarding Georgia $2.7 million to support the completion of compliant local hazard mitigation plans for the 104 counties. With this funding, GEMA's HARA section added an additional planner to support local planning.
GEMA refined the local planning process based upon analysis of PDM-FY02 activities and upon the 2 years of direct local and state implementation. For example, GEMA implemented a digital database system allowing the entry of more than 42 variables related to critical facilities and asset prioritization.
GEMA also contracted the University of Georgia's Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) to develop an online data entry and display system for local planning efforts that evolved into the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS). The GMIS, as a web-based environment, provides easy access and maintenance without requiring extensive knowledge of GIS applications and software. As an online database, GMIS only allows authorized access to the application through a login process. As an authorized user, one may manipulate critical facility data (based on access level), view maps, and download data and reports for analysis. In order to enter critical facility data, the authorized user utilizes a web-based form that includes drop-down boxes and other methods of validating user-input, which minimizes training and improves data quality. As new data are entered, the database updates to provide the most recent information available. In addition to critical facilities, other layers are available within the GMIS including transportation corridors, political boundaries, hydrology, or hurricane surge zones. Screenshots concerning the GMIS are available in Appendix E as figures E.5 through E.7.
The local planning process began with the signing of the grantee/subgrantee agreements with GEMA in September of 2004 for the 104 counties funded under the PDM-FY03 monies. This local mitigation planning process is scheduled to closeout on March 31, 2008.
As with the initial 33 local plans with the PDM-FY02, GEMA's HARA planners are utilizing the same process and methodology of local plan review. This planning process is illustrated in the

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 126

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 127

flowchart labeled as Figure E.6 in Appendix E. This diagram provides information concerning the working relations and interactions between agencies and local governments as part of the planning process and grant administration. Also, HARA planners have provided on-site technical assistance throughout the process in order to ensure the federal requirements are explicitly met.
While most of the local mitigation plans have federal approval, HARA planners continue to assist the remaining counties. GEMA currently anticipates that all 104 local mitigation plans funded under PDM-FY03 will be complete and federally approved by the closeout in March of 2008.
During 2003, GEMA staff actively worked with local governments in identifying and developing both local projects and planning applications for the PDM-C-FY03 funds. GEMA staff determined the overall project feasibility and environmental soundness as well as computed the necessary benefit-costs analysis as part of the technical assistance provided to local governments. GEMA was able to present 17 different applications for PDM-C-FY03 funding and was awarded 8 of those project applications. GEMA applied for local planning grants as three distinct grants and was awarded all three. As the table below, Table 4.2, illustrates, the total funds awarded for both projects and plans under PDM-C-FY03 to date equals over $6 million.

Application Number PDMC-PJGA-2003-001 PDMC-PJGA-2003-002 PDMC-PJGA-2003-003 PDMC-PJGA-2003-004 PDMC-PJGA-2003-005 PDMC-PJGA-2003-008 PDMC-PJGA-2003-010 PDMC-PJGA-2003-012 PDMC-PJGA-2003-014 PDMC-PJGA-2003-015 PDMC-PJGA-2003-016 PDMC-PJGA-2003-017 Total

Subgrant Applicant City of Savannah

Date

Non-Federal

Awarded Share

09-17-2004 $123,341.32

City of Thomasville

05-10-2004 $58,285.25

City of Rome

07-19-2004 $268,288.13

Wayne County

02-10-2005 $614,264.00

Peachtree City

03-25-2005 $55,812.50

Columbia County

09-17-2004 $90,444.50

Augusta-Richmond County 04-13-2004 $48,769.25

Chatham County Engineering Department Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Emergency Management Agency Georgia Emergency Management Agency

05-10-2004 $224,825.00 04-13-2004 $205,000.00 04-13-2004 $248,750.00 04-13-2004 $218,750.00 08-13-2004 $188,831.27
$2,345,361.22

Table 4.2: PDM-C-FY03 funds awarded in the State of Georgia

Federal Share $370,023.94
$174,855.75
$804,864.37
$1,099,698.0 0 $167,437.50
$271,333.50
$146,307.75
$674,475.00
$615,000.00
$746,250.00
$656,250.00
$566,493.80
$6,292,989.6 1

4.1.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities for Fiscal Year 2005

Following the tremendous success of the PDM-FY02 and PDM-FY03 planning efforts within Georgia, GEMA pursued funding for the remaining 22 counties through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) for fiscal year 2005 (FY05) and the FEMA-1560-DR-GA. The application processes included 17 counties and 5 counties for the PDM-C and FEMA-1560-DR-GA, respectively. These applications called for the receipt of planning monies to complete the Disaster Miti-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

gation Act of 2000 compliant local mitigation plans.
The local planning process for the 22 counties began in September of 2006 with the signing of grantee-subgrantee agreements with GEMA. This agreement provided a 24 month planning cycle including grant completion by September 2008 and closeout by December 31, 2008.
GEMA's HARA planners are utilizing the same process of local plan review as discussed in the previous two sections. As previously stated, GEMA planning staff approve the local mitigation plans prior to submittal to FEMA Region IV for final review and approval. GEMA currently anticipates that all of the 22 local plans funded during the FY05 planning cycle will be complete and federally approved by the completion date of September of 2008.
4.1.4 Disaster Resistant University
The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (USG), through a federal Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant and GEMA, initialized the Disaster Resistant University (DRU) program for fiscal year 2003 (FY03). The PDM grant allowed all 35 public institutions within the USG to develop a hazard mitigation plan to meet the federal requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and of the FEMA planning criteria promulgated in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 201.6 on Federal Register, 2-26-2002.
As of December 2007, fourteen universities have successfully completed hazard mitigation plans to be annexed to the hazard mitigation plan of the county in which the institution resides. The status of each Georgia institution in the DRU program is illustrated by Figure E.8 within Appendix E at the end of this document. Each DRU hazard mitigation plan includes a hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment based on refined data and hazard maps provided by GEMA. This process and the provided data allow accurate risk and loss estimates which lead to more cost effective mitigation actions. Essentially, the DRU program is an integral part of bridging non-traditional local and state partnerships within the context of emergency management. The institutional level risk-based, data-driven mitigation plans were created with clearly identified future mitigation goals and objectives that will ultimately lead to mitigation projects.
4.2 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN UPDATES
Section 4.1 discusses the process of local mitigation planning utilized by GEMA for Georgia counties. This section details the update cycle for those federally-approved hazard mitigation plans. The updated hazard mitigation plan must meet federal approval 5 years after the initial approval. Therefore, the updates to the first local hazard mitigation plans, which FEMA approved in January of 2005, must be approved by FEMA in January of 2010. Figure E.9 in Appendix E at the end of this document illustrates the priority of the various counties' in terms of plan updates by 6 month period beginning in January of 2010. As the map illustrates, those counties with highest priority in the update process are depicted red while those with lowest priority (updates due in late 2012) are shown in green. GEMA will adhere to this priority system of updating local hazard mitigation plans when distributing funding and assistance for the planning process.
4.3 PRIORITIZATION OF ASSISTANCE
The State of Georgia must utilize analytical methods for prioritizing the distribution of available funding to communities and local jurisdictions. The first subsection discusses the methods for prioritizing the funding for local mitigation planning that were used during several planning initiatives previously discussed. The following section discusses the prioritization of mitigation grant program funding based on repetitive losses.
4.3.1 Prioritization of Local Plan Funding
Due to the limited amount of available funds during the PDM-FY02 initiative, priority was given to certain counties based on several selection factors. This method of prioritization was also utilized

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 128

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C O O R D I N A T I O N
O F
L O C A L
M I T I G A T I O N
P L A N N I N G
Page 129

during the PDM-FY03 and PDM-FY05 initiatives to fund local mitigation planning. The following selection factors were utilized with factors 1 through 3 (hazard history factors) weighing more heavily in the process:
1. Public assistance damages paid from 1990 forward, normalized to 2000;
2. Total hazard mitigation projects funded; 3. Total State of Emergency declarations not resulting in a federal
declaration 4. Total Category One dams; 5. Proximity to coastline and storm surge zones; 6. Level of community participation in NFIP 7. Population growth; 8. Community mitigation related initiatives; and 9. Total small and impoverished communities.
4.3.2 Prioritization of Project Funding
Due to the limited amount of project funding available, GEMA employs a prioritization system for funding allocation. GEMA reviews, ranks, and scores proposed projects using certain criteria found on GEMA's scoring sheets. The main categories for ranking project submissions include the natural hazard event, history of damages, type of mitigation, impact on community, impact on environment, community commitment to mitigation, and benefits of mitigation. Generally, nonstructural projects such as acquisitions, demolition, relocation, and flood proofing receive the highest ranking and greatest consideration for funding. Additional criteria, such as participation in the CRS, may be required for other programs such as the FMA.
4.3.3 Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss properties (RLPs) generally consist of older, less-safe properties that were "grandfathered" into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) during its creation. The RLPs have been repaired multiple times to pre-flood conditions with subsidized flood insurance claim payments. According to FEMA, a relatively small number of RLPs account for a relatively large share of paid flood claims. Therefore, identifying RLPs and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLPs) and mitigating the specified properties leads to the reduction of actual flood insurance claims, which will diminish the pressure to raise flood insurance rates and stabilize the condition of the NFIP.
The following table, Table 4.3, lists the total losses, total RLPs, total SRLPs, total mitigated RLPs, and total mitigated SRLPs by NFIP community in the State of Georgia. The repetitive loss information was obtained from SQANET while the mitigated property information was obtained from GEMA's mitigated properties database. To be considered a RLP by FEMA, the property must have two or more losses (at least $1,000 per loss) paid within a 10 year time period. To be considered a SRLP by FEMA, the property must have four or more losses (at least $5,000 per loss) paid or have two or more losses where the payments exceed the property value. As of June 30, 2007, Georgia has 1,219 RLPs totaling almost $73 million in paid claims. Also, Georgia has 59 SRLPs (validated and pending) totaling approximately $10 million in paid claims.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Community

Losses ($)

# RLPs

# SRLPs # Mit.

# Mit.

C

RLPs

SRLPs

O

Albany, City of

2,386,461.39 48

5

O

Alpharetta, City of

37,325.08

1

R

Aragon, City of

11,701.50

1

D

Athens-Clarke

41,006.19

4

I

County

N

Atlanta, City of

12,432,804.45 114

14

2

A

Augusta-Richmond 2,008,254.51 47

2

19

T

Austell, City of

436,938.63

10

I

Bainbridge, City of

117,238.54

2

O

N

Baker County

53,141.34

1

Bartow County

3,603.75

1

O

Bloomingdale, City of 5,943.87

1

F

Brooks County

36.900.57

1

Brunswick, City of

13,860.51

2

L

Bulloch County

52,256.61

2

O

C

Calhoun, City of

158,137.07

1

A

Camden County

13,895.86

1

L

Canton, City of

188,401.35

1

Carroll County

13,616.50

1

M

Carrollton, City of

30,400.80

1

I

T

Cartersville, City of 10,089.86

1

I

Catoosa County

1,231,647.95 11

1

3

G

Cave Spring, City of 28,884.32

2

A

Cedartown, City of

22,456.23

4

T

Chamblee, City of

36,553.61

2

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 130

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C

Chatham County

1,175,158.87 42

1

O

Chatsworth, City of 164,999.59

4

O

R

Chickamauga, City of 104,013.42

3

2

D

Clayton County

429,018.75

13

1

I

Cobb County

4,086,181.13 44

4

4

N

Coffee County

105,508.95

3

A

College Park, City of 1,246,964.55 11

2

T

Columbia County

47,996.05

2

I

O

Columbus, City of

140,099.79

2

N

Coweta County

53,623.20

1

Crisp County

19,851.60

2

O

Dalton, City of

147,571.90

2

1

F

Decatur County

1,767,961.71 14

2

L

Decatur, City of

653,832.43

10

3

3

O

DeKalb County

3,625,706.40 63

5

18

C

Donalsonville, City of 63,809.02

2

A

Dooly County

48,781.04

1

L

Dougherty County

2,665,388.95 33

3

8

Douglas County

845,355.43

14

1

6

M

I

Douglasville, City of 9,273.13

1

T

Dublin, City of

460,332.10

6

I

Early County

88,239.93

1

G

East Dublin, Town of 233,078.82

2

A

East Ellijay, City of

673,237.05

3

T

East Point, City of

131,479.88

6

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 131

Effingham County Elberton, City of Ellijay, City of Fannin County Fayette County Fayetteville, City of Fitzgerald, City of Floyd County Folkston, City of Forsyth County Ft Oglethorpe, City of Fulton County Gainesville, City of Garden City, City of Gilmer County Glennville, City of Glynn County Gordon County Grady County Gwinnett County Hall County Helen, City of Henry County Hinesville, City of Houston County

3,643.64 13,683.32 14,946.50 3,556.52 26,733.74 20,683.94 37,009.65 180,593.97 46,623.64 22,903.30 273,349.97 795,568.90 21,570.31 46,042.57 255,417.97 33,491.83 463,759.11 71,222.03 17,556.55 286,231.89 10,053.96 16,419.49 75,098.30 18,525.57 82,297.57

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

1

C

1

O

O

1

R

1

D

2

I

2

N

1

A

T
7
I

1

O

1

N

11

1

16

1

O

2

F

1

L

4

O

1

C

16

1

A

3

L

1

M

5

1

2

1

I

1

T

1

I

1

G

2

A

1

1

T

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 132

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C

Jasper County

27,818.04

1

O

Kingsland, City of

166,922.35

4

O

R

Lafayette, City of

256,842.12

1

D

Lagrange, City of

223,270.14

3

I

Lee County

5,989,197.08 96

2

20

N

Leesburg, City of

279,735.10

2

A

Lumber City, City of 71,002.51

2

T

Macon, City of

583,157.63

5

2

I

O

Marietta, City of

143,281.86

4

N

Mitchell County

114,697.87

2

Monroe County

245,943.13

3

1

O

Montgomery County 30,498.06

2

F

Moultrie, City of

505,036.29

4

Newnan, City of

66,816.34

2

L

O

Newton County

90,279.64

1

1

C

Peachtree City, City 166,286.30

4

A

of

Pine Lake, City of

37,116.69

1

L
Polk County

179,121.17

9

M

Pooler, Town of

184,445.61

5

I

Port Wentworth, City 227,143.77

6

T

Powder Springs, City 277,310.17

2

I

Pulaski County

35,347.00

1

G

A

T

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 133

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Richmond Hill, City of 7,933.68

2

C

Ringgold, City of

119,717.12

4

2

O

O

Riverdale, City of

79,130.80

3

R

Rockdale County

79,914.23

2

D

Rome, City of

1,032,755.33 31

1

I

Rossville, City of

70,615.65

5

N

Roswell, City of

7,646.40

1

A

Sandersville, City of 6,154.40

1

T

Savannah, City of

17,804,906.63 324

6

97

1

I

Seminole County

372,221.31

4

O

St. Marys, City of

145,065.64

2

N

Statesboro, City of

18,165.14

1

O

Tattnall County

99,496.83

2

F

Thomasville, City of 13,357.38

2

Thunderbolt, Town of 10,111.77

1

L

Tifton, City of

830,291.29

3

O

Towns County

9,927.00

2

C

Trenton, City of

86,071.78

1

A

Troup County

76,643.40

1

1

L

Tybee Island, City of 159,100.69

12

Tyrone, Town of

137,577.52

1

M

I

T

I

G

A

T

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 134

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

C

Union County

9,033.99

1

O

Upson County

30,697.26

1

O

R

Uvlada, Town of

15,505.00

1

D

Valdosta, City of

56,590.11

2

I

Vidalia, City

134,970.56

1

N

Walker County

50,889.86

3

A

Walton County

116,734.77

1

T

Ware County

11,369.38

1

I

O

Warner Robins, City 35,566.46

1

of

N

Waycross, City of

10,553.19

1

Wheeler County

16,981.97

1

O

F

Whitfield County

160,757.21

7

Woodbine, City of

3,459.20

1

L

Worth County

46,120.20

1

O

Totals

$73,045,717.0 1219

59

191

2

C

0

A

Table 4.3: Repetitive and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties by NFIP Community

L

Table 4.3 illustrates that the City of Savannah accounts for approximately 25% of the RLPs and

SRLPs in the State of Georgia. However, Savannah also accounts for approximately 50% of the

M

completed mitigated activities on repetitive loss properties in the State of Georgia.

I

In previous chapters, the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program and the Severe Repetitive

T

Loss (SRL) grant program are discussed as programs to provide funds to assist in reducing flood damages to NFIP insured properties. However, GEMA has utilized other available programs to

I

mitigate repetitive loss properties. The following table, Table 4.4, lists the program years for the

G

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation-Competitive (PDM-C)

A

program as well as the disaster numbers for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) along with the corresponding mitigation activities enacted upon repetitive loss properties. For the pro-

T

gram years or disasters that have yet to been closed out, the State of Georgia and GEMA will con-

I

tinue to utilize available programs to mitigate repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties.

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 135

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Program

Year/

Acquisitions Elevations Relocations Drainage

C

Disaster

O

FMA

1997

4

0

0

0

O

FMA

2001

1

2

0

0

R

FMA

2002

2

0

0

0

D

FMA

2005

1

0

0

0

I

HMGP

1033

81

2

0

0

N

HMGP

1042

17

0

0

0

A

T

HMGP

1071

9

4

1

0

I

HMGP

1209

12

0

0

1

O

HMGP

1271

4

0

0

0

N

HMGP

1311

40

0

0

0

PDM-C

2003

2

0

0

0

O

PDM-C

2005

32

0

0

0

F

Table 4.4: Mitigation severe repetitive loss properties by program year or disaster
L

The State of Georgia has facilitated the use of Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) funds by local

O

governments for the development of flood hazard mitigation plans and projects. The planning grants have been targeted to the communities that have had the largest number of repetitive loss

C

properties identified by FEMA. With the funding through fiscal year 2005, all communities with 10

A

or more repetitive loss properties have received funding to develop a FMA plan. The state will continue to prioritize the FMA planning grants in communities with the largest number of repetitive

L

loss properties. Project grants have been targeted to the communities with the largest number of

repetitive loss properties who meet the planning requirements.

M

Upon review and analysis of Georgia's RLP and SRLP data, GEMA formed a mitigation strategy

I

to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts of repetitive losses on the NFIP as well as Georgia's

T

citizens and economy. This strategy aligns with the existing goals and objectives discussed in Chapter 3 of this mitigation strategy. The specific tasks and action steps related to repetitive

I

losses are included in Chapter 3 of this document. The State of Georgia continues to prioritize the

G

mitigation of RLPs and SRLPs through all available mitigation grant programs.

A

T

I

O

N

P L A N N I N G
Page 136

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy P L A N
Page Intentionally Left Blank
M A I N T E N A N C E
Page 137

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

P

L

A

N

Chapter 5 M

Plan Maintenance

A

I

N

T

E

N

A

N

C

E

Page 138

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

P L A N M A I N T E N A N C E
Page 139

Chapter 5: Plan Maintenance
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to outline the mechanism for updating the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy. Essentially, this chapter establishes both the method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan, including a review of the goals, objectives, tasks, and action steps undertaken by the State of Georgia. The following table, Table 5.1, documents the changes to Chapter 5 that have occurred since the 2005 approval.

Chapter 5 Section
5.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating Methods

Updates to Section
Includes table of changes. Revised to include areas of previous plan mainte-
nance section that did not work. Revised to include new schedule for future updates.

5.2 Mitigation Activity Monitoring Remains unchanged.
Table 5.1: Summary of changes to Chapter 5 of Georgia's Hazard Mitigation Strategy
While GEMA was able to adhere to most of the procedures set forth in the previous plan, GEMA was unable to completely adhere to the update schedule and calls for improvement in the risk assessment and incorporation of local data. The previous plan's maintenance section called for only a 6 month timeframe for the updating process. However, this process began 9 months prior to the final approval date due to the receipt of the "First Reminder Notification" in July of 2007 from FEMA asking for a submittal of an updated Standard Plan draft October 14, 2007. Also, the previous plan's maintenance section called for more detail in the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment for the State of Georgia. While GEMA fulfilled this requirement in the areas of the hazard history and vulnerability assessment with the incorporation of new data sources, GEMA was unable to increase the detail in the hazard and risk layers due to the state's Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maintaining the 30 meter resolution. By the time of future updates in 2010, the State of Georgia should have acquired a higher resolution DEM (10 meters) for the entire state, which will increase the detail in the hazard and risk layers in this plan's assessment. Finally, the previous plan's maintenance section called for data from 137 counties with approved plans. However, at the time of the planning process, only 134 plans contributed data to the state mitigation strategy. By the next update, all counties should have federally approved mitigation plans and be represented in this state mitigation strategy.
5.1 MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING METHODS
Georgia state officials will review and update the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Plan for gubernatorial and federal approval at a minimum of once every three years. The state may update the plan more frequently under the following conditions: a state declaration without federal assistance; a presidential disaster declaration; changes in state policy; significant updates to the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment based on new data; and a need deemed by the governor or state hazard mitigation planning group.
Within the state, the Hazard Mitigation Division of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency is responsible for coordinating the monitoring, evaluation, and update of the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy. Within the Hazard Mitigation Division, the senior planner of the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section is individually responsible for the oversight of this process, including the coordination of local, state, and federal agencies. Previous participants in this process are listed in Chapter 1 and generally include the following mitigation strategy stakeholders: state government agencies participating in mitigation programs; local governments with local plans included in the state mitigation strategy; and federal government agency representatives with general interest or legislative authority on items presented in the mitigation strategy.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

P

The update process includes a scheduled annual review, a post-disaster review, and the three

L

year plan review and update. The scheduled annual review occurs at the beginning of each cal-

endar year. This process includes an analysis of the goals, objectives, tasks, and actions identi-

A

fied in the state mitigation strategy for current applicability by the state's interagency hazard miti-

N

gation group. In addition to gauging plan implementation, the annual review addresses the condi-

tions for update previously specified with special regard to updating the hazard, risk, and vulner-

ability assessment to reflect the most recent data acquisitions.

M

A

The post-disaster review occurs on the occasion of each state of emergency, state disaster decla-

ration, or federal disaster declaration within the State of Georgia in order to determine any neces-

I

sary updates to accommodate the impacts of the disaster and the potential new data. The Hazard

N

Mitigation Division, accompanied by supporting state agencies, reviews the disaster-related strategies within the mitigation strategy to determine any mid-course adjustments. This post-disaster

T

review may replace an annual review depending on the severity of the disaster event. In that

E

case, further analysis of the plan outside of disaster-related information will take place as previ-

N

ously discussed in the information regarding annual reviews.

A

The comprehensive three year plan review and update of the mitigation strategy occurs prior to

N

federal submission for approval. This review process begins 12 months prior to the federal approval deadline and the first submission occurs 6 months prior to the federal approval deadline in

C

order to allocate sufficient review time. The review and necessary revisions are guided by

E

GEMA's Hazard Mitigation Division and the state's interagency hazard mitigation group. The next

mandatory three year update is currently scheduled for final approval in December 2010. A

schedule of each task leading up to final approval of the 2010 update is found in Appendix E as

Figure E.10. As discussed, the process is scheduled to begin a full 12 months prior to the ap-

proval deadline. Therefore, the notice to proceed and interagency planning group's initial meeting

will occur in November of 2009. GEMA intends the next updated plan to incorporate the newest

data and methods into the hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment as well as data from all 159

federally funded and approved multi-jurisdictional local plans.

5.2 MITIGATION ACTIVITY MONITORING

The Hazard Mitigation Division within GEMA is responsible for the implementation of projects and activities identified in the mitigation strategy. The senior planner of the Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment section oversees this function. GEMA currently uses a custom designed Microsoft Access based software program specifically developed to monitor hazard mitigation projects and closeouts. The system, referred to as the Mitigation Management System (MMS), has been operational since January 2001 and has been utilized in previous quarterly reports and other correspondence with FEMA Region IV.

In conjunction with the MMS software, the state uses the Georgia Mitigation Information System to track the performance of completed mitigation projects with individual project files per property. This information is shared with local officials as well as FEMA for utilization as a vehicle to track the effectiveness and success of mitigation efforts. The methods for systematically monitoring the initiation, status, and completion of the mitigation activities presented in the Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy remain unchanged from the previously approved plan in 2005.

The activities identified in this mitigation strategy are tracked utilizing the same methods discussed above for all other mitigation projects. These projects are reviewed and updated every 12 months consistently with the annual update process. The review of the activities (or "action steps") is located within Chapter 3.5 of this plan under the heading of "Mitigation Activity". Also, the table listing the status of all objectives and tasks is located in Chapter 3.5.1. As with the monitoring of activities, the review and update of the goals, objectives, and tasks occurs in conjunction with the plan's annual review.

Page 140

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

H

A

N

Page Intentionally Left Blank

C

E

D

P L A N

Page 141

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

H

A

Chapter 6

N

C

Enhanced Plan

E

D

P L A N

Page 142

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

6.1 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES

N

44 CFR 201.5(b)(1) states that a state's Enhanced Plan must demonstrate that the plan is inte-

H

grated to the extent practicable with other State and/or regional planning initiatives

A

(comprehensive, growth management, economic development, capital improvement, land devel-

N

opment, and/or emergency management plans) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation programs and initiatives that provide guidance to State and regional agencies.

C

In the following sections we will demonstrate how Georgia has met this requirement and inte-

E

grated with other State and/or regional planning initiatives and FEMA.

D

6.1.1 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives

P

Georgia Emergency Management Agency's (GEMA) Hazard Mitigation Division has taken the lead for the integration and incorporation of the State mitigation planning process with other ongoing

L

federal, state and regional planning efforts. A discussion on the integration with other state and

A

regional planning initiatives is discussed in Section 1.5.2. Examples of this include, but are not

limited to: Georgia Forestry Commission Fire Prevention Programs, Emergency Management

N

Accreditation Program, All Hazards Council, Storm Ready, Coordinated Planning Program, Geor-

gia Safe Dams Program, Coastal Management Program, Coastal Marshland Protection, Erosion

and Sedimentation Control, River Corridor Protection, Shore Protection, and the FEMA- funded,

state-administered hazard mitigation programs.

This section of the plan specifically details the steps Georgia has taken to integrate the Enhanced Plan into other state, regional, and FEMA initiatives. Central to our efforts to integrate the enhanced plan with ongoing federal, state and regional planning efforts was the joint development of an agency template (both federal and state) to capture information about each agency's programs related to preparedness, planning and mitigation. The basic template structure is listed in the Enhanced Plan appendix.

The format of the template was finalized in December 2006 as part of our ongoing state agency hazard mitigation planning meetings. Each of the participating state agencies agreed to complete this annex for their agency. GEMA support to the completion of the agency template included assistance with the natural hazard assessment and identification of assets from BLLIP data. Each participating state and federal agency's annex is included in the Enhanced Plan appendix.

Information provided by each agency has been collectively reviewed to accomplish the following objectives:

Incorporate mitigation data or resources into emergency management plans and activities; Link program and planning initiatives to support specific hazard mitigation strategies; Check for planning initiatives that promote mitigation as part of authorities and responsi-
bilities; and Coordinate with other state and regional agencies to incorporate hazard mitigation into
their own programs, regulations, and activities.

This section includes information from the state agencies and their programs in the effort to accomplish mitigation goals. Throughout the planning process, GEMA utilized information provided by the agencies. State agencies were also valuable contributors to the review and update of the goals and objectives provided in Section 3.1. Many of these agencies provided GEMA with information on how they planned to achieve the goals and objectives that are specific to their program area. Table 6.1.1.a compiles information submitted by federal and state agencies for this plan update and includes their contribution, programs that have a mitigation component, and actions taken for plan integration.

Page 143

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Table 6.1.1.a

N

AGENCY

CONTRIBUTION/PROGRAMS/PLAN INTEGRATION

H

Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA)

GEMA serves as a liaison between FEMA and the agencies comprising the State Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.

A

The Hazard Mitigation Division staff has taken the lead for

N

GEMA serves as the state's

the integration and incorporation of the State mitigation

C

lead agency for the unified

planning process with other ongoing federal, state and re-

coordination of planning and

gional planning efforts.

E

response to events that re-

GEMA worked with numerous agencies to identify programs and

D

quire multi-agency support.

capabilities available for the success of the Plan. These

programs will be added to the State Capability Section in

Section 3 of this chapter.

P

GEMA worked with numerous agencies on gathering data and information to update the Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability

L

Assessment.

A

GEMA Mitigation Staff worked with Local jurisdictions to create their Local Hazard Mitigation Plans. GEMA created a ma-

N

trix to capture pertinent information from these plans for

inclusion into the Local Capability Section and the State's

Strategy. As more plans are approved, the information will

be updated.

GEMA administers HMGP, FMA, PDM, and RFC mitigation pro-

grams and supports implementation of NRCS-EWP.

Agency strategic plans support Objectives - OBJ3-T2g, OBJ3-

T5, and OBJ4-T1a. GEMA provides a lead or support role

in agencies completing all objectives.

Georgia's State Plan integration includes Georgia Emergency

Operations Plan and Annexes, Continuity of Operations Plan, HMGP

Administrative Plan and GEMA Strategic Plan.

Page 144

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

Department of Commu-

DCA programs that support mitigation include Housing Choice

H

nity Affairs (DCA)

Voucher, Home Buyer Mortgage Revenue Bond, Homeless and Special Needs Housing, HOME Investment Part-

A

DCA administers over 70

nership, Georgia Housing Search, Immediate Threat and

N

state and federal grant programs and serves as

C

the state's lead agency in

Danger, Redevelopment Fund, Environmental Educational and Assistance, and Construction Codes, and Planning.

E D

housing finance and development and low income rental housing assistance;

DCA assists local communities with mitigation projects
through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). CDBG funds infrastructure and emergency relief projects such as storm

promulgates building

water drainage improvements. CDBG can be used to meet the

P

codes to be adopted by local governments; pro-

non-federal match requirement of federal mitigation grants. CDBG funds have been successfully used to meet the match require-

L

vides comprehensive plan- ments for several flood mitigation projects implemented in the af-

A

ning, technical and research assistance to local

termath of Tropical Storm Alberto and Hurricane Opal flood events. These implemented flood mitigation projects have pre-

N

governments; and serves vented or reduced flood damage, thereby meeting the main objec-

as the lead agency for the tive of the section.

state's solid waste reduction efforts.

DCA's Construction Codes and Industrialized Buildings Pro-

gram establish minimum building construction standards for all

new structures. Local governments that adopt building codes un-

der one of these programs must utilize these minimum standards.

DCA's Planning and Quality Growth Programs give communi-
ties the information, assistance, tools, and funding to implement planning and quality growth solutions to meet requirements of the Coordinated Comprehensive Planning per the Georgia Planning Act.

Current initiatives include development of Disaster Recovery/
Business Continuity Planning and Business Impact Analysis.

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ1-T6,
OBJ2-T1, OBJ2-T3a and T3f, and OBJ3-T2g.

Page 145

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Soil and Water Conserva-

GSWCC is charged with coordinating the operation and main-

N

tion Commission (GSWCC)

tenance of the Districts' 357 USDA/SCS watershed dams, 150 of which are rated as Category 1 dams and regulated

H

by the Georgia Safe Dams Act.

A

GSWCC protects, conserves, and improves the

GSWCC provided a database with pertinent information on all watershed dams.

N

soil and water resources of

Development of emergency action plans and breach zone

C

the State of Georgia.

maps will be shared with emergency management personnel and local officials.

E

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ1-T4,

D

OBJ2-T3b, OBJ3-T2g, OBJ4-T2 and OBJ4-T2e.

Department of Public

DPS staff provide law enforcement and security support in re-

P

Safety (DPS)

sponding to natural and manmade disasters

L

DPS oversees the day-to-

Plan integration includes Hurricane Evacuation Plans for both
the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and Hurricane re-entry plans.

A

day operation of the Georgia State Patrol (GSP),

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ2-T1h,

N

Capitol Police and the Motor OBJ2-T3b, OBJ3-T2g, OBJ3-T5d, and OBJ4-T2e.

Carrier Compliance Division

(MCCD).

Georgia Department of

DBF requires that financial institutions have disaster recovery/

Banking and Finance

business resumption plans to support their operations in

(DBF)

the event of an emergency/disaster situation.

Support ESF15 External Affairs

DBF promotes safe, sound,

Specific agency initiatives support Objective - OBJ3-T2g.

competitive financial ser-

vices in Georgia through

innovative, responsive regu-

lation and supervision.

DBF's motto is

"Safeguarding Georgia's

financial services.

Page 146

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

Board of Regents (BOR)

BOR created an Emergency Operations Initiative to complete a

H

BOR is responsible for

system wide review of emergency operations plans with a focus on best practices.

A

overseeing the governance

BOR supported the ongoing Disaster Resistant University Ini-

N

and management of 35 colleges and universities.

tiative that requires each campus to have a mitigation plan meeting DMA2K requirements.

C

BOR established the Hazard Mitigation Awareness Program.

E

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives OBJ1-T1, OBJ2-T1b, OBJ3-T2g and OBJ4-T2e.

D

Opportunities for plan integration include campus mitigation

plans, emergency operations plans and a system-wide

mitigation plan.
P

L

Office of Secretary of

SOS supports CoSA Intergovernmental Preparedness for Es-

A

State (SOS)

sential Records (IPER) project grant to develop Web- and CD-based training for state and local governments on vital

N

The office of the SOS is

records identification and management related emergency

responsible for the regulat-

preparedness. The training initiative will provide the

ing businesses and profes-

knowledge and skills needed to secure essential records

sions.

and recover those damaged by natural or human-caused

disasters.

SOS created the Heritage Emergency Response Alliance to
mitigate loss of cultural heritage materials in the event of a disaster.

SOS is actively pursuing a grant to conduct preservation and

emergency preparedness planning. This project will produce survey instruments used to develop a comprehensive database of emergency contact information for all cultural institutions in Georgia.

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ2-T3,
OBJ2-T3b, OBJ3-T2g, and OBJ4-T2e.

Page 147

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Georgia Commission on

GCEO administers and enforces the Georgia Fair Employment

N

Equal (GCEO)

Opportunity

Practices Act (FEPA) and the Georgia Fair Housing Act (GFHA).

H

Specific agency initiatives support Objective - OBJ3-T2g.

A

GCEO is responsible for safeguarding all individuals

N

in public employment from

C

discrimination in employment and residential hous-

E

ing.

D

Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT)

DOT plans, constructs, maintains, and improves the State's roads and bridges; provides planning and financial support

P

for other modes of transportation; provides airport and air

L

DOT provides a safe, seamless and sustainable

safety planning. DOT has recently completed the development of a hurricane

A

transportation system for

season information program and has also developed an

N

the State of Georgia.

extensive evacuation plan which will provide support to the

large numbers of evacuees on the State's interstate sys-

tem in the event of a natural disaster on Georgia's coast.

DOT reviews, updates, and exercises annually Hurricane and

Snow and Ice plans.

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ3-T2g and

OBJ4-T1a.

Georgia Bureau of Inves- GBI provides law enforcement services through ESF 13.

tigation (GBI)

GBI agency initiative includes the development of a Business

GBI provides assistance to Continuity/Disaster Recovery Plan.
the state's criminal justice Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ3-T2g.

system in the areas of

criminal investigations, fo-

rensic laboratory services

and computerized criminal

justice information.

Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC)
The GFC provides leadership, service, and education in protection, management, and wise use of Georgia's forest resources.

GFC supports many mitigation and preparedness activities
through the Forest Protection Programs to reduce the number of wildfires and acres burned. These programs include PreSuppression Firebreak Plowing, Burning Assistance, and Fire Prevention and Firewise, Rural Fire Defense Program, Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants, and Burn Permit System.
GFC projects and initiatives include the Southern Wildfire Risk
Assessment, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Firewise Communities, Wildfire Prevention, Rural Fire Defense, Prescribed Burning, Burn Authorizations, and Fire Weather Forecasting.
Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ1-T6,
OBJ1-T9, OBJ1-T9a, OBJ2-T1, OBJ3-T2g, OBJ4-T1, OBJ4-T2, and OBJ4-T2e.

Page 148

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

Georgia Department of DNR supports and implements several mitigation and prepar-

H A

Natural (DNR)

Resources edness programs through their Divisions.
DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) has primary respon-

N

DNR sustains, enhances,

sibility for managing Georgia's marshes, beaches, and marine fishery resources. CRD administers permitting programs under the

C E

protects and/or conserves Georgia's natural, historic and cultural resources for

Coastal Marshlands Protection Act and Shore Protection Act; issues revocable licenses for use of state-owned water bottoms; monitors coastal water quality; and manages shellfish harvest ar-

D

present and future generations.

eas. CRD conducts research; management and development activities associated with recreational and commercial fishery re-

sources; represents Georgia on regional marine fishery boards and

P

commissions; and builds boat ramps, artificial reefs, and fishing

L

piers. CRD has primary responsibility for the Protection of Tidewater/Right of Passage Acts.

A

DNR's Environmental Protection Division (EPD) is charged

N

with protecting Georgia's air, land, and water resources through the

authority of state and federal environmental statutes. These laws

regulate public and private facilities in the areas of air quality, water

quality, hazardous waste, water supply, solid waste, surface min-

ing, underground storage tanks, and others. EPD issues and en-

forces all state permits in these areas and has full delegation for

federal environmental permits except Section 404 (wetland) per-

mits. Within the Watershed Protection Branch of EPD are several

programs that promote mitigation activities including Floodplain

Management, Dam Safety, and River Basin Management and Wa-

ter Management Plans.

DNR's Georgia Greenspace Program was established to pro-
vide a framework in which developed and rapidly developing counties, and their municipalities, can preserve community greenspace. This program has complemented local government's efforts to acquire floodplain land (both developed and undeveloped).

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ1-T6,
OBJ2-T2a and b, OBJ2-T4c, OBJ3-T2g, and OBJ4-T3b.

Page 149

Georgia Ports Authority (GPA)
GPA develops, maintains and operates ocean and inland river ports within Georgia; fosters international trade and new industry for state and local communities; promotes Georgia's agricultural, industrial and natural resources; and maintains the natural quality of the environment.
National Weather Service (NWS)
NWS through six weather forecast offices and the River Forecast Center provides hydrometeorological (weather and water) forecast and warning services to the State of Georgia.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

GPA has identified numerous strategies to protect physical and

N

intangible assets in the environment. GPA agency specific goals complement the State Mitigation

H

Strategy.

A

Specific initiatives include developing and maintaining a hurricane plan.

N

Specific agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ2-T3b,

C

OBJ3-T2g, OBJ3-T5, OBJ4-T1 and OBJ4-T2e.

E

D

P
L
A
N
NWS agency initiatives with federal/state/local integration include the Georgia Mesonet, Georgia Storm Ready, and Incident Command Response and Support programs.
Establishment of the Georgia Mesonet has provided a statewide network of automated, real-time, high-quality, highdensity weather sensors. Some of the benefits of the program include improved severe weather warnings, greater detail and success in winter weather forecasting, more effective drought monitoring and water resource management, better real-time weather information, and better monitoring and forecasting of forest management controlled and uncontrolled burns.
NWS's implementation of the Storm Ready program allows for recognition of communities who have taken steps to increase their preparedness for severe weather.
NWS's Incident Command Response and Support program involves planning, training and support for local emergency incident responses where weather plays a critical role.
Agency initiatives support Objectives - OBJ1-T4, OBJ1-T5, OBJ1-T8, OBJ2-T1g and h and OBJ3-T2b,c,d,f and g.

Page 150

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

Natural Resource Con-

Through it's Conservation Planning and Technical Consultation pro-

H

servation Service (NRCS)

grams NRCS provides data, information, or technical expertise that helps people collect and analyze information to identify natural

A

resource problems and opportunities, clarify their objectives, and

N C

NRCS provides technical and financial assistance in a partnership effort to help

formulate and evaluate alternatives. Through the Conservation Implementation program, NRCS helps cus-
tomers install on their land conservation practices and systems that meet established technical standards and specifications.

E

America's private land

In the Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment program, NRCS as-

D

owners and managers conserve their soil, water,

sesses, acquires, develops, interprets, analyzes, and delivers natural resource data and information to enable knowledge-based natural

and other natural re-

resource planning and decision making at all landscape scales.

P L A

sources. This technical and financial assistance is delivered through five business lines shown in

In the Natural Resource Technology Transfer program NRCS develops, documents, and distributes a wide array of technology pertaining to resource assessment, conservation planning, and conservation system installation and evaluation.
Through the Financial Assistance program NRCS provides financial

N

the adjacent cell.

assistance to encourage the adoption of land treatment practices that

have been proven to provide significant benefits to the public. Fi-

nancial assistance is awarded to participants who voluntarily enter

into contracts, easements, and agreements to conserve natural re-

sources. Through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program

(EWP), more than $20 million has been invested in this program to

assist sponsors in implementing emergency measures to relieve

imminent hazards to life and property created by natural disaster.

NRCS staff provides agency program information in support of the

State's Disaster Response and Recovery Workshops held at the

GPSTC.

Opportunities noted for plan integration include the develop-

ment and maintenance of an Emergency Recovery Plan.

Agency programs support Objectives - OBJ1-T4, OBJ1-T5, OBJ1-T6,

OBJ3-T2g, OBJ3-T3b, OBJ3-T5a, OBJ4-T2 and OBJ4-T2e.

Page 151

United State Geological Survey (USGS)
USGS collects water resources information and provides critical information needed for the management of those water resources to warn the public of water-related natural hazards; and to monitor waters to protect human health, habitat, and the environment.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

USGS agency initiatives with federal/state/local integration include

E

several programs, some of which are noted below.

N

Georgia HydroWatch is your portal to the USGS hydrologic data and information for Georgia and links to other sources of wa-

H

ter information. The USGS operates the most extensive sat-

A

ellite network of stream-gaging stations in the state, many of

which form the backbone of flood-warning systems. The

N

USGS currently operates about 318 data collection sites in Georgia for acquiring information on surface-water, ground-

C

water, water-quality, and precipitation. 226 of the sites are

E

equipped with satellite telemetry, which provides real-time data via GOES satellites and downlinks, which enables the

D

posting of data to the Web for public dissemination. Real-

time and historical surface-water, ground-water, and waterquality data are available, as well as project information about

P

floods, droughts, and bacterial studies of the Chattahoochee

L

River. Links are provided to weather, river, lake, and hurricane forecast sites.

A

The Georgia Water Science Center conducts hydrologic projects

N

that address a wide variety of water-resources issues, includ-

ing water supply, ground-water contamination, nutrient load-

ing in streams, effects of land use on water quality, and basic

hydrologic data collection.

USGS operates the Georgia Water Information Network (GWIN), a

county-based system that offers water information for thou-

sands of surface-water, ground-water, and water-quality

measurement sites in Georgia. Other information includes

water-use data and annual hydrologic summaries.

StreaMail is a new USGS initiative for emergency management

officials to obtain the latest streamflow and river level informa-

tion via text message on cell phones or other PDAs.

Storm Surge Determination is a new USGS initiative to monitor the

real extent and timing of hurricane surge along the coast of

the Southeast United States to provide more accurate surge

data for calibration of SLOSH models and flood studies.

Flood inundation modeling and visualization study has been com-

pleted along a 4.8 mile reach of the Flint River in Albany-

Dougherty County.

USGS updates the regional flood frequency equations every 10

years which is critical in ensuring the statistical return periods

are based on the latest hydrologic data. Recent initiatives

also include ensuring consistency for estimating the magni-

tude and frequency of floods in rural basins that are near or

cross State borders.

USGS seeks to partner with State/local/other federal agencies in

the acquisition of high resolution LiDAR derived elevation

data for the entire Coastal area of Georgia. Acquisition of the

data will support NSDI and advance efforts related to the Na-

tional Map.

Similar to the LiDAR effort, updating the DEMs in flood-prone river

reaches across Georgia will provide for more accurate eleva-

tion contours for more accurate flood forecasting.

USGS has partnered with State/local/other federal agencies in the

development of flood tracking charts. Two charts have been

produced in Georgia.

Other agency initiatives and capabilities include hydrologic alarm

notification system, BacteriAlert, real-time bridge scour moni-

toring, real-time evacuation route monitoring, and toxic spill

extent determination.

Agency programs support Objectives OBJ1-T5, OBJ1-T6, OBJ1-

T8 and T8a, OBJ2-T3b, OBJ3-T2, OBJ3-T2g, OBJ4-T2a, and

OBJ4-T3a.

Page 152

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

6.1.2 INTEGRATION WITH REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVES

H

Regional Development Center (RDC)

A

N

Georgia's plan development utilized Regional Planning initiatives through the Regional Development Centers. A Regional Development Center (RDC) is a multi-county planning and develop-

C

ment organization that partners with local governments in their planning and development efforts

E

and can also serve as a service delivery organization. RDCs often constitute the local and re-

gional layers of Georgia's "bottom-up" planning philosophy. RDCs are owned and operated by the

D

local governments that they serve. The RDCs help counties plan and secure funding for develop-

ment with projects such as construction, repair or upgrade of roads, repair or upgrade of bridges

P

and water and sewer lines, industrial park development as well as projects related to community services, education and workforce development.

L

A

The Department of Community Affairs contracts with the RDCs to provide a variety of services

mandated in the Georgia Planning Act. These services include assisting local governments with

N

comprehensive planning and specific plan implementation activities such as developing new zon-

ing ordinances or putting a GIS system in place.

A significant number of counties contracted with the RDCs in the development of their multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation plans. GEMA mitigation staff has worked very closely with most of the State's 16 RDCs on this planning effort. Throughout the local mitigation planning process, GEMA was fortunate to have the RDCs working with local government officials on the plans. The RDCs are incorporating and referencing the connection between the State's Plan and specific programs within each of the local and regional hazard mitigation plans. Connection information in the local hazard mitigation plans will be incorporated into many of these documents as a result of this interwoven approach.

The State will continue to work with DCA and the RDCs to develop GIS capabilities which can provide communities with a better understanding of hazards that possibly affect economic development. The GEMA mitigation staff and the RDCs will continue to work closely to keep the counties informed of mitigation initiatives in their region. GEMA plans to keep a close working relationship with the RDCs in developing local plan updates as they become due.

Georgia Association of Floodplain Management

The purpose of the Georgia's Association of Floodplain Management (AFM) is to serve as a unifying force for floodplain managers within the State of Georgia, producing a support mechanism, which is ultimately aimed at branching into the nationwide network. Georgia's AFM seeks to find and make possibilities for the presence, thoughts and actions of its members to affect and integrate within public policy the best known management practices expressing collective intent and experience, thereby initiating within the general populace the recognition towards, and resonance with, sound floodplain and stormwater management as an imperative duty of environmental stewardship, described by the actions, examples and contributions of its members.

The AFM will provide educational opportunities allowing a dissemination of general and technical information, in order to keep its members abreast with the advancement of floodplain and stormwater management knowledge. AFM encourages the exchange of information, ideas and experiences among the practitioners of floodplain and stormwater management.

The State will continue to work to work with DNR and AFM on the implementation of mitigation plans and projects. GEMA staff has supported each of AFM's annual workshops in the delivery of mitigation information to its members. GEMA mitigation staff will continue to coordinate with DNR and AFM to inform them of mitigation initiatives in their region.

Page 153

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District and Flood Damage Ordinance

E

N

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD) was created by the Georgia

General Assembly in 2001 to establish policy, create plans and promote intergovernmental coordi-

H

nation of all water issues in the District from a regional perspective. The District includes sixteen

A

counties and ninety-five cities within the metro Atlanta region where over four million people, nearly half the population of the state, live.

N

C

With limited water resources and population expected to nearly double during the District's 30-

E

year planning horizon, the metro Atlanta region faces increasing challenges in managing its vital

water resources. The District plans were created to respond to these water resources challenges.

D

The District engaged in a comprehensive 2-year planning process for stormwater, wastewater and

water supply and conservation. These plans will help protect water quality and public drinking supplies, guard valuable recreational sites, and minimize the potential detrimental impacts of con-

P

tinued urban and suburban development of the region on waters in and downstream of the Dis-

L

trict. The three integrated plans offer metro jurisdictions and state officials a set of recommenda-

A

tions for actions, policies, and investment in watershed, wastewater, and water supply and conser-

vation management. The plans are sound and carefully developed to meet state laws, local

N

needs and District goals. The plans offer a blueprint that supports anticipated growth while pre-

serving the environment. Most importantly, the District plans have laid a foundation for water re-

sources management upon which a future generation may proudly build.

GA DNR-EPD assisted the MNGWPD to modify their initial flood damage prevention model ordinance to be consistent with NFIP standards and assist communities in the 16-county MNGWPD service area to adopt the model ordinance. As requested, guidance is provided on implementing the adopted ordinance. As part of Flood Map Modernization effort, checks have been completed on nearly of the participating communities in the MNGWPD to ensure that these higher standards are in place, including SFHA mapping for future conditions and extending the mapping threshold down to watersheds greater than 100 acres (compared to the NFIP standard of more than 1 square mile or 640 acres).

6.1.3 Integration with Federal Programs and Planning Initiatives

This section of the plan includes federal programs that GEMA and the State of Georgia utilize, which includes regulations that provide local communities with guidance for state and regional agencies. The State integrates several FEMA programs to accomplish our mitigation goals. The federal programs include:

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The NFIP is administered by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD). GEMA works closely with the DNR floodplain management staff on NFIP issues as project eligibility requirements for mitigation grants depends on NFIP participation. Flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping are the three main components of the NFIP. Federally backed flood insurance is available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in communities who voluntarily participate in the NFIP. Increasing participation in the NFIP and encouraging property owners to purchase flood insurance significantly reduces disaster losses. Although only about 70% of Georgia's communities participate in the NFIP, more than 97% of all Georgians can purchase flood insurance.

GEMA mitigation staff continually utilizes the floodplain mapping and flood study information. This information is critical in developing and reviewing flood hazard plans and projects. GEMA staff is in constant communication with DNR staff on the most recent data available to support mitigation plans and projects. DNR staff also complete floodplain reviews and determinations for State Agency projects including those from the Department of Education, Board of Regents, and the State Clearinghouse.

Page 154

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 155

The Georgia Floodplain Management Office recommends these three applicable model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Each ordinance complies with FEMA's floodplain management regulations as described in the 44 CFR, Section 60.3.
Coastal model flood ordinance (coastal communities only) Riverine model flood ordinance (non-coastal communities) Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (sixteen counties comprising the Wa-
ter Planning District as established in 2001 by Senate Bill 130)
Other Floodplain Management information
Floodplain Management Manual: a reference manual for local officials, floodplain administrators, and persons involved in floodplain determinations, enforcement and reviews. This document is being revised and is currently unavailable.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, and Flood Insurance Studies: Contact the Georgia Floodplain Management Office.
Offsite Links FEMA On-line Library
In an effort to increase the number of NFIP participating communities, the State requires NFIP participation to be eligible for mitigation funding. Since the inception of the HMGP, several communities have joined the NFIP in order to get HMGP funds. The majority of these new NFIP entrants can be attributed to this requirement due to the popularity of the warning grants and other statewide mitigation initiatives.
Community Rating System (CRS)
FEMA's CRS program is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. The goals of the CRS are to reduce flood losses, to facilitate accurate insurance rating, and to promote the awareness of flood insurance. The CRS has been developed to provide incentives for communities to go beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements to develop extra measures to provide protection from flooding. The incentives are in the form of premium discounts.
In Georgia, 30 communities participate in the CRS program. In partnership with DNR, GEMA mitigation staff promotes the CRS program at mitigation workshops. In an effort to increase the number of CRS participating communities and improved classification, the State incorporates CRS information into the overall ranking of mitigation projects.
Flood Map Modernization Project
On August 16, 1999, the State of Georgia entered into a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) agreement with FEMA Region IV. As part of a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) Agreement with FEMA, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has accepted delegation and responsibility of the Map Modernization Program for the State of Georgia. This agreement provides that the State of Georgia will assume responsibility for the development and updating of Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) within all 159 counties in the State. Through this agreement, the State of Georgia is provided funding by FEMA for the production of DFIRMs, as well as, for the management of the DFIRM process. The amount of funding provided to the State is determined by FEMA Region IV each fiscal year, and is a function of the success of the State in producing DFIRMs, the ability of the State to obtain costshare contributions from State or local sources, and the effectiveness of the State in linking improved floodplain management with improved floodplain mapping. The State is utilizing both state staff and consulting engineering firms to perform this work. The State's progress towards its objective is monitored quarterly by FEMA, and their agent, the National Service Provider (NSP).

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Through September 30, 2007, DFIRMS have been finalized for 20 counties.
Benefits to Georgia communities and citizens include:
The updated flood hazard data will provide current, accurate information for Georgia communities and property owners to make sound siting and design decisions when rebuilding after flood disasters, when building new structures and infrastructure, and when retrofitting existing structures.
The use of updated flood hazard data by communities for floodplain management will dramatically reduce long-term flood losses in the State of Georgia.
Updated flood hazard data will alert those at risk of flooding of the need to purchase flood insurance.
A faster and cheaper DFIRM update process. Current, updated base maps and the digital format of the DFIRMs will allow users to make
more precise flood risk determinations. The digital format if the DFIRMs will utilize the Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
computer programs for analysis and planning. The digital GIS format will allow online access to all maps 24 hours a day. The community's Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) utilized in the DFIRM production will be
useful for many engineering and planning application, such as site design, Stormwater management, transportation planning and design, and spill response.
GEMA works closely with State floodplain management staff to advance the Map Modernization program. These improved flood maps lead to a much more refined risk assessment in our ongoing efforts to reduce Georgia's flood vulnerability. Several of the recent flood mitigation projects have utilized the new data available from the map modernization program to prove the benefits of acquisition projects.
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Georgia has utilized planning, project, and technical assistance grants through the FMA program. As noted in Section 6.5, FMA funds are utilized to develop flood mitigation plans and implement projects that reduce or eliminate claims against the NFIP primarily through property acquisition.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) placed a much greater emphasis on risk-based data driven mitigation plans. Georgia has utilized primarily PDM funds to meet the state and local mitigation planning requirements of DMA2K. Only 22 of the state's 159 counties have received HMGP planning assistance. Through the Enhanced Plan, the State will receive a 33% increase in mitigation funds in the aftermath of a disaster. This will make additional funds available to meet the plan update funding needs in Georgia. HMGP grants are a major component of funding Georgia will utilize to not only update plans but to implement state and local projects identified in these

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 156

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 157

plans.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program was authorized by 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC. Funding for the program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist States and local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program.
The PDM program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds.
The 44CFR Part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning, established criteria for State and local hazard mitigation planning authorized by Section 322 of the Stafford Act, as amended by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. State and local mitigation plans meeting these criteria must be approved in order to receive PDM funds for State and local mitigation projects. Therefore, the development and update of State and local mitigation plans is essential to maintain eligibility for future PDM funding.
The State has utilized the PDM program to fund multi-jurisdictional planning grants for 121 counties. Section 6.5 includes a further discussion on the utilization of the PDM program since its inception in 2002. GEMA mitigation staff works closely with local governments to develop and submit projects and plans for funding consideration. Mitigation staff has also served on the national review panel and GEMA will continue to support the development of plans and projects for future PDM funding.
Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)
The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). The RFC program provides funds to assist States and communities reduce flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance Fund. RFC grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. Georgia has utilized project grants in the first two years of this program's existence to permanently mitigate NFIP insured structures through property acquisition.
HAZUS-MH
HAZUS-MH is a nationally applicable standardized methodology and software program that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricane winds. HAZUS-MH was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Loss estimates produced by HAZUS-MH are based on current scientific and engineering knowledge of the effects of hurricane winds, floods, and earthquakes. Estimating losses is essential to decision-making at all levels of government, providing a basis for developing mitigation plans and policies, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery planning.
HAZUS-MH uses ArcGIS software to map and display hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. It also allows users to estimate the impacts of hurricane winds, floods, and earthquakes on built environment and populations. HAZUSMH is fast-running to facilitate use in real time to support response and recovery following a natu-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ral disaster.
Several members of GEMA's staff have completed basic and advanced HAZUS-MH training at the Emergency Management Institute and have worked with Region IV personnel to develop wind and seismic scenarios and interfaced with the software developers to gain access to updated versions of the program. The HAZUS-MH was utilized in completing the initial risk assessment for wind and seismic hazards in Georgia.
The State of Georgia will work closely with FEMA and the developer to utilize the next release of HAZUS-MH MR 3 (HAZUS-MH Version 1.3). In the newest version, the Flood Model will run building analyses faster and users may import user-supplied flood maps and flood depth grids. The Hurricane Model boasts an updated and revised historical database that includes storms from 2004 and 2005. New vulnerability functions will permit calculation of additional losses to manufactured housing due to tree blowdown. Changes to the Earthquake Model include, adjustable population distribution parameters in the casualty module and the elimination of partial ignitions in the fire-following module. GEMA will coordinate with DNR to utilize the software for development of flood hazard analysis for state and local planning initiatives.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Concerning the enhanced plan element of plan integration, one of the examples of demonstrated integration with FEMA programs and initiatives include how the enhanced plan guides activities funded by EMPG. Many of the programs and activities listed in GEMA's State Agency Annex are funded through the EMPG.
One recent activity funded through the EMPG was the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) certification. EMAP is a standard-based voluntary assessment and accreditation process for state and local government programs responsible for coordinating prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities for natural and human-caused disasters. Accreditation is based on compliance with collaboratively developed national standards, the EMAP Standard. (The EMAP Standard is based on the NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/ Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2004).
Georgia received full accreditation on the 58 standards in November 2007. Emergency management accreditation represents a significant achievement for our emergency management program. The Georgia programs documented how they met national standards for their disaster preparedness and response systems. A key factor in our accreditation was the coordination and integration of the various planning documents as noted in Section 1.5.2.
6.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENATION CAPABILITY
The 44 CFR 201.5(b)(2) (i) and (ii) states the Enhanced Plan must document the State's project implementation capability, identifying and demonstrating the ability to implement the plan, including:
Established eligibility criteria for multi-hazard mitigation measures; and A system to determine the cost effectiveness of mitigation measures, consistent with
OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, and to rank the measures according to the State's eligibility criteria.
Georgia Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Division staff has overall responsibility for implementation of the Hazard Mitigation programs. These programs include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC) program, and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program. State criteria have been developed for determining eligibility for all types of proposed multi-hazard mitigation measures for these programs.

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 158

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 159

The State utilizes the procedures outlined in the HMGP administrative plan for the administration of all of the programs mentioned above. The State submitted it's last annual update to the HMGP administrative plan in March 2007 to take into account new FEMA policies/regulations and lessons learned over the past year on program administration. This plan was updated for the DR1686 disaster and approved by FEMA in July 2007.
6.2.1 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Applications that are received by the Hazard Mitigation Division for funding consideration through the HMGP, FMA, PDM, RFC, and SRL programs are reviewed for the following eligibility criteria:
Conformance with the goals and objectives of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan; Meets applicant eligibility requirements; Meets project type requirements which include but are not limited to:
Voluntary acquisition or relocation of hazard-prone structures for conversion to open space in perpetuity;
Retrofitting of existing buildings and facilities for wildfire, seismic, wind or flood hazards (i.e., elevation, storm shutters, hurricane clips), including designs and feasibility studies when included as part of the proposed project;
Construction of "safe rooms"(i.e., tornado and severe wind shelters) that meet the FEMA construction criteria in FEMA 320 "Taking Shelter from the Storm" and FEMA 361 "Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters";
Minor structural hazard control or protection projects that may include vegetation management, stormwater management (e.g., culverts, floodgates, retention basins), or shoreline/landslide stabilization;
Localized flood control projects that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities (defined as Hazardous Materials Facilities, Emergency Operation Centers, Power Facilities, Water Facilities, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Communications Facilities, Emergency Medical Care Facilities, Fire Protection, and Emergency Facilities) and that do not constitute a section of a larger flood control system;
Development of State or local plans that meet DMA2K requirements; and Projects that improve the warning and communication capabilities of local govern-
ments for severe weather or emergency events (HMGP Only). Have a beneficial impact upon the project area; Be in conformance with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wet-
lands and 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations (Applicant has coordinated with the necessary federal, state, and local entities for ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act); Solve a problem independently or constitute a functional portion of a solution where there is assurance that the project as a whole will be completed (Projects that merely identify or analyze hazards or problems without a funded, scheduled implementation program are not eligible.); Addresses a problem that has been repetitive, or a problem that poses a significant risk if left unsolved (i.e. evaluating the hazard in terms of the frequency and intensity of expected occurrences); Be cost-effective. Demonstrate that the project will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct damages (property) and subsequent negative impacts (loss of function, deaths, injuries) to the area if future disasters were to occur. Both costs and benefits will be computed on a net present value basis (i.e. obtaining expected damage estimates as a function of hazard intensity); Has been determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally sound alternative after consideration of a range of options, including the "no action" alternative; Contributes, to the extent practicable, to a long term solution to the problem it is intended to address;

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Considers long-term changes to the areas and entities it protects, and has manageable future maintenance and modification requirements; and
Have a federally approved hazard mitigation plan. If they do not (for HMGP), must have the capability and desire to complete within twelve months.
In addition, GEMA also considers the following criteria in evaluating proposed mitigation projects: Conformance with the goals and objectives of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For HMGP, project must be listed in plan; Mitigation activities that if not taken will have a severe detrimental impact on the community such as the loss of life, loss of essential services, damage to critical facilities, or economic hardship; Mitigation activities that have the greatest potential for reducing future disaster losses; Mitigation activities that are designed to accomplish multiple objectives, including damage reduction, environmental enhancement, historical preservation, recreational opportunities, and economic recovery; The community's level of interest and demonstrated degree of commitment to mitigation programs and activities; Communities participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); (GEMA coordinates closely with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources in determining a community's compliance with the NFIP) The proposed project does not encourage development in a Special Flood Hazard Area; Applicant has the ability to provide for the non-federal cost share; and Applicant and/or local government that are receiving the mitigation benefit must be in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (exception for planning grants)
6.2.2 COST EFFECTIVENESS DETERMINATION
As stated in the above criteria, projects have to be cost-effective. Only projects with a benefit-cost ratio of at least 1 to 1 are forwarded to FEMA for funding consideration. The State utilizes a system to determine the cost-effectiveness of all mitigation measures consistent with OMB Circular A94 for each project application submitted to FEMA for funding with the exception of Planning, TA/ Management, and Initiative projects. Prior to mitigation grant applications being scored for competitive ranking, GEMA Hazard Mitigation Staff works closely with each applicant to get sufficient documentation to determine if the proposed applications are cost-effective. Only projects with a benefit-cost ratio exceeding 1.0 are ranked for further funding consideration. Each analysis utilizes the most recent BCA tools approved and provided by FEMA. State Mitigation staff work very closely with the sub-applicants on proposed grants to ensure they meet the minimum benefit cost requirements.
Although the state mitigation staff completes the benefit-cost analysis, they depend on information in the application provided by the community. To help communities develop mitigation projects that are as cost-effective as possible, and that have a benefit of one dollar for each dollar of cost, the mitigation staff developed the Pre-applications and application specific worksheets for each type of project and are used for all of the mitigation programs. The information requested on the worksheets provides staff with the data necessary for an accurate and complete benefit-cost analysis. On acquisition projects sub-applicants submit the acquisition worksheets for benefit-cost review, prior to moving forward with the completion of the full application. The worksheets can be found in Appendix D of the HMGP July 2007 Administrative Plan.
The State has extensive experience in utilizing the FEMA developed benefit-cost modules. Since October 1, 1995, the State has utilized FEMA developed software to complete benefit-cost (BC) reviews for each mitigation project submitted for federal funding. Due to the high number of flood mitigation projects, the state has gained the most experience in utilizing the FEMA flood BC models (both Full Data and Limited Data).
In table 6.2.2.a, 176 of the 412 approved projects had a detailed benefit-cost analysis submitted

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 160

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 161

with the application. The other approved projects were exempt from BC review. The exempt projects consisted of planning, management and initiative type projects.

Table 6.2.2.a Program

Project Type

HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP FMA FMA FMA FMA FMA PDM PDM PDM PDM PDM PDM RFC RFC Total

Acquisition Elevation Acquisition/Relocation Acquisition/Elevation Acquisition/Drainage Retrofit (Wind, Flood, Lightning) Drainage Improvement Warning/Initiative Planning Management Acquisition Elevation Planning Drainage Improvement Management Planning Acquisition Drainage Improvement Elevation Tornado Shelter Management Acquisition Management

Number of Projects
51 4 4 3 2 15 49 172 9 19 16 2 12 2 9 8 18 6 1 1 5 2 2 412

BC Reviews
51 4 4 3 2 15 49 Exempt Exempt Exempt 16 2 Exempt 2 Exempt Exempt 18 6 1 1 Exempt 2 Exempt 176

Our track record as a state and as an agency for submitting eligible projects for mitigation funding is exceptional, as the overwhelming majority of all projects submitted for funding consideration have received FEMA approval
As part of populating the mitigated properties database, the State Mitigation staff is currently reviewing the BC information on all closed projects and ensuring that we have an updated BC analysis for all mitigated properties. This information is critical in documenting future successes of our completed mitigation activities.
Based on our review of all approved HMGP mitigation projects that had a property acquisition or elevation component, the State has completed an analysis using either the Full Data or Limited Data FEMA approved modules on more than 1,700 properties. Please note this number only includes approved grants and does not include the hundreds of analysis completed on proposed grants that did not meet the minimum benefit cost requirements, as this data was not tracked in any of our historical databases. The State does not submit projects to FEMA for funding consideration where minimum federal project criteria are not met.
Based on our review of all approved HMGP mitigation projects that had a wind retrofit or building retrofit component, the State has completed an analysis using either the Hurricane or Tornado FEMA approved modules on 34 properties.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

The success the State has enjoyed in the PDM-C program since its inception in 2003 is directly

N

related to the technical accuracy, supporting documentation completeness, and credibility of the

data in demonstrating the projects submitted for funding are cost-effective.

H

A

All State Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation Division staff have received benefit-cost training from FEMA Region IV or at EMI to fully understand how to utilize the FEMA benefit-cost

N

modules for completing the benefit-cost analysis. Each new employee as part of their training is

C

required to attend the next available FEMA offered BC training courses. In the event one is not

E

available within three months, State Hazard Mitigation staff conducts intra-divisional training.

D

From an historical perspective, the State has implemented hazard mitigation eligibility criteria re-

views in 16 presidential declared disasters on over 400 projects since 1990. In addition, similar types of reviews are done for the Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Claims and PDM-

P

C programs. The projects submitted have been diverse in nature and include drainage improve-

L

ments, acquisition, elevation, wind retrofit, tornado shelter, planning, and many warning initiative

A

projects.

N

6.2.3 System to Rank Projects

GEMA Hazard Mitigation Division Staff reviews all proposed mitigation measures to ensure that the proposed projects are eligible and meet minimum criteria as outlined above. In evaluating proposed projects, GEMA reviews, ranks and scores proposed projects. The State review criteria include a scoring sheet to determine potential for funding and overall priority within the application process. There are two basic types of projects: Regular Program Projects and Initiative Projects. Each has its own score sheet. The main categories utilized in ranking the Regular Program project submissions include natural hazard, history of damages, type of mitigation, potential impact on community, estimated environmental impact, community commitment to mitigation, and benefits. The ranking categories in the Initiative Project score sheet include History of Tornado Hazard in County, Potential Benefit to Community, Cost Effectiveness and Intangible Factors.

Each category within either score sheet is given a maximum range of points. Point amounts were developed over several years by the Hazard Mitigation staff and are based primarily upon HMGP guidelines. Maximum point possibilities per category range from 5 to 25 points and are listed below. The maximum amount of points any one project could accumulate would be 100. The Regular Program score sheet has a possible 10 bonus points which can be used in a tie breaker situation.

Categories included in the Regular Program score sheet are described here:

Natural Hazard Score The natural hazard score is dependant upon the type of disaster, its location in regard to the coast and if a tornado is involved. A maximum of 25 points is possible in this section, depending upon the following criteria: the total amount of damage, the amount of flooding, proximity to the coast line and historic record of tornados in that area. In a post-disaster environment, priorities are established by the disaster type(s). In the event of multiple disasters scoring will be calculated for each event and combined to give an overall score. (In some situations with multiple disasters the score could exceed 25)

History of Damage in Project Area Historical records of events in a county/project area and the likelihood of the event happening again will determine the total amount of points issued in this category. Five points are given for every event documented, up to a maximum of five events. The highest amount available in this category is 25 points.

Type of Mitigation In this category the reviewer must determine if the mitigative action is NonStructural or Structural. Examples of Non-Structural projects are flood proofing, retrofitting, elevation, acquisition and the implementation of stricter building codes. Structural

Page 162

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 163

projects would entail; levees, flood walls, and storm water drainage improvements. The most effective type of mitigative action can garner 5 points.
Potential Impact on Community Projects are prioritized by their ability to eliminate or reduce the effects upon the community by a disaster event. The failure to implement a project can have either a severe, moderate or no potential impact on a community. Depending upon the amount of perceived future impact avoidance, a project can accumulate up to 15 points.
Estimated Environmental Impact Environmental impact is broken into three categories; Major, Moderate and Insignificant. A maximum of 5 points is awarded to the project according to its ability to reduce the impact of a disaster to the environment.
Intangible Factors These factors include whether or not a community is storm ready, its CRS rating, amount of local cost share paid by the community and the community's experience in successfully completing mitigation projects.
Benefits One point is awarded per $500,000 in hazard avoidance benefits to a community with a maximum of 15 points.
Bonus Point Section (Tie Breaker) The State utilizes the quality of the data in the application as a tie-breaker if needed. A maximum of 10 points can be given to an application depending upon the quality of the data in the application, the amount of hazard data, damage history, cost data and environmental impact analysis. It is in this section that two applications with very similar scores are compared and a tie breaker is issued.
Initiative projects are non-competitive; however, they are competitive between each other for the funds available. Categories included in the most recently used Initiative Program score sheet are described here:
History of Tornado Hazard in County The more likely a tornado event will occur determines the amount of points awarded a project. The likelihood is calculated based on the history of tornados in that area. The higher the likelihood the higher the points to a maximum of 25.
Potential Benefit to Community One quarter of a point is awarded per 1,000 population warned per device. Maximum award possible 25 points.
Cost Effectiveness ($/per capita warned) Cost effectiveness is broken down into 6 categories. Points are awarded based on the overall cost per capita warned. Maximum award is 25 points.
Intangible Factors These factors include whether or not a community is storm ready and the communities experience in successfully completing mitigation projects. A maximum of 25 points can be awarded in this category.
Based on State priorities, non-structural projects such as acquisition, demolition, and relocation generally receive the highest ranking and the greatest consideration for funding. Planning projects are given priority over structural and non-structural projects due to the fact that a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan is a requirement for a community to be eligible for a federal grant. Therefore, planning projects always receives a higher ranking than a structural or non-structural application. Counties involved in a Presidential Declaration are given priority over non-declared counties.
The Enhanced Plan Appendix provides the score sheet used for the PDM-C competitive grant for FY 2007, which was adapted from the HMGP score sheet. The state also uses the same score sheet to rank projects in the RFC and SRL programs. The HMGP score sheet is shown in Appendix E of the State Administrative Plan dated July 2007.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

For the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, additional criteria includes that the community has

N

an approved Community Rating System plan or flood mitigation plan with the proposed project

identified in the plan, and the proposed project must address mitigating an NFIP insured property

H

with repetitive loss properties receiving priority.

A

6.3 Program Management Capability

N

C

The 44 CFR 201.5(b)(2) (iii A-D) states the Enhanced Plan must document that the State has the

E

capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant programs, and provide

a record of the following:

D

Meeting HMGP and other mitigation grant application timeframes and submitting com-

P

plete, technically feasible, and eligible project applications with appropriate supporting documentation;

L

Preparing and submitting accurate environmental reviews and benefit-cost analyses;

A

Submitting complete and accurate quarterly progress and financial reports on time; and

N

Completing HMGP and other mitigation grant projects within established performance pe-

riods, including financial reconciliation.

This section of the plan demonstrates the State's capabilities to effectively manage the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and other mitigation grant funds, including funds from the PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) programs.

6.3.1 Application Timelines and Grant Submission

The most recent update to the State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in July 2007 details how the State Hazard Mitigation Division staff administers the hazard mitigation grant programs. This plan includes the information on the mitigation grant application process. Although there is not a specific administrative plan for the Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Claim, or the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, the same general procedures are utilized for these programs as those for the HMGP. How the mitigation staff handles the notification of hazard mitigation grant funds and the application process are summarized below from the administrative plan:

Upon receiving the notice from FEMA on the availability of mitigation funds, the State solicits applications statewide. Included is information on funding availability, eligibility criteria, State's priorities, application deadlines, and availability of technical assistance. Application notices are distributed to all the County Emergency Management offices statewide, and local government officials through a state-wide press release and through ACCG and GMA, and if post-disaster to all of the Public Assistance applicants in the declared area, and communities with mitigation funding needs. The application information is also posted on the GEMA website. The mitigation staff maintains an ongoing list of communities interested in applying for mitigation funds, and these communities are also notified on the application process.
For the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program, due to the restrictions of the program, applications are mailed only to those communities with approved Community Rating System and/or flood mitigation plans.
Potential applicants are identified through information gathered in the Preliminary Damage Assessment, community site visits, and information provided by the Public Assistance Officer based on information provided through contacts in that program.
In the post disaster situation, a detailed overview of the HMGP and planning requirements are presented at Applicants Briefings and/or Substantial Damage Determination Workshops, if held.

Page 164

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Pre-applications are solicited for each of the mitigation programs. For HMGP,

N

they will be disseminated within 90 days of the declaration date.

H

Applicants will generally have 60 days to complete their pre-applications. The preapplication form and instructions are shown in Appendix C of the HMGP Administra-

A

tive Plan. There is a unique pre-application for each project type.

N

Each pre-application is reviewed for funding potential and pre-screened for eligibility

by Hazard Mitigation Staff. Part of this eligibility review includes BCA.

C

Only cost-effective eligible type projects are scored and ranked.

E

Based on the ranking, state priorities and funding availability, applicants are selected

D

for full application development. The full application can be found in Appendix D of the HMGP Administrative Plan. Communities will normally have 90 days to complete

the full application and submit to GEMA.

P

For all federal mitigation programs, i.e., HMGP, FMA, PDM-C, and RFC, applicants

L

are required to provide extensive information to support their proposed projects:

A

Primary and secondary contact persons for the project, i.e., designation of

N

applicant's agent

Project cost estimate

Identification of source for local match requirements

Project title and detailed description

Information on direct and indirect damages and other impacts. This information is for the benefit-cost analysis (see section below for more details on preparing and submitting accurate BCA)
Project location including appropriate maps

Pictures of the project site Required future maintenance for the project

Work schedule including milestones and estimated completion date

Cost breakdown for the project

Considered alternatives for HMGP (at least two besides the proposed project)

Environmental considerations (see section below for more details on preparing and submitting accurate environmental reviews)
Mitigation Plan status and project conformance.

NFIP Status Assurances for construction and non-construction projects

Letter of endorsement from Local Planning team/EMA director State mitigation staff work closely with potential applicants and provides technical as-
sistance to assist applicants in completing full applications.

Mitigation staff reviews each application for completeness and ensure that adequate information has been provided to determine that the project meets minimum eligibility requirements.

If the application is complete and the project meets eligibility requirements, mitigation staff will update the BCA with the information provided in the full application for the proposed project and update the ranking.
Mitigation staff will complete the required environmental review process on eligible projects with a positive BCA.

For the HMGP, the Hazard Mitigation Director will make a recommendation to the GEMA Director who will make the final decision regarding the selection of projects to forward to FEMA for final approval. Applications will be submitted to FEMA within 12 months of the disaster declaration. In extenuating circumstances, the State may request a 6 month extension to this deadline. GEMA will submit the grantee and subgrantee applications.

For the FMA program, the Hazard Mitigation Director will make a recommendation to the GEMA Director who will make the final decision regarding the selection of projects to forward to FEMA for final approval. Applications will be submitted to FEMA within

Page 165

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

the allocated timeframe established by FEMA. GEMA will submit the grantee and

E

subgrantee applications utilizing FEMA's e-Grants system.

N

For the PDM-C, complete applications that meet the minimum program requirements will be prioritized. The Hazard Mitigation Director will make a recommendation to the

H

GEMA Director who will make the final decision regarding the selection of projects to

A

forward to FEMA for consideration. GEMA will submit the grantee and subgrantee applications utilizing FEMA's e-grants system.

N

For the RFC, complete applications that meet the minimum program requirements will

C

be prioritized. The Hazard Mitigation Director will make a recommendation to the

E

GEMA Director who will make the final decision regarding the selection of projects to forward to FEMA for consideration. GEMA will submit the grantee and subgrantee

D

applications.

HMGP Performance

P

L

Within the past three years (since July 1, 2004) the State has implemented the HMGP for three

A

presidential disaster declarations. For both the DR1554 and DR1560, all of the regular program projects submitted by local governments as a result of our request for applications were funded

N

through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive grant program for FY2005. Therefore, addi-

tional time was needed to develop applications to utilize the available funding from these two dis-

asters. The State requested on July 18, 2005 and received approval from FEMA on September

13, 2005 to extend the deadline an additional 6 months for both the DR1554 and DR1560 applica-

tions. All of the grant applications for these two disasters were submitted within the extended

deadline. The applications submitted were sufficient to expend the allocation for each disaster.

All twelve project applications submitted to FEMA for these two disasters were determined to be

technically feasible and eligible project applications with appropriate supporting documentation.

For DR1686, the State is in the middle of the grant application process. Pre-applications have been requested and received. Based on the 3 month program estimate, a sufficient number of projects have been identified through the pre-application process, and the State is working with local governments on their submission of fully developed project applications by November 2007. The State is on track to submit all HMGP applications within 12 months of the declaration date of March 3, 2008. The Enhanced Plan appendix includes specific information on the most recent HMGP application.

Table 6.3.1.a provides a snapshot as of September 30, 2007, for each presidential disaster declaration of the number of HMGP projects approved and managed by the State. This table provides a good indication of the numbers of grants and amount of federal funding the State has effectively managed or currently managing in the various mitigation programs. A * after the disaster number denotes the disaster is closed. Disasters 1554 and 1560 are projected to close in the next federal fiscal year. DR1686 is not included in this table as project submission and approvals have not yet occurred.

Page 166

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Table 6.3.1.a

N

Hazard Mitigation Grant Project Summary

H

Disaster

Approved Projects

Open Projects

Closed Projects

Federal Funds Expended

A

N

C

0857*

E

0880* 0897*

D

0969*

3

0

3

796,538

2

0

2

455,147

5

0

5

178,870

1

0

1

72,572

0980*

1

0

1

52,857

P

1020*

L

1033*

A

1042* 1071*

N

1209*

4

0

4

837,277

190

0

190

60,955,469

9

0

9

2,210,706

14

0

14

2,834,575

64

0

64

8,780,109

1271*

4

0

4

495,343

1311*

8

0

8

5,289,650

1315*

11

0

11

662,973

1554

6

5

1

765,374

1560

6

5

1

867,291

Sub-total

328

10

318

85,254,751

Exemplary Performance

In an effort to expedite the delivery of HMGP, the following example is provided to further demonstrate the State's ability to submit eligible applications well before application timeframes.
In March 2000, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into between FEMA and GEMA recognizing the state of Georgia's program management capability, and streamlining the HMGP process by accelerating the project approval and obligation process for acquisition projects funded through DR1311. The MOA was developed to build a FEMA-State collaborative partnership for the implementation of the HMGP. The agreement defined the roles and responsibilities of each agency, and the process for HMGP eligibility and execution. Per the agreement GEMA agreed to:
Work together with FEMA to accomplish joint mitigation goals of reducing repetitive losses through property acquisition and/or elevation;
Perform eligibility reviews for full project applications; Apply streamlined procedures for certain project types as identified in the MOA to ex-
pedite the review and approval process for property acquisitions and elevations; Provide complete project applications to FEMA within 60 days of the MOA with the
objective of having funds awarded by May 27, 2000.
The MOA can be found in the Enhanced Plan Appendix. The State submitted six projects through this MOA with four of the projects obligated in July 2000, just 5 months after the disaster declaration date. The results of this pilot were very successful as implementation of the HMGP was fasttracked months ahead of what normally would have occurred. Sixty-five residential properties were mitigated by local governments through this disaster declaration through acquisition, of which forty were repetitive loss properties. Another key factor in making this initiative successful was the commitment by the State of Georgia to provide 15% of the total approved cost, thereby reducing the non-federal match requirement of local governments by 60%.

Page 167

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Non-Disaster Programs Performance

E

N

Within the past three years (since July 1, 2004) the State has taken advantage of each program

FEMA has offered in the non-disaster mitigation program area. With the exception of RFC, the

H

application intake is managed through FEMA's eGrants system, and only those projects submitted

A

by the State's deadline are eligible for consideration. The State has submitted a successful grant application for each non-disaster mitigation programs. Each of the project applications submitted

N

to FEMA had sub-applications that were reviewed and approved by FEMA Regional/HQ staff.

C

E

Tables 6.3.1.b-d provide a snapshot as of September 30, 2007, for each of the non-disaster pro-

grams of the number of projects approved and managed by the State. This table provides a good

D

indication of the numbers of grants and amount of federal funding the State has effectively man-

aged or currently managing in the various mitigation programs. The mitigation staff's program management ability is effectively demonstrated by their success in each year of the Pre-Disaster

P

Mitigation Competitive Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance, and Repetitive Flood Claims Pro-

L

gram funding cycles.

A

Table 6.3.1.b Flood Hazard Mitigation Assistance Project Summary

N

Program Year

Approved Projects

Open Projects

Closed Projects

Federal Funds Expended

FMA97 FMA98 FMA99 FMA00 FMA01 FMA02 FMA03 FMA04 FMA05 FMA06 FMA07 Sub-total

5

0

5

171,993

2

0

2

39,600

1

0

1

18,789

1

0

1

21,200

4

0

4

397,653

4

0

4

224,338

3

0

3

186,386

4

4

0

90,722

3

3

0

122,332

10

10

0

330,590

4

4

0

0

41

21

20

1,801,903

All of the submitted applications for the FMA program have been considered eligible for funding consideration. The State received notification of the FMA07 award in September 2007.

Table 6.3.1.c Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Summary

Program Year

Approved Projects

Open Projects

Closed Projects

Federal Funds Expended

PDM02 PDM03 PDMC03 PDMC05 PDMC06 PDMC07 Sub-total

2

0

3

3

14

11

11

11

4

4

5

5

39

34

2

493,659

0

251,063

3

4,259,853

0

3,360,658

0

184,459

0

0

5

8,549,692

In the PDMC03 program year, three of the approved projects were to develop DMA2K compliant

Page 168

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

plans in 104 counties. In the PDMC05 program year, one of the approved projects was to develop

N

DMA2K compliant plans in 17 counties. These four project awards were administered as an indi-

vidual planning award to 121 counties.

H

A

The State has submitted a total of 51 applications in the Pre-Disaster Program since its inception

N

in 2002. Thirty-nine (76%) of these projects have been selected and awarded federal funds.

C

Table 6.3.1.d Repetitive Flood Claim Project Summary

E

Program Year

Approved Open Pro-

Closed

Federal Funds

D

Projects

jects

Projects

Expended

P L A N
Page 169

RFC06 RFC07 Sub-total

2

2

0

2

2

0

4

4

0

8,057 0
8,057

The State has submitted a total of 4 applications in the Repetitive Flood Claims Program since its inception in 2006. All of the submitted projects have been considered eligible, selected and awarded federal funds.
6.3.2 PREPARING AND SUBMITTING ACCURATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
The State of Georgia relies on the staff of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV to conduct environmental reviews and prepare the environmental document on all submitted mitigation applications.
As part of the application process, the State requires documentation from the sub-applicant to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and standards including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (PL 91-190, as amended).
The State provides information to each applicant on the necessary environmental coordination that must be completed as part of the application process. The State reviews each applicant's environmental documentation prior to forwarding it to FEMA. GEMA has staff with extensive experience in environmental review which is utilized as necessary on complex construction projects. The State has successfully worked with each applicant on getting the required environmental documentation to comply with the NEPA process.
6.3.3 PREPARING AND SUBMITTING ACCURATE BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS (BCA)
As discussed in the section on project implementation capability, the State has a track record of submitting accurate benefit-cost analysis that meets FEMA criteria for hazard mitigation projects. Basic information the State obtains and utilizes to conduct accurate BCAs includes, but is not limited to:
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) data or historical flood data. This includes flood frequency, discharge and elevation.
Past damages at the project site or in the project area. Well documented cost-estimate for the project. Useful life of the project. Square footage of the building/s and replacement values along with contents value. Function of the facility. Associated future maintenance costs. Displacement costs. Temporary relocation costs. Loss of Use Elevation Certificates or certification from land surveyor of finished floor elevation

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

GEMA mitigation staff utilizes their experience to assist in determining the appropriate FEMA approved BC module to use for each project. Based on the type of project and information provided in the pre-application and application will determine which benefit cost analysis module will be used to determine the project's cost effectiveness.
The BCA determines whether the cost of investing in a project today, will result in sufficiently reduced damages in the future to justify spending the money on the project. If the benefit is greater than the cost, then the project is cost-effective. Cost effectiveness is determined by comparing the project cost to the value of damages prevented after the mitigation measure. If the dollarvalue of the benefits exceeds the cost of funding the project, the project is cost-effective. To arrive at a ratio, the benefits are divided by the costs, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The BCR simply states whether the benefits exceed the project costs, and by how much. To arrive at a BCR, divide the benefits by the cost. If the result is 1.0 or greater, then the project is costeffective. If it is less then 1.0, it is not cost-effective.
A narrative analysis is used when the benefits of a project cannot be easily quantified into specific categories and do not conform to any of the other modules or formats. This analysis allows for a subjective, broad-based approach to quantify the benefits of a project so that all benefits of the project can be recorded and the project objectively assessed. This type of analysis is used normally in the HMGP 5% State Initiative projects.
If the project is cost-effective, it is considered by GEMA for funding consideration and full application development. If the project is not cost-effective, mitigation staff would attempt to obtain additional information from the applicant to arrive at a positive BCA. If there is no additional credible data available or all available data has been utilized, and the project is still not cost-effective, the project is not considered for full application development.
The mitigation staff's ability to complete accurate BCAs was demonstrated by their success in all funding rounds to date of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance and Repetitive Flood Claims programs. The State has submitted a total of 54 projects since 2003 that have been reviewed at the national level in a competitive grant program. A total of 41 project applications have been selected and awarded. Of the non-awarded projects, ten were deemed eligible but not selected due to funding constraints and the three remaining projects not selected by FEMA were determined to have BCA issues that the local governments elected not to pursue under reconsideration.
In addition, the State has completed Data Documentation Templates for all applications submitted since 2005. This form is utilized to document each piece of data and the values that are input into the various FEMA benefit-cost models. This form documents the accuracy of the BCA. The State will continue to utilize this form with the submission of BCAs on all submitted projects to continue to document the information utilized in performing the BCA.
The State of Georgia has an excellent record of providing timely, complete, and accurate quarterly progress and financial reports on all funded hazard mitigation grants for the HMGP, FMA, PDM, and RFC programs. Separate financial reports are submitted quarterly from the Office of Planning and Budget for each of the open disasters.
The State provides an enhanced quarterly and financial report on all open mitigation projects. This report includes detail on work completed; work remaining, project delays (if any), and all associated financial information. This reporting format has been shared at Regional meetings with other Region IV states as a model format for other states to follow. Starting with federal fiscal year 2007, the quarterly report submissions have included budget-comparison reports on each of the State's open management grants. This information will be included in all future quarterly reports.
The following summarizes the process that the mitigation staff follows in meeting quarterly reporting requirements. This information can also be found in the Program Management Section of the

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 170

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 171

HMGP Administrative Plan. The grantee-subgrantee agreements located in Exhibit F of the administrative plan contains the quarterly report form local governments must submit as a condition of the grant award. GEMA uses the same procedures for FMA, RFC and PDM programs.
Upon project approval notification from FEMA, a State/Local Grantee/Subgrantee Agreement is prepared by GEMA and sent to the subgrantee for signature. Upon receipt of the signed agreement, the GEMA Director signs the agreement and a fully executed agreement is sent to the subgrantee with instructions to start the project. The signed agreement requires the subgrantee to submit quarterly status reports within 15 days of the end of the quarter. Due dates are January 15, April 15, July 15 and October 15. Quarterly reports contain information such as grant amount spent to date, anticipated completion date, anticipated cost overruns (or underruns), activities completed, activities remaining, problems in implementing the project, and other information pertinent to the project. As an incentive to receiving timely quarterly reports from each subgrantee, the State requires all reports to be current in order to process progress payments. Approximately two weeks before the end of the calendar quarter, GEMA sends out a reminder to all subgrantees that the quarterly report is due on the 15th of the following month.
Information from the sub-applicant's quarterly report is entered into the State's Mitigation Management System (MMS). This Microsoft Access based system has been utilized to generate the quarterly report since the first quarter of 2001. The MMS is used to generate the quarterly report to FEMA for all open mitigation grants in HMGP, PDM, FMA, and RFC program. Projects closed during the past quarter are also printed and included in the report. All other closed projects are excluded from the report.
6.3.4 QUARTERLY REPORTS
The quarterly report consists of a letter with narrative information regarding each open disaster declaration, FMA open grants, PDM and PDM-C grants, and RFC grants as well as information on other activities that the mitigation staff has been involved in with for the quarter. In addition, a project summary spreadsheet is completed for each program detailing the status of each funded program listing both closed and open projects. The MMS printout and budget comparison reports complete the quarterly report package. A sample of an applicant's quarterly report format and the State's quarterly report submission is included in the Enhanced Plan Appendix.
In addition to the quarterly report submitted for each of the open projects, the Office of Planning and Budget submits the FF 20-10 financial reports and the PMS 272 Federal Cash Transaction Report for each of the open disasters. The submitted reports are consistent with SMARTLINK and based on the approved supplements received from FEMA. When our internal financial tracking system based on supplements received is not in balance with SMARTLINK, the State notifies FEMA program staff to get the missing supplements, so that our reports will balance at the end of each quarter.
6.3.5 GRANT COMPLETION AND CLOSEOUT
The following summarizes the process that the mitigation staff follows in monitoring approved grants, and completing project and declaration closeouts within established performance periods including financial reconciliation.
The State/Local Grantee/subgrantee Agreement that is signed by both GEMA and the subgrantee requires the subgrantee to begin the project within 90 days of the grant approval and complete the project per the schedule submitted with the application (not to exceed three years from project obligation date.) In addition, they are required to submit a closeout request covering all aspects of the project within 30 days after project completion.
If the subgrantee cannot complete the project within the identified performance period per the grant agreement, a request for a time extension must be submitted to GEMA 90 days prior to the end of the performance period. Requests for time extensions needs to explain why the completion

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

date cannot be met, how much of the project work remains, and an estimated date for completion. If an extension request for any project means that the activity period will go beyond the State's performance period (or closeout date for disasters), GEMA will request up to a one-year time performance extension. This request will be submitted to FEMA 60 days prior to the end of the performance period.
All mitigation projects that receive federal funding go through the same financial reconciliation as part of the closeout process. State Mitigation staff utilizes the signed grantee-subgrantee agreement with each applicant to monitor progress of their project and ensure the project is on track. Site visits are scheduled at one per quarter and more as necessary. Upon written notification of project completion, the State conducts a final inspection to ensure the project is completed per the terms of the agreement. Since 2001, the State has taken digital photographs of each mitigation site and captured the GPS coordinates. As part of the final inspection, all financial documents are reviewed to ensure only allowable costs are reimbursed, consistent with Office of Management and Budget circulars. Project closeout requests are made to FEMA upon completion of final inspection and financial reconciliation on a project-by-project basis. In the project closeout request, GEMA certifies to FEMA that costs incurred in the performance of eligible work are allowable, that the approved work was completed, and that the mitigation measure is in compliance with the Federal-State Agreement (for the HMGP) or Agreement Articles (for non-disaster programs) and the State/Local Assistance Agreement. GEMA mitigation staff will prepare a project closeout worksheet which is submitted to FEMA Region IV along with a request to close the grant. The financial reconciliation and project closeout requests are completed within 90 days of the final inspection. Upon receipt of final claim amounts from FEMA, any remaining funds are liquidated and closeout notice sent to the subgrantee. A sample closeout request is contained in the Enhanced Plan Appendix.
When all projects are completed and closed out for the disaster declaration, GEMA prepares the Declaration Closeout Letter and final financial status report, SF269a, for the HMGP and forwards to them to FEMA. An example of the most recent disaster closeout is provided in the Enhanced Plan Appendix.
The subgrantee and grantee closeout reports are valuable for not only historical purposes and in monitoring projects for adherence to certain grant agreements such as open space deed restrictions, but they are also valuable in documenting disaster avoidance and developing success stories. The closeout reports including those properties that have been acquired will be shared with the Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Management staff. This information is useful by floodplain management staff during community assistance contacts and visits. In addition, during these visits floodplain management staff can monitor the acquired sites to ensure that the subgrantees have adhered to the required deed restrictions.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Georgia has had 16 presidential declared disasters since 1990 that has generated HMGP funds. Thirteen of the 16 presidential declared disasters have been closed. As noted above, two disasters are projected to close in the next federal fiscal year. The most recent disaster, DR-1686 is just getting rolled out at the time of this plan update.
Table 6.3.1.a lists each disaster and the number of projects successfully closed. To date, the State has closed 318 HMGP projects.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
Since the start of the Flood Mitigation program in 1997, the State has successfully closed out all approved projects within established performance periods. The State has taken advantage of funding for plans, projects, and technical assistance activities for each fiscal year the money has been available. All program activities from 1996 through 2003 have been completed and closed. Program activities funded in FY04 are scheduled to be completed this federal fiscal year. All other

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 172

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

open projects are on schedule to close within the expected and approved timelines. Per Regional

N

program manager's request, the State uses the enhanced reporting procedures available in the

MMS system to report on all FMA projects. The State utilizes the administrative procedures es-

H

tablished for the HMGP for the management of this program. Table 6.3.1.b lists the FMA program

A

awards by year and the number of projects successfully closed. To date, the State has closed 20

N

FMA projects.

C

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

E

Since the start of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program in 2002, the State has successfully closed

D

out all approved projects within established performance periods. The State has taken advantage

of funding for plans, projects, and technical assistance activities for each fiscal year the money

P

has been available. All program activities in 2002 have been completed and closed. Program activities funded in FY03 are scheduled to be completed next fiscal year. All other open projects

L

are on schedule to close within the expected and approved timelines. The State utilizes the MMS

A

system to report on all PDM projects. The State utilizes the administrative procedures established

for the HMGP for the management of this program. Table 6.3.1.c lists the PDM program award by

N

year and the number of projects successfully closed. To date, the State has successfully closed 3

PDM projects. Significant closeout activity is underway for the PDM03 projects with the majority

closing this fiscal year.

Repetitive Flood Claim Program

This program was new in 2006 so no closeout activities have occurred in the program.

6.4 ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

The 44 CFR 201.5(b)(2)(iv) states the Enhanced Plan must document the system and strategy by which the State will conduct an assessment of the completed mitigation actions and include a record of the effectiveness (actual cost avoidance) of each mitigation action.

6.4.1 SYSTEM TO ASSESS MITIGATION ACTIONS

The State will utilize the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS) to conduct an assessment of completed mitigation actions and include the effectiveness or actual losses avoided for each action. Much work has been accomplished over the past three years towards the task of setting up a system for which the State can track the effectiveness and success of all mitigation actions. In 2004, the concept of developing a mitigated properties database was finalized and a Lotus Notes application was created to help capture site specific information about each completed mitigation project in Georgia. In 2006, the State partnered with the Carl Vinson Institute of Government Office of Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) on porting this application to the web-based GMIS.

The enhanced plan appendix shows several screen shots of this system and the information collected on each site that has had a mitigation action completed. Some of the key information collected through this database includes:

Applicant Property Address Parcel Number GIS Coordinates Mitigation Activity Completed Structure Type Structure Size

Page 173

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Replacement Value of property mitigated (Structure and Contents)

E

Damage Source

N

Hazard Data

H

Elevation Data

A

Benefits

N

The State Hazard Mitigation Division is currently populating the database for all completed and

C

closed projects within the HMGP, FMA, and PDM programs. The database is greater than 98%

E

completed with 1,115 records in the system. The State expects to complete the database by Sep-

D

tember 30, 2008. The database is updated by State Hazard Mitigation Division staff on completed

mitigation projects as part of the closeout process. This process and sample forms are described

in the HMGP Administrative Plan July 2007.

P

6.4.2 STRATEGY TO ASSESS MITIGATION ACTIONS

L

A

The following action steps will be taken to effectively assess completed mitigation actions in Geor-

N

gia:

Finish the process of populating the Mitigated Properties Database on all completed
mitigation projects that are administered by GEMA.
Incorporate mitigation activities completed by other agencies into the Mitigated Prop-
erties database.
Review Hazard Event information submitted to GEMA to determine the potential for
loss reduction as a result of all completed mitigated actions documented in the Mitigated Properties system.
Upon determination that the completed mitigation action resulted in a reduction of
damages, data will be entered into the Mitigated Properties database and a computation of damages avoided for each structure mitigated.

Each local mitigation plan update will have a section that discusses completed mitigation actions and successes, which will be consistent with the State maintained database. Local governments will be able to access the data in the GMIS for their community and pull reports for their counties and municipalities on completed mitigation actions and any avoided losses as a result of hazard events documented in the project area after the projects are completed.

Record of Actual Cost Avoidance

A critical component to estimate the actual avoided losses is having accurate information on the hazard event and information about the exposure of the property to damages. Scenario losses are computed based on established hazard damage relationships such as depth damage curves for wind and flood events provided by FEMA in benefit-cost modules. For flood events, avoided losses can be computed by knowing how much flooding would have occurred at the site by comparing the finished floor elevation data with the water surface elevation of the hazard event. Applying the depth damage curves and additional information collected allows one to compute scenario losses at the site that would have occurred if the structure had not been mitigated.

Studies were completed by FEMA and the State on the effectiveness of completed mitigation actions (acquisitions) in the cities of Newton and Albany and Dougherty County at the time of the 1998 flood event. Additional successes were documented in Douglas and DeKalb Counties after the Hurricane Ivan event in 2004. This information has been incorporated into the Mitigated Properties section of GMIS. Currently there are 137 records in the database totaling $6.9 million in losses avoided.

Page 174

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

This database will be an ongoing tool to capture success stories on future disaster events. By

N

capturing information at the property level, the State can at any time create a report on the effec-

tiveness of any completed mitigation project.

H

A

The State has utilized most of the initiative funding within the HMGP on projects to improve the

N

warning and communication capabilities of local governments. The State is working with the National Weather Service on measuring the effectiveness of warning and communication improve-

C

ments in communities that have been designated Storm Ready. Preliminary studies have been

E

completed that show a significant decrease in injuries and loss of life from severe weather events

in those communities that have achieved the storm ready status. This information, when finalized

D

will be utilized to help measure the effectiveness of future warning and communication improve-

ments in Storm Ready Counties.

P

6.5 EFFECTIVE USE OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION FUNDING

L

A

The 44 CFR 201.5(b)(3) states the Enhanced Plan must demonstrate that the State effectively

uses existing mitigation programs to achieve its mitigation goals.

N

The State of Georgia continues to effectively implement hazard mitigation programs towards achieving its goals to:

Reduce human vulnerability to hazard events; Reduce the losses associated with hazard events; and Reduce the people and property of Georgia's overall exposure to hazard
events.

The mitigation programs utilized in implementing mitigation measures throughout the state are primarily federally funded, each is state administered. These include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), and the Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC). The projects that have been approved and funded through these programs support the State's hazard mitigation goals and specific program eligibility criteria.

Table 6.5.a below lists the number and type of projects funded by federal and state funding sources since 1990. The list ties each project with the associated State mitigative goal, objective and task, along with a corresponding level of effectiveness. All projects are implemented and funded to reduce or remove the possibility of future property damage and/or human vulnerability. To the extent these projects accomplish their goals will determine their effectiveness.

Effectiveness can be defined as the ability of a mitigation project to reduce or eliminate the possibility of future damage or human suffering. We have broken the ranges of project effectiveness into three levels: High, Medium and Low. A rating of High would be given to projects that create the most effective type of mitigation such as property acquisition or relocation where no damage would occur in the event of future disaster. Medium effectiveness would entail projects that reduce the likelihood of future damage, however, in the event of an uncommonly severe disaster event, property damage or human vulnerability may still occur. Examples of a medium effective project would be drainage improvements, wind retrofits, warning initiatives and building elevations. A low effectiveness rating would entail projects that provide relatively low and relatively short term limited hazard prevention levels. Since 1990, Georgia has not processed a project that would fall into this category.

Page 175

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Table 6.5.a Program

Project Type

HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP
HMGP HMGP HMGP HMGP FMA FMA FMA FMA FMA PDM PDM PDM PDM PDM PDM RFC RFC Total

Acquisition Elevation Acquisition/Relocation Acquisition/Elevation Acquisition/Drainage Retrofit (Wind, Flood, Safe Rooms Lightning) Drainage Improvement Warning/Initiative Planning Management Acquisition Elevation Planning Drainage Improvement Management Planning Acquisition Drainage Improvement Elevation Tornado Shelter Management Acquisition Management

Number of Projects
51 4 4 3 2 15
49 172
9 19 16 2 12 2 9 8 18 6 1 1 5 2 2 412

Goal
2 2 2 2 2 1,2

Objective/ Task
OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T2

Project Level of
Effectiveness High High High High High
Medium

2 1 1,3 1,2,3 2 2 1,3 2 1,2,3 1,3 2 2 2 1,2 1,2,3 2 1,2,3

OBJ3-T2 OBJ3-T2 OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T2 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T2 OBJ3-T3 OBJ3-T5 OBJ3-T3

Medium Medium to High
High High High High High Medium High High High Medium High Medium High High High

To ensure continued effective use of resources the State of Georgia and GEMA will continue to form an alliance with other state and federal agencies to pool funding for counties, their municipalities and state agencies. Since 2004, Georgia has provided and made available 10% of all match funds for counties involved in disasters. The State of Georgia will continue to contribute a percentage of the non-federal cost share for all counties included in a Presidential Declaration, providing funding availability. GEMA's Hazard Mitigation Division will continue to provide technical assistance to all counties, their municipalities and state agencies.
The Standard Plan Appendix provides information on the history of the State's federal declarations including the HMGP. The State of Georgia and GEMA has fully made use of funding available through FEMA mitigation programs, including the HMPG, PDM, FMA and RFC programs. Any unused mitigation program funding was a result of unavailable non-federal match by counties, uninterested property owners, and/or insufficient program funds to implement prioritized mitigation actions. Shown below is a summary of the mitigation projects funded in each program/disaster and program highlights.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The State has facilitated the use of HMGP funds for post-disaster hazard mitigation projects. The State establishes priorities for these funds and works closely with state agencies and local governments to utilize the post-disaster funds in the declared counties for projects that have the greatest impact on reducing future disaster expenditures. The 5% set-aside for initiative funds are targeted at improving state and local warning enhancements. In addition, the State utilizes the 7% plan-

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 176

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

ning set-aside for the declared counties needing planning funds for plan development/update.

N

Table 6.5.b lists information about the HMGP and the funds approved for each federally declared

disaster from 1990 through September 30, 2007.

H

A

Table 6.5.b

N

Disaster

Total Ap-

Federal

State

Local Approved Pro-

C

proved

Share

Share

Share

jects

E

D

857-GA

3,859,193

750,805

0

3,108,388

3

P L

880-GA

852,388

426,194

337,220

88,974

2

897-GA

331,504

165,752

76,696

89,056

5

A

969-GA

133,574

66,787

66,787

0

1

N

980-GA

96,826

48,412

48,414

0

1

1020-GA

1,449,892

798,913

19,750

631,229

4

1033-GA

82,961,614 59,604,213 1,926,685 21,430,716

190

1042-GA

2,837,394 2,128,044

4,452

704,898

9

1071-GA

4,064,689 2,716,735

8,302

1,339,652

14

1209-GA

11,623,172 8,520,026 516,872 2,586,274

64

1271-GA

769,804

467,466

158,857

143,481

4

1311-GA

6,819,536 5,114,653 1,048,273 656,610

8

1315-GA

983,907

620,630

149,639

213,638

11

1554-GA

1,728,307 1,296,232 25,000

403,013

6

1560-GA

1,425,174 1,064,873 20,000

340,301

6

Total

119,936,974 83,789,735 4,406,947 31,736,230

328

Program Highlights
Through the HMGP, local governments have permanently mitigated losses through the acquisition of 990 flood prone properties. Another 89 flood prone properties have been elevated and 36 retrofits predominantly wind related have been completed. Rounding out the activities, 370 outdoor warning sirens have been installed and 35 drainage improvement projects have been completed. Projects in DR 1554 and DR1560 are expected to be completed next fiscal year.
Not shown in Table 6.5.b is the Federal Declaration 1686-GA for tornadoes in March 2007. For this disaster, the state prioritized the utilization of the HMGP funds for projects in the declared counties that reduce or eliminate damages to life and property resulting from high winds and tornadoes. The State will utilize the full 5% initiative and 5% tornado initiative to improve the warning and communication capabilities of local governments in the declared counties and also give preference to those projects that help local government maintain or achieve storm ready status. Results of this grant application will be reported in the next plan update. The State has also committed to provide 40% of the non-federal match for HMGP applicants in the 15 counties declared for Individual and/or Public Assistance. As shown in table 6.5.b, the State continues to leverage its own funds with the HMGP to implement mitigation.

Page 177

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

The State has effectively utilized initiative funding from the HMGP to improve the warning and

E

communication capabilities within the State. The State has implemented many HMGP funded

N

initiative projects that were identified in the 1998 Governor's Task Force report on warning and

communication. A few of the Statewide projects implemented by GEMA are discussed below.

H

A

Through local and State level initiative projects, the State expanded the NOAA Transmitter Network in Georgia. At the beginning of the project in 1999, the State had coverage for about 75% of

N

the state. In working closely with the National Weather Service (NWS), it was determined that 20

C

additional transmitters were needed to cover 95% of the State. Through the utilization of the

E

HMGP initiative funding, the State has completed this project and now 95% of the state covering

98% of the population can now receive alerts from the NOAA Transmitter Network. An additional

D

transmitter has been identified by the NWS to improve the NOAA weather radio network and this

project has been funded through an initiative project from DR1560. As additional areas to improve the NOAA Transmitter Network are identified by Federal, State, and local officials, the State will

P

continue to address these needs through available initiative funding.

L

A

To further improve the effectiveness of the NOAA Transmitter Network, the State utilized HMGP

initiative funding to purchase and distribute through the local Emergency Management Agencies,

N

25,000 NOAA weather radios for placement in critical facilities such as schools, nursing homes,

day care centers, and other emergency type facilities. Additional NOAA weather radio projects

are under development for improving the warning and communication capabilities in the declared

counties for DR1686.

Another project identified through the Governor's Task Force on Warning and Communication was the establishment of the Severe Storms Research Center at GTRI. The State was able to utilize HMGP initiative funding to establish this Research Center in 1999. Through this project, the State has improved the NWS capability to provide for more accurate and timely severe weather warnings.

Through another HMGP initiative project in 1999, the State was able to provide Data Transmission Network (DTN) weather terminals for 81 counties and State agencies. Through this weather terminal, local governments had access to the severe weather alerts issued by the NWS.

In addition, HMGP funding has been provided for 370 outdoor warning sirens. These sirens in most cases supplement an existing system which in part helps warn the citizens of Georgia of impending severe weather. Coupled with other warning initiatives, Georgia remains a leader in the ability to get severe weather warnings to its citizens.

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program

The State has facilitated the use of FMA funds by local governments for the development of flood hazard mitigation plans and projects. The planning grants have been targeted to the communities that have had the largest number of repetitive loss properties identified by FEMA. With the funding through FY05, all communities with 10 or more repetitive loss properties have received funding to develop an FMA plan. The State will continue to prioritize the FMA planning grants in communities with the largest number of repetitive loss properties. Project grants have been targeted to the communities with the largest number of repetitive loss properties who meet the planning requirements. Availability of local match has hindered many local governments in pursuing project grants. Table 6.5.c lists information through September 30, 2007, about the FMA funds approved for each year the program has been in existence.

Page 178

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

Table 6.5.c

H

Fiscal Year

Total Ap-

Federal

State

Local Approved Pro-

A

proved

Share

Share

Share

jects

N

FMA97

233,179

171,993

5,383

55,804

5

C

FMA98

52,800

39,600

6,700

6,500

2

E

FMA99

25,052

18,789

0

6,263

1

D

FMA00

28,267

21,200

0

7,067

1

FMA01

566,575

397,653

8,510

160,413

4

FMA02

335,577

224,338

7,380

103,859

4

P

FMA03

248,514

186,386

3,324

58,804

3

L

FMA04

434,610

325,932

14,334

94,344

4

A

FMA05

234,280

175,710

7,937

50,633

3

N

FMA06

3,105,796 2,329,347

45,701

730,747

10

FMA07

4,427,686 3,320,761

79,134 1,027,791

4

Total

9,692,336 7,211,709

178,402 2,302,225

41

Program Highlights
All work has been completed for the FMA fiscal years 1997 through 2003. Through the FMA project grants, local governments have permanently mitigated losses through the acquisition of 10 NFIP insured properties. Another 2 NFIP insured properties have been elevated. These figures will be updated as additional work is completed in FY04-FY07 grants. Currently, 14 property acquisitions and 2 property elevations, and 1 drainage improvement project are underway. Activities associated with the FMA07 award were just approved and will get started within the next few months.
Through an FMA04 planning grant, the State is working on incorporating repetitive loss data and other NFIP insurance data into the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS), an online application tool to assist state and local governments in mitigation planning. Once completed, state and local governments will have better data availability and access to flood loss information in order to make real world decisions on both planning and projects. Another benefit will link the mitigated property information for repetitive loss facilities. This tool will be instrumental as local governments incorporate this information as part of their mitigation plan update.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program
The State has facilitated the use of PDM competitive funds by local governments for the development of DMA2K compliant hazard mitigation plans and the implementation of projects which have been identified or support goals and objectives of the local mitigation plans. The State provides technical assistance to local governments in the development of fundable PDM applications. Since the program's inception in 2002, the State has been successful in getting federal approval on more than 80% of PDM sub-grant applications. Table 6.5.d lists information about the PDM program through September 30, 2007, and the funds approved for each year the program has been in existence.

Page 179

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Table 6.5.d

N

Fiscal Year

Total Ap-

Federal

State

Local Approved Pro-

H

proved

Share

Share

Share

jects

A

PDM02 PDM03 PDMC03 PDMC05 PDMC06

643,619 541,500 9,244,107 18,363,241 3,628,850

493,659 358,375 6,747,307 13,772,430 2,721,637

16,666 183,125 188,831 259,060
82,471

133,294 0
2,307,969 4,331,751
824,742

2

N

3

C

14 11

E

4

D

PDMC07*

4,383,019 3,240,054

99,614 1,043,351

5

Total

36,804,336 27,333,462

829,767 8,641,107

* Does not include recently selected wait-listed project for Chatham County.

Program Highlights

39

P

L

A

N

For PDM02 and PDM03 funding, the State committed 100% of available resources to support state and local planning to meet DMA2K requirements. See Chapter 4 of the Standard Mitigation Plan update for a complete description of the State's approach to develop DMA2K compliant multijurisdictional plans in each county. Central to our approach was getting funding to local governments along with technical assistance necessary to complete the plans. The State continues to place a high priority on planning as the state and local planning grants have been given the highest ranking for all of the PDM(C) submissions.

The majority of the PDM(C) grants have been focused on flood mitigation with property acquisition being the dominant project type. These projects have competed very well because the State provides considerable technical assistance to local governments on applications to ensure program eligibility. As noted in the Program Management section, this technical assistance also includes the benefit-cost analysis. The State will continue to utilize the PDM(C) program to meet our program goals. Unfortunately, availability of local match has hindered many local governments in pursuing project grants.

Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program

The State has facilitated the use of RFC funds by local governments for the development of acquisition projects to permanently mitigate flood damages to NFIP insured structures. Table 6.5.e lists information about the RFC funding received through September 30, 2007.

Table 6.5.e Fiscal Year
RFC06 RFC07 Totals

Total Approved
2,356,263 1,256,969 3,613,232

Federal Share
2,356,263 1,256,969 3,613,232

State Share
0 0 0

Local Share
0 0 0

Approved Projects
2 2 4

Program Highlights
In the first two years of this program's existence, the State has been successful in receiving funding to mitigate losses to NFIP insured properties. The State will continue to market this program in our rural areas of the State where local governments are unable to provide match for their mitigation grants.

Page 180

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 181

Conclusion

The mitigation staff has administered 412 hazard mitigation projects since 1990. These activities as well as those described above and throughout the plan demonstrate that Georgia effectively uses existing mitigation programs to achieve its mitigation goals.

The State endeavors to continue to pursue these mitigation programs along with additional programs and funding streams in the future to take advantage of every possible opportunity to accomplish our goals. Table 6.5.f summarizes the information for all four of the FEMA mitigation grants programs and funding received in Georgia through September 30, 2007.

Table 6.5.f Total Approved
170,046,878

Federal Share
121,948,13 8

State Share 5,415,116

Local Share
42,679,562

Approved Projects
412

The State has given priority to the funding of non-structural mitigation projects to eliminate the damages occurring to flood prone structures, both insured and uninsured. Over 1,000 flood prone structures have been permanently mitigated through the implementation of acquisition projects through the HMGP and FMA programs. In addition, funding from the PDM-C program has been utilized to mitigate losses to flood prone structures.
The State's mitigated properties database is almost 100% completed. Based on information reported to date, 191 properties on FEMA's repetitive loss list have been mitigated primarily through property acquisition. Over 75% of the State's available mitigation funding has been directed to mitigating repetitively damaged structures through acquisition, elevation or relocation. The State will continue to target these types of properties in future mitigation projects.
Additionally, GEMA has provided support to local governments in the development of all hazard mitigation plans through the issuance of guidance, education through planning workshops, and planning grants. To date, over $3 million in planning grants through the HMPG, FMA and PDM have been awarded to 159 counties for the development of multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans. The Enhanced Plan section addressing Commitment to a Comprehensive Mitigation Program provides more information regarding statewide support to state and local mitigation planning.
6.6 COMMITMENT TO A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PROGRAM
The 44 CFR 201.5(b)(4)(i-vi) states the Enhanced Plan must demonstrate that each state is committed to a comprehensive state mitigation program. Georgia has a long-standing commitment to support a comprehensive mitigation program. This commitment has been demonstrated through continued support for local mitigation planning, legislation enacted that supports mitigation, commitment to mitigation through state funding for mitigation projects, commitment to assist state and local jurisdictions in reducing vulnerability to critical facilities and the continued practice of integrating mitigation into post-disaster recovery. This section provides a discussion of each aspect of the State of Georgia's commitment, how each aspect has been implemented in the past and the State's plan to continue implementation.
6.6.1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING SUPPORT
Georgia is committed to support local mitigation planning by providing workshops, training, tools, and technical assistance to meet the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) section of the Hazard Mitigation Division at GEMA was created in July 2002 to support the development of local mitigation plans with dedi-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

cated resources, which included on-site technical assistance and in-county service through the

E

use of field stationed planners. All of Georgia's 159 counties are completing multi-jurisdictional

N

mitigation plans and 97 counties have received federal approval covering 83% of the State's

population. It is expected that the remaining counties will have approved plans by September 30,

H

2008. The local commitment to complete these plans reflects the states ability to cooperatively

A

work with county Emergency Management Agency (EMA) directors, local elected officials and county commissioners. Detailed information of local planning integration and local funding and

N

technical assistance are discussed in Section 4.1. In addition, Section 4.2 provides a discussion

C

of the States capabilities to provide continued support for local mitigation through the local plan

E

update process.

D

6.6.2 STATE LEGISLATION SUPPORTING MITIGATION

A statewide hazard mitigation program is under development, which will include legislative initia-

P

tives, formation of new and the continuation of existing public/private partnerships, as well as other

L

executive actions that promote hazard mitigation. GEMA maintains an aggressive and pro-active

A

legislative program in the Georgia General Assembly. In addition to initiating legislation that is of

direct interest to the agency, GEMA tracks and supports legislation of interest to the public safety,

N

homeland security and emergency management communities, including bills relevant to hazard

mitigation. GEMA also works closely in partnership with other agencies and organizations to lev-

erage support for legislation of common interest. Those entities include the Association County

Commissioners of Georgia, the Georgia Municipal Association, the Georgia Fire Chiefs Associa-

tion, the Georgia Sheriffs' Association, the Georgia Police Chiefs Association, the Departments of

Public Safety and Natural Resources, and others.

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated or OCGA is the compendium of all laws in Georgia. Georgia has numerous legislative rules that support the mitigation process in the State. Below is a list of this legislation and OCGA, which is more thoroughly discussed in Section 6.6.6 or within each State Agency Annex of the enhanced plan or on each agency's website.

Georgia Emergency Management Act of 1981, as amended, OCGA 38-3-1 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law, OCGA 2-6-20 to 23 & 2-6-27 Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978, OCGA 12-5-370 to 385 Erosion and Sedimentation Act, OCGA 12-7-1 Georgia Environmental Policy Act, OCGA 12-16-1 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Act, OCGA 12-5-70 Georgia Housing Codes, OCGA 8-2-20 The Uniform Standards Code for Manufactured Homes Act and Installation of Manufactured and Mobile Homes, OCGA 8-2-130 and 8-2-160 Georgia Planning Act of 1989, OCGA 12-2-8 Georgia Records Act, OCGA 50-18-93 Georgia Forest Fire Protection Act, OCGA 12-6-80 to 12-6-93 Georgia Prescribed Burning Act, OCGA 12-6-145

6.6.3 GEORGIA INTER-AGENCY HAZARD MITIGATION TEAM

In July 2006, the State Hazard Mitigation Task Force was convened by letter from GEMA Director Charley English. The task force was made up of a number of state agencies and was instrumental in updating the State Mitigation Plan. An outcome of the task force was the development of an agency specific template which each participating agency agreed to support in efforts to document the State's programs and authorities to carry out mitigation actions and to integrate planning activities in support of mitigation.

6.6.4 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG)

Page 182

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 183

The State of Georgia places considerable value on partnerships. In recent years a number of public/private partnerships have been established that are in place that promote hazard mitigation. In the spring of 1998, GEMA and ACCG initiated a hazard mitigation awareness campaign to increase local governments' exposure to Hazard Mitigation through its existing network. Additional work elements were initiated in the spring of 2000 and have been completed on the Greenspace Planning Initiatives. The State utilizes ACCG to publicize the availability of mitigation program grant funds for local and county governments.
Geographical Information Systems Coordinating Committee (GISCC)
The Information Technology Policy Council (ITPC) officially formed the GISCC in July of 1998. GISCC's stated purpose is, "to provide a more efficient and effective framework for the planning, budgeting, acquisition, and utilization of all State GIS resources". The GISCC includes representatives of state and local government agencies, private sector representatives, and GIS professional organizations with a role in coordination and promotion of GIS activities in Georgia. The GISCC leadership positions include Chair; Vice Chair, and Chairs of the following three standing subcommittees: Strategic Plans and Policy, Education and Outreach, and Framework Management. GISCC provides a forum for interagency coordination and cooperation. GISCC helps government and private agencies become more efficient in delivery of services, more effective in decision-making, and more competitive in the marketplace. GISCC operates as a true partnership to advance effective GIS use and to help its stakeholders realize the benefits that the technology offers. GEMA has served as a member on the Coordinating Committee within GISCC since its inception.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
GEMA has established a partnership with USGS on flood warning initiative pilot efforts and mapping initiatives to support local mitigation planning. In an effort to enhance flood preparedness activities in Albany/Dougherty County, GEMA in cooperation with Dougherty County officials, has partnered with USGS to develop flood stage maps in one foot (1') intervals for the main stem of the Flint River. GEMA also partnered with USGS to provide map products to 33 counties in support of local mitigation planning.
In 1999, GEMA in cooperation with USGS, DNR, NWS, and Flint River Water Planning and Policy Center helped establish a flood-tracking chart for the Flint River Basin. A map of the Flint River basin and the eleven flood-tracking stations can be found at the USGS Flint River flood-tracking website at http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/HydroWatch/FloodTracking.cfm.
A flood-tracking chart has also been completed for the Chattahoochee River Basin in Metropolitan Atlanta. The chart was prepared by USGS in cooperation with the National Weather Service, City of Atlanta, and the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper.
National Resource Conservation Service (NCRS)
GEMA has established a close working relationship with the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on implementing the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program in Georgia. The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is to undertake emergency measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements, for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood or any other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed.
The State of Georgia provides the 25% non-federal match on all Emergency Watershed Protection projects implemented by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Funding has been committed on each presidentially declared disaster to provide the non-federal match for locally sponsored projects under this program. Since 1994, more than $20 million has been spent on EWP measures and the State has provided $5.3 million as match for this program.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

National Weather Service (NWS)

N

The partnership with NWS on the StormReady program was described in Section 1.5.2: Program

H

Integration of the Standard Plan. Current efforts include support of the Georgia Mesonet Project.

A

In the next few years a network of over 150 automated weather observing stations will be installed across Georgia, and will provide detailed real-time weather conditions across the state. This net-

N

work, called the Georgia Weather and Climate Network, is a cooperative activity including state

C

and federal agencies. The network is designed to give integrated full and active coverage of

E

weather in Georgia at 5 minute intervals, updated every 15 minutes. At the present time, sites are

being surveyed and instruments being tested to ensure reliable and representative weather meas-

D

urements for each location. Data from this system will be used in a variety of ways for public

safety, quality of life, and improved decision making. These programs are more thoroughly discussed within the NWS Federal Agency Annex of the enhanced plan and on the NWS website.

P

L

Board of Regents (BOR)

A

The Board of Regents (BOR) University System of Georgia (USG) in collaboration with GEMA

N

was approved under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Disaster Resistant University Program for

fiscal year 2003 (FY03). These monies will allow all 35 public institutions within the USG to com-

plete detailed Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability (HRV) assessments and existing toolsets already

developed by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA). Each campus utilized the

Georgia Mitigation Information System for data collection resulting in refined data and hazard

maps in efforts to produce a more accurate risk and loss estimates. These in turn will lead to bet-

ter and more cost effective mitigation actions based on the quality of higher-level data.

The 35 institutions worked very closely with GEMA and its Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) staff in completing institutional-level hazard, risk, and vulnerability data. The DRU planning effort is integrated into the context of ongoing PDM-FY03 planning (see Section 4.1), and the Disaster Resistant University (DRU) program is an integral part of bridging non-traditional local and state partnerships within the context of emergency management.

The institutional level risk-based, data-driven mitigation plans were created with clearly identified future mitigation goals and objectives that will ultimately lead to mitigation projects. Once these institutional level plans are completed they will be delivered to local and state emergency management agency personnel and officials for incorporation into both local and state Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) compliant PDM plans.

6.6.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM FUNDING

With the exception of RFC, each of the FEMA funded mitigation programs requires a 25% non federal cost-share. The State provides a portion of the non-Federal match for HMGP and other mitigation projects. The federal, state and local mitigation dollars exemplified below represent the commitment to the HMGP, FMA as well as the PDM-C. "Table 6.6.5.a" reflects the money invested in the State of Georgia's mitigation programs back to 1990 (Disaster 0857). GEMA worked diligently during the 1994 flood event, with the State Flood Recovery Task Force and HUD to identify a 100% match to the federal HMGP projects identified in the declared counties. In accordance with legislative mandates the State no longer provides a 100% match to federal funds. As a result, the State has shared the burden of matching funds with the local government grantees.

For two presidentially declared disasters, designated FEMA 1311 and FEMA 1315, the State provided 60% of the required non-federal match. This was instrumental in helping our local governments implement their mitigation projects. For the most recent disaster declaration FEMA 1686, the State has committed to provide 40% of the required non-federal match for the counties declared for Individual and/or Public Assistance.

Page 184

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Each of the statewide projects implemented by GEMA had their matching funds provided by the

N

State through the Governor's Emergency Fund. These initiatives included some of the local warn-

ing grant initiatives and all of the statewide warning initiatives.

H

A

Table 6.6.5.a lists for each presidentially declared disaster the amount of federal, state, and local

N

assistance that has been expended or committed in support of HMGP projects.

C

Date

Type

Disaster

Total Ap-

Federal

State Share Local Share

E

proved

Share

D

Feb-90

Floods

857-GA

3,859,193

750,805

0

3,108,388

Oct-90

Flood

880-GA

852,388

426,194

337,220

88,974

Mar-91

Flood

P

Dec-92

Tornado

897-GA 969-GA

331,504 133,574

165,752 66,787

76,696 66,787

89,056 0

L

Mar-93

Tornado

980-GA

96,826

48,412

48,414

0

A

Mar-94

Tornado

1020-GA

1,449,892

798,913

19,750

631,229

Jul-94

Tropical Storm

1033-GA

N

82,961,614 59,604,213

1,926,685 21,430,716

Oct-94

Flood

1042-GA

2,837,394

2,128,044

4,452

704,898

Oct-95

Hurricane

1071-GA

4,064,689

2,716,735

8,302

1,339,652

Mar-98

Flood/Tornado

1209-GA

Apr-99 Feb-00

Tornado Ice Storm

1271-GA 1311-GA

11,623,172 769,804

8,520,026 467,466

516,872 158,857

2,586,274 143,481

Feb-00 Sept-04

Tornado Tropical Storm

1315-GA 1554-GA

6,819,536 983,907

5,114,653 620,630

1,048,273 149,639

656,610 213,638

Sept-04 Tropical Storm

1560-GA

1,726,316

1,294,739

25,000

403,013

Mar-07

Tornado Total

1686-DR

1,424,230

1,064,249 9,471,221

20,000 10%

340,301

Percent

119,934,039

83,787,618 69.9

4,406,947 3.7

31,736,230 26.5

Table 6.6.5.a * 1686-DR represents a six month lock-in figure only.

In addition, the State provided 60% of the non-federal match for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) and the full non-federal match for the Unmet Needs program resulting from the FEMA 1271 disaster. Through the DRI program, unmet needs were funded resulting from the FEMA 1209 disaster.
These projects all had a mitigation component and consisted mainly of drainage improvements and acquisition projects for which there were insufficient funds within the FEMA disaster accounts to be implemented. Table 6.6.5.b lists for each DRI or Unmet Needs program the amount of Federal, State and Local assistance that has been expended in support of projects.

Page 185

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

Date

Type

Disaster # Total Ap- Federal

State

Local

N

proved

Share

Share

Share

H

A

Mar-98

Flood/ Tornado

DRI

8,768,000 1,835,895 1,844,628 12,448,52

3

N

C

Apr-99

Tornado

5271

51,241

15,885

0

67,126

E

Total

8,819,241 1,851,780 1,844,628 12,515,64

D

9

Percent

70.5

14.8

14.7

P

L

Table 6.6.5.b

A

N
The State provided the non-federal match on all Public Assistance projects. This includes all Section 406 mitigation projects. The largest mitigation projects implemented in the State include both the Macon Water Authority and the Albany State University relocation projects that were both completed in the aftermath of the FEMA 1033 disaster. The State currently does not have a system to track the completed mitigation projects implemented under Section 406 of the Stafford Act.

6.6.6 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Georgia's uniform construction codes are designed to help protect the life, health, and property of all Georgians from the hazards of faulty design and construction; unsafe, unsound, and unhealthy structures and conditions; and the financial hardship resulting from unnecessarily high construction and operating costs of houses, buildings, and similar structures.

Georgia's uniform construction codes are designed to help protect the life, health, and property of all Georgians from the hazards of faulty design and construction; unsafe, unsound, and unhealthy structures and conditions; and the financial hardship resulting from unnecessarily high construction and operating costs of houses, buildings, and similar structures.
Georgia's uniform construction codes are designed to help protect the life, health, and property of all Georgians from the hazards of faulty design and construction; unsafe, unsound, and unhealthy structures and conditions; and the financial hardship resulting from unnecessarily high construction and operating costs of houses, buildings, and similar structures. The Uniform Codes Act is codified in Chapter 2 of Title 8 of The Official Code of Georgia Annotated. OCGA Section 8-2-20 (9)(B) identifies the ten "state minimum standard codes". Each of these separate codes typically consists of a base code (e.g. The International Building Code as published by the International Code Council) and a set of Georgia amendments to the base code. Georgia law further dictates that eight of these codes are "mandatory" (are applicable to all construction whether or not they are locally enforced) and two are "permissive" (only applicable if a local government chooses to adopt and enforce one or more of these codes). These codes are as follows:
Manditory Codes:
Georgia State Minimum Standard Building Code (International Building Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard One and Two Family Dwelling Code (International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings with Georgia State Amendments)

Page 186

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 187

Georgia State Minimum Standard Fire Code (International Fire Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Plumbing Code (International Plumbing Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Mechanical Code (International Mechanical Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Gas Code (International Fuel Gas Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Electrical Code (National Electrical Code with Georgia State Amendments)
Georgia State Minimum Standard Energy Code (International Energy Conservation Code with Georgia State Supplements and Amendments)
Permissive Codes:
International Property Maintenance Code International Existing Building Code
As noted above, the building, one and two family dwelling, fire, plumbing, mechanical, gas, electrical and energy codes are mandatory codes, meaning that under Georgia law, any structure built in Georgia must comply with these codes, whether or not the local government chooses to locally enforce these codes. In addition, since Georgia law gives the enumerated codes statewide applicability, local governments should not adopt the mandatory codes themselves. Local governments must, however, adopt administrative procedures in order to enforce them (OCGA Section 82-25(a)). However, the local government can choose which of the mandatory codes it wishes to locally enforce.
The remaining codes are referred to as permissive codes. Unlike the mandatory codes, in order for a local government to enforce one or more of these permissive codes, that code or codes must be adopted, either by ordinance or resolution, by the local jurisdiction. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted must be forwarded to DCA (OCGA Section 8-2-25 (b)).
Administration and Enforcement of the State Minimum Standard Codes
In order to properly administer and enforce the state minimum standard codes, local governments must adopt reasonable administrative provisions. The power to adopt these administrative procedures is set forth in OCGA Section 8-2-26(a)(1). These provisions include procedural requirements for the enforcement of the codes, provisions for hearings, provisions for appeals from decisions of local inspectors, and any other procedures necessary for the proper local administration and enforcement of the state minimum standard codes. These powers include:
Inspecting buildings and other structures to ensure compliance with the code; Employing inspectors and other personnel necessary for the proper enforcement of
codes; Requiring permits and to establishment charges for said permits; and Contracting with other local governments for code enforcement.
DCA periodically reviews, amends and/or updates the state minimum standard codes. If a local government chooses to locally enforce any of these codes, it must enforce the latest editions and the amendments adopted by DCA. DCA has developed a sample resolution/ordinance that may be used as a guide for local governments in the development of their administrative procedures.
Appendices
It should be noted that The Uniform Codes Act states that the appendices of the codes are not enforceable unless referenced in the body of the code, adopted by DCA, or specifically adopted

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

by a municipality or county. If any appendices have been adopted by DCA, they will be noted in the Georgia amendments to the base code.
Local Amendments
The Uniform Codes Act provides that local governments may, under certain conditions, adopt local amendments to the state minimum standard codes. Please note that DCA does not approve or disapprove any local amendment. The department provides a recommendation only. However, in order to enforce any local amendment, the local government must submit the proposed amendment to DCA for review (OCGA Section 8-2-25(c)).
There are several requirements local governments must meet in order to enact a local code amendment. These requirements are as follows:
The requirements in the proposed local amendment cannot be less stringent than the requirements in the state minimum standard code;
The local requirements must be based on local climatic, geologic, topographic, or public safety factors;
The legislative findings of the local governing body must identify the need for the more stringent requirements; and
The local government must submit the proposed amendment to DCA 60 days prior to the proposed adoption of such an amendment.
After submittal of the proposed local amendment, DCA has 60 days in which to forward its recommendations to the local government. DCA may respond in three ways: recommend adoption of the amendment, recommend the amendment not be adopted, or have no comment on the proposal. If DCA recommends against the adoption of the proposed amendment, the local governing body must vote specifically to reject DCA's recommendation before the local amendment can be adopted and enforced. If DCA fails to respond within the 60-day timeframe, the local government may adopt the proposed local amendment.
After adoption by the local governing authority, copies of local amendments must be filed with DCA.
The Current State Minimum Standard Codes
The following are the current state minimum standard codes for construction as adopted by the Board of Community Affairs. Please note there are Georgia Amendments to most of the following codes.
Current Codes as Adopted by DCA - Mandatory Codes:
International Building Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) International Residential Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) International Fire Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) International Plumbing Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2007) National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition, with Georgia Amendments (2006) International Energy Conservation Code, 2000 Edition, with Georgia Supplements
and Amendments (2003), Supplements and Amendments (2005), Supplements and Amendments (2006), and Supplements and Amendments (2007)
Current Codes as Adopted by DCA - Permissive Codes:
International Property Maintenance Code, 2003 Edition International Existing Building Code, 2003 Edition

E N H A N C E D P L A N
Page 188

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

The Enhanced Plan appendix provides a map of the Counties and Cities depicting the current

status of construction permits and code enforcement. This map is not scheduled for an update

H

until 2008.

A

N

Manufactured Housing

C

Manufactured homes are built as dwelling units of at least 320 square feet in size with a perma-

nent chassis to assure the initial and continued transportability of the home. All transportable sec-

E

tions of manufactured homes built in the U.S. after June 15, 1976, must contain a red label. The

D

label is the manufacturer's certification that the home section is built in accordance with HUD's

construction and safety standards. HUD standards cover Body and Frame Requirements, Ther-

mal Protection, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire Safety and other aspects of the home. They are pub-

P

lished in the Code of Federal Regulations at 24 CFR 3280.

L

The Manufactured Housing Section of the State Fire Marshal's Office, which is part of the Insur-

A

ance Commissioner's office, is the licensing agent for all manufacturers and dealers of manufac-

N

tured homes. Effective January 1, 1993, all manufactured home installers must be state licensed.

All manufactured homes are required to have a Homeowners Manual and a Manufacturer's Installation Manual. The Manufacturers' Installation Manual gives the installers exact installation instructions pertaining to that particular make and model of the home and addresses issues with regard to the site that the homeowner should study before delivery of the home. The Federal Regulations require that all homes have a compliance certificate permanently affixed in the home. This certificate contains all vital information pertaining to the home, such as the serial number of the home, HUD label number, and the serial number of the appliances installed by the manufacturer of the home. This certificate also designates the wind and thermal zone for which the home was manufactured. This information is especially important to the consumer considering a manufactured home located along the eastern coastline, because a home may not be set in a higher zone than that for which it was built.
There are 2 wind zones in Georgia:
Wind Zone 1 is for winds up to 99 miles per hour. Wind Zone 2 is for 100 to 109 miles per hour.

Wind Zone 2 only effects the 6 counties that touch the coast are in Zone 2 are Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn and Camden. All other Georgia counties are Zone 1. A map depicting this information is shown below.

Page 189

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

During the 2004 General Assembly, legislation was passed with changes to the Uniform Stan-

N

dards Code for Manufactured Homes Act. Among other provisions, the new law requires installers

to purchase a permit from the Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner Office for each new or

H

pre-owned manufactured home installed in Georgia. These new requirements became effective

A

October 1, 2004.

N

Beginning January 1, 2005 the Manufactured Housing Section is responsible for performing ran-

C

dom inspections on installations performed by each installer. Violations found during random in-

E

spections will require correction. The changes to the law also give the Department additional en-

forcement provisions regarding violations.

D

Additional information about manufactured housing can be found at the following web site: http://www.gainsurance.org/FIREMARSHAL/ManufacturedHousing.aspx

P

L

6.6.7 STATE FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CRITICAL FACILITIES

A

The Standard Plan addresses both state-owned and operated facilities as well as critical facilities

N

in order to focus on loss potential within the state. Assessing state-owned and operated facilities

allows GEMA to prioritize mitigation efforts directed towards other state agencies with more effi-

ciency as well as to aid in protecting the state's assets. Because critical facilities include any facil-

ity or structure that should continue to function and provide necessary services in some capacity

(not necessarily normal purpose) to surrounding populations during and after a hazard event,

GEMA aims mitigation efforts in this area as well.

As discussed in Section 2.8 of the Standard Plan, an assessment to identify the state-owned and leased facilities has been completed in all 159 Georgia counties. The state has developed a methodology with prioritization for the completion of the identification of the state-owned critical facilities through local reporting over the next three years. Once this assessment is complete the state will revise the hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment.

Subsequently, future hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessments will address the first, second, and third year revisions and will include analyses of all spatially defined hazards identified in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan that have to potential to affect state-owned and operated facilities as well as critical facilities. Once the risk assessments have been completed for all spatially defined hazards, a formal, comprehensive, multi-year plan to mitigate the risks posed to the identified facilities will be developed.

In addition, through community education and outreach, GEMA has encouraged local jurisdictions to include mitigation activities that would reduce or eliminate the vulnerability to local jurisdictional critical facilities. Section 2.4.2 of the Standard Plan provides a table containing a list of hazards identified by local hazard mitigation plans and Section 3.4.1 of the Standard Plan provides a table containing a list of mitigation activities addressed in each of the approved or submitted local hazard mitigation plans.

A number of projects funded through the HMGP and PA programs have reduced the risk to some buildings that have previously been identified as critical facilities. Some of the specific projects completed include the following:

Macon Water Treatment Plan Relocation Flood protection of critical facilities in Dougherty and Bibb Counties Wind retrofit of critical facilities in numerous counties including, but not limited to:
Chatham, Glynn, Bulloch, Ware, Jasper, Decatur, Bibb, Crisp, Long, Turner, Appling, and Bacon Counties

Page 190

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

6.6.8 POST DISASTER RECOVERY OPERATIONS

N

Hazard Mitigation is an integral part of Georgia's post-disaster recovery operations. Staff from the

H

Mitigation Division support FEMA staff at the Joint Field Office. State and FEMA staff work to-

A

gether to identify mitigation opportunities through both the Human Services, Public Assistance,

N

Small Business Administration and Floodplain Management programs. Public Assistances' staff is very proactive in pursuing mitigation activities in the immediate post disaster recovery effort for

C

repair and restoration projects. GEMA's Mitigation staff supports the Public Assistance staff at

E

their applicant briefings. GEMA's Mitigation staff conducts applicant briefings in the declared

counties and provides technical assistance to all potential grant applicants on project develop-

D

ment.

The State of Georgia has enjoyed significant success in securing mitigation funding as an integral

P

part of the recovery process. For the most recent disaster declaration in March of 2007, State Public Assistance and Mitigation Staff's worked hand in hand on mitigation issues identified in the

L

immediate aftermath of the disaster. Some success was achieved in obtaining additional support

A

through the Individual Assistance program for adding weather radios to list of eligible items that

could be purchased by disaster victims. Work is ongoing at incorporating mitigation activities into

N

the restoration of the Sumter Regional Hospital.

Following the DR1209 disaster, the State worked closely with FEMA on a mitigation policy to be implemented on all drainage improvement projects at damaged sites. As a result, mitigation was automatically incorporated in the recovery effort if the identified mitigation effort could be accomplished at a cost that was less than 15% of the overall project cost.

One of the largest mitigation projects in the country was funded after the 1994 flood event as part of the recovery efforts for DR1033. Instead of making repairs to the existing water treatment plant in Macon, Georgia, the State successfully convinced local authorities to restore the water plant in a more cost-effective non-hazard location. As a result, the Macon Water plant was rebuilt at a new location instead of in the floodway of the Ocmulgee River.

Due to the magnitude of the FEMA 1033 disaster and the amount of supplemental funding received by HUD to assist with long term recovery, the State decided to establish a Flood Recovery Task Force, made up of several key State agencies. The Flood Recovery Task Force was given the responsibility of coordinating the distribution of the full range of federal and state assistance packages available to Georgia in recovering from the devastating floods of 1994.

Page 191

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

E

N

H

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

A

N

C

E

D

P L A N

Page 192

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Page Intentionally Left Blank

D

I

X

Page 193

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

APPENDIX A

E

N

Hazard History

D

I

X

Page 194

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 195

Figure A.1: Total hazard events as defined by SHELDUS per Georgia County from 1960-2005

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.2: Total hazard-induced losses as defined by SHELDUS per Georgia county from 1960-2005

Page 196

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 197

Figure A.3: Average loss per hazard event for the counties of Georgia

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.4: Total Presidential Disaster Declarations per county in Georgia

Page 198

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 199

Figure A.5: Total public assistance claims stemming from PDDs by Georgia county

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.6: Average public assistance amounts per PDD by Georgia county

Page 200

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 201

Figure A.7: Tropical cyclone events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.8: Tropical cyclone losses according to SHELDUS

Page 202

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 203

Figure A.9: Coastal flooding events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.10: Coastal flooding losses according to SHELDUS

Page 204

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 205

Figure A.11: Wind events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.12: Wind losses according to SHELDUS

Page 206

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 207

Figure A.13: Severe weather events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.14: Severe weather losses according to SHELDUS

Page 208

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 209

Figure A.15: Tornado events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.16: Tornado losses according to SHELDUS

Page 210

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 211

Figure A.17: Flood events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.18: Flood losses according to SHELDUS

Page 212

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 213

Figure A.19: Winter storm events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.20: Winter storm losses according to SHELDUS

Page 214

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 215

Figure A.21: Drought events according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.22: Drought losses according to SHELDUS

Page 216

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure A.23(a): Wildfires occurring from March 29 to June 6 in Georgia (from GFC) Page 217

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.23(b): Table of wildfires illustrated in Figure A.28(a) (from GFC)

Page 218

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 219

Figure A.24: Seismic history possible affecting Georgia (significant earthquakes) from 1568 1996 (from ESRI)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure A.25: Dam failure events according to SHELDU

Page 220

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 221

Figure A.26: Dam failure losses according to SHELDUS

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

APPENDIX B

P

E

Hazard Risk

N

D

I

X

Page 222

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 223

Figure B.1: Storm surge coverage according to hurricane category for coastal Georgia

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure B.2: Wind field model from ASCE 50 year return intervals

Page 224

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

S

P

P

E

N

D

I

X

Page 225

Figure B.3: 100 and 500 year (1% and 0.2% annual chance) flood boundaries (from FEMA Q3 data)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure B.4: SPI drought index for the Southeast from September 2006 through September 2007 (from NDMC)
Page 226

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 227

Figure B.5: Wildfire risk to flammable structures based on USDA Forest Service RMRS Fire Sciences Laboratory (from Forest Service)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure B.6: 0.2 second spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) for conterminous United States (from USGS)

Page 228

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 229

Figure B.7: 0.2 second spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) contours represented as a percent of gravity for Georgia counties (from USGS data)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure B.8: Karst subsurface geology from evaporite and carbonate rock representing higher potential for sinkholes in the United States (from USGS)

Page 230

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 231

Figure B.9: Location of dams inventoried by NRCS (watershed dams) in Georgia and total dams summarized by county

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure B.10: Total dam failure risk by county as calculated by NRCS (individual dam risk scores added for county's overall risk)

Page 232

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Page Intentionally Left Blank

N

D

I

X

Page 233

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

APPENDIX C

E

N

Vulnerability

D

I

X

Page 234

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Page Intentionally Left Blank

N

D

I

X

Page 235

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure C.1: Data flow diagram illustrating the methods for calculating SoVI as Published in: S.L. Cutter, B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley 2003. "Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazard," Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 242-261.
Page 236

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 237

Figure C.2: Social vulnerability for the state of Georgia (2000) based on methods by Dr. Susan Cutter at the Hazard & Vulnerability Research Institute

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

APPENDIX D

P

E

Composite Assessments

N

D

I

X

Page 238

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 239

Figure D.1: Composite hazard scores for Georgia counties including surge, wind, flood, fire, and seismic hazards

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure D.2: Average hazard score for Georgia counties including surge, wind, flood, fire, and seismic hazards

Page 240

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 241

Figure D.3: Composite scores for Georgia counties including hazard composite scores and Social Vulnerability Index scores

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure D.4: Significant changes in hazard scores with the addition of SoVI scores

Page 242

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 243

Figure D.5: State-owned and leased facilities as derived from Georgia's BLLIP database

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure D.6: Critical facilities as reported by local governments to the GMIS database (as of October 2007)

Page 244

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 245

Figure D.7: Total losses per repetitive loss property

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure D.8: Top 10 municipalities total repetitive loss properties

Page 246

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 247

Figure D.9: Top 10 municipalities total repetitive loss payouts

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure D.10: Top 10 municipalities average losses per property

Page 248

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 249

Figure D.11: Top 10 municipalities average payouts per property

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

APPENDIX E

P

Local Mitigation

E N

D

I

X

Page 250

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 251

Figure E.1: DCA map showing local enforcement of construction codes

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure E.2: DCA map showing local zoning ordinance status

Page 252

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 253

Figure E.3: Local mitigation plan status as of December 14, 2007

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure E.4: Flow chart of state and local mitigation planning

Page 254

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure E.5: Screenshot of the GMIS live critical facility inventory online mapping tool used at the state and local level, which was funded under PDM-C-FY03. This particular screenshot is zoomed
into Fulton County with floodplain layers activated.
Page 255

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure E.6: Screenshot of the GMIS live critical facility inventory online mapping tool used at the state and local level, which was funded under PDM-C-FY03. This particular screenshot is zoomed
into McIntosh County with floodplain layers activated.
Page 256

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure E.7: Screenshot of the GMIS live critical facility inventory online mapping tool used at the state and local level, which was funded under PDM-C-FY03. This particular screenshot is zoomed
into Chatham County with a buffer zone around a highway segment.
Page 257

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure E.8: Disaster Resistant University plan status as of December 2007

Page 258

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 259

Figure E.9: Update schedule for federally approved local mitigation plans

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Figure E.10: Update schedule for approval in December of 2010
Page 260

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

D

I

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

X

Page 261

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

APPENDIX F

P

E

Adoption

N

D

I

X

Page 262

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 263

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 264

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 265

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 266

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Page Intentionally Left Blank

D

I

X

Page 267

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

SUB-APPENDIX A

N

D

Enhanced Plan Figures

I

X

Page 268

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Enhanced Plan Figures

D

Federal Agency Template

I

State Agency Template

X

Project Selection Scoring Sheet (Appendix E of HMGP Administrative Plan)

Property Acquisition Worksheet (Appendix D of HMGP Administrative Plan)

Pre-Applications (Appendix C of HMGP Administrative Plan)

Applications (Appendix D of HMGP Administrative Plan)

DR1686 Application Information

Applicant Quarterly Report Format

State Quarterly Report Submission

State Closeout Request

Disaster Closeout Request

GMIS Screen Shots

Construction Codes Map

Page 269

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Federal Agency Specific Template State of Georgia Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan
Federal Agency Name Date
1) Team member a. Name, title, department or section
2) Brief summary of Federal agency (mission statement) a. Summary of agency i. Primary responsibility ii. # of people (ballpark) iii. Annual budget (ballpark) b. Programs that are related to preparedness, mitigation, Emergency Management (remember public services, public good, safety, quality of life, responsibilities to citizens, etc.) i. Example: USGS Stream 1. Purpose and need (may tie into items in #3 below) 2. Roles, responsibilities, etc 3. Tangible products (reports, data, etc) 4. Annual budget (ballpark) 5. Success stories (especially as they relate to public services) c. Include role and responsibility (pre- and post-event) d. Assets (buildings, etc.) e. Future assets (known changes in immediate future)
3) Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order (hotlinks or referenced here, included in back of this document)
a. Those that range from environmental, land-use, etc. b. Anything that might be viewed from the preparedness and mitigation perspective.
4) Natural Hazard summary (Fed agency's exposure to GA hazards) a. Assets in harms way (agency's assets ballpark #, buildings, content, etc) b. Potential losses (ballpark) c. Other
5) Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation) a. Focus on loss avoidance b. Focus on preparedness c. Focus on Emergency Management from within d. Focus on your agency's role in providing services pre- and post event e. Focus on improvement of your agencies roles and responsibilities f. Access to additional resources (federal) in improving your agencies mission Federal Agency Specific Template State of Georgia Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan State of Georgia-Federal Agency Template 2
6) Plan integration a. How will this information, and State HazMit strategies be incorporated (whenever possible) into your agency specific plans and programs b. Timetables for integration
7) Additional documents (user defined) a. See # 3 above, put those documents here b. Any other relevant data or documentation

A P P E N D I X
Page 270

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

8) Letter from your agency

a. Gives time/date stamp of approval for the information, concepts and

P

cooperation of your agency in the state planning effort.

E

b. Does not hold anyone's feet to the fire, so to speak, rather provides FEMA

N

and others documentation of participation and partnership.

D

I

X

Page 271

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

State Agency Specific Template State of Georgia Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan
State Agency Name Date
1) Team member a. Name, title, department or section

2) Brief summary of state agency (mission statement)

a. Summary of agency

i. Primary responsibility

ii. # of people (ballpark)

iii.

Annual budget (ballpark)

b. Programs that are related to preparedness, mitigation, Emergency Management (remember

public services, public good, safety, quality of life, responsibilities to citizens, etc.)

i. Example: DNR Safe Dams

1. Purpose and need (may tie into items in #3 below)

2. Roles, responsibilities, etc

3. Tangible products (reports, data, etc)

4. Annual budget (ballpark)

5. Success stories (especially as they relate to public services)

c. Include role and responsibility (pre- and post-event)

d. Assets (buildings, etc. GEMA will provide)

e. Future assets (known changes in immediate future)

3) Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order (hotlinks or referenced here, included in back of this document) a. Those that range from Environmental, land-use, etc. b. Anything that might be viewed from the preparedness and mitigation perspective.

4) Natural Hazard summary (GEMA will assist) a. Assets in harms way (GIS) b. Potential losses (GIS) c. Other

5) Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation) a. Focus on loss avoidance b. Focus on preparedness c. Focus on Emergency Management from within d. Focus on your agency's role in providing services pre- and post event e. Focus on improvement of your agencies roles and responsibilities f. Access to additional resources (federal) in improving your agencies mission

6) Plan integration a. How will this information, and State HazMit strategies be incorporated (whenever possible) into your agency specific plans and programs b. Timetables for integration

7) Additional documents (user defined) a. See # 3 above, put those documents here b. Any other relevant data or documentation

8) Letter from your agency a. Gives time/date stamp of approval for the information, concepts and cooperation of your agency in the state planning effort. b. Does not hold anyone's feet to the fire, so to speak, rather provides FEMA and others documentation of participation and partnership.

A P P E N D I X
Page 272

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Score Sheet for Regular Program Projects

P

Total Score _______

E

N

Applicant:____________________________________________________________

D

I

Project Title______________________________________________________

X

Natural Hazard Score

(Average for all Properties) Flood Floodway (25) AE (20) C, X (unshaded) (0)

A (15) B,X (shaded) (10)

Max 25 points

Wind (Miles from Coast) 0-10 Miles (25) 10-25 Miles (20) 25-50 Miles (15) 50-100 Miles (10) >100 Miles (0)

Tornado History (1950-2006) 0.893/tornado

History of Damage in Project Area

(Average for all Properties) 5 points per event of documented history (up to 5 events)

or BC Module Predicts an Average of

<5 year Hazard Return Interval

25

>5 and <10 Hazard Return Interval

20

>10 and <25 Hazard Return Interval 15

>25 and <50 Hazard Return Interval 10

>50 and <100 Hazard Return Interval 5

>100 Hazard Return Interval

0

Max 25 points

Type of Mitiga- Non-structural(e.g., flood proofing, retrofitting, elevation, acquisi- Max 5 points

tion

tion, development/implementation of codes and standards, etc.)

5

Structural (e.g., levee, flood wall, storm water drainage improvements, or dam construction/retrofitting) 0

Page 273

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

D

I

X

Potential Impact Severe (failure to implement project results in loss on Community of life or essential services)

Max 15 points
15

Moderate (failure to implement project results in economic hardship) 7.5
None (project has minimal or no impact) 0

Estimated Envi- Insignificant (CATEX)

ronmental Im- 5

pacts

Moderate (EA required)

2.5

Major (EIS required)

0

Intangible Fac-

Storm Ready

tors

1

CRS Rating (6-10) 1 point for each class

5

Cost Share arrangements (>25%) 2 History of mitigation projects Intangible factors can also result in negative scores

-10-+5

Max 5 points Max 10 points

Benefits

1 point per $500,00 benefits

TOTAL POINTS

100

Quality of data in the application

Hazard Data

(Zone)

Damage History

Bonus Point Section (Tie
Breaker)

Cost Data Environmental (Completeness)

Max 15 points
10 Max 10 points 2.5 2.5
2.5 2.5

Page 274

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

HMGP 1686 - Score Sheet for Initiative Projects

P

E

Total Score _______

N

D

Applicant:_______________________________________________________________

I

X

Project: _________________________________________________________________

History of Tor- (Based on NOAA Historical Record)

nado Hazard in

Tornado History (1950-2006)

County

0.893/tornado

Max 25 points

Potential Benefit 1 point per 1,000 population warned

to Community

(Delineate separate score per siren/warning device)

Estimated Envi- Insignificant (CATEX) ronmental Im- Moderate (EA required-Historical) pacts

5 2.5

Intangible Factors

(Community Commitment to mitigation)

Storm Ready Tie In

15

Cost Share arrangements (>25%)

10

(maximum of 1 point per percentage over 25)

Successful history of mitigation projects 5

(Range of -10 to + 5)

Intangible factors can also result in negative scores

Max 40 points Max 5 points Max 30 points

TOTAL

POINTS

100

Page 275

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Property Acquisition Worksheet

P

P

NOTE: Participation in an acquisition project must be voluntary on the part of the property owner.

E

Prepare separate worksheet for each individual property to be acquired.

N

D

Include three or more color photographs (2 copies of each) showing a front view, a side view,

and a back view of each structure to be acquired. Attach photographs to the worksheet for

I

that property.

X

Include the tax parcel map for each property to be acquired.

Include signed statement of voluntary participation.

Include a copy of the current tax card for each property to be acquired.

Include declarations page from current flood insurance policy.

A. Site Information:

1. Physical/Legal Location:________________________________________________________________

2. T Include latitude and longitude coordinates ________________________________________

3. Flood Zone Designation (check all zones applicable for the property):

VE or V 1-30

A (no base flood elevation given)

C or X (unshaded)

AE or A 1-30

B or X (shaded)

Floodway

CBRA Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state Agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)

Other (describe)________________________________________________________ Attach substantial damage certificate from the local flood plain manager or building inspector if dam
aged <50% property value. Substantial Damage Certificate Attached

4. Name of Flood Source:_________________________________________________________

5. Base Flood or 100 Year Flood Elevation of Property: __________________________________

6. Lowest (Finished) Floor Elevation of Living Area of Principal Structure: __________

7. If recently flooded, provide depth of water in the structure _________inches for ______day(s)

B. Structure Information: 1. Building Type: (check one)

1-story w/o basement 2-story w/o basement Split-level w/o basement

Split level with

1-story with basement 2-story with basement Mobile Home 1. Building Use (check all that apply)

basement Other__________

Primary Residence Public Building

Rental Property House of Worship

Secondary Residence Multi-Family

Commercial Property Other___________

Page 276

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

3. Construction Type

Wood Frame

Concrete Block Other___________________________________

P

a. Total Square Footage of Principal Structure (heated or cooled areas only):_______________

E

b. Estimated Cost to Replace Principal Structure (if known):____________________________

c. Estimated Cost to Replace Contents (if known):____________________________________

N

d. Are there accessory or out buildings on the property? Yes No

D

If Yes, Attached Detached

I

4. Foundation Type

X

Slab on Grade Crawl Space Other_______________________________

C. Project Cost Information: Adjust for inflation (consider the date of acquisition when compiling the cost estimates).

Project Cost Information

Costs

Owner's full name:

N/A

Spouse full name(if applicable):

N/A

Mailing address:

N/A

City, State, ZIP:

N/A

Property Address:

N/A

Tax Parcel Identification number:

N/A

Year built:

N/A

Square footage of the building (heated and cooled areas only):

N/A

Fair Market Value** (Identify Source):

$

Estimated cost of demolition

$

Estimated Appraisal Costs

$

Estimated Asbestos testing and Abatement Costs

$

Estimated Closing Costs

$

Estimated Relocation Assistance

$

Other Costs

$ Total Cost to Acquire Property $

Page 277

D.

History of Hazards / Damages to the Property being acquired

List all current and past damages to the property (including damages to the structure, its contents, and any displacement costs). Include damage from declared disaster events AND other hazard even if that did not result in a presidential declaration.

Date of Event

Event

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Depth of Flood-

Description of

Amount of

P

ing Inside Structure (Above fin-

Damage

Damages

P

ished floor)

E

N

D

I

X

Note regarding damage estimates: the date, descriptions of damages, depth of flooding inside structure, and cost of repairs/replacement must be specific to ONLY the building under consideration. Additionally, vague information is not useful or acceptable in lieu of specific building damage estimates. The property damages can be a homeowner's estimate; however, please include a contractor's itemized repair estimate, if possible.

Is structure currently insured through the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes No

If yes, provide flood copy of flood declarations page

Is structure on FEMA

's repetitive loss list? Yes

No

If yes, provide repetitive loss number: _______________________

Page 278

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Statement of Acquisition Voluntary Participation

P

E

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of ____________, ____, between ______________,

N

hereinafter referred to as "Sub-grantee," through its authorized agent, ______________, and _______________, hereinafter referred to as "Seller." The parties agree as follows:

D

I

1. Seller affirms that he/she/they is/are the owner/owners of property located at ______________, hereinafter

referred to as "this property."

X

2. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that the Sub-grantee may wish to purchase this property upon award of Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds, and, if the Seller agrees to sell, Seller must permanently relocate from this property.

3. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that it believes the fair market value (FMV) of this property, as of _______________ is $______________ determined by valuation procedures publicized and implemented by Sub-grantee.

4. Sub-grantee hereby notifies that the Seller is not required to sell this property and Sub-grantee will not use its power of eminent domain to acquire this property as part of the Hazard Mitigation Program, if Seller chooses not to sell it.

5. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that if the Seller agrees to sell this property to Sub-grantee, such a transaction is voluntary. Consequently, the Seller is not entitled to relocation benefits provided by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which are available to property owners who must sell their properties involuntarily.

6. This Agreement shall expire on ______________, unless the Seller has voluntarily sold property to the Subgrantee by the date.

Property Owner Signature

Date

Property Owner Signature

Date

Sub-grantee's Authorized Agent Signature

Date

Page 279

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Pre-Disaster Mitigation - C Score Sheet

A

Overall Score _______

P

P

Applicant:_______________________________________________________________________

E

Project Title/ID #:_________________________________________________________________

N

D

Overall Priority______

I

Natural Hazard Exposure (Average for all Properties) 25

____

X

Flood

Wind (Miles from Coast)

Tornado (History)

Floodway (25)

0-10 Miles (25)

1.09/tornado

AE (20)

10-25 Miles (20)

A (15)

25-50 Miles (15)

B,X (shaded) (10)

50-100 Miles (10)

C, X (unshaded) (0)

>100 Miles (0)

History of Damage in Project Area

(Average for all Properties) 25

5 points per event of documented history (up to 5 events)

_____

or BC Module Predicts an Average of

<5 year Hazard Return Interval

25

>5 and <10 Hazard Return Interval

20

>10 and <25 Hazard Return Interval

15

>25 and <50 Hazard Return Interval

10

>50 and <100 Hazard Return Interval

5

>100 Hazard Return Interval

0

_____

Type of Mitigation

5

Non-structural

(e.g., floodproofing, retrofitting,

elevation, acquisition, development/implementation

of codes and standards, etc.)

5

Structural (e.g., levee, flood wall, storm water

drainage improvements,

or dam construction/retrofitting)

0

_____

Potential Impact on Community

15

Severe (failure to implement project results

in loss of life or essential services)

15

Moderate (failure to implement project results

in economic hardship)

7.5

None (project has minimal or no impact)

0

______

Estimated Environmental Impacts

5

Insignificant (CATEX)

5

Moderate (EA required)

2.5

Major (EIS required)

0

______

Intangible Factors

10

(Community Commitment to mitigation)

Storm Ready

1

CRS Rating (6-10) 1 point for each class

5

Cost Share arrangements (>25%)

2

History of mitigation projects

2

______

Benefits

15

1 point per $500,000 (cap at 15 points)

______

TOTAL POINTS

100

______

Bonus Point Section (for top 5 scoring apps)

10

Quality of data in the application

10

Hazard Data (Zone)

2.5

Damage History

2.5

Cost Data

2.5

Environmental (Completeness)

2.5

(Confidence in source data to validate application information)

______

Page 280

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY

FEMA-_______-DR-GA

STATE ID # ____________

P

E

Standard HMGP

N

Application Complete

Eligible Applicant

Conforms with FEMA approved mitigation plan State or Local Government

Project Type(s) Acquisition

D

Elevation

Conforms with Local Mitigation Plan

I

Flood

Private Non-Profit (Tax ID Received) Wind

X

Project pre-identified in Local Plan

Seismic

Tornado

In Declared Area

Other ____________

Statewide

Date Application Received ______________________ State Reviewer _______________________________ _______________

Community NFIP Status: (Check all that apply) Participating Community ID #:

Page 281

Please submit two applications: (one original and one copy) for each proposed project

This application is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) proposals administered by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA). Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require assistance with this application, contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at 404/635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA.

Fill out this application by completing all sections that correspond with the type of proposed project you are applying and the general application sections that must be completed by all applicants (see below).

General Application Sections: pp.1-5: Environmental Review: pp. 6-11: Maintenance Agreement: p. 12: Property Acquisition Worksheet: pp.13-16 Property Elevation Worksheet: pp.17-20: Drainage Project Worksheet: p. 21-23: Wind Retrofit Worksheet: pp. 24-27: Tornado and Hurricane Shelter pp. 28-29 Assurances Sections: pp. 30-32

All Applicants must complete these sections All Applicants must complete these sections Any applications involving retrofit or modification of existing property Acquisition Projects only-one worksheet per structure Elevation Projects only-one worksheet per structure Drainage Projects only Wind retrofit projects only- one worksheet per structure Shelter projects only - one worksheet per structure

Applicant Information 1. Title
Project Summary (brief)

2. Type of Submission: 3. Total Project Cost
Estimated FEMA Share Non-Federal Share Estimated Local Share
(Include In-Kind Value) Estimated State Share

Construction $ $ $

Non-Construction

% of Total % of Total % of Total

Other Agency Share

$

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency

% of Total

4. Applicant (Organization) 4. Applicant Type
State or Local Government

Recognized Indian Tribe

Private Non-Profit

State Legislative district(s)

Congressional District(s)

Federal Tax I.D. Number

DUNS Number

6. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Identification Number (this number can be obtained from the FIRM map for your area contact your local floodplain coordinator)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

7. NFIP Community Rating System Class Number

this project

must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives,

and recommendations identified in your plan. (All proposed projects must be included in the county's Local Mitigation

Plan. Please attach a project endorsement letter your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director.)

8. Point of Contact Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name

Last Name

Title

Telephone

Fax

Street Address

City_____________________________

_______ State _______

Zip Code______________

Email address (if available):

9. Application Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name__________________

Title _____________________________________Telephone __________________ Fax____________________

E-mail address (if avail

able):

10. Authorized Applicant Agent*

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ____________________________ Last Name___________________________

Title _____________________________________Telephone __________________ Fax____________________

Street Address___________________________________________________________________________________

City____________________________________

State _______

Zip Code______________

E-mail address (if available):

* An individual authorized to sign financial and legal documents on behalf on the local government (e.g., the Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners or the County Manager, etc.)

History of Hazards / Damages in the Area to be Protected* Provide a detailed past history of damages in your community, including direct and indirect costs. Include information for as many past incidents as possible. Attach any supporting documents. Direct costs should include damages to structures and infrastructure in the project area as a result of the hazard. Indirect costs should include the cost to the local government to respond to victims of the hazard in the project area, any interruption to local businesses, and losses of public services.

Date

Description of Event

Indirect Damages (describe)

Ex. 1 - 10/7/89 Spring floods of 1985

Total of $95,000 in damages to 16 homes in project area

Direct Damages
Emergency Services evacuation of 58 people.

Ex. 2 7/5/98 Heavy Rains

Local roads closed to flooding-22,000

Road closed for 12 days;

in damages to road and culvert. Lift station 500 one-way vehicle trips per day

flooded, $8,500 in damages to pump

Sewage backup into 27 homes;

and controls. Total = $94,500

clean-up costs at $3,500/house,

Project Description A. Hazards to be Mitigated / Level of Protection

1. Select the type of hazards the proposed project will mitigate: Flood Wind Seismic Other (list)___________________

2. Identify the type of proposed project:

Elevation and retrofitting of residential or non-residential structure

Acquisition and relocation

Acquisition and demolition

Wind retrofit

Drainage improvement

Other (please explain)_______________________________________________________

3. List the total number of persons that will be protected by the proposed project:_______________

4. Fill in the level of protection and the magnitude of event the proposed project will mitigate. (e.g. 32 structures protected against the 100-year (1%) flood

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

A P P E N D I X
Page 282

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

P

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

P

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

E

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

N

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

D

1. Engineered Projects Only (e.g. Drainage Improvements)

Include ALL engineering calculations (with signed engineering seal) used to determine the above level of

I

protection.

X

1. Useful life of the project

Proposed project will provide protection against the hazard(s) above for _________years.

B. Protection Provided
Describe, in detail, the existing problem, the proposed project and the scope of work. Explain how the proposed project will solve the problem(s) and provide the level(s) of protection described in Section A. Also, if available, attach a vendor's estimate and or a contractor's bid for the scope of work.
Project Location Fully describe the location of the proposed project. 1. Site a. Physical Location Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the location (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. If possible, please provide precise longitude and latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent. Include maps showing location.
a. Population Affected Provide the number of each type of structure (listed below) in the project area. Include all structures in project area.
__________ residential property
__________ businesses / commercial property
__________ public buildings
__________ schools / hospitals / houses of worship
__________ other
2. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing Project Site Attach a copy of the panel(s) from the FIRM, and, if available, the Floodway Map, with the project site and structures marked on the map (FIRMs are typically available from your local floodplain administrator who may be located in the planning, zoning, or engineering office. Maps can also be ordered from the Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616. For more information about FIRMs, contact your local agencies or visit the FIRM site on the FEMA Webpage at http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/firm.sht
Using the FIRM, determine the flood zone(s) of the project site (Check all zones in the project area). VE or V 1-30 AE or A 1-30 AO or AH A (no base flood elevation given) B or X (shaded) C or X (unshaded) Floodway Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project )
If the FIRM Map for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for your area, with the project site and structures marked on the map
Page 283

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

1. City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs

A

Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map.

P

USGS 1:24,000 topo map with project site marked on the map.

P

E
For acquisition, elevation or retrofit projects, include a copy of the Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property

Identification Map, etc.) showing each property. This map

N

should include the Tax ID numbers for each parcel, if available.

D

Attach photographs (2 copies each) for each project site. The photographs should be representative of the project area, including any relevant buildings, streams, creeks, rivers, etc. and drainage areas that

I

affect the project site or will be affected by the project.

X

Scope of Work / Budget

In this section, provide the details of all costs of the project. As this information is used for the Benefit-Cost Analysis, detailed and up to date cost estimates are essential. As project administrative costs are calculated on a sliding scale, do not include this in the budget. Do not include contingency costs in the budget.

A. Materials Item

Dimension

Quantity Cost per Unit

Total Cost

A. Labor (Include equipment costs -- please indicate all "soft" or in-kind matches)

Description

Hours

Rate

Cost

A. Fees Paid Include any other costs associated with the project, engineering, permits, inspections, etc.

Description of Task

Hours

Rate

Cost

Total Estimated Project Cost $___________________

A. Funding Sources (round figures to the nearest dollar) The maximum FEMA share for HMGP projects is 75%. The other 25% can be made up of State and Local funds as well as in-kind services. HMGP funds may be packaged with other Federal funds, but other Federal funds (except for Federal funds which lose their Federal identity at the State level such as CDBG, ARS, HOME) may not be used for the State or Local match.

Estimated FEMA Share

$

% of Total (Maximum of 75%)

Non-Federal Share

Estimated Local Share

$

$

Estimated State Share

$

$

% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-kind)
% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-kind)

Other Agency Share

$

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency $

Total Funding sources from above

$

Other Non-FEMA Federal Funds

$

Identify Other Federal Agency $

% of Total
% of Total (Should equal 100%) Do Not Include In Total

Project Work Schedule (List timeline for the completion of this project:

Page 284

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 285

Description of Task

Number of Days to Complete

Ex. Demolition of 6 structures and removal of debris

14 days

Work Completed By_________ Demolition Contractor

Environmental Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives
Because HMGP is a federally funded program, all projects are required to undergo an environmental and historic preservation review as part of the grant application process. All projects must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated Federal, State, and Local statutes to obtain funding. NO WORK can be done prior to the NEPA review process. If work is done on your proposed project before the NEPA review is completed, it will NOT be eligible for Federal funding.
1. The following information is required for the Environmental and Historic Preservation review: All projects must have adequate documentation to determine if the proposed project complies with NEPA and associated statutes.
Detailed project description, scope of work, and budget/costs) Project area maps Project area/structure photographs Preliminary project plans Project alternatives description and impacts Please complete the applicable project worksheets. Dates of construction are required for all structures.
2. Alternative Actions
The NEPA process requires that at least two alternative actions be considered that address the same problem/issue as the proposed project. In this section, list two feasible alternative projects to mitigate the hazards faced in the project area. One alternative is the "No Action Alternative". This application cannot be processed if this section is incomplete.

A. No Action Alternative Discuss the impacts on the project area if no action is taken.

B. Other Feasible Alternative Discuss other feasible alternatives to the proposed project. This could be an entirely different mitigation method or a signifi-
cant modification to the design of the current proposed project.

Hazards to be Mitigated / Level of Protection

1. Select the type of hazards the alternative project will mitigate: Flood Wind Seismic Other (list)___________________

2. Identify the type of alternative project:

Elevation and retrofitting of residential or non-residential structure

Acquisition and relocation

Acquisition and demolition

Wind retrofit

Drainage improvement

Other (please explain)_______________________________________________________

3. List the total number of persons that will be protected by the alternative project:_______________

quake quake quake

4. Fill in the level of protection and the magnitude of event the alternative project will mitigate. (e.g. 32 structures protected against the 100-year (1%) flood

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earth-

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earth-

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earth-

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

Engineered Projects Only (e.g. Drainage Improvements) Include (attach to this page) ALL engineering calculations (with signed engineering seal) used to determine the above level of protection.

Useful life of the alternative project

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Alternative project will provide protection against the hazard(s) above for _________years.

P

Does alternative project conform to local mitigation plan

_____Yes _____No

P

E

Is alternative project pre-identified in local mitigation plan?

_____Yes _____No

C. Alternative Project Description / Protection Provided

N

Describe, in detail, the existing problem, the alternative project and the scope of work. Explain how the alternative project will solve the problem(s) and provide the level(s) of protection described in Section A. Also, if available, attach a ven-

D

dor's estimate and or a contractor's bid for the scope of work.

I

C. Alternative Project Location

X

Fully describe the location of the alternative project.

1. Site

a. Physical Location

Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the loca-

tion (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. If possible, please provide precise

longitude and latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning

system (GPS) unit or the equivalent. Include maps showing location.

a. Population Affected Provide the number of each type of structure (listed below) in the project area. Include all structures in project area.
__________ residential property
__________ businesses / commercial property
__________ public buildings
__________ schools / hospitals / houses of worship
__________ other 2. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing Project Site
Attach a copy of the panel(s) from the FIRM, and, if available, the Floodway Map, with the project site and structures marked on the map (FIRMs are typically available from your local floodplain administrator who may be located in the planning, zoning, or engineering office. Maps can also be ordered from the Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616. For more information about FIRMs, contact your local agencies or visit the FIRM site on the FEMA Webpage at http://www.fema.gov/home/MSC/hardcopy.htm
Using the FIRM, determine the flood zone(s) of the project site (Check all zones in the project area). VE or V 1-30 AE or A 1-30 AO or AH A (no base flood elevation given) B or X (shaded) C or X (unshaded) Floodway Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) Zone Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project )
If the FIRM Map for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for your area, with the project site and structures marked on the map

3. City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire alternative project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map.
USGS 1:24,000 topo map with alternative project site marked on the map.
For acquisition, elevation or retrofit projects, include a copy of the Parcel Map (Tax Map, Property Identification Map, etc.) showing each property. This map should include the Tax ID numbers for each parcel, if available.

Page 286

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Attach photographs (2 copies each) for each project site. The photographs should show the project

P

area, including any relevant buildings, streams, creeks, rivers, etc. and drainage areas that affect the project site or will be affected by the project.

P

3. Scope of Work / Budget for Alternative project

E

In this section, provide the details of all costs of the project. As this information is used for the Benefit-Cost Analysis, reasonable cost

N

estimates are essential. As project administrative costs are calculated on a sliding scale, do not include this in the budget.

Do not include contingency costs in the budget.

D

I

A. Materials

X

Item

Dimension

Quantity Cost per Unit

Total Cost

A. Labor (Include equipment costs -- please indicate all "soft" or in-kind matches)

Description

Hours

Rate

Cost

A.

B. in

C. g, permits, inspections, etc.

Description of Task

Hours

Rate

Cost

Total Estimated Project Cost $____________________

A. Funding Sources (round figures to the nearest dollar) The maximum FEMA share for HMGP projects is 75%. The other 25% can be made up of State and Local funds as well as in-kind services. HMGP funds may be packaged with other Federal funds, but other Federal funds (except for Federal funds which lose their Federal identity at the State level such as CDBG, ARS, HOME) may not be used for the State or Local match.

Estimated FEMA Share

$

of 75%)

% of Total (Maximum

Non-Federal Share

Estimated Local Share

$

$

(In-kind)

% of Total (Cash) % of Total

Estimated State Share

$

$

(In-kind)

Other Agency Share

$

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency

% of Total (Cash) % of Total
% of Total

Total Funding sources from above

$

Other Non-FEMA Federal Funds

$

Identify Other Federal Agency

% of Total (Should equal 100%) Do Not Include In Total

E. Alternative Project Work Schedule (List timeline for the completion of this project:

Description of Task

Number of Days to Complete

Ex. Demolition of 6 structures and removal of debris

14 days

Work Completed By_________ Demolition Contractor

Page 287

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents

A

All projects that receive Federal funding must comply with NEPA and associated Federal, State, Tribal, and local statutes. NO WORK can be done on MOST proposed projects before the NEPA review is complete. If work is done on your proposed

P

project before the NEPA review is completed, it may NOT be eligible for Federal funding.

P

If your project is one of the following, no additional NEPA documents are required.

E

1) Development of Mitigation Plans

3) Studies involving only staff time and funding

2) Inspection and monitoring activities 4) Training activities using existing facilities

N

All applications must have adequate NEPA documents that enable the FEMA Regional Environmental Officer to determine that the

D

proposed project complies with NEPA and associated statutes. The FEMA Mitigation Division Environmental Specialists provide comprehensive NEPA technical assistance for States and Applicants, with their consent, to complete NEPA reviews sooner. The type

I

and quantity of NEPA documents required to make this determination varies depending upon the project's size, location, and com-

X

plexity. However, at a minimum, all proposed projects must include the following NEPA documents:

If the following conditions exist:

The project involves alteration or modification of existing structures only, or

All work will be done on previously disturbed land, then . . .

Attach the following NEPA documents for the proposed project:

A letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding cultural resources (archeological and historic) in the project area, and the proposed project's likely effects on these resources. (Sample SHPO letter enclosed) Project alternative descriptions and impacts (pages 9 and 10 of this application).
For All Other Projects, attach the following NEPA documents as applicable: A letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding cultural resources (archeological and historic) in the project area, the project's likely effects on these resources, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate these effects.
Project alternative descriptions and impacts (pages 9 and 10 of this application).
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, a Stormwater Management Permit, a Water Quality Permit, and an Air Quality Permit from the State Environmental Agency or their letter stating no permits are required for the project.
An Individual (404 Wetlands) Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District, their letter stating the project can be done under an existing Nationwide Permit, or their letter stating no permit is required for the project.
A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding fish and wildlife, Federal-listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate (off-set) the project's adverse effects.
A letter from the State Wildlife Resources regarding fish and wildlife, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate the project's adve
rse effects.
A letter from the State Natural Heritage Program regarding State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant and animal species, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate the project's adverse effects.
A letter from the State Environmental Agency regarding hazardous waste and toxic materials in the project area, and if applicable, actions required to properly handle, transport and dispose the waste/materials.
Environmental Justice Attach documents regarding evaluation and satisfactory resolution of Environmental Justice issues (Highly Disproportionate, Adverse Impacts (effects) on Minority or Low Income Populations). Documents can include public meeting records, media reports, letters from interested persons and groups; studies on population, ethnic groups, quality of life, housing, economics, transportation, public services, public health, voting, etc.
In addition to the above, If the project involves disturbing five or more acres of land, attach the following NEPA document:
A NPDES permit from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
If the project is located outside of town/city limits, attach the following NEPA documents: A letter and report from the USDA National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS) regardin g Prime, Unique, or other Important Farmlands.
If the project is located in a coastal area, attach the following NEPA documents: A letter from the State Coastal Management Agency regarding Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). A letter from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding commercial fishing and breeding grounds.

Page 288

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

SAMPLE SHPO LETTER

P

Date

E

N

Mr. Ray Luce Director

D

Attn: Elizabeth Shirk

I

Environmental Review Coordinator

State Historic Preservation Division

X

156 Trinity Avenue S. W. Suite 101

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

RE: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Dear Mr. Luce:
The City/County of _________ is currently applying to the Georgia Emergency Management Agen cy for a grant to fund a __________________ project. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requests a letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding cultural resources (archeological and historical) in the project area and the project's likely effects on those resources.
Enclosed are a map and color photographs that highlight the proposed project area, a brief description of the proposed project and the approximate date of construction of the structure(s) to be mitigated. We believe that no historical resources will be affected by this project.
If you have any questions please call me at (---) --- - ----. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
(Your Name) (Title)
Enclosure CC: Alicia Soriano, Hazard Mitigation Risk Reduction Program Manager
Georgia Emergency Management Agency

Page 289

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Historical/Archaeological Check List for SHPO Letter

P

In order to obtain the comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), you

P

should submit the following information: Items (a) (j) if your project involves a building. Items (a),

E

(c), (d), (e), (i) if your project only involves ground disturbing activities. ___a. Detailed project description

N

___b. Photographs of structure(s), prints clearly labeled as to property and indicating location of

D

all shots.

I

___c. Photographs of the property's surrounding and adjacent landscape.

___d. Project location map (copy of USGS map preferred)

X

___e. Site plans

___f. Building elevations

___g. Methods and materials proposed for repair or replacement

___h. Date(s) of construction of original structure ___i. Description of previous land use ___j. Location in or near any known historic district

Page 290

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

P

P

All applicants whose proposed project involves the retrofit or modification of existing public property or whose proposed project would result in the public ownership or

E

management of property, structures, or facilities, must first sign the following agreement

N

prior to submitting their application to FEMA. (NOTE: Those applicants whose project only involves the retrofitting, elevation, or

D

other modification to private property where the ownership will remain private after

I

project completion DO NOT have to complete this form.)

X

The ________________ of __________________________, State of ________________,

hereby agrees that

(City, Town, County) if it receives any Federal aid as a result of the

sary, for the routine maintenance of any real property, structures, or facilities acquired or constructed as a result of such Federal aid. Routine maintenance sattached project application, it will accept responsibility, at its own expense if neces hall include, but not be limited to, such responsibilities as keeping vacant land clear of debris, garbage, and vermin; keeping stream channels, culverts, and storm drains clear of obstructions and debris; and keeping detention ponds free of debris, trees, and woody growth.

The purpose of this agreement is to make clear the Subgrantee's maintenance responsibilities following project award and to show the Subgrantee's acceptance of these responsibilities. It does not replace, supercede, or add to any other maintenance responsibilities imposed by Federal law or regulation and which are in force on the date of project award.

Signed by __________________________________________the duly authorized representative (printed or typed name of signing official)

____________________________________of ________________________________________, (title)

(name of applicant)

this _____________(day) of ______________ (month), ___________(year).

Authorized Applicant Agent's Signature*______________________________
* An individual authorized to sign financial and legal documents on behalf on the local government (e.g., the Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners or the County Manager, etc.)

Page 291

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Property Acquisition Worksheet

A

Page 1 of Four

P

NOTE: Participation in an acquisition project must be voluntary on the part of the property owner.

P

E

Prepare separate worksheet for each individual property to be acquired.

N

Include three or more color photographs (2 copies of each) showing a front view, a side view,

D

and a back view of each structure to be acquired. Attach photographs to the worksheet for

I

that property.

Include the tax parcel map for each property to be acquired.

X

Include signed statement of voluntary participation.

Include a copy of the current tax card for each property to be acquired.

Include declarations page from current flood insurance policy.

A. Site Information:

1. Physical/Legal Location:________________________________________________________________

1. T Include latitude and longitude coordinates ________________________________________________

1. Flood Zone Designation (check all zones applicable for the property):

VE or V 1-30

A (no base

flood elevation given)

C or X (unshaded)

AE or A 1-30

B or X (shaded)

Floodway

CBRA Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state Agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)

Other (describe) __________________________________________________________________
Attach substantial damage certificate from the local flood plain manager or building inspector if damaged <50% property value.
Substantial Damage Certificate Attached

1. Name of Flood Source:_________________________________________________________

1. Base Flood or 100 Year Flood Elevation of Property: __________________________________

1. Lowest (Finished) Floor Elevation of Living Area of Principal Structure: __________

1. If recently flooded, provide depth of water in the structure _________inches for ______day(s)

B. Structure Information: 1. Building Type: (check one)

1-sto ry w/o basement 2-story w/o basement

Split-level w/o basement

Split level with

1-story with basement

basement 2-story with basement

Mobile Home

Other

_______________

Page 292

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

1. Building Use (check all that apply)

P

P

Primary Residence

Rental Property

Secondary Residence Commercial Property

Public Building

House of Worship

Multi-Family

Other______________

E

N

Property Acquisition Worksheet

D

Page 2 of Four

I

1. Construction Type

X

Wood Frame

Concrete Block

Other___________________________________

a. Total Square Footage of Principal Structure (heated or cooled areas only):_______________

b. Estimated Cost to Replace Principal Structure (if known):____________________________

c. Estimated Cost to Replace Contents (if known):____________________________________

d. Are there accessory or out

buildings on the property? Yes No

If Yes, Attached Detached

1. Foundation Type Slab on Grade Crawl Space Other_______________________________

C. Project Cost Information: Adjust for inflation (consider the date of acquisition when compiling the cost estimates).

Page 293

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Project Cost Information

Costs

P

P

Owner's full name:

N/A

E

Spouse full name(if applicable):

N

N/A

D

Mailing address:

N/A

I

X

City, State, ZIP:

N/A

Property Address:

N/A

Tax Parcel Identification number:

N/A

Year built:

N/A

Square footage of the building (heated and cooled areas only): Fair Market Value** (Identify Source): Estimated cost of demolition Estimated Appraisal Costs Estimated Asbestos testing and Abatement Costs Estimated Closing Costs Estimated Relocation Assistance Other Costs

N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Cost to Acquire Property $
Property Acquisition Worksheet C. History of Hazards / Damages to the Property being acquired

List all current and past damages to the property (including damages to the structure, its contents, and any displacement costs). Include damage from declared disaster events AND other hazard events that did not result in a presidential declaration.
Note regarding damage estimates: the date, descriptions of damages, depth of flooding inside structure, and cost of repairs/replacement must be specific to ONLY the building under consideration. Additionally, vague information is not useful or acceptable in lieu of specific building damage estimates. The property damages can be a homeowner's estimate; however, please include a contractor's itemized repair estimate, if possible.

Page 294

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Date of Event Event

P

E

N

D

I

X

Depth of Flooding Inside Structure (Above finished floor)

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

Is structure currently insured through the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes

No

If yes, provide flood copy of flood declarations page

Is structure on FEMA's repetitive loss list? Yes

No

If yes, provide repetitive loss number: _______________________

Page 295

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Property Acquisition Worksheet

P

P

Statement of Acquisition Voluntary Participation

E

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of ____________, ____, between __________

N

D

____, hereinafter referred to as "Sub-grantee," through its authorized agent, ______________, and _______________, hereinafter referred to as "Seller." The parties agree as follows:

I

X

1. Seller affirms that he/she/they is/are the owner/owners of property located at ______________, hereinafter referred to as "this property."

2. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that the Sub-grantee may wish to purchase this property upon award of Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds, and, if the Seller agrees to sell, Seller must permanently relocate from this property.

3. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that it believes the fair market value (FMV) of this property, as of _______________ is $______________ determined by valuation procedures publicized and implemented by Sub-grantee.

4. Sub-grantee hereby notifies that the Seller is not required to sell this property and Sub-grantee will not use its power of eminent domain to acquire this property as part of the Hazard Mitigation Program, if Seller chooses not to sell it.

5. Sub-grantee has notified the Seller that if the Seller agrees to sell this property to Sub-grantee, such a transaction is voluntary. Consequently, the Seller is not entitled to relocation benefits provided by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which are available to property owners who must sell their properties involuntarily.

6. This Agreement shall expire on ______________, unless the Seller has voluntarily sold property to the Sub-grantee by that date.

Property Owner Signature

Date

Property Owner Signature

Date

Sub-grantee's Authorized Agent Signature

Date

7.

Page 296

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Elevation Worksheet

P

NOTE: Participation in an elevation project must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. Flood

Insurance Policies must be purchased for all structures that are part of a FEMA elevation project. For more

P

information visit http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm

E

N

Prepare separate worksheet for each structure to be elevated.

D

Include three or more color photographs (2 copies of each) showing a front view, a side view,

I

and a back view

of each structure to be elevated. Attach photographs to the worksheet for that property.

X

Include the tax parcel map for each property to be elevated.

Include a copy of the current tax card for each property to be elevated.

Attach elevation certificate if available for each property to be elevated.

Include signed statement of homeowner willingness to voluntarily participate.

Attach declarations page of current flood insurance policy.

A. Site Information: 1. Property Owner and Street Address (including city, state and zip code) or Physical/Legal Location:
Include latitude and longitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent:

2. Tax Parcel Identification Number _________________________

3. Year Built________________________

4. Flood Zone Designation (Check all zones applicable for the property)

VE or V 1-30

A (no base flood elevation given)

C or X (unshaded)

AE or A 1-30

B or X (shaded)

Floodway

CBRA Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state Agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)

Other (describe) _________________________________________________

_________________
Attach substantial damage certificate from the local flood plain manager or building inspector if damaged <50% property value.
Substantial Damage Certificate Attached

5. Name of Flood Source:_________________________________________________________ 6. Base Flood Elevation or 100 Year Flood Elevation of Property:______________________ 7. Lowest (Finished) Floor Elevation of Living Area of Principal Structure: ________________ 8. If recently flooded, provide depth of water in the structure _________inches for ______day(s)

A. Structure Information: 1. Building Type: (check one)
1-story w/o basement 2-story w/o basement basement

Split-level w/o basement

1-story with basement 2-story with ba

sement Mobile Home

Other ______________________

Split level with

2. Building Use (check all that apply)

Primary Residence

Rental Property

Public Building

House of Worship

Other___________________________

Secondary Residence Multi-Family

Commercial Property

Page 297

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Elevation Worksheet

A

Page 2 of Four

P

3. Construction Type

P

Wood Frame

Concrete Block

Other___________________________________

E

a. Total Square Footage of Principal Structure (heated or cooled areas only): _____________ b. Estimated Cost to Replace Principal Structure (if known):____________________________

N

c. Estimated Cost to Replace Contents (if known):____________________________________

D

4. Foundation Type Slab on Grade

Crawl Space

I

Other___________________________________

X

5. Elevation Information

a.

Proposed Elevation Height (above sea level): _______Feet _______Inches

b.

Proposed Foundation Type for Elevated Structure: Columns

Other___________________________

Pilings

B. Project Cost Information:
List all anticipated costs. Estimated costs should clearly reference source information used in obtaining estimates. For instance, RS Means, Marshall & Swift, qualified contractor, A/E firm, etc. Include the engineering feasibility analysis recommendations and fees and permits. Adjust for inflation (consider the date of construction when compiling the cost estimates).

Item Description

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

Estimated Total Cost to Elevate Structure $___________________________ Page 298

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Elevation Worksheet

P

D. History of Hazards / Damages to the Structure being elevated

List all current and past damages to the property (including damages to structure, contents, and displace-

P

ment costs). Include damage from declared disaster events AND other hazard events which did not result

E

in a presidential declaration.

N

Note regarding damage estimates: the date, descriptions of damages, depth of flooding inside structure,

D

and cost of repairs/replacement must be specific to ONLY the building under consideration. Additionally,

I

vague information is not useful or acceptable in lieu of specific building damage estimates. The property

damages can be a homeowner's estimate; however, please i

X

include a contractor's itemized repair estimate, if possible.

Date of Event

Event

Depth of Flooding Inside Structure

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

Is structure currently insured through the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes

No

Is structure on FEMA's repetitive loss list? Yes

No

If yes, provide repetitive loss number: _______________________

Page 299

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Elevation Worksheet

A

P

Statement of Elevation Voluntary Participation

P

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of ____________, ____, between

E

______________, hereinafter referred to as "Sub-grantee," through its authorized agent, ______________,

and _______________, hereinafter referred to as "Property Owner". The parties agree as follows:

N

D

1. Property Owner affirms that he/she/they is/are the owner/owners of property located at ______________, hereinafter referred to as "this property."

I

X

2. Sub-grantee has notified the Property Owner that the Sub-grantee may wish to elevate this property

upon award of Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds, and, if Property Owner agrees to elevate, the Sub-

grantee will be responsible to contract the work for the elevation project to meet all applicable

building codes.

3. Sub-grantee has notified the Property Owner that he/she/they is/are not required to elevate this property. The subgrantee will take no further action if the Property Owner chooses not to participate on a voluntary basis.

4. Sub-grantee has notified the Property Owner that if Property Owner agrees to elevate this property, such a transaction is voluntary.

5. This Agreement shall expire on ______________, unless the Property Owner has voluntarily allowed the property to be elevated by Sub-grantee by that date.

Property Owner Signature

Date

Property Owner Signature

Date

Sub-grantee's Authorized Agent Signature

Date

Page 300

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Drainage Project Worksheet

P

P

History of Flood Related Hazards / Damages in the Area to be Protected

Describe all flood related past damages from hazardous events (include name of storms if applicable) in the

E

project area. Include presidentially declared disasters as well as events that did not result in a Presidential

N

declaration.

D

Date of Event

Description of Event

Description of Damage

Amount of Dam-

I

ages

X

For each event, include a discussion on the effectiveness the proposed project will have on the amount of damages. For each event, indicate the number of days without service for the damaged structures (functional downtime and loss of service).
Project Location Fully describe the location of the proposed project.
Site Physical Location Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the location (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. Please provide precise longitude and latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent. Include maps showing location.
Population Affected Provide for each type of structure the number of people in the project area that will receive a benefit from the proposed project. Include all structures in project area. __________ Residential property __________ Businesses / commercial property __________ Public buildings __________ Schools / hospitals / houses of worship __________ Roadways
City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map. USGS 1:24,000 topo map with project site marked on the map.
Page 301

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Site Plan A site plan, with alignment drawings, that includes the location, plan view and cross-section of cuts,

P

fills and structures are required. Include the type, and measurements of all pipes, culverts, ditches,

P

swales and detention/retention basins and ponds. Send the following engineering documentation as

E

appropriate. Be sure that submitted documents are signed and sealed by preparing engineer.

N

Calculations used to determine the sizes of any culverts in the project area

(drainage area, amount of flow, slope of culvert, invert elevations).

D

Calculations used to determine the sizes of any ditches and swales in the

I

project area (drainage area, amount of flow, slope and depth of the

X

ditch).

Calculations used to determine the size of any detention/retention basins and ponds (drainage area, amount of flow, stage-storage, and stagedischarge curves).

Statement indicating no upstream or downstream impacts.

Statement indicating the design level of the drainage improvement. i.e. 100 year protection

Additional Benefit-Cost Information Additional annual maintenance cost attributed to the project:___________________________________

The flood frequency at which the drainage structure is likely to fail, both for the as-is (before mitigation) condition and for the upgraded (after-mitigation) condition. __________________________________

Loss of Function for Roads/Bridges Estimated Number of One-Way Trips Per Day:______________________________________ Estimated Delay (Detour) Time per One Way Trip
(hours):_____________________________

Loss of Function for Utilities Unit of Service Examples are gallons of water, kilowatt hours of electricity:____________ Unit of Time Enter applicable unit corresponding to unit of ser-
vice:_____________________ Volume of Service Provided:____________________________________________________ Normal Value per Unit of Service:________________________________________________
Loss of Function for Buildings Annual budget of Public/Non-profit agencies:_______________________________________

Project Costs List all anticipated project costs. Adjust for inflation (consider the date of construction when compiling the cost estimates).

Page 302

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Item De-

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price Amount

P

scription

P

E

N

D

I

X

Source

Drainage Project Worksheet

Page 3 of Three

Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) A Letter of Map Revision may be needed on this project. Any changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) need to be reflected on the flood maps, which is accomplished through the LOMR process. The construction of this project may lower the 100-year flood elevation and thus, possibly lower the flood insurance rates for structures in the project area.

Page 303

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Wind Retrofit Worksheet

A

Please fill out this worksheet completely. A separate worksheet is required for each structure to be wind retrofit-

P

ted.

P

E

Include 3 or more color photographs (2 copies each) showing a front, back and side view of each struc-

ture to be retrofitted. Make sure that the photographs are attached to the proper wind retrofit work-

N

sheet for that property.

D

Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked (Aerial Photos and GPS

Lat/Long are optional but if used, decimal degrees are preferred).

I

If pursuing shutters, provide evidence that the shutter system complies with the Miami-Dade County

X

Specifications. The best evidence of this is a certificate issued by the Miami-Dade County Build-

ing Department stating that the proposed shutter products have been tested approved and comply

with the Miami-Dade County Specifications. Non-certified shutters or products cannot be used.

If submitting more than one retrofit project for funding consideration, rank each project in order of most

important to least important with 1 being the project that is the highest priority.

Priority:

of

Project Information

Building Name

Address

City, State and Zip

Longitude

Latitude

Owner/Applicant

Building Point of Contact (POC)

Building POC Phone

Fax

Application Date

Worksheet prepared by

Title

B. Building Data

1. General Construction Classification Non-Engineered Wood Wood buildings do not receive specific engineering attention. Examples include single and multi-family residences, some one- or two-story apartment units and some small commercial buildings. Non-Engineered Masonry These masonry buildings do not receive specific engineering attention. Examples include single and multi-family residences, some one- or two-story apartment units and some small commercial buildings. Manufactured Building These buildings are typically light metal structures or manufactured housing units (example- mobile homes). Manufactured buildings are produced in large numbers of identical or similar units. Lightly Engineered These buildings may combine masonry with steel framing, openweb steel joists, wood framing, and wood rafters. Some parts of the building receive engineering attention while others do not. Examples include motels, commercial and light industrial buildings.

Page 304

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Wind Retrofit Worksheet

P

Fully Engineered Usually these buildings are designed for a specific site and thus re-

P

ceive specific, individualized design attention from professional architects and engi-

E

neers. Examples include high-rise office and hotel buildings, hospitals and most pub-

lic buildings.

N

Other These buildings do not fit into any of the descriptions listed above.

D

Building Site Location (Miles inland)

I

Number of Stories Above Grade

X

____________________________________________________________________

Construction Date:____________________________________________________________________

Remaining Useful Lifetime of Building (in years):____________________________________________

Building Size and Use Total Floor Area (SF) Area occupied by owner or applicant (SF)

Building Value Current Building Replacement Value Building damage that would result in demolition (%)

Building Contents 1. Contents description 2. Total value of contents
Displacement Costs due to Wind Damage 1. Rental cost of temporary building space ($/SF/month)
2. Other displacement costs ($/month)
One time displacement costs
Value of Public/Non-profit service Description of services provided Annual budget of public/non-profit agencies, including rent
Post Disaster Continuity Premium ($/day) Total value of lost services
Rent and Business Income Total monthly rent from all tenants ($/month) Estimated Net Income of commercial businesses ($/month)

Mitigation Project Cost Data Adjust for inflation (consider the date of construction when compiling the cost estimates).
What is the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation measure? Date that Mitigation Project Cost Estimates were generated Additional annual maintenance costs ($/year) resulting from mitigation activities

Page 305

Temporary Relocation Costs Relocation time due to project (months) Rental cost during occupant relocation ($/month) Other relocation costs ($/month)

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Storm Surge Inundation Level If structure is located in a known storm surge area, please check

____ Category 1 _____Category 2

_____Category 3

_____Category 4 _____Category 5

____ Outside Storm Surge Zone

Are there any lay-down hazards present?

_____Yes

_____No

A laydown hazard consists of a tree or other large/tall structure within laydown range of the building,

such that if it falls, it is large enough to inflict a significant breach in the building envelope.

If yes, please describe hazard:

Are there any wind or debris hazards

?

_____ Yes

_____No

Wind and debris hazards consist of large objects within 100 feet of a facility that may be subject to "roll-

over" impact on the structure, or wind borne debris sources within 300 feet of a facility

If yes, please describe exposures:

Describe the condition of the structure to be retrofitted: _________ Good__________ Fair __________ Poor
Buildings in good condition should show no apparent signs of deterioration Buildings in fair condition have minor deterioration such as cracks in walls Buildings in poor condition show major deterioration that is readily observable

Are construction drawings (architectural & structural) and specifications available? _____ Yes _____No

Which wind design standard(s) was used in the design and construction of this facility?

_____SBC or MBMA, Edition 19____

_____ANSI A58.1-1982

_____ASCE 7, Edition 19_____

_____Unknown or no wind design

Predominant Exterior Wall Construction, check only one response as appropriate:

Reinforced Masonry

Light Wood or Metal Stud

(Rebar @ 4 ft. o.c. or closer)________

w/ inch or thicker plywood_______

Partially Reinforced Masonry (Rebar @ 8 ft. o.c. or closer) or reinforced pilasters @ 13.5 ft. o.c.________

Light Wood or Metal Stud w/ light non plywood sheathing
(Includes EIFS)_______

Unreinforced Masonry (exceeds above listed spacings)/Rebar spacing unknown ________ tem_______

Large Panel Glass or other Glazed Panel or Block Sys-

Reinforced Concrete or Precast Concrete Panels (2" min. thickness) ________ tems_______

Metal Sheets or panels or other Light Architectural Panel Sys-

Other Exterior wall system________ Please describe:

What percentage (to the closest 5%) of the total exterior wall area is glass? _______

Are there fixed or operable shutters or other window coverings that will protect windows from large debris impact?
Yes _______ No ________

Predominant Roof Construction, check only one response as appropriate:

Cast in place Reinforced Concrete (standard wgt concrete, 3 inch min.)_________

Plywood on wood or metal joist or truss_________

A P P E N D I X
Page 306

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Precast Concrete Panels ("T's", "Double T's", Planks, etc.)_________

P

E

Metal Decking w/ standard wgt

concrete (3 inch min.) on

N

metal joist, truss or beam_________

D

Other Metal Decking Systems

I

(insulating concrete and/or rigid

X

insulation or other light coverings)_________

Other roof system________ Please describe:

Wood boards or T & G deck on wood joist or truss_________
Cement-fiber panels (i.e.,"Tectum" type) on wood or metal joist or truss_________
Poured Gypsum on Formboard Decking on wood or metal joist or truss_________

Does the roof have a long span area (span greater than 40 ft. between vertical supports)? Yes ________ No _______

If yes, what is the maximum span?_______________

Page 307

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Tornado and Community Shelter Worksheet

A

A check notes a required element

P

Include color photographs showing a front view, a side view, and a back view of each structure to be retrofit-

P

ted. Attach photographs to the worksheet for that property.

E

Include the tax parcel map.

Include a copy of the current tax card.

N

Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked.

D

If submitting more than one shelter project for funding consideration, rank each project in order of most im-

portant to least important with 1 being the project that is the highest priority.

I

Priority:

of

X

Type of proposed project

Shelter Retrofit

New Shelter Construction

Wind Load Design After Mitigation:__________

Project Location and Site Information 1. Property Owner and Physical Street Address (including city, state and zip code) :

2. Include latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees for the site utilizing a hand-held global

positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent.

Latitude:____________________

Longitude:__________________

Tax Parcel Identification Number____________________________

Site Information

a benefit

Provide for each type of structure the number of people in the project area that will receive from proposed project. Include all structures in project area.

________ Residential property

________ Businesses / commercial property

________ Public buildings

_________ Schools / hospitals / houses of worship

Structure Information:

1. Building Longest Length (ft):__________________
2. Building Longest Width(ft):___________________
3. Building Square Footage( sq. ft):_______________
4. Shelter Information: A) Actual area to be used for sheltering (Sq. Ft.):_______________ B) Shelter Construction Type:______________________________
i.e. Reinforced & Precast Concrete, Reinforced Masonry, Un-reinforced Masonry, Steel, Wood, or user defined
C. Maximum Hurricane Occupancy (per day):____________________ D. Maximum Tornado Shelter Occupancy (per day):_____________________

Page 308

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Project Cost List all anticipated costs. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the cost

P

estimate.

E

N

Item De-

Unit

scription

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

D

I

X

Page 309

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION Application Construction
Non-Construction
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name:
Address (give city, county, state, and zip code):

Preapplication Construction
Non-Construction

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

2. DATE SUBMITTED 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY

OMB Approval No. 0348-0043
Applicant Identifier
State Applicant Identifier Federal Identifier

Organizational Unit:
Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this application (give area code)
Technical: Budgetary: Contractual:

A P P E N D I X

6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): --

8. TYPE OF APPLICATION:

New

Continuation

Revision

If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es):

A. Increase Award

B. Decrease Award

D. Decrease Duration

Other (specify):

C. Increase Duration

7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (enter appropriate letter

I

in box)

A. State B. County C. Municipal

H. Independent School Dist.
I. State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning
J. Private University

E. Interstate F. Intermunicipal G. Special District

L. Individual
M. Profit Organization
N. Other (Specify)

9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:

10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 97:039
TITLE: Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP)
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (cities, counties, states, etc.):

11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:

13. PROPOSED PROJECT:

Start Date

Ending Date

14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: a. Applicant

b. Project

15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: a. Federal
$

b. Applicant

$

c. State $

d. Local $

e. Other $

f. Program Income $
g. TOTAL $

16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
.00 a. YES. THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE

AVAILABLE TO THESTATE EXECUTIVE

.00

ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW

ON:

.00

ATE

.00

b. NO. E.O. 12372

D PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY

OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN

.00

SELECTED BY STATE

FOR REVIEW

.00

17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?

Yes No

.00

If "Yes," attach an explanation.

No

18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.

a. Typed Name of Authorized Representative

b. Title

c. Telephone number

d. Signature of Authorized Representative

e. Date Signed

Page 310

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 311

ASSURANCES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0042), Washington, DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.

Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project costs to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application.

1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal and federalassisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases.

Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the assistance; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives.
Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title, or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency. Will record the Federal interest in the title of real property in accordance with awarding agency directives and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with Federal assistance funds to assure non-discrimination during the useful life of the project.
Will comply with the requirements of the assistance awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and approval of construction plans and specifications.

Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508 and 73247328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 276c and 18 U.S.C. 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327333) regarding labor standards for federally-assisted construction subagreements.
Will comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.

Will provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work conforms with the approved plans and specifications and will furnish progress reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or state.
Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency.
Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain.

Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (PL. 93-523); and, (h) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205).

Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 47284763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures.

Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system.
Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.).

Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to non-discrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of Sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 61016107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act f 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (g) 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentially of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application.

Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations."
Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governing this program.

Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL APPLICANT ORGANIZATION

TITLE DATE SUBMITTED

A

P

P

E

N

D

SF-424D (Rev. 7-97) Back

I

X

Page 312

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY

FEMA-_______-DR-GA

STATE ID # ____________

P

HMGP Planning

E

Application Complete

Eligible Applicant State or Local Government Project Type(s)

N

Planning

D

Date Application Received ______________________

Community NFIP Status: (Check

I

all that apply)

X

State Reviewer _______________________________ _______________

Participating Community ID #:

Reviewer Phone # _____________________________

In Good Standing

Non-Participating CRS

Reviewer Fax # _______________________________

Please submit two applications: (one original and one copy)

This application is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) proposals administered by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA). Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require assistance with this application, contact the Hazard Mitigation Planner at 404/635-7522 or 1-800TRY-GEMA.

Applicant Information Title

Project Summary (brief)

Applicant (Organization)

Location of Project:_____________________________________________________________________

State Legislative district(s)

Congressional District(s)

Federal Tax I.D. Number

Duns Number

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Identification Number (this number can be obtained from the FIRM map for your area contact your local floodplain coordinator)

NFIP Community Rating System Class Number

Point of Contact Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name

Last Name

Title

Telephone

Fax

Street Address

City____________________________________ Code______________

State _______ Zip

Email address (if available):

Application Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name__________________

Title ____________________________________Telephone ________________ Fax____________________

E-mail address (if available):

Authorized Applicant Agent*

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ____________________________ Last Name___________________________

Page 313

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Title _____________________________________Telephone __________________

A

Fax____________________

P

Street Ad-

P

dress_______________________________________________________________________________

E

City____________________________________

State _______ Zip Code______________

N

E-mail address (if available):

D

*

An individual with legal signing authority for the respective local government or county (e.g., the Chairperson, Board

of County Commissioners or the County Manager, etc.)

I

X
Project Description Narrative Statement

A.

Scope of Work

Describe, in detail, the proposed project. You will need to include your primary objectives in the pro-

posal.

B.

Action Plan

Outline a plan of action to complete the scope of work and detail how the proposed work will be ac-

complished.

Resources List below in detail the following: The current local resources that you have available to support local planning (Ex: staff, funds, GIS). The anticipated or expected local resources that you will have available to support local planning (Ex:
staff, funds, GIS). Please include sources and timetable associated with anticipated or expected local resources.

Project Work Schedule (List timeline for the completion of this project:

Activity Ex. Hazard Profiling

Number of Days to Complete 30 days

Data: Discuss all data to be collected, data sources, and criteria used to assimilate data and formulate findings.

Scope of Work / Budget In this section, provide the details of all costs of the project. Reasonable cost estimates are essential.
Do not include contingency costs in the budget.

Materials

Materials

Item

Dimension

Quantity Cost per Unit

Total Cost

Labor (Include equipment costs -- please indicate all "soft" or in-kind matches)

Description

Hours

Rate

Cost

Fees Paid Include any other costs associated with the project, engineering, permits, inspections, etc.

Description of Task

Hours

Rate

Cost

Total Estimated Project Cost $____________________

Funding Sources (round figures to the nearest dollar) The maximum FEMA share for HMGP projects is 75%. The other 25% can be made up of State and Local funds as well as in-kind services. HMGP funds

Page 314

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

may be packaged with other Federal funds, but other Federal funds (except for Federal funds which lose

P

their Federal identity at the State level such as CDBG, ARS, HOME) may not be used for the State or Local match.

P

E

Estimated FEMA Share

$

N

(Maximum of 75%)

% of Total

D

Non-Federal Share

I

Estimated Local Share

$

X

$

kind)

% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-

Estimated State Share

$

$

kind)

Other Agency Share

$

% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-
% of Total

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency

Total Funding sources from above $ 100%)

Other Non-FEMA Federal Funds

$

Identify Other Federal Agency

% of Total (Should equal Do Not Include In Total

Page 315

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

FEMA-_____-DR-

THIS SECTION FOR STATE USE ONLY 5% Initiative Application

5%

P

Tornado Initiative Application

P

Conforms to State Mitigation Plan Storm Ready Community

Eligible Applicant

E

Declared Area

State or Local Government

N

Approved Statewide

Private Non-Profit (Tax ID Received)

D

Pending

I

Non-Applicant

X

Community NFIP Status: Participating Community ID #: _______________ In Good Standing

Please submit two applications: (one original and one copy) for each proposed project
This application is for all initiative Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) warning and communication proposals administered by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this application, please contact the Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to your area at 1-800-TRY-GEMA.

Applicant Information

1.

Title / Brief Project Descriptive Summary

________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

2.

Applicant (Organization)

_______________________________________________________________________

3.

Applicant Type

State or Local Government

Recognized Indian Tribe

Private Non-Profit

4.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Identification Number (this number can be ob-

tained from the FIRM map for your area contact your local floodplain coordinator)

5.

NFIP Community Rating System Class Number

6.

Storm Ready Status Approved

Pending

Non-applicant

7.

State Legislative district(s)______________________ Congressional District(s) ________________

8.

Tax I.D. Number _____________________

FIPS Code (if known) ___________________

9.

Point of Contact

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name

Title

Telephone

Street Address

Last Name Fax

City____________________________________

State _______ Zip Code______________

Email address :

10. Application Prepared by

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name__________________

Title _____________________________________Telephone __________________

Page 316

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Fax____________________

P

E-mail address

P

11. Authorized Applicant Agent

E

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name _________________________ Last Name____________________

N

Title _____________________________________Telephone __________________

D

Fax____________________

I

Street Ad-

X

dress______________________________________________________________________________

City____________________________________

State _______ Zip Code______________

E-mail address

12. Is this project identified in your County's FEMA approved Mitigation Plan? ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

NOTE: All proposed projects should be included in the county's Local Mitigation Plan. Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director.

History of Hazards / Damages in the Area to be Protected* Describe all past damages from hazardous events (include name of storms if applicable) in the project area. Include presidentially declared disasters as well as events that did not result in a Presidential declaration.

Overview of Past Damages Provide a detailed past history of damages in the area, including direct and indirect costs. Include information for as many past incidents as possible. Attach any supporting documents. Direct costs should include damages to structures and infrastructure in the project area as a result of the hazard. Indirect costs should include the cost to the local government to respond to victims of the hazard in the project area, any interruption to local businesses, and losses of public services.

Date

Level of Event Damages

Indirect costs (describe) ____

[E.g. 10/7/89 Spring floods of 1985

Total of $95,000 in damages to 16 homes in project area

Emergency Services Evacuation of 58 people.]

(10 year event)

Project Description

Hazards to be Mitigated / Level of Protection Select the type of hazards the proposed project will mitigate: Flood Wind Tornado Seismic Other (list) ___________________

Useful life of the project Proposed project will provide protection against the hazard(s) above for _________years.

Project Description \ Protection Provided Describe, in detail, the proposed project. Also, explain how the proposed project will solve the problem (s) and provide the level(s) of protection described in Section A. Include a discussion on the relationship between this project and the community's storm ready program.

Page 317

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Public Awareness Component Describe, in detail, how the public will be helped by the through warning/communication improvements. Include all aspects of your project which inform the public (1) of the dangers of the hazard being mitigated, and (2) how to prepare and respond to an impending hazard occurrence before and after the warning (e.g. workshops, involvement in exercises, videos, etc.). Note: all warning/communication proposals are required to contain a public awareness component.
Planned Exercise Component Describe, in detail, all exercises being planned. Include the type of exercise, a timeline of when the exercises will happen, and summary of who will be involved. Note: all warning/communication proposals are required to conduct at least one planned exercise annually. This exercise will test the systems ability to respond, include everyone who would be involved in a real disaster, involve the public, and culminate in a report to GEMA cataloging the strengths, weaknesses and recommended policy changes resulting from the exercise.
Project Location Fully describe the location of the proposed project. Site Physical Location Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the location (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. Please provide precise longitude and latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent. Include maps showing location.
Population Affected Provide the number of each type of structure (listed below) in the project area. Include all structures in project area.
__________ residential property
__________ businesses / commercial property
__________ public buildings
__________ schools / hospitals / houses of worship
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing Project Site Attach a copy of the panel(s) from the FIRM, and, if available, the Floodway Map, with the project site and structures marked on the map (FIRMs are typically available from your local floodplain administrator. Using the FIRM, determine the flood zone(s) of the project site (Check all zones in the project area). VE or V 1-30 AE or A 1-30 AO or AH A (no base flood elevation given) B or X (shaded) C or X (unshaded) Floodway Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project )
If the FIRM Map for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for your area, with the project site and structures marked on the map

A P P E N D I X
Page 318

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area)

P

with the project site and structures marked on the map.

E
USGS 1:24,000 topo map with project site marked on the map.
N

D

Scope of Work / Budget

In this section, provide the details of all costs of the project. Do not include contingency costs in the budget.

I

X

Project Costs

List all anticipated costs in detailed. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the

cost estimate.

Item De-

Unit

scription

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

Total Estimated Project Cost $____________________

Funding Sources The maximum FEMA share for HMGP projects is 75%. The other 25% can be made up of State and Local funds as well as in-kind services. HMGP funds may be packaged with other Federal funds, but other Federal funds (except for Federal funds which lose their Federal identity at the State level such as CDBG) may not be used for the State or Local match.

Estimated FEMA Share

$

% of Total

Non-Federal Share

Estimated Local Share

$

(Include In-Kind Value)

Estimated State Share

$

% of Total % of Total

Other Agency Share

$

tal

% of To-

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency

Other Non-FEMA Federal Funds

$

Identify Other Federal Agency

Do Not Include In Total

Page 319

Schedule of Work Provide an estimated time-line for the critical activities not to exceed a period of 2 years for performance. (e.g. Designing, Engineering, Permitting, etc.):

Activity

Number of Days to Complete

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

[e.g. Installation of five sirens

14 days]

Environmental Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives
Because HMGP is a federally funded program, all projects are required to undergo an environmental and historic preservation review as part of the grant application process. All projects must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated Federal, State, and Local statutes to obtain funding. NO WORK can be done prior to the NEPA review process. If work is done on your proposed project before the NEPA review is completed, it will NOT be eligible for Federal funding.
1. The following information is required for the Environmental and Historic Preservation review: All projects must have adequate documentation to determine if the proposed project complies with NEPA and associ-
ated statutes.
Detailed project description, scope of work, and budget/costs Project area maps (Section II, part B & C of this application Project area/structure photographs (Section II, part C of this application Preliminary project plans Project alternatives description and impacts (Section IV of the application Please complete the applicable project worksheets. Dates of construction are required for all structures.
2. Alternative Actions
The NEPA process requires that at least two alternative actions be considered that address the same problem/issue as the proposed project. In this section, list two feasible alternative projects to mitigate the hazards faced in the project area. One alternative is the "No Action Alternative". This application cannot be processed if this section is incomplete.

No Action Alternative Discuss the impacts on the project area if no action is taken.

Other Feasible Alternative

Discuss other feasible alternatives to the proposed project. This could be an entirely different mitigation method or a significant

modification to the design of

the current proposed project.

Hazards to be Mitigated / Level of Protection

Select the type of hazards the alternative project will mitigate: Flood Wind Seismic Other (list) ___________________

Identify the type of alternative project:

Elevation and retrofitting of residential or non-residential structure

Acquisition and relocation

Acquisition and demolition

Wind retrofit

Drainage improvement

Other (please explain) _______________________________________________________

List the total number of persons that will be protected by the alternative project:_______________

Fill in the level of protection and the magnitude of event the alternative project will mitigate. (e.g. 32 structures protected against the 100-year (1%) flood

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

______ structures protected against the ______ yr. Flood / ______ mph. Winds / ______Mercalli Scale Earthquake

(10, 25, 50, 100, 500)

[1-12]

Engineered Projects Only (e.g. Drainage Improvements) Include (attach to this page) ALL engineering calculations (with signed engineering seal) used to determine the above level of protection.

Useful life of the alternative project

Alternative project will provide protection against the hazard(s) above for _________years.

Does alternative project conform to local mitigation plan

_____Yes _____No

Is alternative project pre-identified in local mitigation plan?

_____Yes _____No

A P P E N D I X
Page 320

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

Alternative Project Description / Protection Provided Describe, in detail, the existing problem, the alternative project and the scope of work. Explain how the alternative project will

E

solve the problem(s) and provide the level(s) of protection described in Section A. Also, if available, attach a vendor's estimate and or a contractor's bid for the scope of work.

N

Alternative Project Location

D

Fully describe the location of the alternative project.

Site

I

Physical Location

X

Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the location (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. If possible, please provide precise longitude

and latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit

or the equivalent. Include maps showing location.

Population Affected Provide the number of each type of structure (listed below) in the project area. Include all structures in project area.
__________ residential property
__________ businesses / commercial property
__________ public buildings
__________ schools / hospitals / houses of worship
__________ other Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing Project Site Attach a copy of the panel(s) from the FIRM, and, if available, the Floodway Map, with the project site and structures
marked on the map (FIRMs are typically available from your local floodplain administrator who may be located in the planning, zoning, or engineering office. Maps can also be ordered from the Map Service Center at 1-800358-9616. For more information about FIRMs, contact your local agencies or visit the FIRM site on the FEMA Webpage at http://www.fema.gov/home/MSC/hardcopy.htm
Using the FIRM, determine the flood zone(s) of the project site (Check all zones in the project area). VE or V 1-30 AE or A 1-30 AO or AH A (no base flood elevation given) B or X (shaded) C or X (unshaded) Floodway Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) Zone Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)
If the FIRM Map for your area is not published, please attach a copy of the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for your area, with the project site and structures marked on the map

City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire alternative project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map.
USGS 1:24,000 topo map with alternative project site marked on the map.
Attach photographs (2 copies each) for each project site. The photographs should show the project area, including any relevant buildings, streams, creeks, rivers, etc. and drainage areas that affect the project site or will be affected by the project.

Alternative Scope of Work / Budget

In this section, provide the details of all costs of the project. As this information is used for the Benefit-Cost Analysis, reasonable cost

estimates are essential. As

project administrative costs are calculated on a sliding scale, do not include this in the budget. Do not

include contingency costs in the budget.

Page 321

Materials Item

Dimension

Quantity Cost per Unit

Total Cost

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Labor (Include equipment costs -- please indicate all "soft" or in-kind matches)

P

Description

Hours

Rate

Cost

E

Fees Paid Include any other costs associated with the project, engineering, permits, inspections, etc.

N

Description of Task

Hours

Rate

Cost

D

Total Estimated Project Cost $____________________

I

Funding Sources (round figures to the nearest dollar) The maximum FEMA share for HMGP projects is 75%. The other

X

25% can be made up of State and Local funds as well as in-kind services. HMGP funds may be packaged with other

Federal funds, but other Federal funds (except for Federal funds which lose their Federal identity at the State level

such as CDBG, ARS, HOME) may not be used for the State or Local match.

Estimated FEMA Share$

% of Total (Maximum of 75%)

Non-Federal Share Estimated Local Share $
$

% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-kind)

Estimated State Share $ $
Other Agency Share $

Identify Other Non-Federal Agency

Total Funding sources from above

$

Other Non-FEMA Federal Funds $

Identify Other Federal Agency

% of Total (Cash) % of Total (In-kind) % of Total
% of Total (Should equal 100%) Do Not Include In Total

Alternative Project Work Schedule (List timeline for the completion of this project:

Description of Task

Number of Days to Complete

Ex. Demolition of 6 structures and removal of debris 14 days

Work Completed By_________ Demolition Contractor

Page 322

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents All projects that receive Federal funding must comply with NEPA and associated Federal, State, Tribal, and local statutes.

E

NO WORK can be done on MOST proposed projects before the NEPA review is complete. If work is done on your proposed project before the NEPA review is completed, it may NOT be eligible for Federal funding.

N

If your project is one of the following, no additional NEPA documents are required.

D

1) Development of Mitigation Plans

3) Studies involving only staff time and funding

2) Inspection and monitoring activities 4) Training activities using existing facilities

I All applications must have adequate NEPA documents that enable the FEMA Regional Environmental Officer to determine that the proposed

X

project complies with NEPA and associated statutes. The FEMA Mitigation Division Environmental Specialists provide comprehensive NEPA

technical assistance for States and Applicants, with their consent, to complete NEPA reviews sooner. The type and quantity of NEPA docu-

ments required to make this determination varies depending upon the project's size, location, and complexity. However, at a minimum, all

proposed projects must include the following NEPA documents:

If the following conditions exist:

The project involves alteration or modification of existing structures only, or

All work will be done on previously disturbed land, then . . .

Attach the following NEPA documents for the proposed project:
A letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding cultural resources (archeological and historic) in the project area, and the proposed project's likely effects on these resources. (Sample SHPO letter enclosed)
Project alternative descriptions and impacts (pages 9 and 10 of this application).
For All Other Projects, attach the following NEPA documents as applicable: A letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding cultural resources (archeological and historic) in the project area, the project's likely effects on these resources, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate these effects. Project alternative descriptions and impacts (pages 9 and 10 of this application). Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, a Stormwater Management Permit, a Water Quality Permit, and an Air Quality Permit from the State Environmental Agency or their letter stating no permits are required for the project. An Individual (404 Wetlands) Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District, their letter stating the project can be done under an existing Nationwide Permit, or their letter stating no permit is required for the project. A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding fish and wildlife, Federal-listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate (off-set) the project's adverse effects. A letter from the State Wildlife Resources regarding fish and wildlife, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate the project's adverse effects. A letter from the State Natural Heritage Program regarding State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant and animal species, their habitat, and if applicable, actions required to mitigate the project's adverse effects. A letter from the State Environmental Agency regarding hazardous waste and toxic materials in the project area, and if applicable, actions required to properly handle, transport and dispose the waste/materials. Environmental Justice Attach documents regarding evaluation and satisfactory resolution of Environmental Justice issues (Highly Disproportionate, Adverse Impacts (effects) on Minority or Low Income Populations). Documents can include public meeting records, media reports, letters from interested persons and groups; studies on population, ethnic groups, quality of life, housing, economics, transportation, public services, public health, voting, etc.
In addition to the above, If the project involves disturbing five or more acres of land, attach the following NEPA document:
A NPDES permit from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
If the project is located outside of town/city limits, attach the following NEPA documents: A letter and report from the USDA National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS) regarding Prime, Unique, or other Important Farmlands.
If the project is located in a coastal area, attach the following NEPA documents: A letter from the State Coastal Management Agency regarding Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). A letter from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding commercial fishing and breeding
grounds.

Page 323

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

SAMPLE SHPO LETTER

P

E

N

D

Mr. Ray Luce

Date

I

Director

X

Attn: Elizabeth Shirk

Environmental Review Coordinator

State Historic Preservation Division

156 Trinity Avenue S. W. Suite 101

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

RE: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Dear Mr. Luce:

The City/County of _________ is currently applying to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency for a grant to fund a __________________ project. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requests a letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding cultural resources (archeological and historical) in the project area and the project's likely effects on those resources.
Enclosed are a map and color photographs that highlight the proposed project area, a brief description of the proposed project and the approximate date of construction of the structure(s) to be mitigated. We believe that no historical resources will be affected by this project.
If you have any questions please call me at (---) --- - ----. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,

(Your Name) (Title)
Enclosure CC: Alicia Soriano, Hazard Mitigation Risk Reduction Program Manager
Georgia Emergency Management Agency

Page 324

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Historical/Archaeological Check List for SHPO Letter

P

P

In order to obtain the comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), you should

E

submit the following information: Items (a) (j) if your project involves a building. Items (a), (c), (d), (e),

(i) if your project only involves ground disturbing activities.

N

___a. Detailed project description

D

___b. Photographs of structure(s), prints clearly labeled as to property and indicating location of all

shots.

I

___c. Photographs of the property's surrounding and adjacent landscape.

X

___d. Project location map (copy of USGS map preferred)

___e. Site plans

___f. Building elevations

___g. Methods and materials proposed for repair or replacement

___h. Date(s) of construction of original structure

___i. Description of previous land use

___j. Location in or near any known historic district

Page 325

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

P

P

E

The ________________ of __________________________, State of ________________, hereby

agrees that

(City, Town, County) if it receives any Federal aid as a result of the attached pro-

N

ject application, it will accept responsibility, at its own expense if necessary, for the routine mainte-

D

nance of any real property, structures, or facilities acquired or constructed as a result of such Federal

I

aid. Routine maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, such responsibilities as keeping vacant

land clear of debris, garbage, and vermin; keeping stream channels, culverts, and storm drains clear of

X

obstructions and debris; and keeping detention ponds free of debris, trees, and woody growth.

The purpose of this agreement is to make clear the Subgrantee's maintenance responsibilities following project award and to show the Subgrantee's acceptance of these responsibilities. It does not replace, supercede, or add to any other maintenance responsibilities imposed by Federal law or regulation and which are in force on the date of project award.

Signed by _______________________________________________________the duly authorized (name of signing official)

____________________________________of __________________________________________,

(title)

(name of applicant)

this _____________(day) of ______________ (month), ___________(year).

Signature______________________________

Page 326

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 327

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 328

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application

P

Warning - Communication Worksheet This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) warning and communication proposals. Please complete ALL

E

sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404)-635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you.

N

D

Applicant Information

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________
I 2. Applicant Type

X

State Government

Local Government

3. Storm Ready Status

Approved

Pending

Non-applicant

4. Worksheet Prepared by:

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________

Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________

Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

5. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan.

Existing Warning Capability Include a discussion of the community's current system to provide severe weather warning and alerts to the public.

Page 329

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director
Useful life of the project Proposed project will provide protection against the hazard(s) above for _________years. (5-30 years depending on type of equipment)
Project Protection Provided Explain how the proposed project will solve the problem(s) and provide the level(s) of protection desired. Include a discussion on the relationship between this project and the community's storm ready program.
Public Awareness Component Describe, in detail, how the public will be helped by the warning/communication improvements. Include all aspects of your project which inform the public (1) of the dangers of the hazard being mitigated, and (2) how to prepare and respond to an impending hazard occurrence before and after the warning (e.g. workshops, involvement in exercises, videos, etc.). Note: all warning/communication proposals are required to contain a public awareness component.
Planned Exercise Component

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Describe, in detail, all exercises being planned. Include the type of exercise, a timeline of when the exercises will

A

happen, and summary of who will be involved.

Note: All warning/communication proposals must include provisions for conducting at least one planned exercise annu-

P

ally. Include everyone who would be involved in a real disaster, involve the public, and culminate in a report to GEMA cataloging the strengths, weaknesses and recommended policy changes resulting from the exercise.

P

Project Location and Site Information

E

Fully describe the location of the proposed project.

N

Site Physical Location

D

Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project; include the location (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. If possible, please provide precise longitude and lati-

I

tude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the

X

equivalent. Include maps showing location.

Population Affected Provide for each type of structure the number of people in the project area that will receive a benefit from the proposed project. Include all structures in project area.
__________ Residential property
__________ Businesses / commercial property
__________ Public buildings
__________ Schools / hospitals / houses of worship

City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map.

USGS 1:24,000 topo map with project site marked on the map.

Project Cost List all anticipated project costs. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the cost estimate.

Item Descrip-

Unit

tion

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

Page 330

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application

P

Drainage Project Worksheet

E

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) drainage improvements proposals. Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard

N

Mitigation Division at (404)-635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you. A separate worksheet is required for each project.

D

Applicant Information

I

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

X

2. Applicant Type

State Government

Local Government

3. Worksheet Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

4. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan.

Page 331

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director

C.

Project Location and Site Information

Site

Physical Location-Describe the area and/or population affected/protected by this project, include the loca-

tion (street numbers or neighborhoods) and zip codes. If possible, please provide precise longitude and

latitude coordinates for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the equivalent.

Include maps showing location.

Population Affected

Provide for each type of structure the number of people in the project area that will receive a benefit from the

proposed project. Include all structures in project area.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

__________ Residential property

A

__________ Businesses / commercial property

P

__________ Public buildings

P

__________ Schools / hospitals / houses of worship City or County Map with Project Site and Photographs

E

Attach a copy of a city or county scale map (large enough to show the entire project area) with the project site and structures marked on the map.

N

USGS 1:24,000 topo map with project site marked on the map.

D

Site Plan

I

A site plan, with alignment drawings, that includes the location, plan view and cross-section of cuts, fills and struc-

tures are required. Include the type, and measurements of all pipes, culverts, ditches, swales and detention/

X

retention basins and ponds. Send the following engineering documentation as appropriate. Be sure that submit-

ted documents are signed and sealed by preparing engineer.

Calculations used to determine the sizes of any culverts in the project area (drainage area, amount of flow, slope of culvert, invert elevations).

Calculations used to determine the sizes of any ditches and swales in the project area (drainage area, amount of flow, slope and depth of the ditch).

Calculations used to determine the size of any detention/retention basins and ponds (drainage area, amount of flow, stage-storage, and stage-discharge curves).

Statement indicating no upstream or downstream impacts.

Statement indicating the design level of the drainage improvement. i.e. 100 year protection

Additional Benefit-Cost Information Additional annual maintenance cost attributed to the project: _______________________________________

The flood frequency at which the drainage structure is likely to fail, both for the as-is (before mitigation) condition and for the upgraded (after-mitigation) condition.__________________________________________

Loss of Function for Roads/Bridges Estimated Number of One-Way Trips per Day: ___________________________________________ Estimated Delay (Detour) Time per One Way Trip (hours):_________________________________

Loss of Function for Utilities Unit of Service Examples are gallons of water, kilowatt hours of electricity, etc.:________________ Unit of Time Enter applicable unit corresponding to unit of service: __________________________ Volume of Service Provided: _________________________________________________________ Normal Value per Unit of Service: ___________________________________________________

Loss of Function for Buildings Annual budget of Public/Non-profit agencies: ____________________________________________

D.

Project Timeline

Note below any special circumstances regarding project scheduling.

E.

Environmental Impacts

Both upstream and downstream impacts need to be considered and discussed in the NEPA documents and coordina-

tion letters.

Letter from State Historic Preservation Office addressing impacts on cultural resources. Letter from the Army Corps of Engineers indicating whether a permit is required for the project. Letter from the State Water Management District indicating whether a permit is required for the project. Letter from the Department of Environmental Protection indicating whether a permit is required for the pro-
ject. Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service addressing impacts to wildlife. If project is in a coastal area, attach a letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service addressing impacts
to marine resources. If the project is located outside the city limits, attach a letter from the Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice addressing impacts to prime and unique farmlands.

F.

Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)

A Letter of Map Revision may be needed on this project. Any changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) need

to be reflected on the flood maps, which is accomplished through the LOMR process. The construction of this project

may lower the 100-year flood elevation and thus, possibly lower the flood insurance rates for structures in the project

area.

G.

Project Costs

Page 332

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

List all anticipated costs. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the cost

P

estimate.

P

Item Description

Unit Quan- Unit Price Amoun Source

E

tity

t

N

D

I

X

H.

History of Flood Related Hazards / Damages in the Area to be Protected

Describe all flood related past damages from hazardous events (include name of storms if applicable) in the project

area. Include presidentially declared disasters as well as events that did not result in a Presidential declaration.

Date of Event

Description of Event

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

For each event, include a discussion on the effectiveness the proposed project will have on the amount of damages.
For each event, indicate the number of days without service for the damaged structures (functional downtime and loss of service). I.e. Road was closed for 10 days for repairs.

Page 333

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application Wind Retrofit Worksheet

P

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) wind retrofit proposals. Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard Mitigation

E

Division at (404)-635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you. If you have more than one structure, complete pages 2-4 for each structure.

N

D

Applicant Information

I

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

X

2. Applicant Type

State Government

Local Government

3. Storm Ready Status

Approved

Pending

Non-applicant

4. Worksheet Prepared by:

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________

Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________

Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

5. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B. Project Information Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan.

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director
A check notes a required element
Include color photographs showing a front view, a side view, and a back view of each structure to be retrofitted.
Attach photographs to the worksheet for that property.
Include the tax parcel map. Include a copy of the current tax card. Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked. If pursuing shutters, provide the maximum wind speed the shutters will be designed to withstand, including any
applicable standards (e.g. SSTD 12, ASTM E 1996, Miami-Dade Building Code)
If submitting more than one retrofit project for funding consideration, rank each project in order of most important to

Page 334

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

least important with 1 being the project that is the highest priority.

P

Priority:

of

P

Type of proposed project

E

Wind Retrofit New Construction/Upgrade beyond Code

N

Wind Load Design after Mitigation: __________

D

Project Location and Site Information

I

1. Property Owner and Physical Street Address (including city, state and zip code):

X _________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Include latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system

(GPS) unit or the equivalent. Latitude: __________________

Longitude: __________________

3. Tax Parcel Identification Number____________________________

D.

Structure Information:

1. Building Type (See Appendix for Building Categories and Enter Number from Table1):__________________

2. Building Site Location (Miles inland)

3. Number of Stories above Grade

4. Date of Construction

5. Remaining Useful Lifetime of Building (in years)

Building Size and Use Total Floor Area (SF) Area occupied by owner or applicant (SF)

Building Value Current Building Replacement Value Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. Building damage that would result in demolition (%)

Building Contents 1. Contents description 2. Total value of contents Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc.

Displacement Costs due to Wind Damage 1. Rental cost of temporary building space ($/SF/month) 2. Other displacement costs ($/month) 3. One time displacement costs

Value of Public/Non-profit service Annual budget of public/non-profit agencies, including rent Description of services provided Post Disaster Continuity Premium ($/day) Total value of lost services

Rent and Business Income Total monthly rent from all tenants ($/month) Estimated Net Income of commercial businesses ($/month)

Temporary Relocation Costs Relocation time due to project completion(months) 2. Rental cost during occupant relocation ($/month) 3. Other relocation costs ($/month)

Are construction drawings (architectural & structural) and specifications available?

_____ Yes

_____No

Which wind design standard(s) was used in the design and construction of this facility?

_____SBC or MBMA, Edition 19____

_____ANSI A58.1-1982

_____ASCE 7, Edition 19_____

_____Unknown or no wind design

E.

Project Cost

List all anticipated costs. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the cost estimate.

Page 335

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Item De-

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

A

scription

P

P

E

N

D

I

X

F.

History of Wind Related Hazards / Damages in the Area to be Protected

A detailed written description of the wind hazard potential and past damages that have occurred at the project location should be provided. List any damages that have occurred to the facility for various high-wind events and the costs associated with those damages. Include a history of insurance claims made for each property. Include information for as many past incidents as possible. Attach any supporting documents, newspaper articles, pictures, etc.

Date of Event

Event

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

Page 336

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 337

Appendix
Building Categories Detailed descriptions of the 12 general Building Categories listed in Table 1 are provided below. The user will select a building type to enter into the Hurricane-Wind BCA Module based on these general Building Categories. A total of 51 possible building types can be selected from the 12 general Building Categories, with differentiation according to construction, number of stories, roof shape, and roof coverings. Additional details and descriptions may be found in Section 6 of the HAZUS-MH Hurricane Model Technical Manual.
Wood Frame Single Family (Building Numbers 1-2), (WSF1). These buildings are typical of old wood frame single-family homes. They are one- or two-story dwellings that are marginally engineered or non-engineered. They were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines, or they are wood structures that have not been designed by an engineer or architect. All of these buildings have been modeled as asphalt shingle roofs with an attached garage. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable or hip) is the best representation of their structure.
Un-reinforced Masonry Single Family (Building Numbers 3-4), (MSF1). These buildings are typical of un-reinforced masonry single-family homes. They are one- or two-story dwellings that are marginally engineered or non-engineered. They were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines, or they are un-reinforced masonry structures that have not been designed by an engineer or architect. All of these buildings have been modeled as asphalt shingle roofs with an attached garage. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable or hip) is the best representation of their structure.
Manufactured Housing (Building Numbers 5-9) (MHPHUD/MH76HUD/MH94HUDI/II/III). These manufactured housing unit designations represent three types of manufactured housing based on the regulatory requirements governing their design. The user should select if the unit has been designed and fabricated to one of three designations. The first are pre-1976 manufactured units designed and fabricated prior to significant regulation of the industry. The second are the 1976-1994 manufactured units designed and fabricated to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations known as the "Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (MHCSS)," 24 CFR Part 3280, sometimes referred to as "HUD-code homes." The third are the post-1994 units, designed and fabricated to the wind loading requirements increased in response to years of excessive storm-induced damage as part of HUD Final Rule 59 FR 2456, which revised several provisions in 24 CFR 3280.305(c) to improve the resistance of manufactured homes in high wind zones to wind damage. The post-1994 selection assumes the proper Zone I, II, or III units have been installed in the correct wind zone. All homes are assumed to be non-anchored units.
Wood Frame Non-Engineered (Building Numbers 10-13), WMUH1. These buildings are typical of older wood frame structures. They are one- or two-story multi-family dwellings or hotels/motels that are marginally engineered or non-engineered. They were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines, or they are wood structures that have not been designed by an engineer or architect. Buildings with and without attached garages may be included. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable, hip, or flat) and which roof covering (shingle, BUR, or SPM) is the best representation of their structure.
Wood Frame, Engineered with Continuous Load Path (Building Numbers 14-17) (WMUH1). These buildings are newer wood frame structures typical of a one- or two-story multi-family dwelling or hotel/motel. They were designed or constructed to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines of the Southern Building Code Congress International's 1994/1997 Standard Building Code or 1999 SSTD 10-99 Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction, or the 1995 (or later) ASCE 7. They may also be wood structures that have been designed by an engineer or architect to resist wind loads. Buildings with and without attached garages may be included. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable, hip, or flat) and which roof covering (shingle, BUR, or SPM) best represent their structure.
Masonry Non-Engineered (Building Numbers 18-21) (MMUH1). These buildings are typical of older un-reinforced masonry (URM) structures. They include typical standalone buildings used for light commercial/industrial use, and one- or two-story multifamily URM dwellings or hotels/motels that are non-engineered. They were designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines, or they are wood structures that have not been designed by an engineer or architect. Buildings with and without attached garages may be included. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable, hip, or flat) and which roof covering (shingle, BUR, or SPM) is the best representation of their structure.
Masonry Non-Engineered (Building Numbers 22-25) (MERBL). These buildings are typical of older partially reinforced masonry (PRM) and fully reinforced masonry (RM) structures. They include typical stand-alone buildings used for light commercial/industrial use, one-story multi-family URM dwellings, and hotels/motels that are marginally engineered or non-engineered. They were designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines, or they are wood structures that have not been designed by an engineer or architect. Buildings with and without attached garages may be included. Users will need to specify which roof geometry (gable, hip, or flat) and which roof covering (shingle, BUR, or SPM) is the best representation of their structure.
Fire Stations (Building Numbers 26-28) (WSF2/MSF2). These buildings are representative of one- and two-story fire stations that have both apparatus bay areas with large overhead doors and office/barracks/support areas. These buildings are typical of older structures that were marginally engineered or non-engineered. Although they may have been designed by an engineer or architect, they were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines. The user will need to specify if the walls of the building are constructed of wood framing, URM, or RM systems. No options for different roof shape or coverings are provided.
Masonry Strip Mall (Building Numbers 29-32) (MLRM1/MECBL). These buildings are typical of URM and RM structures. They are typically one-story structures such as strip malls and small commercial centers, and may include stand-alone buildings used for light commercial/industrial use and hotels/ motels that are marginally engineered or fully engineered. Although they may have been deigned by an engineer or architect, they were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines. Users will need to specify which roof covering (BUR or SPM) is the best representation of their structure. The roof decks are metal deck systems lightly connected/fastened to open-web steel joists (OWSJ) or other light framing system with minimal connections to the top of the wall.
Masonry Industrial (Building Numbers 33-34) (MLRI). These buildings are typical of URM and RM structures. They are typically much larger than the Masonry Strip Mall Building Types (Nos. 29-32), and they are more typical of buildings the size of a large department store. Although they may have been deigned by an engineer or architect, they were likely designed or constructed prior to wind design requirements or prescriptive guidelines. Users will need to specify which roof covering (BUR or SPM) is the best representation of their structure. The roof decks are metal deck systems lightly connected/fastened to open-web steel joists (OWSJ) or other light framing system with minimal connections to the top of the wall.
Commercial (Building Numbers 35-48) (MECBM/SECBL/SECBM/SECBH/CECBL/CECBM/ CECBH). These buildings are typical of multi-story concrete or steel frame buildings or fully reinforced masonry and reinforced concrete structures. Two- to four-story office buildings and hospitals are typical examples of these building types. They were designed or constructed to wind design requirements of the ANSI A58.1 or ASCE 7-88 (or later versions). These structures may or may not have been designed for use as critical or essential facilities, but they were designed by an engineer or architect to resist wind loads. Users will need to specify which structure type (masonry, concrete, or steel) and which roof covering (BUR or SPM) is the best representation of their structure.
Pre-Engineered Metal (Building Numbers 49-51) (SPMBS/SPMBM/SPMBL). These buildings are pre-engineered metal buildings less than 50,000 square feet in area. They are typical of industrial and commercial use buildings that were designed and constructed by manufacturers of preengineered systems such as Butler, Nucor, and many others. They typically have open floor plans and multiple, large overhead doors providing access to the interior. These buildings most commonly are clad with metal panels on both the roof and wall surfaces; however, it is common to see masonry wall cladding on some or all of the exterior walls.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Building Category

Bldg No.

Descriptive Name

HAZUS Name

Roof Roof Shape Cover

P

Wood Frame, Single Family

2

Non-eng-Wood-Gable-Shingle2

WSF1

Gable

Shingle

P

Un-reinforced Masonry, Single Family

3

URM3-Hip-Shingle

MSF1

Hip

Shingle

E

Un-reinforced Masonry, Single Family

4

URM-Gable-Shingle

MSF1

Gable

Shingle

Manufactured Housing

5

Pre-1976 Manufactured Units

MHPHUD

Gable

Shingle

N

Zone 1 installation

6

1976-1994 Manufactured Units

MH76HUD

7

Post-1994 Manufactured Units

MH94HUDI

Gable Gable

Shingle Shingle

D

Zone 2 installation

8

Post-1994 Manufactured Units

MH94HUDII

Gable

Shingle

I

Zone 3 installation

9

Post-1994 Manufactured Units

MH94HUDIII

Gable

Shingle

10

Non-eng-Wood-Gable-Shingle

WMUH1

Gable

Shingle

X

Wood Frame Non-Engineered

11

Non-eng-Wood-Hip-Shingle

WMUH1

Hip

12

Non-eng-Wood-Flat-BUR4

WMUH1

Flat

Shingle BUR

13

Non-eng-Wood-Flat-SPM5

WMUH1

Flat

SPM

14

Eng-Wood-Gable-Shingle

WMUH1

Gable

Shingle

Wood Frame, Engineered (load path)

15

Eng-Wood-Hip-Shingle

16

Eng-Wood-Flat-BUR

WMUH1

Hip

WMUH1

Flat

Shingle BUR

17

Eng-Wood-Flat-SPM

WMUH1

Flat

SPM

18

URM-Gable-Shingle

MMUH1

Gable

Shingle

Masonry Non-Engineered (Un-Reinforced)

19

URM-Hip-Shingle

20

URM-Flat-BUR

MMUH1

Hip

MMUH1

Flat

Shingle BUR

21

URM-Flat-SPM

MMUH1

Flat

SPM

22

RM6-Gable-Shingle

MERBL

Gable

Shingle

Masonry Non-Engineered (Reinforced)

23

RM-Hip-Shingle

24

RM-Flat-BUR

MERBL

Hip

MERBL

Flat

Shingle BUR

25

RM-Flat-SPM

MERBL

Flat

SPM

Fire Station - Wood Frame

26

Non eng-Wood Fire Station

WSF2

Gable

Shingle

Fire Station - URM

27

URM Fire Station

MSF2

Gable

Shingle

Fire Station - RM

28

RM Fire Station

MSF2

Gable

Shingle

29

URM-BUR-Light Commercial

MLRM1

Flat

Masonry Strip Mall (Un-reinforced)

30

URM-SPM-Light Commercial

MLRM1

Flat

BUR SPM

Masonry Strip Mall (Reinforced)

31

RM-BUR-Light Commercial

MECBL

Flat

32

RM-SPM-Light Commercial

MECBL

Flat

BUR SPM

Masonry Industrial - URM

33

URM-SPM-Industrial

MLRI

Flat

SPM

Masonry Industrial - RM

34

RM-SPM-Industrial

MLRI

Flat

SPM

Masonry Engineered Commercial

35

RM-Eng-BUR-Commercial

MECBM

Flat

36

RM-Eng-SPM-Commercial

MECBM

Flat

BUR SPM

37

STL-Eng-BUR 1-2 Stories

SECBL

Flat

BUR

38

STL-Eng-SPM 1-2 Stories

SECBL

Flat

SPM

39

STL-Eng-BUR 3-5 Stories

SECBM

Flat

Steel Frame Engineered Commercial

40

STL-Eng-SPM 3-5 Stories

SECBM

Flat

BUR SPM

41

STL-Eng-BUR 6+ Stories

SECBH

Flat

BUR

42

STL-Eng-SPM 6+ Stories

SECBH

Flat

SPM

43

RC-Eng-BUR 1-2 Stories

CECBL

Flat

BUR

44

RC-Eng-SPM 1-2 Stories

CECBL

Flat

SPM

Concrete Engineered Commercial

45

RC-Eng-BUR 3-5 Stories

CECBM

Flat

46

RC-Eng-SPM 3-5 Stories

CECBM

Flat

BUR SPM

47

RC-Eng-BUR 6+ Stories

CECBH

Flat

BUR

48

RC-Eng-SPM 6+ Stories

CECBH

Flat

SPM

49

PEMB-Small

SPMBS

Flat

Metal

Pre-Engineered Metal

50

PEMB-Medium

SPMBM

Flat

Metal

51

PEMB-Large

SPMBL

Flat

Metal

1 Hip Roof = A roof that slopes up from all four sides of a building. 2 Gable Roof = A ridged roof that slopes up from only two sides of a building. 3 URM = Un-reinforced Masonry 4 BUR = Built-Up Roof 5 SPM = Single-Ply Membrane 6 RM = Reinforced Masonry

Page 338

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application

P

Tornado and Hurricane Shelter Worksheet

E

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) "safe rooms" proposals (i.e., tornado and severe wind shelters) that meet the FEMA construction criteria in FEMA 320 "Taking Shelter from the Storm" and FEMA 361 "Design and Construction Guidance for Com-

N

munity Shelters". Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet,

please contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404)-635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you. If

D

you have more than one structure, complete pages 2-3 for each structure.

I Applicant Information

X

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

2. Applicant Type

State Government

Local Government

3. Storm Ready Status

Approved

Pending

Non-applicant

4. Worksheet Prepared by:

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________

Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________

Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________ 5. Authorized Applicant Agent:

Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________

Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________

Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan.

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director

A check notes a required element
Include color photographs showing a front view, a side view, and a back view of each structure to be retrofitted. Attach photo-
graphs to the worksheet for that property.
Include the tax parcel map. Include a copy of the current tax card. Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked. f submitting more than one shelter project for funding consideration, rank each project in order of most important to least impor-
tant with 1 being the project that is the highest priority.

Priority:

of

Type of proposed project Shelter Retrofit New Shelter Construction
Wind Load Design after Mitigation: __________

Project Location and Site Information

1. Property Owner and Physical Street Address (including city, state and zip code):

2. Include latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the

equivalent.

Latitude: ____________________

Longitude: __________________

Page 339

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A
Tax Parcel Identification Number____________________________
P

Site Information Provide for each type of structure the number of people in the project area that will receive a benefit from proposed project. Include

P

all structures in project area.

E

__________ Residential property

N

__________ Businesses / commercial property

__________ Public buildings

D

__________ Schools / hospitals / houses of worship

I

D. Structure Information:

X

1. Building Longest Length (ft):__________________

2. Building Longest Width (ft):___________________

3. Building Square Footage (sq. ft):_______________

4. Shelter Information: A) Actual area to be used for sheltering (Sq. Ft.):_______________ B) Shelter Construction Type: ______________________________
(I.e. Reinforced & Precast Concrete, Reinforced Masonry, Un-reinforced Masonry, Steel, Wood, or User Defined) C. Maximum Hurricane Occupancy (per day):____________________ D. Maximum Tornado Shelter Occupancy (per day):_____________________

Project Costs List all anticipated costs. Consider the potential future date of construction when compiling the cost estimate.

Item Descrip-

Unit

tion

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

Page 340

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application

Property Acquisition Worksheet

P

E

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) property acquisition proposals. Please complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404)-635-

N

7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you. If you have more than one structure, complete pages 2-4 for each structure.

D

Applicant Information

I

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

X

2. Applicant Type

State Government

Local Government

3. Worksheet Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

4. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

2. This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan. NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director

NOTE: Participation in an acquisition project must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director

A check notes a required element Include color photographs showing a front view, a side view, and a back view of each structure to be acquired. Attach photographs to the worksheet for that property. Include the tax parcel map. Include a copy of the current tax card. Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked. Include signed statement of homeowner willingness to voluntarily participate. Include declarations page of current flood insurance policy.

C.

Project Location and Site Information:

1. Property Owner and Physical Street Address (including city, state and zip code):

Page 341

2. Include latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the

equivalent. Latitude: ____________________

Longitude: __________________

Tax Parcel Identification Number: ____________________________

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Year Built_______________________
P

Flood Zone Designation (check all zones applicable for the property):

P

VE or V 1-30

A (no base flood elevation given) C or X (unshaded)

E

AE or A 1-30

B or X (shaded)

Floodway

CBRA Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state Agency before

N

submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)

D

Other (describe) __________________________________________________________________

I

FIRM Panel Number __________________________________________________________________

X

6. Name of Flood Source __________________________________________________________________

If more than 50% damaged, attach substantial damage certificate from the local flood plain manager or building inspector. Substantial Damage Certificate Attached

Base Flood or 100 Year Flood Elevation of Property: ____________ (Not applicable if structure is located in Flood Zone A, B, C, X) Lowest (Finished) Floor Elevation of Living Area of Principal Structure: __________
Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. (Not required if structure is located in Flood Zone A, B, C, X)

D.

Structure Information:

Building Type: (check one)

1-story w/o basement 2-story w/o basement Split-level w/o basement
1-story with basement 2-story with basement Mobile Home Building Use (check all that apply)

Split level with basement other _______________

Primary Residence Rental Property

Secondary Residence Commercial Property

Public Building

House of Worship Multi-Family

Other_______________________

Construction Type

Wood Frame

Concrete Block

Other___________________________________

4. Other Data to Complete BCA Total Square Footage of Principal Structure (heated or cooled areas only):_______________ Estimated Cost to Replace Principal Structure :____________________________ Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. Estimated Cost to Replace Contents:____________________________________ Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. Are there accessory or out buildings on the property? Yes No If Yes, Attached Detached Please describe general properties (location, type of structure e.g. pole barn, age, value) e. Monthly Rental and Business Income: _________________________________________

5. Foundation Type Slab on Grade Crawl Space Basement Other_______________________________

E.

Project Cost:

Estimated Acquisition Cost $___________________________ Source: _________________________________

Estimated cost for asbestos inspection and abatement $______________

Estimated Cost for Demolition

$______________

Estimated Appraisal Cost

$______________

Estimated Closing Cost

$______________

Page 342

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Estimated Costs for Other Contractual Items

$ ______________

P

Please include description: _____________________________________________________________________________

P

Is the property currently occupied by renter(s)? Yes No--If No, skip # 7

E

Rental Relocation Assistance$___________ x_______ (number of families occupying property) = $______________

N

Total Cost to Acquire Property (sum of items 1 through 7)

$_________________

D

F.

History of Hazards / Damages to the Property being acquired

I

List all current and past damages to the property (including damages to the structure, its contents, and any displacement costs).

X

Include damage from declared disaster events AND other hazard events that did not result in a presidential declaration.

Note regarding damage estimates: The date, depth of flooding inside structure, description of damages and cost of repairs/replacement (Amount of Damages) must be specific to ONLY the building under consideration. Additionally, vague information is not useful or acceptable in lieu of specific building damage estimates. The property damages can be a homeowner's estimate; however, please include a contractor's itemized repair estimate, if possible.

Date of Event

Event

Depth of Flooding Inside Structure (Above finished floor)

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

Is structure currently insured through the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes

No

If yes, provide flood copy of flood declarations page

Is structure on FEMA's repetitive loss list? Yes

No

If yes, provide repetitive loss number: _______________________

Page 343

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application Property Elevation Worksheet

P

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) property elevation proposals. Please complete ALL sections and provide

E

the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404)-6357522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Risk Reduction Specialist assigned to you. If you have more than one structure, complete pages 2-5 for

N

each structure.

D

A.

Applicant Information

I

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

X

2. Applicant Type State Government

Local Government

3. Worksheet Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

4. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

This project must be identified in your Local Mitigation Plan. Provide information on how this project supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified in your plan.

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director
NOTE: Participation in an elevation project must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. Flood Insurance Policies must be purchased for all structures that are part of a FEMA elevation project. For more information visit http://www.fema.gov/about/ programs/nfip/index.shtm
A check notes a required element
Include three or more color photographs (2 copies of each) showing a front view, a side view, and a back view of each structure to be elevated. Attach photographs to the worksheet for that property.
Include the tax parcel map. Include a copy of the current tax card. Provide a map with the physical location of the building clearly marked. Include signed statement of homeowner willingness to voluntarily participate.

Page 344

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Include declarations page of current flood insurance policy.

P

C.

Project Location and Site Information:

P

Property Owner and Physical Street Address (including city, state and zip code) :

E

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

N

D

Include latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees for the site utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit or the

equivalent.

Latitude:____________________

Longitude:__________________

I Tax Parcel Identification Number____________________________

X Year Built_______________________

Flood Zone Designation (check all zones applicable for the property):

VE or V 1-30

A (no base flood elevation given) C or X (unshaded)

AE or A 1-30

B or X (shaded)

Floodway

CBRA Zone (Federal regulations strictly limit Federal funding for projects in this Zone; please coordinate with your state

Agency before submitting an application for a CBRA Zone project)

Other (describe) __________________________________________________________________

FIRM Panel Number __________________________________________________________________

6. Name of Flood source __________________________________________________________________

If more than 50% damaged, attach substantial damage certificate from the local flood plain manager or building inspector. Substantial Damage Certificate Attached

Base Flood or 100 Year Flood Elevation of Property: ____________ (Not applicable if structure is located in Flood Zone A, B, C, X) Lowest (Finished) Floor Elevation of Living Area of Principal Structure: __________
Provide documentation such as elevation certificate, letter from registered surveyor, or etc. (Not required if structure is located in Flood Zone A, B, C, X)

D.

Structure Information:

Building Type: (check one)

1-story w/o basement 2-story w/o basement Split-level w/o basement

1-story with basement 2-story with basement Mobile Home

Split level with basement other ______________________

Building Use (check all that apply) Primary Residence Rental Property

Public Building

House of Worship

Secondary Residence Commercial Property

Multi-Family

Other___________________________

Construction Type Wood Frame

Concrete Block

Other___________________________________

Page 345

4. Other Data to Complete BCA a. Total Square Footage of Principal Structure (heated or cooled areas only):_______________ b. Estimated Cost to Replace Principal Structure: ____________________________ c. Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. d. Estimated Cost to Replace Contents: ____________________________________ e. Provide documentation such as letter from building inspector or international building code or RS Means, Marshall and Swift, etc. f. Are there accessory or out buildings on the property? Yes No If Yes, Attached Detached g. Please describe general properties (location, type of structure e.g. pole barn, age, value) h. Monthly Rental and Business Income: _________________________________________
5. Foundation Type Slab on Grade Crawl Space Basement Other_______________________________
6. Elevation Information

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

a. Proposed Elevation Height (above sea level): _______Feet _______Inches

A

b. Proposed Foundation Type for Elevated Structure: Columns Other___________________________

Pilings



P

P

E.

Project Cost:

E

List all anticipated costs. Estimated costs should clearly reference source information used in obtaining estimates.

N

For instance, RS Means, Marshall & Swift, qualified contractor, A/E firm, etc.

Include the engineering feasibility analysis recommendations and fees and permits. Consider the potential future date of construction

D

when compiling the cost estimate.

I

X

Item Descrip-

Unit

tion

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

F.

History of Hazards / Damages to the Property being elevated

List all current and past damages to the property (including damages to structure, contents, and displacement costs). Include damage from declared disaster events AND other hazard events which did not result in a presidential declaration.

Note regarding damage estimates: the date, descriptions of damages, depth of flooding inside structure, and cost of repairs/replacement must be specific to ONLY the building under consideration. Additionally, vague information is not useful or acceptable in lieu of specific building damage estimates. The property damages can be a homeowner's estimate; however, please include a contractor's itemized repair estimate, if possible.

Date of Event

Event

Depth of Flooding Inside Structure

Description of Damage

Amount of Damages

Is structure currently insured through the National Flood Insurance Program? Yes No

Is structure on FEMA's repetitive loss list? Yes

No

If yes, provide repetitive loss number: _______________________

Page 346

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

HMGP Pre-Application Planning Worksheet

E

This worksheet is for all Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) planning grant applications meeting 44CFR Part 201 requirements. Please

N

complete ALL sections and provide the documents requested. If you require technical assistance with this worksheet, please contact the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404)-635-7522 or 1-800-TRY-GEMA to have a Hazard Mitigation Planner assigned to you.

D

Applicant Information

I

1. Name of Applicant: _____________________________________________________

X

2. Applicant Type

State Government

Local Government

3. Worksheet Prepared by: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Fax __________________E-mail address: ________________________________

4. Authorized Applicant Agent: Ms. Mr. Mrs. First Name ________________Last Name_________________
Title __________________________Telephone _____________________________ Address (City, State, Zip): ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

B.

B.

Project Information

1. Mitigation Activity (Describe in detail what you are planning to do)

Current Plan Status:

Page 347

NOTE: Please attach a letter of endorsement for the project from your County's Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Director
Mitigation Activity Information What type of activity are you proposing? Develop a new plan Update an existing Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) approved plan

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A
Modify a plan adopted prior to the DMA2K
P

P

E

Hazard Information

N

Problem Description Describe the geographic areas(s) to be covered by the plan. Attach maps as necessary.

D

I

X
Hazard Type Identify the source(s) of hazards specific to the geographic area to be addressed by the plan.

Project Costs List all anticipated costs.

Item Descrip-

Unit

tion

Quantity

Unit Price

Amount

Source

Page 348

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

P

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

P

Pre-Application

E

Application Information

N

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program DR1686

D

I

Introduction

X

An estimated $14 million in federal funds will be available for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Pro-

gram (HMGP) as a result of the Presidential Disaster Declaration received on March 3, 2007.

Through this grant program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides

funds to States and local governments to implement hazard mitigation measures in the aftermath

of a disaster to reduce losses of life and property damage. The Georgia Emergency Management

Agency (GEMA) administers this federal grant program.

GEMA is encouraging all local governments to take advantage of this opportunity to reduce disaster losses in their communities by applying for these grant funds.

Eligible Applicants Public agencies, including State and local governments are eligible to apply for HMGP funds. In addition, certain private nonprofit organizations or institutions that provide essential services to the general public are eligible to apply for HMGP grants.

To be eligible for the full range of HMGP projects, applicants must participate and be in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Information about the NFIP is available at http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm. In addition, local governments must have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan and all proposed projects must be identified in the plan.

Eligible Project Types Examples of HMGP projects include, but are not limited to:

Voluntary acquisition or relocation of hazard-prone structures for conversion to open space in perpetuity; Retrofitting of existing buildings and facilities for wildfire, seismic, wind or flood hazards (i.e., elevation, storm shutters, hurricane clips), including designs and feasibility studies when included as part of the proposed project; Construction of "safe rooms" (i.e., tornado and severe wind shelters) that meet the FEMA construction criteria in FEMA 320 "Taking Shelter from the Storm" and FEMA 361 "Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters"; Minor structural hazard control or protection projects that may include vegetation management, stormwater management (e.g., culverts, floodgates, retention basins), or shoreline/landslide stabilization; and Localized flood control projects that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities (defined as Hazardous Materials Facilities, Emergency Operation Centers, Power Facilities, Water Facilities, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Communications Facilities, Emergency Medical Care Facilities, Fire Protection, and Emergency Facilities) and that do not constitute a section of a larger flood control system. Development of State or local plans that meet DMA2K requirements. Projects that improve the warning and communication capabilities of local governments for severe weather or emergency events.

Page 349

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

HMGP Priority

P

The State's priority for the HMGP is to fund projects in the declared counties that reduce or

E

eliminate damages to life and property resulting from high winds and tornadoes.

N

D

Project Funding

I

The Federal share of HMGP cannot exceed 75% of the total eligible project cost. The non-

X

Federal share may be met with cash, contributions, and certain other grants such as Community

Development Block Grants, Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) flood insurance payments, or

in-kind services. For the declared counties, the State may provide some assistance to local gov-

ernments in meeting the non-federal cost share requirement.

Application Process and Schedule Pre-Applications are required for each type of project and are available online or by calling the Hazard Mitigation Division at (404) 635-7522. Completed Pre-Applications must be post-marked or received by June 19, 2007 to be considered for this funding cycle. These should be mailed to:

Georgia Emergency Management Agency Post Office Box 18055 Atlanta, Georgia 30316-0055 Attention: Hazard Mitigation Division

All applicants' Pre-Application(s) that appear eligible will be requested to submit full application (s). Completed applications must be submitted by November 16, 2007 to be considered for funding. Applications submitted after this deadline will not be considered for this funding cycle.

Applications that appear eligible and within HMGP program funding constraints will be submitted to FEMA prior to March 3, 2008 for funding consideration.

Additional information about the HMGP is available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/ hmgp/ index.shtm

Page 350

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

EXHIBIT "P"

P

DISASTER NUM-

PROJECT

BER

P

HMGP QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT

NUMBER

E

HMGP

HMGP

N

NOTICE:
This report

TIME FRAME FOR QUARTERLY REPORTS

D

must be sub- Report Period: Fro

To

I

mitted in a timely manner

m:

:

X

to ensure the

release

of

progress pay-

Project Start Date:

ments when

requested.

Anticipated Project Completion Date:

APPLICANT DATA
Point of Contact
Title:
Telephone Number:

Please Check One:

* Please provide a brief explanation:

Please Check One:

Project On Schedule Project Delayed* Project Completed* Project Suspended* Project Cancelled*

Cost Unchanged Cost Overrunl Cost Underrunl
l Please list total cost amount:

Total Project Eligible Amount

FINANCIAL SECTION ALLOCATIONS
Federal Share Approved (75%)

State Share Approved

FEDERAL SHARE
APPLICANT
TOTAL

Current Period

EXPENDITURES Previous Periods

-ACTIVITIES COMPLETED: (This Quarter)
ACCOMPLISHMENTS COMPLETED: (Life of project include dates)
TASKS REMAINING: (Indicate Expected Completion Dates)

MILESTONES SECTION

Cumulative to Date

Authorized Agent:
Mailing Address:

Date:
Include attachments (If necessary)

Page 351

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 352

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 353

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 354

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 355

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 356

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 357

EXHIBIT "P"EXHIBIT "P"

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 358

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 359

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 360

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 361

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 362

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 363

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 364

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 365

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 366

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 367

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 368

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 369

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 370

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 371

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 372

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 373

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 374

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 375

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 376

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 377

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 378

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 379

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 380

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 381

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 382

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 383

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

SUB-APPENDIX B

N

D

Enhanced Plan Agency Annexes

I

X

Page 384

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

STATE

D

I

Board of Regents Department of Audits and Accounts

386 392

X

Department of Banking and Finance

401

Department of Community Affairs

410

Department of Juvenile Justice

422

Department of Transportation

424

Department of Public Safety

427

Department of Technical and Adult Education

457

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

463

Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity

484

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

486

Georgia Forestry Commission

496

Georgia Ports Authority

500

Secretary of State

505

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

509

Page 385

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

P

E

December 2007

N

Team members

D

Sandra Neuse, Associate Vice Chancellor for Compliance and Operations

I

Mark Demyanek, Associate Vice Chancellor for Compliance and Operations

X

Bruce Holmes, Director of Safety & Security, USG

Board of Regents Summary Agency Responsibilities Chancellor Errol Davis is elected by the Board and serves as the chief executive officer and the chief administrative officer of the University System.

The University System of Georgia's Board of Regents was created in 1931 as a part of a reorganization of Georgia's state government. With this act, public higher education in Georgia was unified for the first time under a single governing and management authority. The governor appoints members to the board, who each serve seven years. Today, the Board of Regents is composed of 18 members, five of whom are appointed from the state-atlarge, and one from each of the 13 congressional districts.

The board oversees the governance and management of 35 colleges and universities: four research universities, two regional universities, 13 state universities, seven state colleges, and nine two-year colleges with an overall annual budget of $5.7 billion. These institutions enroll more than 260,000 students. The University System of Georgia employs approximately 11,000 faculty and 28,600 staff to provide teaching and related services to students and the communities in which they are located.

Highlighted Preparedness, Mitigation, Emergency Management Programs. Emergency Operations Committee Chancellor Erroll Davis established the Emergency Operations initiative in 2006 to complete a system-wide review of institution and USG emergency operations plans with the goal of recommending best practices. Albany State University President, Everette Freeman was selected to lead this initiative and conducted the first committee meeting in November 2006. The committee is made up of representatives from all 35 institutions. Since November 2006 the committee has created a system-wide inventory of first responder personnel and equipment; evaluated mass notification communication methods and established system purchasing contracts; reviewed training needs for campus personnel and initiated the training for campus mental health professionals to establish the Crisis Response Network.

Page 386

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 387

Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program, Disaster Resistant Universities Grant The Board of Regents, in partnership with the GEMA Hazard Mitigation Division, received a grant under the Disaster Resistant University program through FEMA. Under this grant, participating member colleges and universities develop campus mitigation plans that meet the minimum federal regulations of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Once completed the campus pre-disaster hazard mitigation plans become a part of the local community plans.
The process of plan development has increased the interaction among institution officials, local emergency managers and community first responders. At the conclusion of the grant period in September 2007, several institutions had completed their pre-disaster hazard mitigation plans and submitted them for inclusion in the local emergency plans. The remaining institutions have initiated planning activities and continue to develop plans with the assistance of the Hazard Mitigation Division. Once institution plans are completed, a system-level plan will be compiled.
Hazard Mitigation Awareness Program Increasing the awareness of campus planners, architects, facility officers as to the natural hazards specific to their respective geographical areas allows for incorporation of mitigating activities in the early stages of facility design, construction and renovation projects. Awareness activities include sharing of information, training of Office of Facilities personnel charged with oversight of facility projects, and training for institution facility officers.
Awareness efforts conducted in 2007 include; Development of training by the GEMA Hazard Mitigation Division to be
provided to system facility officers, planners and project managers. In October 2007, training was provided at the USG Facility Officers
Conference. Facility officers, health, safety and business leaders were provided training on crime prevention through environmental design, security hardware/software, and warning devices for facilities.
Facility-Disaster Recovery/Stabilization Vendors In emergency situations, identification of vendors with the knowledge, skills, and necessary resources to respond to small and large scale events is often difficult and daunting. Large, regional events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and even large scale flooding reduce the number of available qualified disaster recovery service vendors.
Through the pre-qualification process, potential vendors are evaluated by a committee to determine if they possess the necessary qualifications, possess or have access to critical resources and equipment, and the requisite knowledge to properly document response efforts. Once qualified,

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

vendors are placed on the pre-qualified vendor list and the information is

A

shared with each institution.

P

P

Role and responsibility pre- and post-event

E

The Board of Regents provides a supporting role to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency as a support function during times of emer-

N

gency. Assistance provided may be in the form of personnel, equipment or

D

supplies. In addition, institutions often provide intellectual resources as

I

well.

X

Assets Information concerning the Board of Regents assets are derived from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and state-leased (operated) facilities. This database is sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GBT), Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission for a New Georgia in collaboration with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. Currently, the database includes 2,251 buildings with 2,100 state-owned and 151 leased that relate to the Board of Regents. Typically, the database attributes an estimated value to each structure.

A future asset The University System of Georgia continues to grow and is projected to increase by 200,000 students in the next 10-15 years. To meet the demands of increased growth, construction and renovation of facilities continues to be one of the many priorities for institutions.

Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order Board of Regents Policy Manual Section 900 of the Board of Regents Policy Manual provides institutions with guidance and establishes the Office of Facilities authority in facility projects.

38-3-22.2. Establishment of Airport Anti-terrorism Training Committee; annual training, O.C.G.A. Code section establishes training requirements and requires the Middle Georgia College Aviation program to conduct annual training for Airport managers.

Natural Hazard summary Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard assessment discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls.

Page 388

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summa-

P

rize percentages of state facilities located in specific hazard categories

P

(high to low composite hazard scores) as well as summarize the estimated

E

value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. The

N

summaries for BOR are included in the following tables.

D

Based on available information, it is estimated that 1.16% of BOR facilities

I

are in high hazard rated areas with just over half of the facilities located in

X

moderate hazard zones.

Table 1: State Board of Regents facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category High

Hazard Score Range 18-25

% Owned 1.15%

% Leased 1.33%

% Total Facilities 1.16%

Moderate

9-17

54.64%

38.67%

54.08%

Low

0-8

44.21%

60.00%

44.76%

Notes: 2,251 buildings included in the State Board of Regents agency category in BLLIP data. 2100 buildings listed as owned and 151 buildings listed as leased. 95 buildings were not included in the hazard analysis. Estimates of values given only for the owned buildings. Data is currently being reviewed for accuracy.
Potential losses (GIS) Table 2: State Board of Regents facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Hazard Category High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25 9-17 0-8

Estimated Value at Risk (Owned) $65,612,490
$2,334,433,822
$2,701,998,848

% Total Value 1.29% 45.75% 52.96%

Page 389

Agency goals and objectives
Continue Pre-Disaster hazard mitigation planning efforts to compile a system level document. Although the grant period for the pre-disaster hazard mitigation plans is past (see section 2.b.), planning continues for each institution. The goal is for all institutions to complete their institution specific plans prior to December 2008. Once completed a system-level plan will be compiled to encompass all institutions.
Increase the awareness of chief business officers, chief facility officers,

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

campus planners and public safety personnel as to the potential for local

A

hazards and proper mitigation methods. Increasing the awareness of institu-

P

tional representatives as to the importance of hazard mitigation practices and

P

encouraging their application in various projects will continue to through the

E

Emergency Operations Committee; training of Office of Facilities staff and sharing of information with institution emergency managers and facility offi-

N

cers.

D

I

Continue emergency preparedness, planning, education and implementa-

X

tion efforts for all institutions to include identifying system-wide ap-

proaches that are efficient and effective. Emergency preparedness and plan-

ning, to include mitigation efforts, will continue to be the primary focus of the

Emergency Operations Committee. Creation and implementation of training

programs; establishment of guidelines for mass notifications; and other areas

will continue.

Page 390

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Agency Plan integration with State Mitigation Objectives.

P

P

State Mitigation Objective

Board of Regents Plan Integration

E

#1. Increase coordination between local, Through the current pre-disaster hazard mitigation pro-

N

state, and federal agencies in pre-disaster

gram institutions are required to work with local

D

planning and post-disaster recovery to include continuous hazard mitigation imple-

government in pre-disaster planning, response and recovery activities (Section 2.b)

I

mentation.

Assist institutions to complete pre-disaster hazard miti-

X

gation plans. Upon completion, develop a systemwide hazard mitigation plan and work with GEMA

to identify funding opportunities.

The Emergency Operations Planning initiative, (Section

2. b.), encourages and evaluates involvement of local agencies in the institution's emergency response, planning, mitigation and recovery program development. Increased coordination with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency in resource identification and emergency planning preparedness.

#2. Increase awareness and understanding Both A & B above support this objective through inof hazard mitigation among local and state creasing participation among institutions and local

government agencies, municipalities, busi- agencies in mitigation planning activities.

nesses, private organizations and the gen-

eral public.

#3. Implement a broad range of programs System-wide mitigation plan

and projects that promote the state's com- Training programs to increase awareness of program

prehensive mitigation strategy.

managers, facility directors, and other personnel

key to campus strategic planning efforts.

Explore possible methods for disseminating important

mitigation information to critical institutional level

personnel and encourage reporting of best prac-

tices.

#4. Improve the state's comprehensive mitigation strategy by periodic analysis to determine effectiveness of program management, local and state mitigation projects, planning and initiatives.

Compilation of the system-wide pre-disaster mitigation plan will include periodic reviews to identify vulnerabilities, identify risks and identify mitigation activities.

Page 391

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 392

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 393

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 394

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 395

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 396

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 397

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 398

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 399

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 400

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Department of Banking and Finance

P

P

January 31, 2008

E

N

Team member

D

Rob Braswell, Commissioner

I

George Reynolds, Senior Deputy Commissioner Carol Webb, Director of Communications and Planning (Primary POC)

X

Tracy Whitesides, Deputy Commissioner for Administration (Alternate POC)

Brief summary of state agency Summary of agency
Primary responsibility

The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is the state agency that regulates and examines banks, credit unions, and trust companies chartered by the State. The Department also has regulatory and/or licensing authority over mortgage brokers, lenders, and processors; money services businesses (check cashers, check sellers and money transmitters - collectively referred to as MSBs); foreign banking organizations; and bank holding companies conducting business in Georgia. Our products and services are delivered through the supervision and examination of Department-regulated entities, and through processing of consumer complaints and inquiries directed by customers of these entities.

Regulatory environment: Financial institutions are highly regulated and we are one of the regulatory agencies for state-chartered financial institutions. We are the sole regulatory agency for mortgage lenders and brokers and money service businesses operating in Georgia (with the exception of FINCEN and the IRS, which supervise the Bank Secrecy Act, USA PATRIOT Act and other AntiMoney-Laundering efforts). Financial Institutions and financial service providers are subject to strong statutory and regulatory requirements at both the federal and state levels.

Because financial institutions play a crucial role in the United States economy, it is important their business operations are resilient and the effects of disruptions in service are minimized in order to maintain public trust and confidence in our financial system. Along these lines, state and federal regulatory agencies have procedures in place to evaluate financial institution and service provider risk management processes to ensure the availability of critical financial services. Reviewing a financial institution's business continuity plan is an established part of examinations performed by financial institution regulatory agencies.

Key customer groups and/or market segments: Key customers are financial institution, mortgage and MSB management, including operating management and boards of directors, Georgia citizens served by financial service providers, the governor's office, state legislators, other federal and state regulatory, law enforcement and consumer protections agencies and associational groups serving financial service providers.

As of December 31, 2007, the Department has 119 full-time equivalent employees.

100% of the Department's operating income comes from State General Funds; however, we collect 100% of our expenses from regulated entities and refund the State General Fund for all funds drawn out, therefore in effect we derive 100% of our funds from other sources. The Revenue for Fiscal Year 2007 was approximately $22.1 million and expenses for Fiscal Year 2007 were approximately $11.5 million.

Page 401

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Programs that are related to preparedness, mitigation, Emergency Management

A

As noted above, the Department regulates financial institutions and financial service providers and,

P

among other things, is responsible for ensuring the following: (1) Safe and sound operation of financial institutions;

P

(2) Proper conservation of the assets of financial institutions;

E

(3) Public confidence in financial institutions; (4) Protection for the interests of the depositors, creditors, and shareholders of

N

financial institutions;

D

(5) Service by financial institutions responsive to the needs and convenience of

I

depositors, borrowers, and other customers and conducive to economic progress; and

X

(6) For regulated entities other than financial institutions (i.e., mortgage brokers/

lenders, check cashers, check sellers and money transmitters), to provide for

protection of the interest of consumers served by these entities.

While these responsibilities do not involve "emergency management", we are responsible to the citizens of Georgia as it relates to depositors, creditors, and shareholders of the institutions we regulate, as well as ensuring that financial service providers operate within applicable laws and regulations. We require that financial institutions have disaster recovery/business resumption plans to support their operations in the event of an emergency/disaster situation.

Our organizational structure:

Supervisory Division: The Supervisory Division is responsible for the supervision, regulation, and examination of depository financial institutions and their affiliated companies that fall under the regulatory authority of the Department. Such institutions include state-chartered banks, trust companies and credit unions; bank holding companies; and international banking organizations. The Corporate Section of the Division is responsible for financial institution application and registration processing.

Non-Depository Financial Institutions Division: This Division is responsible for the licensing, examination and supervision of mortgage lenders, brokers, and processors who are licensees and registrants under the law. The Division is also responsible for the licensing and supervision of check cashers, sale of check companies and money transmitters - collectively referred to as Money Services Businesses (MSBs).

Legal and Consumer Affairs Division: The Legal Division is responsible for providing legal advice and legislative drafting support for the Commissioner and staff. The Consumer Affairs section handles consumer complaints regarding financial institutions, mortgage licensees and registrants, and other financial service providers regulated by the Department.

Administrative Division: The Administrative Division is responsible for human resource management, budgeting, accounting services, information systems, training activities, property management, and records management
Disaster Recovery / Business Resumption Plan (DRBR Plan): The Department has a comprehensive Disaster Recovery/Business Resumption Plan that is updated and tested periodically to ensure its effectiveness and accuracy of information. The

Page 402

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

DRBR Plan is a comprehensive plan that details management's plans for recovering the

P

organization's vital business functions in the event of any potential hazard/threat or disrup-

tion of the organization's operations. The Plan is designed to ensure the rapid resumption

P

of critical operations following the loss or inaccessibility of staff at the main office or in

E

the event of a wide-scale or regional disruption. The Plan addresses recovery of all of the

N

organization's vital business functions. Each of the Department's divisions has a role in the recovery plan, either from a support perspective or as part of the business recovery

D

process team. The degree of implementation of the Plan depends upon the magnitude and

I

nature of the incident that caused the disruption.

X

The Plan has been developed to provide a process to achieve the following ends in the

event of a disruptive incident or disaster:

To continue operations of all vital business functions in order to maintain customer services, support services, and to maintain the confidence of our customers, our employees, and the general public.

To provide for the restoration of vital business functions and affected IT systems within the time specified by the criticality levels developed from the Business Impact Analysis process.

To achieve the objectives of the Plan in a cost effective manner. It is the policy of the Department to provide for the safety of the employees, physical and intangible assets, and vital records while ensuring the continuation of essential services and delivery of products to its customers.

To the degree that an event or disaster impacts our financial institutions and their ability to provide financial services to their customers, provide monitoring to ensure restoration of access to financial services for their customers.

All members of our Senior Staff and the Director of Communications and Planning have Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) Cards that can be utilized to respond to national security/emergency preparedness events when there is congestion or blockage in the public phone network.

Roles and responsibilities (pre- and post-event)

Page 403

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Emergency Support Function ESF 15

A

(s):

P

Essential Functions during State Operations Center Activations:

Our agency's function during a disaster situation would be to provide information regarding the number of financial institutions (and their locations,

P

possibly including ATM status) impacted by a disaster. We will coordinate

E

with our federal regulatory counterparts to ensure accurate and timely information is available for dissemination to the public.

N

Our agency has partnered with our state and federal regulatory counterparts

D

to share information regarding financial institutions that are operating in this

I

state as it pertains to their operational status during a disaster. It is expected that this coordinated regulatory effort will result in information being avail-

X

able through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) website

regarding the operational status of banks with locations in Georgia. Informa-

tion regarding credit unions will be coordinated with the National Credit

Union Administration (NCUA) so that accurate information is available to

the public.

Since our agency regulates other types of financial service providers that charge fees for their services, we will encourage them to temporarily waive fees for those services. We will encourage financial institutions to work with customers and affected communities by considering: Temporarily waiving late payment charges and early withdrawal of savings
penalties; Offering prudent loans to help rebuild damaged property after assessing the
current community credit needs; Expediting lending decisions when possible, consistent with safety and
soundness principles; Restructuring borrowers' debt obligations, where appropriate, by altering or
adjusting payment terms; State and federal guarantees and other means to help mitigate excessive credit
risks; and, All available programs offered by the Federal Home Loan Banks.

To facilitate rebuilding efforts in the areas affected by the disaster, while maintaining standards of safety and soundness, the Department will: Grant extensions of time for submission of regulatory filing requirements; Work with institutions that experience sudden growth due to temporary de-
posits of insurance proceeds; Allow reasonable loan documentation deficiencies necessitated by office
relocation or personnel shortages during the period of recovery efforts; and, Accelerate procedures to approve temporary facilities so that institutions with destroyed or severely damaged facilities will be able to continue to serve their customers and communities.
The Department believes that these measures will help borrowers affected by disasters to recover their financial strength and place them in a better position to meet their financial obligations. These efforts will help to revitalize affected communities and ensure the continued stability of institutions involved in the recovery of areas affected by a disaster.
Other areas we may be able to assist in are:
Identify financial institutions who own mobile ATM and branches that could be deployed to affected areas and coordinate with appropriate local/state agencies and, other regulatory agencies, and the institutions to get these units to the affected areas.
Work with correspondent banks and the Federal Reserve to ensure sufficient cash is available to financial institutions in the affected areas.

Page 404

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Assets

In addition to the Department's main office in the Koger Center/Drake Building, there are

P

seven additional leased offices around the state that are utilized by our examination staff. The

E

table below shows the physical address of each of the Department's leased offices.

N

D

BLD_I ID D

BUILDING_NAME

ADDRESS

CITY_I COUNTY_F

D

IPS

ZIP

I

92

6555 Abercorn Street, Suite

314

X

0 17704 Abercorn Center

222

92

Fowler Crossing Build-

427

13051

05

301

1 17710 ing 645

645 Molly Lane, Suite 140

529

13057

89

92

Airport Plaza Business

2 17713 Park

510 Plaza Drive, Suite 1230

114

303

13063

49

92 3 17712 Ashley Place

211 E Ashley Street, Suite 100 155

315

13069

33

92

Koger Center/Drake

4 17707 Building

2990 Brandywine Road, Suite

200

28

303

13089

41

92

East Gwinnett Business 3715 Harrison Road, Suite

300

5 17706 Park

100

283

13135

52

92

Corporate Square Com-

310

6 17711 plex

100 Corporate Square Dr

158

13175

40

92 7 17709 Ledgedale Park

2215 Bemiss Road, Suite F

495

316

13185

02

The Department's main office comprises 15,459 square feet in an office park in suburban Atlanta (Chamblee area), Georgia. It is located less than one half mile from two major interstate highways making it readily accessible via automobile. It is also accessible to the Atlanta International Airport with three Marta commuter rail stations within five miles distance from the main office. The facilities are conveniently accessible to staff, other regulators, and management of supervised institutions.
The Department's main office houses a reception area, individual offices, a training room, two conference rooms, a break room, and two major and several secondary storage facilities. The Department's data processing facilities are housed in a secured, separately air conditioned area.
Field personnel are assigned to one of six geographical or specialty districts, which are apportioned according to the number and size of supervised financial institutions. Five districts maintain district offices which vary in size from 1,546 to 4,217 square feet and accommodate between 7 and 12 examiners on a regular basis. Two districts have one satellite office. These branch offices contain approximately 1,300 square feet.
No changes in assets are planned in the near future.
Laws, regulations, policies and codes The Georgia Department of Banking and Finance was created in 1972 and was given supervisory responsibility to enforce and administer all laws of the State of Georgia relating to financial institutions. The Department's responsibilities and duties are contained in the Financial Institutions Code.
Natural Hazard summary
Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard assessment discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls.

Page 405

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summarize percentages of state

A

facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard scores) as well as

P

summarize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. The

summaries for the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) are included in the following tables.

P

E

Based on available information, there are no DBF facilities located in high hazard rated areas and almost 43% of the facilities located in moderate hazard zones.

N

D

Hazard Cate- Hazard Score % Total Fa-

I

gory

Range

cilities

X

High

18-25

0.00%

Moderate

9-17

42.86%

Low

0-8

57.14%

Table 1: Department of Banking and Finance facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category High
Moderate
Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

Estimated Value at Risk (Owned)
$0
$0
$0

% Total Value 0%
0%
0%

Table 2: Department of Banking and Finance facility value at risk according to hazard categories Notes: Only 8 buildings included in the Department of Banking and Finance agency category in BLLIP data. One building was not given hazard values.

Agency specific goals and objectives
As mentioned earlier, the Department has a comprehensive Business Resumption/Disaster Recovery Plan that addresses procedures, plans, etc. from the perspective of planning for the agency and its employees, as well as communication with our customers.

Financial institutions face a wide variety of disasters across the United States that could have potentially devastating consequences. We are very concerned about the role we play in ensuring that our financial institutions are focusing on business continuity plan/disaster recovery. New business practices, changes in technology, and increased terrorism concerns, have focused even greater attention on the need for effective financial institution business continuity planning and have altered the benchmarks of an effective plan. For example, an effective plan should take into account the potential for wide-area disasters that impact an entire region and for the resulting loss or inaccessibility of staff. It also should consider and address interdependencies, both market-based and geographic, among financial system participants as well as infrastructure service providers.

We have the ability to tap the experience and "lessons learned" from other states (like Florida) that routinely have to deal with hurricanes and other natural disasters. Regulators have learned after Katrina that it is not enough to simply capture the institution's contact information. Following

Page 406

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 407

Hurricane Katrina, institutions' existing disaster recovery and business continuity plans generally worked well in enabling institutions to restore operations swiftly. However, the unprecedented destruction and aftermath of the hurricane caused major disruptions that exceeded the scope of some institutions' disaster recovery and business continuity plans. Major hardships faced by these institutions included the following: Communications outages made it difficult to locate missing personnel. Access to and reliable transportation into restricted areas was not always available. Lack of electrical power or fuel for generators rendered computer systems inoperable. Multiple facilities were destroyed or sustained significant damage. Some branches and ATMs were under water for weeks. Mail service was interrupted for months in some areas. Financial institutions demonstrated great resiliency, working together to create solutions that allowed them to successfully operate under very difficult circumstances and to assist customers and communities in recovering from the hurricane. During 2006, the Department was part of an interagency initiative to ensure that we have an effective system for communicating and coordinating our efforts in the event of a disaster that impacts our financial institutions and their ability to provide financial services to their customers. To that end, we developed an online system for capturing and collecting emergency contact information for our banks and credit unions. This information will be used to contact institution personnel if a disaster has impacted their area. This information will be periodically updated and exported to our federal counterparts so that we will have up to date contact information on our institutions should we need to contact them in the event of an emergency/disaster situation. The FDIC has developed an Event Monitoring System (EMS) Database that will be utilized by state and federal banking agencies/departments during an emergency situation/event that triggers it use. The system has been loaded on our network and will be utilized when an event triggers its usage. By working with our state and federal regulatory counterparts, we can ensure that we have processes in place to better prepare, mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards that fact the state's critical financial services sector. During the southwest Georgia tornados in 2007, the Department found that internal protocols needed to be enhanced as part of our Department's DRBR Plan. Subsequent to the tornados, we developed a section in our Plan to expand upon our internal procedures and interagency initiatives in the event of a disaster that impacts our financial institutions.
We developed a system so that county(s) can be selected and reports can be easily run showing our banks and credit unions that are headquartered in or have branches in the affected counties.
We established more clear cut responsibilities and protocols when a disaster happens, including backup calling plans for a district is in an affected area. So, for instance, if the disaster occurs in the southern parts of Georgia, you may be contacted by one of our north Georgia district offices.
We made it possible for examiners to view emergency contact information via our employee Intranet and to access a spreadsheet for recording institution status in the event they are required to contact our banks and credit unions in the event of a disaster.
We have emergency Points of Contact (POCs) for our agency in order to receive updates from GEMA. Our primary POC has received training regarding the State Operations Center (SOC) operations and on the E-Team software. This individual can work in the SOC if required or access the system remotely to provide situation reports to GEMA. We will serve as an information-clearing house for financial institutions, regulators and the public.
Access to additional resources: One thing we have not been able to accomplish, but desire to do, possibly with GEMA's assistance, is to plot our financial institution locations on a map to determine the probability and impact of various hazards that they may face. This would also be useful during a disaster, because we could pinpoint exactly how many institution locations might be in an affected area. If GEMA could assist us with a project such as this (providing GIS data or mapping assistance), that would be an objective we would like to achieve, if feasible.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

In addition, we would like to explore the possibility of establishing some sort of protocol/

P

credentialing system with GEMA to allow our Commissioner or Senior Deputy Commissioner to

be able to quickly get a re-entry pass in the event that the Department or a financial institution

P

needs to get to their data center and/or critical documents. ChicagoFirst (a non-profit association

E

dedicated to ensuring the resilience of Chicago's financial community in the event of an emergency) accomplished something similar to this a few years ago by creating permits/passes for es-

N

sential personnel to safely use business facilities in the event of access restrictions to critical oper-

D

ating locations/systems.

I

In discussions with GEMA personnel a few years ago, we were told that to obtain re-entry passes

during an event, the Department should petition the GEMA State Operations Center via the Com-

X

missioner's Emergency Coordinator. At that time, we understood that the granting of these passes

would be on a case-be-case basis.

Page 408

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

D

I

X

Sonny Perdue

Governor

Department of Banking and Finance 2990 Brandywine Road, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30341-5565 http://dbf.georgia.gov December 28, 2007

Robert M Braswell Commissioner

Charley English, Director Georgia Emergency Management Agency 935 East Confederate Avenue, SE P.O. Box 18055 Atlanta, Georgia 30316
Dear Mr. English,
This letter is to confirm the Department of Banking and Finance's intent to cooperate in the State's planning efforts for emergency management/hazard mitigation. Our agency is committed to assisting GEMA, as your agency determines appropriate, to avoid emergency situations, to minimize the risk of loss from an event, or to provide assistance where possible in the event an emergency occurs.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Director of Communications and Planning Carol Webb at(770) 986-1386 or webbc@dbf.state.ga.us if we can be of any assistance to your agency or if youneed additional information from the Department of Banking and Finance.
Sincerely,

Robert M. Braswell, CEM Commissioner (770) 986-1628 robertb@dbf.state.ga.us

Page 409

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
November 2007
Participants on the State Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Working Group from DCA: Raymond E. Noel, Director of Administrative Operations and Primary Emergency Coordinator
DCA's Mission Partnering with communities to help create a climate of success for Georgia's families and businesses.
DCA's Vision Every Georgia community offers a quality of life where people and businesses can grow and prosper.
DCA carries out its mission in 3 major areas: community and economic development, local government assistance, and safe and affordable housing. Our customers/clients include approximately 700 cities, 159 counties, 12 RDC regions, dozens of development and housing authorities, thousands of owners of rental property, thousands of low income renters, and a large number of private housing developers.
DCA's Agency Summary DCA serves as the principal state department in the executive branch of the State of Georgia for
local government affairs. Within DCA is the Georgia Housing and Finance Authority which serves as a public corporation to assist low and moderate income Georgia families in obtaining adequate housing and the OneGeorgia Authority which administers economic development programs funded through the Tobacco Settlement Fund. The Commissioner of DCA also serves as the Executive Director of GHFA and reports directly to the Governor. DCA serves all 159 counties in Georgia. DCA improves the quality of life of over 9.1 million Georgia citizens and provides specialized assistance to builders, businesses, community developers, community service providers, environmentalists, home buyers, households with special needs, lenders, local governments and authorities, nonprofits, planning and zoning officials, property owners and managers, realtors, and tenants.
DCA administers over 70 state and federal grant programs; serves as the state's lead agency in housing finance and development and low income rental housing assistance; promulgates building codes to be adopted by local governments; provides comprehensive planning, technical and research assistance to local governments; and serves as the lead agency for the state's solid waste reduction efforts. All financial assistance for these programs is provided through contractual agreements; technical assistance is provided in response to requests; and general assistance and information is provided through publications, reports, and web site content.
Within DCA are eight Divisions; Executive, Administration, Community Development and Finance, Housing Finance, Planning and Environmental Management, Rental Assistance, Rural Development, and Local Government Assistance. DCA employs approximately 425 people. DCA's annual budget is approximately 33.1 million which ranks 23rd out of 35 state agencies with respect to level of state appropriations in 2006. However, the agency is responsible for 978 million in program budget funds of which 68% comes

A P P E N D I X
Page 410

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

from tax exempt bond allocation authority, 20% is federal funding, 7% is

P

tobacco settlement funds, and 5% is from state appropriations.

DCA has adopted four strategic goals: 1) increase the opportunities available for

P

Georgia citizens to secure decent, safe, and affordable housing, 2) provide fund-

E

ing and technical assistance to local and regional initiatives that promote job crea-

N

tion, growth, investment, and the development of safe and healthy communities, 3) enhance leadership capacity at both the community and regional levels, and 4)

D

attract, retain, and train a competent workforce. DCA has four core operating

I

principles that drive the administration of its programs to fulfill the mission: 1) bot-

tom-up approach to community and economic development, 2) commitment to

X

good government, 3) communication as a core task, and 4) partnerships are cru-

cial to any initiative. DCA serves as the intermediary between the supplier of

funds (State, Federal, and private) and its customers / clients. DCA measures the

value of the program through the impact on the customer such as new jobs cre-

ated, new housing units created, and the number of comprehensive community

plans that were updated. DCA monitors customer compliance with specific per-

formance standards such as percentage of occupied housing units, percentage of

low income new hires, and percentage of water conservation achieved. The day-

to-day administration of these programs promotes preparedness, mitigation, and

emergency management in the communities served. Some DCA programs that

are related to mitigation are listed below.

i. Housing Choice Voucher Program

The Housing Choice Voucher Program (Rental Assistance Program)

is a tenant-based assistance program that assists low income

individuals and families in renting safe, decent, and sanitary

dwelling units in the private rental market. The program was cre-

ated by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974

and is provided by the United States Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD). The program operates by providing

direct subsidy rent payments to qualified landlords for tenants

participating in the program. Program participants normally pay

approximately 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent.

The landlord's subsidy is paid monthly by the DCA and normally

consists of the difference between the gross rent, which includes

an allowance for tenant paid utilities, and 30 percent of the ten-

ant's adjusted income.

The program provides improved living conditions for low income peo-

ple while maintaining their rent payments at an affordable level;

promotes freedom of housing choice and integrates lower income

and minority persons into mainstream society; provides decent,

safe, and affordable housing for eligible participants; and pro-

vides an incentive for private property owners to rent to lower in-

come persons by offering timely subsidy payments.

DCA provides subsidy payments directly to the Landlord on behalf of

the program participant. The amount of the subsidy is based pri-

marily upon the participant's income. DCA administers the pro-

gram in 149 of Georgia's 159 counties through five regional of-

fices located around the State. The remaining 10 counties are

served by their local housing authorities.

The annual budget is approximately 100 million. The program is

funded by Federal funds from HUD.

No State appropriations are used in the administration of this pro-

gram. Currently, the Program serves over 16,000 Georgia fami-

lies and processes over 11,000 rental assistance checks per

month. This represents 16,000 families that are not homeless

and that are not living in substandard or unsafe housing.

Page 411

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Home Buyer Mortgage Revenue Bond Program The Georgia Home Buyer Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (Georgia Dream Homeownership Program) is available to qualified borrowers statewide who meet income guidelines and who are purchasing homes within certain price limits. In addition, borrowers must have modest assets and meet the flexible credit underwriting for the loan program they have selected. DCA assists Georgia citizens in making the dream of home ownership a reality. DCA administers the program through participating lenders. The applicant attends homebuyer education sessions provided by DCA and a network of non-profits all over the State to learn more about buying and owning a home. The applicant then contacts a Georgia Dream Participating Lender in their area. The participating lender pre-qualifies the applicant and completes the mortgage loan process. Below market rate 30 and 35 year mortgages; 100% financing; interest only 35-year first mortgages; very low closing costs; and insurance to cover involuntary unemployment, accidental disability, accidental death, and dismemberment. In addition Georgia Dream second mortgages are available for down payments and closing costs. These second mortgages have no interest, no monthly payments, and no payment due until the home is sold, or refinanced, or is no longer used as the buyer's principal residence. The PEN second mortgage program is available to those employed by entities that provide public protection (military, police, nurses, etc.). The EV program is available for energy and/or visitable homes that are certified to meet the Energy Star, EasyLiving Home, or Earthcraft House program requirements. The CHOICE program assists individuals with disabilities. The HONORS program assists individuals that are the surviving spouse of a military service person or public protector. The WELCOME HOME program is available to members of the Georgia Army and Air National Guard. The annual budget is approximately 180 million. The program has helped over 33,000 Georgia citizens achieve their dream of home ownership by providing affordable first mortgage financing.
Homeless and Special Needs Housing Programs These programs are principally designed to be the first step in a continuum of assistance to enable homeless individuals and families to move toward independent living as well as to prevent homelessness. 2. The General Assembly established the State Housing Trust Fund for the Homeless Commission (HTF) in 1989. The Trust Fund, administered by DCA, is responsible for administering grants and loans to local governments and private nonprofit organizations to assist low-income and homeless persons. Through the Trust Fund, the State aids hundreds of organizations each year to acquire and rehabilitate buildings, provide supportive services such as food and counseling, and make emergency shelter and transitional facilities available to persons in need. Additionally, the Trust Funds provides a variety of technical assistance programs designed to enhance the way organizations deliver services to benefit low-income and homeless persons. Through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DCA administers McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act programs

A P P E N D I X
Page 412

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 413

that award funds competitively based on the development of a "Continuum of Care" system in the community where assistance is being sought. A continuum of care system addresses the critical problem of homelessness through a coordinated communitybased process of identifying needs and building a system to meet those needs. The DCA Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program provides shelter and essential services to homeless persons throughout the State by making available HTF funds and Federal HUD ESG funds to nonprofit organizations and local government entities operating homeless housing and/or providing services to the homeless. The DCA Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs include the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) which provides transitional or permanent housing in a supportive environment, and the Shelter Plus Care Program (S+C) which provides rental assistance for homeless persons with disabilities. The Home Access Program provides grant funding for accessibility improvements at owner-occupied homes in which individuals with disabilities reside and utilize as their primary residence. Through the HUD Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Program DCA provides housing assistance (emergency, shelter, transitional and/or permanent) primarily for lower income persons with HIV/AIDS. The Permanent Supportive Housing Program provides funding for the production of affordable rental housing with accompanying supportive services for Special Needs Tenants. The annual budget for these programs is approximately $4.5 million. Over 200 non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, and public housing authorities receive funding from these programs and approximately 43,000 citizens receive shelter or transitional housing assistance annually. HUD requires each Continuum of Care community to implement a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to report jurisdictional data and to provide an unduplicated count of its homeless population. DCA facilitates a partnership to implement Pathways Compass HMIS statewide. DCA and the Georgia Department of Human Resources are partners in the Georgia Inter-Agency Homeless Coordination Council.
HOME Investment Partnership Program These programs are principally designed to facilitate the financing and development of affordable multifamily rental housing units for low income Georgians. The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program), created by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 provides funds to DCA and the State of Georgia to support affordable housing initiatives and to benefit low income Georgians. The Rural Rental Housing Development Fund (RRHDF) is designed to provide local public housing authorities with the education and training to become successful housing developers in order to further assist their community in meeting its affordable housing needs. DCA awards these funds to developers of affordable housing through the HOME Rental Housing Loan Program by providing very low interest construction-to-permanent loans to help develop affordable rental housing. DCA also administers the Housing Tax Credit Program which provides a 10-year federal and state tax incentive to attract private investment for the development of af-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

fordable rental housing. DCA sets aside a portion of its HOME funds allocation to provide operating assistance to Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). Through the Community HOME Investment Program (CHIP), DCA sets aside a portion of its HOME funds for local governments wishing to develop or preserve affordable housing in their communities. CHIP funds can only be used for activities which result in the production, acquisition, or rehabilitation of decent, safe, and sanitary housing units which will be occupied by income eligible homebuyers, homeowners, or tenants. DCA partners in these programs include Enterprise Foundation, Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae Foundation, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Georgia Affordable Housing Coalition, Georgia Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, Georgia Association of Realtors, Georgia Manufactured Housing Association, Georgia State Trade Association of Non-Profit Developers, Home Builders Association of Georgia, Housing Assistance Council, HUD User Data Sets, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Real Estate Brokers, U. S. Department of Agriculture, HUD, and the IRS. The annual budget for these programs is approximately $6.3 million. Private developers, project owners, non-profit organizations, and local governments benefit from these programs.
GeorgiaHousingSearch.com Providing Georgians with access to rental housing opportunities. One way to offer access is to provide an online tool as the central bridge needed to match individuals and families seeking affordable housing options with units that are available for rent in the marketplace. In addition to helping the general population, the online tool helps people with special needs to find housing options. Links are also provided on the online tool for people to obtain other housing information in addition to rental housing availability. DCA operates the www.GeorgiaHousingSearch.com web site. The site provides up-to-the-minute information on affordable properties across the entire state. Prospective tenants can quickly locate affordable housing units based upon their individual requirements, including accessibility due to a physical disability. The prospective tenant can contact the property manager/owner directly through an e-mail link. Property managers, landlords, and owners are provided with a one-stop shop to list their available units with detailed unit information, rent ranges, bedrooms, access to public transportation, and property amenities. Housing professionals can utilize the information stored on this centrally located resource to better serve their communities and to gage the rental housing market across the state. These services are free to both prospective tenants and to property managers and the vacancy information is updated bi-weekly. A direct link to UNITED WAY is a feature on the home page of the web site. In addition Community Resource links to the Georgia Crisis and Action Line, the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the Georgia Department of Labor, the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Latin American Association, and the Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities are provided. The annual budget for this program is approximately $1.4 million. Currently 52,793 units are listed on the web site and the web site av-

A P P E N D I X
Page 414

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 415

erages 4,989 daily searches.
Georgia Initiative for Community Housing The objective of this program is to help communities create a community housing team that will develop new ideas about meeting local housing needs, learn about approaches and available resources to meet housing needs, produce a community housing plan, and finally begin implementation of their plan. The Georgia Initiative for Community Housing is a partnership of the University of Georgia Housing Demographics Research Center, DCA, the Georgia Municipal Association, and the Georgia Electric Membership Corporation. The initiative offers communities in Georgia a 3-year program of collaboration and technical assistance in addressing their housing needs. Major sponsors of this program are Georgia Power, USDA Rural Development, and Wachovia Foundation. The partners provide communities a series of facilitated retreats that are held over a three-year period that allow communities to fashion solutions to their housing needs. Opportunities are provided for communities to attend workshops and to receive technical assistance and housing expertise. Opportunities are provided to communities to engage in cross-community sharing and collaboration. The annual budget for this program is approximately $1.9 million. The following communities have participated: Colquitt, Metter, Milledgeville, Newnan, Tifton, Camden County, Dalton/Whitfield County, Hall chambers of commerce, and neighborhood associations. The following digital data and maps are provided for download: Census Map Sets, County and City Boundary Maps, Coastal Resource Maps, a Community Facility Map, Cultural Resource Maps, Demographic and Economic Data, a Groundwater Recharge Area Map, a Protected Mountain Area Map, Protected River Maps, Water Supply Watershed Maps, a Poverty Map, and Aerial Photography. DCA provides the state-level Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) for 2010 to the US Census Bureau. The annual budget for these programs is approximately $4 million. In FY 2007 over 250 local governments updated their comprehensive plans through the major 10-year updates, 5-year updates, the annual Short Term Work Program updates, or through plan amendments. In FY 2007 14 RDCs updated their regional plans on schedule through major 10-year updates and annual updates to their Regional Work Programs. In FY 2007 approximately 1,000 planning maps were downloaded from the DCA planning web sites. Currently the Comprehensive Plans of 146 local governments are available on the DCA web site at http://www/ development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/currentplans.asp.
DCA has a support role in the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan. For Emergency Support Function (ESF) 3 Public Works and Engineering, DCA provides personnel after an event. For ESF 5 Emergency Management, DCA provides personnel after an event. For ESF 6 Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services, DCA provides emergency funding, inventory and site preparation, loan consultation, and temporary housing coordination before and after an event. For ESF 7 Resource Support, DCA provides building design, construction standards, housing specifications, property information, purchase consultations, and technical assistance before and after an event. For ESF 14 Long-Term Community Recovery and Mitigation, DCA provides data and personnel before and after an event. For ESF 15

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

External Affairs, DCA provides personnel after an event. DCA Assets are attached at the end of this document.
DCA Assets in the immediate future are expected to remain the same.County, Moultrie, Waynesboro, Cartersville, Fort Valley, Sylvester, Thomasville, Valdosta, and Waycross.
The Immediate Threat and Danger Program This program addresses community development needs that have a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and/or welfare of the community. DCA administers the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs with federal funds from HUD. The immediate threat to be remedied must be of fairly recent origin and the community must demonstrate its financial inability to correct the problem without outside assistance. The DCA program provides a 50% matching grant to the local government. Eligible local governments can apply for up to $50,000.00 to correct their problem. DCA reserves $200,000.00 for "major disasters". Eligible applicants are units of general purpose local government except for metropolitan cities, urban counties, and units of government that are eligible to participate in the HUD Urban Counties and Metropolitan Cities Program. The annual budget for this program is approximately $500,000.00. In October 2007 the City of Clayton received a $50,000 grant for the repair of the Stekoa Creek sewer line that services the Mountain Lakes Medical Center.
Redevelopment Fund Program This program provides funds for rehabilitation of substandard housing, for community facilities such as health centers, and for local infrastructure such as water and sewer and drainage lines. DCA administers the Community Development Block Grant Program with federal funds from HUD. Only cities and counties in Georgia that do not receiver CDBG funds directly from HUD may apply for these redevelopment grants from DCA. Grants are awarded through a competitive process one time each year. The annual budget for this program is approximately $30 million. In FY 2007 over 50 public water, sewer, or street drainage systems were improved and over 15 health, senior, or youth centers were renovated or constructed.
Environmental Educational and Assistance Program Manage solid waste in Georgia in an efficient, effective, and environmentally sound matter. Promote the WaterFirst Program. DCA provides local governments, Regional Development Centers (RDC), Landfill Owners/Operators, Recycling Industry, Recycling Officials and the general public with access to resources and technical expertise to help them improve the quality of life and increase public awareness and support for environmental programs. The WaterFirst Program is a voluntary partnership between local governments, state agencies, and other organizations to work together to protect water resources through wise management. DCA provides Regional Resource staff to provide planning and technical assistance, resource tools, and public education to local

A P P E N D I X
Page 416

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 417

elected officials, Georgia Keep America Beautiful affiliates, Regional Development Centers (RDC), State and Federal Environmental Agency partners, and Georgia citizens. Through the WaterFirst Program, DCA helps communities connect land use with water quality and quantity; think beyond political boundaries, consider the watershed as a whole containing shared water resources; and take steps to protect valuable water resources. The annual budget for this program is approximately $1 million. Approximately 88% of Georgia counties had a litter reduction activity or program in their county in FY 2007. Currently 25 local governments are participating in the WaterFirst Program.
Construction Codes and Industrialized Buildings Program Establish minimum building construction standards for all new structures, including mass-produced factory built (modular) buildings. These programs help protect the life, health, and property of Georgians from the hazards of faulty design and construction. Construction codes set the basic rules for construction in Georgia in 10 minimum standard codes. Georgia state law specifies that 8 of the 10 codes are mandatory. The mandatory codes cover electrical, mechanical, gas, plumbing, energy conservation, and fire prevention. These codes apply to all construction whether or not the codes are enforced by the city and county. Industrialized buildings are houses and commercial buildings that are massproduced in factories and then transported to building sites. Many components of these buildings are enclosed so local building officials can not inspect them. A committee of outside experts reviews the construction codes and recommends adoption and/or modifications to the DCA Board, which then adopts them for the State of Georgia. The Industrialized Buildings Program provides for the inspection of factory-built buildings to ensure that they meet Georgia's construction standards regardless of where they are built. The manufacturers must obtain DCA approval for their manufacturing systems and for their quality control procedures. Mobile homes are not covered under the Industrialized Buildings Program; they are regulated by HUD. DCA contracts with independent engineers and construction experts to inspect the manufacturing systems and quality control procedures of manufacturers of factory-built buildings, and to inspect the buildings as they are being built. The annual budget for these programs is approximately $500,000.00. DCA is currently setting up workshops that will provide technical assistance and training to approximately 500 building officials and inspectors, home builders, and home inspectors on the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code that will begin in April 2008 all over the state. Approximately 8,000 inspections were conducted during the manufacturing process of industrialized buildings by DCA staff and third party inspectors.
xi. Planning and Quality Growth Programs Give communities the information, assistance, tools, and funding needed to successfully implement planning and quality growth solutions to enhance and fulfill the requirements of Coordinated Comprehensive Planning according to the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. All local governments prepare a comprehensive plan to guide their

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

future growth, and these plans have an impact on the type and

A

affordability of housing available within that community. DCA

P

offers a variety of assistance, online tools, data and maps, as well

as quality growth tools and best practices to help local govern-

P

ments develop these comprehensive plans, implement the plans,

E

manage growth, and improve the local quality of life. DCA provides quality growth tools and best practices on two web sites

N

www.georgiaplanning.com and www.georgiaqualitygrowth.com to city and county

D

governments, RDCs, development authorities, non-profits,

I

The following are laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive orders that apply to DCA.

X

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated Titles 8, 12, 36, 48, and 50 establish DCA as

the advocate for local governments.

The Georgia Planning Act of 1989.

The US Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

The Georgia State Housing Trust Fund for the Homeless Commission (HTF) estab-

lished in 1989.

The US McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1986.

The US National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated 50-34-1 established the means to provide

enhanced 9-1-1 emergency telephone services on a regional basis to counties

that are not currently served by 911. OneGeorgia Authority which is attached to

DCA administers these provisions.

The Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990.

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated 8-2-20(9)(B) identifies the ten "state minimum

standard codes".

Natural Hazard summary DCA's potential hazard summary is attached at the end of this document. DCA owns the building and grounds of its central location in Executive Park which is outside of downtown Atlanta and midtown Atlanta. The majority of DCA assets excluding vehicles are at this location. This location is in the Low Hazard Category and the greatest natural hazards to these assets are fire, tornado, and lightning. The building is not in a flood plain. DCA has 10 Regional Office locations around the state that contain fewer than 25 employees each and that are in leased office space. The assets with the highest value in these offices are approximately 70 vehicles statewide. Most of these locations are also in the Low Hazard Category with 37.5% in the Moderate Hazard Category. In the event that the central office in Atlanta became unusable, DCA has a Secondary Site with server backup set up in its Eastman location. The greatest natural hazards to the Eastman Office would also be fire, tornado, and lightning. One remote additional hazard is that the Eastman Office is near railroad tracks so a railroad accident could cause potential losses.

DCA specific goals and objectives DCA set up the Secondary Site in Eastman with back up servers, a back up HVAC system, and a back up generator to be prepared to continue doing the business of Georgia if a tragic event occurred in Atlanta. This is part of DCA's ongoing Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity planning efforts. DCA is currently in the process of developing a Business Impact Analysis Survey to be completed by the management of each DCA program. This survey will identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). The information from these surveys will be incorporated into the existing DCA Management Recovery Team Action Plan.

Page 418

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

OID_1

BUILDING_I

BUILDING_N

P

4454

664 DCA01

P

E

N

OID_1

LEASED_BUI

BUILDING_N

D

I

40 1258

90 3466

X

457

1386

299

630

320

669

1107

3305

1180

3381

259

553

387

797

170

373

BUILDING_1 Sixty Executive Park South

ADDRESS
60 Executive Park South NE

CITY_I D
28

ADDRESS1

CITY_ID

COUNT Y_FIP

485 Newton Bridge Road 60 Executive Park So., N.E. 185 Parkwood Circle 1202 Hillcrest Parkway 310 West Lamar Street 225 West Broad Street 21 Industrial Boulevard 117-125 Front Street 960 City Boulevard 110 Webster Street 2260NorthlakeParkwaySuite300

27 13059 28 13121 90 158 13175 18 13261 27 13059 164 13091
9 13095 514 13299 495 13185 Tucker

Hazard Category Hazard Score Range % Owned

High

18 - 25

Moderate

9 - 17

Low

0 - 8

% Leased 0.00 0.00 100.00

% Total 0.00 37.50 62.50

0.00 27.27 54.55

Hazard Category Hazard Score Range Estimated Value of State-Owned % Total Buildings

High Moderate Low

18 - 25 9 - 17 0 - 8

$0

0.00

$0

0.00

$17,787,595

0.00

As outlined in the DCA programs listed above, many DCA programs are providing communities with the funds and technical expertise needed to minimize the effect of natural disasters before they occur.
DCA will continue to provide personnel and technical assistance post natural disasters.

Plan integration DCA will continue to pursue its vision that every Georgia community will offer a quality of life where people and businesses can grow and prosper through administration of the programs that mitigate future natural and man-made disasters.

Page 419

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

COUNTY_FIP ZIP USER_ENTIT USER_SUBEN OWNING_ENT ESTIMATED_ LATITUDE LONGITUDE GRIDCODE

P

13089 30329

428

923

923

17787595 33.82682 -84.34253

7

P

E

ZIP

EN- LATITUDE LONGITUDE GRIDCODE

TITY_I

N

D

D

30607-1141

428

33.98844

-83.39804

9

I

30329-2296

428

33.82742

-84.34131

7

30117-8756

428

33.61528

-85.08675

7

X

31021-3052

428

32.54712

-82.92981

6

31709-3543

428

32.07197

-84.23505

5

30601-2810

428

0.00000

0.00000 na

31023-7113

428

0.00000

0.00000 na

31701-2801

428

31.57734

-84.14862

9

31501-1058

428

31.20448

-82.33568

10

31601-4616

428

30.83622

-83.28120

8

30084-4006

428

5,794 sq. ft.

Hazard Category High
Moderate
Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

% Owned
0.00% 0.00% 100%

% Leased
0.00% 37.50% 62.50%

% Total Facilities 0.00%
27.27%
54.55%

Table 1: Department of Community Affairs facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

Estimated Value at Risk (Owned) $0
$0
$17,787,595

% Total Value 0% 0% 0%

Table 2: Department of Community Affairs facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Notes: Only 11 buildings included in the Department of Community Affairs agency category in BLLIP data. 1 building listed as owned and 10 buildings listed as leased. 2 buildings were not included in hazard assessment. Estimates of values given only for the owned buildings. DCA has a new office in Tucker that is not in the BLLIP data that has been added to the spreadsheet that lists property.

Page 420

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 421

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice

P

P

October 01, 2007

E

N

Hazard Mitigation Participants:

D

I

Bertron Martin, Captain, Emergency Operations Unit Brian P. Hardeman, Lieutenant, Emergency Operations Unit

X

The Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice has the primary responsibility of providing supervision, detention and services (treatment and educational) of court adjudicated juveniles. The agency has 8 regional campuses and 22 regional facilities, in 26 counties, employing approximately 4,300 and serving approximately 52,000 youth each year. The agency has the capacity to house 2,608 youth at any given time. The annual operating cost for these 30 facilities is over 175,000,000.00. The agency also supports local offices in almost all of the 168 counties of the state. The agency has recently created an Emergency Operations Unit. This unit deals with internal and external mitigation for the agency focusing on the safety and security of the facilities as well as the staff and youth within. The agency works in conjunction with the Georgia State Patrol in the event of a statewide emergency or disaster as a supporting agency. The Emergency Operations Unit is compiling data, identifying and assessing hazards and risk for each facility, identifying and developing training for specified staff, and reviewing and upgrading current policies and procedures within the agency. The Unit is also reevaluating its role in the public sector and identifying areas and resources that may have been previously not considered or overlooked. The Emergency Operations Unit is actively working towards developing a comprehensive strategy for the agency as well as for each individual facility. These strategies are being incorporated into departmental policy and local operating procedures.

Page 422

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P

Youth Development Campuses & Regional Youth Detention Centers
By Region

E

N

D

I

DJJ Regions

X

Page 423

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 424

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 425

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 426

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Department of Public Safety Georgia State Patrol
State Hazard Mitigation/ Enhanced Plan
Prepared by: Captain Soffie Thigpen Lt. Tad Bentley
Page 427

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

State of Georgia Enhanced Plan

P

Department of Public Safety

P

E

October 9, 2007

N

Team Member information:

D

I

Captain Soffie Thigpen

Georgia State Patrol

X

Liaison to GEMA/Homeland Security

Post Office Box 1456

Atlanta, Georgia 30371

404-624-7525 office

404-374-7698 cell

sthigpen@gsp.net

Captain Soffie Thigpen serves as the Georgia State Patrol Liaison to GEMA/Homeland Security. She has 24 years of service with the Georgia State Patrol. During a State emergency, Captain Thigpen will be assigned to the State Operation Center to coordinate Department of Public Safety assets for the effected area.

Lt. D. Tad Bentley Georgia State Patrol Assistant Troop F Commander 533 Southern Pines Road Dublin, Georgia 31021 478-274-3014 office 912-266-2236 cell dbentley@gsp.net

Lt. Tad Bentley serves as the Assistant Troop F Commander. He has 29 years of service with the Georgia State Patrol. During a State emergency, Lt. Bentley will be assigned to the Captain of the Troop in the effected area. In addition to assisting the Troop Captain, Lt. Bentley will report all activity, potential problems, requests, and other areas of interest reference the disaster to Captain Thigpen in the SOC.

Department of Public Safety Summary:
Summary of Agency Responsibilities
The Department of Public Safety is comprised of three Division as for as enforcement purposes; The Georgia State Patrol, Capitol Police, and Motor Carrier Compliance. The Georgia State Patrol is the lead agency because of enforcement personnel and assets. However, The Georgia State Patrol will draw strength and assets from Capitol Police and Motor Carrier Compliance during a state of emergency as well as aggressive enforcement efforts.
Georgia State Patrol (GSP): GSP was founded in 1937, focusing in two areas: investigating traffic crashes and enforcing traffic and criminal laws on the roadways of Georgia. As time went on, the department was called upon to respond to natural and manmade disasters. GSP is an effective support in state of emergency situations to local governments, other state agencies, and federal law enforcement agencies. Recently, GSP sent 41 troopers to support the Katrina disaster in southeastern Louisiana.

Page 428

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 429

Capitol Police (CP): The Capitol Police Division (CPD), was acquired from the Georgia Building Authority (GBA) on September 1, 2001. They two responsibilities to the Capitol Square area and other state-owned buildings in downtown Atlanta. The first is law enforcement, and the second is physical security. The division provides a full service law enforcement program and a full spectrum of physical security services for seventeen state-owned buildings, ten parking lots, and the adjacent streets and sidewalks in the downtown Atlanta area through proprietary and contracted personnel. The division responds to public safety issues and secures and protects the State's assets, its resources, personnel, visitors, and processes, from interruption, lose, or destruction. In addition to its daily responsibilities, the division also is responsible for planning and providing security and law enforcement services for all public events on the Capitol Square campus and its environs including but not limited to: public protests, demonstration, counterdemonstrations, news conferences, state ceremonies, VIP-dignitary visits, and political rallies
Motor Carrier Compliance Division (MCCD): Their primary responsibili-
ties include, but are not limited to; size and weight enforcement, commercial
motor vehicle safety, regulation of hazardous materials, High Occupancy Vehicle
lane enforcement, and the inspection of the state's public school buses.

Personnel:

Georgia State Patrol : 942 uniform employees (this includes Communications Officers)
Capitol Police : 91 uniform employees Motor Carrier Compliance : 259 uniform employees DPS Support Personnel : 212 civilian employees
(this includes HQ staff, secretaries, etc.)

Annual Budget:

GSP: States General Funds $126,256,653.00 (programmatic budget attached)

CP: States Funds $3,151,435.00 Other Source: Georgia Building Authority Unavailable

MCCD: Federal Funds $7,000,000.00 State Funds $6,000,000.00 Permit Fees $7,000,000.00 Total $20,000,000.00

Programs

The Georgia State Patrol offers no programs that have an impact in reducing the effect of a natural disaster. However, the Georgia State Patrol does provide manpower to the effected area for preservation of life and property. GSP will draw manpower from MCCD to respond if needed. Indirect programs are listed below.

ii.

Aviation Unit Consists of 14 pilots operating rotary aircraft. There are six han-

gars: Albany, Athens, Kennesaw, Perry, Reidsville, and Thomson. The unit is

equipped with a variety of airframes enabling it to fly search and rescue, man-

hunts, transportation of state officials, aerial photography, aerial surveillance,

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

natural disasters, SWAT missions, forest fires, and support missions. Another

A

valuable service provided by Aviation is microwave downlink equipment. With

P

this capability, live footage from one of the helicopters can be sent back to a

command post. This has been performed at many different events throughout

P

Georgia providing commanders with a bird's eye view of traffic or other potential

E

problems.

N

iii. SWAT - The State of Georgia SWAT team is a functional organization providing

D

weapon and tactical expertise not normally available to troopers of the Georgia

I

State Patrol and other law enforcement agencies. This expertise is utilized in the

resolution of critical incidents in an effort to reduce the risk of injury or loss of

X

life to citizens, police officers, and suspects. SWAT incorporates a Crisis Nego-

tiation Team which responds to critical incidents along with SWAT and aids in

attempting to resolve critical incidents peacefully, through communication with

suspects.

Criminal Interdiction Unit - The unit represents an active statewide commitment to reduce drug trafficking in the State of Georgia by networking with existing state, federal and local law enforcement agencies and drug enforcement programs. The CIU has interrupted the delivery of large quantities of drug commerce within the State. The CIU has seized cash and assets from those criminals, and arrested a significant number of traffickers participating in illegal drug traffic.

Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team (SCRT) - provides a means by which fatal crashes can be investigated thoroughly by specially trained investigators and properly document evidence in collisions to be used for successful court prosecution. SCRT also gathers statistics in order to save lives by avoiding future collisions. SCRT has five teams of investigators stationed strategically throughout the state to assist field troopers with fatal crashes. These investigators are equipped with the latest technology and are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. SCRT also assists agencies in the investigation of major incidents when requested. These incidents include: homicide cases, officer involved shootings, fatal crashes, and large crime scenes.

Capitol Police - Capitol Square Security Unit - The unit provides general security to Capitol Square; by monitoring entrances into these buildings by checking all state employees, guests and other personnel for valid identification. They screens all incoming packages, deliveries and mail. This unit also provides general security to elected officials, government employees and visitors to the Capitol Hill area.

Motor Carrier Compliance Division -conducts safety inspections of commercial motor vehicles (primarily trucks and buses), inspects highway shipments of hazardous materials, and performs compliance reviews (safety performance audits) on motor carriers. The division adopts and enforces driver and vehicle safety regulations and hazardous materials regulations as part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. To accomplish its mission DPS/MCCD is subdivided into ten geographical regions. DPS/MCCD also enforces laws and regulations that govern vehicle size (height, width, and length) and vehicle weight. The division operates 19 permanent weight and inspection stations throughout the State, primarily on interstate highways. The stations are equipped with "weigh in motion" systems to screen vehicles. Selected vehicles are then weighed and measured to determine compliance. On bypass and side roads, MCCD Officers use portable scales to weigh selected vehicles.

Page 430

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Role and Responsibility

P

Pre-event: The Georgia State Patrol has 48 patrol posts strategically located across the

P

state in order to provide timely and adequate service to the public.

E

N

Post-event: The Georgia State Patrol will operate under the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan, ESF 13. Captain Thigpen or designee will be assigned to the

D

SOC for the duration of the activation.

I

ii.

The Georgia State Patrol is subdivided into ten troops. Nine of the troops divide

X

the state into geographical districts for administrative and enforcement purposes.

These nine troops contain the 48 patrol posts. The majority of the enforcement

personnel of the department are the main resource of DPS for response to natural

disasters. (The tenth troop is a specialist troop which handles safety education

and implied consent functions.) The troops provide the personnel needed to carryout evacuation and post-disaster missions.

Assets

The department operates 48 patrol posts, 19 weigh stations, and 6 aircraft hangars located throughout the state. Several of these are leased facilities with DPS responsible for the contents. (see maps and physical address listing)

To accomplish its mission, DPS has approximately 1,100 motor vehicles. Ford Crown Victoria and Dodge Charger, 4-door sedans are the predominate vehicle utilized by the department. Some 4-wheel drive vehicles are used as well as vans, trucks and motorcycles.

The aviation unit operates 14 helicopters including hoist and FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) capabilities.

Future Assets

New facilities are in the active design or site preparation stages at the following locations.

Brunswick Gainesville Kennesaw

Interest or discussion regarding the construction of new facilities is ongoing with numerous cities and counties throughout the state.

Page 431

Laws, regulations, policies and codes.
The Department of Public Safety does not have direct statutory responsibility of a primary nature for natural disasters. The department serves as a support agency under Georgia Emergency Management policies and plans.
Natural Hazard Summary
The following categories are populated by the facilities that are at risk for the specific hazard named by the category. Insurance claim loss records were consulted for the past eleven years. Monetary amounts are calculated from the loss record and are inclusive of the entire time period. Totals do not represent loss not report to the insurance carrier.
Flooding: $32,150.00 in loss

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Floodway & Velocity Zone Post 23 Brunswick Post 35 Jekyll Island
1.0% Annual Chance Flooding Post 11 Hinesville Post 13 Tifton Post 15 Perry Post 20 Dublin Post 38 Rome Post 40 Albany Bryan County Inspection Station Chatham County Inspection Station Region 9 / McIntosh County Inspection Station
0.2% Annual Chance Flooding Post 2 LaGrange Post 6 Gainesville Post 7 Toccoa Post 9 Kennesaw Post 18 Reidsville Post 24 Newnan Post 27 Blue Ridge Post 36 Douglas Post 42 Rincon Post 43 Calhoun Post 45 Statesboro Post 46 Conyers Post 47 Forest Park Post 48 Atlanta Region 1 / Catoosa County Inspection Station Region 2 / Franklin County Inspection Station Region 3 / Douglas County Inspection Station Region 4 / Columbia County Inspection Station Region 5 / Troup County Inspection Station Region 6 / Monroe County Inspection Station Region 7 / Bryan County Inspection Station Region 8 / Lowndes County Inspection Station Carroll County Inspection Station
Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH)
Category 1-5 Storm Post 23 Brunswick Post 35 Jekyll Island Region 9 / McIntosh County Inspection Station
Category 3-5 Storm Post 11 Hinesville Bryan County Inspection Station Chatham County Inspection Station
Wind Wind hazards have caused $38,720.00 in reported damage.
Wind Hazard Score 5: 120 130 mph Post 11 Hinesville Post 23 Brunswick Post 35 Jekyll Island

A P P E N D I X
Page 432

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 433

Seismic - No reported loss

Post 42 Rincon Chatham County Inspection Station Region 7 / Bryan County Inspection Station Region 9 / McIntosh County Inspection Station
Wind Hazard Score 4: 100 110 mph Post 12 Thomasville Post 14 Donalsonville Post 18 Reidsville Post 21 Sylvania Post 22 Waycross Post 31 Valdosta Post 45 Statesboro Region 8 / Lowndes County Inspection Station
Wind Hazard Score 2: 90 100 mph Post 2 LaGrange Post 5 Dalton Post 10 Americus Post 13 Tifton Post 15 Perry Post 16 Helena Post 20 Dublin Post 25 Thomson Post 26 Thomaston Post 33 Manchester Post 36 Douglas Post 38 Rome Post 39 Cuthbert Post 40 Albany Post 41 Lafayette Post 43 Calhoun Post 44 Forsyth Region 1 / Catoosa County Inspection Station Region 4 / Columbia County Inspection Station Region 5 / Monroe County Inspection Station
Wind Hazard Score 1: Less Than 90 mph All other DPS Assets.
Moderately High Risk Post 5 Dalton Post 41 Lafayette Region 1 / Catoosa County Inspection Station
Moderate Risk Post 3 Cartersville Post 6 Gainesville Post 7 Toccoa Post 17 Washington Post 21 Sylvania Post 25 Thomson Post 27 Blue Ridge Post 28 Jasper Post 37 Cumming

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Post 38 Rome

A

Post 42 Rincon

P

Post 43 Calhoun

Region 1 / Catoosa County Inspection Station

P

Region 4 / Columbia County Inspection Station

E

Chatham County Inspection Station

N

Low Risk

D

All other DPS Assets

I

Lightning Strikes Lightning represents the most common natural hazard encountered by the Department of

X

Public Safety. Lightning has accounted for $200,000.00 in damages to depart-

ment property.

All DPS assets are highly susceptible to this hazard.

Agency specific goals and objectives.

Continued participation in mitigation efforts and cooperation with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency.

Conduct annual review of natural disaster plans and participation in disaster exercises.

Provide a link to the GEMA website for hurricane and severe weather emergency preparedness data on the DPS website.

Install protective film or hurricane shutters to windows of wind hazard zone structures in an effort to limit breakage during hurricane or severe weather. Priority will be given to structures located in Wind Hazard 5.

Action Item: Wind Retrofit Projects are currently being pursued under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to provide protection to the following locations.

1. Post 42, Rincon 2. Post 20, Dublin 3. Post 45, Statesboro

$32,650.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00

Retrofit DPS buildings along the coast and in wind hazard zones with hurricane clips and additional bracing.

Replace shingle roofs on DPS buildings with metal roofs to enhance wind protection to critical structures. Priority will be given to structures located in Wind Hazard 5.

Strengthen and add support to Radio Towers at DPS buildings to prevent wind damage to a critical structure.

Provide lightning suppression protection to all DPS facilities.

Provide watertight document storage for assets in SLOSH and Floodway/Velocity Zones.

Place brochures and documents in DPS facilities for public and employee awareness of mitigation steps they can take for their own and family protection.

Participate in Severe Weather Week.

Page 434

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Plan integration

P

Hurricane Evacuation Plans.

P

Atlantic Coast

E

Gulf Coast

N

Hurricane Re-entry Plans

D

I

Additional documents

X

DPS Post & Territories Boundary Map -2006

MCCD Region Map

DPS Building Physical Address Listing

DPS Agency Representative Letter

Page 435

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

GEORGIA STATE PATROL

P

POST & TROOP BOUNDARIES

P

E

N

D

I

X

Page 436

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P P E

Department of Public Safety Real Estate Assets

N

Physical Addresses

D

I

Post 1 Griffin

X

1313 Arthur K. Bolton Pkwy

Griffin, GA 30223

Counties Assigned: Butts, Henry, Spalding

Post 2 LaGrange 2573 Hamilton Road LaGrange, GA 30241

Counties Assigned: Harris, Troup

Post 3 Cartersville 1300 Joe Frank Harris Pkwy. Cartersville, GA 30120

Counties Assigned: Bartow, Paulding

Post 4 Villa Rica 746 W. Bankhead Hwy. Villa Rica, GA 30180

Counties Assigned: Carroll, Douglas

Post 5 Dalton 2401 Chattanooga Rd. Dalton, GA 30720

Counties Assigned: Catoosa, Whitfield

Post 6 Gainesville 2000 Cleveland Hwy. Gainesville, GA 30506

Counties Assigned: Banks, Hall, White

Page 437

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

Post 7 Toccoa

E

40 Trooper Way

N

Toccoa, GA 30577

D

Counties Assigned: Franklin, Habersham, Hart, Rabun, Stephens

I

X

Post 8 Madison 1060 Monticello Rd. Madison, GA 30650

Counties Assigned: Greene, Jasper, Morgan, Putnam

Post 9 Kennesaw 1901 McCollum Parkway Kennesaw, GA 30144

Counties: Cobb, Fulton (North Of I-285)

Post 10 Americus 506 W. Lamar Street Americus, GA 31709

Counties Assigned: Schley, Sumter, Terrell, Webster, Marion

Post 11 Hinesville 2301 Airport Road Hinesville, GA 31313

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Liberty, Long, McIntosh

Post 12 Thomasville 4800 U. S. Hwy. 84 Bypass Thomasville, GA 31792

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Colquitt, Grady, Mitchell, Thomas

Page 438

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Post 13 Tifton

N

3101 U.S. Highway 41 South

D

Tifton, GA 31794

I

Counties Assigned: Berrien, Cook, Tift

X
Post 14 Donalsonville 629 W. 3rd Street
Donaldsonville, GA 39845

Counties Assigned: Decatur, Early, Miller, Seminole

Post 15 Perry 450 Larry Walker Parkway Perry, GA 31069
Counties Assigned: Houston, Macon, Peach, Pulaski
Post 16 Helena Route 1, Box 246 Helena, GA 31037
Counties Assigned: Dodge, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, Telfair, Wheeler
Post 17 Washington 1015 Greensboro Road Washington, GA 30673
Counties Assigned: Elbert, Lincoln, Oglethorpe, Taliaferro, Wilkes
Post 18 Reidsville 3092 Highway 147 Reidsville, GA 30453
Counties Assigned: Appling, Tattnall, Toombs

Page 439

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

Post 19 Swainsboro

E

994 Highway 1

N

Swainsboro, GA 30401

D

Counties Assigned: Emanuel, Jefferson, Johnson, Treutlen

I

X
Post 20 Dublin 533 Southern Pines Road Dublin, GA 31021

Counties Assigned: Bleckley, Laurens, Twiggs, Wilkinson

Post 21 Sylvania 329 Rocky Ford Road Sylvania, GA 30467

Counties Assigned: Burke, Jenkins, Screven

Post 22 Waycross 3029 Memorial Drive Waycross, GA 31503
Counties Assigned: Bacon, Brantley, Charlton, Clinch, Pierce, Ware
Post 23 Brunswick 6102 New Jesup Highway Brunswick, GA 31523
Counties Assigned: Camden, Glynn, Wayne

Page 440

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Post 24 Newnan

LEASED FACILITY

N

517 Turkey Creek Road

D

Newnan, GA 30263

I

Counties Assigned: Coweta, Fayette, Heard

X
Post 25 Thomson 2529 Washington Road Thomson, GA 30824

Counties Assigned: Warren, Columbia, Glascock, McDuffie, Richmond

Post 26 Thomaston 281 Knight Trail Thomaston, GA 30286

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Crawford, Pike, Taylor, Upson

Post 27 Blue Ridge 159 Industrial Blvd. Blue Ridge, GA 30513

Counties Assigned: Fannin, Gilmer, Towns, Union

Post 28 Jasper 3100 Camp Road Jasper, GA 30143

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Cherokee, Pickens

Post 29 Cedartown 73 Cline Ingram Jackson Rd Cedartown, GA 30125
Counties Assigned: Haralson, Polk

Page 441

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

Post 30 Cordele

E

208 Georgia Highway 300

N

Cordele, GA 31015

D

Counties Assigned: Crisp, Dooly, Turner, Wilcox

I

X
Post 31 Valdosta 371 Gil Harbin Industrial Blvd Valdosta, GA 31601

Counties Assigned: Brooks, Echols, Lanier, Lowndes

Post 32 Athens 1505 U.S. Highway 29n Athens, GA 30601

Counties Assigned: Clarke, Barrow, Jackson, Madison, Oconee

Post 33 Milledgeville 2525 W. Hancock St. Milledgeville, GA 31061

Counties Assigned: Baldwin, Hancock, Jones, Washington

Post 34 Manchester 7800 Scenic Heights Manchester, GA 31816

Counties Assigned: Meriwether, Talbott, Muscogee

Post 35 Jekyll Island 901 Jekyll Causeway Jekyll Island, GA 31527

Counties Assigned: Jekyll Island

Page 442

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Post 36 Douglas

N

348 Thomas Frier Drive

D

Douglas, GA 31535-5110

I

Counties Assigned: Atkinson, Ben Hill, Coffee, Irwin

X
Post 37 Cumming 4055 County Way Cumming, GA 30040

Counties Assigned: Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin

Post 38 Rome 3386 Martha Berry Hwy., NE Rome, GA 30165

Counties Assigned: Chattooga, Floyd

Post 39 Cuthbert Route 3, Box 546 Cuthbert, GA 39840

Counties Assigned: Clay, Calhoun, Chattahoochee, Quitman, Randolph, Stewart

Post 40 Albany 830 Liberty Expressway, SE Albany, GA 31705

Counties Assigned: Baker, Dougherty, Lee, Worth

Post 41 Lafayette 1212 N. Main Street Lafayette, GA 30728

Counties Assigned: Dade, Walker

Page 443

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

Post 42 Rincon

E

2792 Highway 21 South

N

Rincon, GA 31326

D

Counties Assigned: Bryan, Chatham, Effingham

I

X

Post 43 Calhoun 402 Belwood Road SE Calhoun, GA 30701

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Gordon, Murray

Post 44 Forsyth 887 Patrol Road Forsyth, GA 31029

Counties Assigned: Bibb, Lamar, Monroe

Post 45 Statesboro 10723 U.S. 301 South Statesboro, GA 30458

LEASED FACILITY

Counties Assigned: Bulloch, Candler, Evans

Post 46 Conyers 2150 Iris Drive Conyers, GA 30094-5050

Counties Assigned: Newton, Rockdale, Walton

Post 47 Forest Park 5036 State Route 85 Forest Park, GA 30297

Counties Assigned: Clayton, Dekalb, Fulton (All Outside I-285)

Page 444

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Post 48 Atlanta

LEASED FACILITY

D

3940 Aviation Circle Atlanta, GA 30336

I

X

Counties Assigned: Cobb, Clayton, Dekalb, Fulton (all inside I-285), Gwinnett (all I-285)

Kennesaw Hangar 1900 Airport Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

LEASED FACILITY

Albany Hangar 3411 Newton Road Albany, GA 31701

Athens Hangar 960 Ben Epps Drive Athens, GA 30605

LEASED FACILITY

Perry Hangar 575 Myrtle Field Road Perry, GA 31069

LEASED FACILITY

Reidsville Hangar P. O. Box 1609 Reidsville, GA 30453

LEASED FACILITY

Thomson Hangar 541 John T. Lane Road, NW Thomson, GA 30824

SWAT Team

LEASED FACILITY

959 East Confederate Ave., Bldg. 11

Atlanta, GA 30316-2303

Page 445

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

SCRT Team 1 Calhoun,

N

1166 Lovers Lane Rd Calhoun, GA 30701

D

All other SCRT Teams are co-located with other DPS facilities

I

Training Division

X

1000 Indian Springs Drive

Forsyth, GA 31029

Region 1-

LEASED FACILITY

Catoosa County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 781

Ringgold, GA 30736

North and South Facilities

Region 2

LEASED FACILITY

Franklin County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 611

Lavonia, GA 30553

North and South Facilities

Region 3-

LEASED FACILITY

Douglas County Inspection Station

I-20 East (MM 43)

1786 Blairs Bridge Road

Lithia Springs, GA 30122

East and West Facilities

Region 4-

LEASED FACILITY

Columbia County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 1420

Harlem, GA 30614

East and West Facilities

Page 446

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Region 5-

LEASED FACILITY

D

Troup County Inspection Station P.O. Box 1403

I

Lagrange, GA 3024

X

North and South Facilities

Region 6

LEASED FACILITY

Monroe County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 461

Forsyth, GA 31029

North and South Facilities

Region 7-

LEASED FACILITY

Bryan County Inspection Station

I-16 West (MM 144)

P.O. Box 833

Ellabell, GA 31308

East and West Facilities

Region 8-

LEASED FACILITY

Lowndes County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 7731

Tifton, GA 31793

North and South Facilities

Region 9-

LEASED FACILITY

McIntosh County Inspection Station

P.O. Box 1403

Darien, GA 31305

North and South Facilities

Page 447

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

Region 10

LEASED FACILITY

N

320 Chester Avenue Atlanta, GA 30316

D

I

Region 11 Office

LEASED FACILITY

X

2151 J Eatonton Road

Madison, GA 30650

Carroll County Inspection Station I-20 West (MM 15-) P.O. Box 1165 Temple, GA 30179

LEASED FACILITY

East and West Facility

Chatham County Inspection Station I-95 South (Mm 111) P.O. Box 4116 Pt. Wentworth, GA 31407

LEASED FACILITY

South Facility

DPS Headquarters 959 E. Confederate Ave., S.E. Atlanta, GA 30316-2303

Homeland Security 935 East Confederate Avenue, SE, Building 5 P.O. Box 18055 Atlanta, GA 30316-0055

Page 448

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 449

OID_1 BUILDING_I BUILDING_N

2600

32157 ATHENS2

8972

18556

13083

32129 DALTON

6419

19164 P23DL

2554

1300 OLDP28DL

2039

8239

2040

8240

6312

3762 P23

5370

1683 P27

13072

4402 P05

1372

321 VacP45

1373

322 P45DL

1393

19166

5477

10012 P38

5478

10013 P38DL

2553

1299 VACP28

6839

18372 260010068

4992

22765 P42

9865

7180 VacP29

9866

7181 P29DL

8153

18359

2598

22762 P32

2588

18488 ATHENS

5539

18371 260011130

5215

2614 P19

11250

6200 P18

11402

19155 P18

12289

1534 P22

730

3243 P03

6904

10640 P06

10734

8250 P07

8258

6383 AVTHOM

10315

2322 AugustaA

10316

2323 AugustaB

10317

2324 AugustaC

10318

2325 Augusta1

10319

2326 Augusta2

10320

2327 Augusta3

10321

2328 Augusta4

11403

19169

10134

7868 P39

8084

8077 P31

8159

22763 P31

1860

1152 P04

194

1044 P33

3514

7419 P36

3525

22770 P36

10483

4654 P46

10513

19172

8852

10201 5100

8853

10202 5700

8854 8855 8856 8857 8858

10203 5800 10204 5500 10205 8100 10206 2100 10207 5200

8859 8860

10208 5610 10209 5600

BUILDING_1 ATHENS SHED 2 Pump Station, by driver training Dalton Regional Police Academy Brunswick D/L P. 23 Canton D/L P. 28 Savannah (Old GSP Post) Savannah (Former DL) Brunswick P. 23 Blue Ridge P. 27 & D/L Dalton P. 05 Old Statesboro P. 45 Statesboro D/L P. 45 Statesboro P.45 Rome P. 38 Rome D/L P. 38 Vacant (OLD) GSP Post 28 - Canton GFA Live Fire simulator Rincon P. 42 Cedartown P. 29 Cedartown P. 29 DL (Old location) Weigh station Region VIII Athens P. 32 Athens Regional Police Academy GFA Live Fire simulator Swainsboro P.19 & D/L Reidsville P. 18 & DL Reidsville P.18 & D/L Waycross P.22 & D/L Cartersville P.03 & D/L Gainesville P.06 Toccoa P. 07 & D/L Aviation Thomson Augusta Reg Police Acad modular trailer Augusta modular trailer B Augusta modular trailer C Augusta shed #1 12x20 Augusta shed #2 12x20 Augusta shed #3 8x10 Augusta shed #4 8x8 Aviation Reidsville Cuthbert P. 39 Valdosta P. 31 Valdosta, P. 31 Villa Rica P.04 Milledgeville P. 33 Douglas P. 36 Douglas P. 36 Conyers P. 46 Conyers D/L P. 46 FIREARMS SKILLS BLDG FIREARMS CRM SCN-LIVEFIRE HSE-4 SHEDS SHOTGUN RANGE-BALLASTIC SHEDASSEMBLY SHED FIREARMS PISTOL 25 YD RANGE Physical Plant Academic Complex FIREARMS AMMO BUNKER FIREARMS MULTIPURPOSEASSEMBLY SHED FIREARMS RIFLE RANGE

ADDRESS

CITY_ID COUNTY_FIP

55 BEAVERDAM RD EXT

57

13059

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

13207

230 Brickyard Rd

137

13313

101 Perry Lane Rd

72

13127

1083 Marietta Hwy

86

13057

1400 Dean Forest Road

427

13051

1400 Dean Forrest Rd

427

13051

6102 New Jesup Hwy

72

13127

159 Industrial Blvd

55

13111

2401 Chattanooga Rd

137

13313

19051 U.S. 301, North

448

13031

19051 U S 301 N

448

13031

10723 U S 301 N

448

13031

3386 Martha Berry Hwy NE

415

13115

3386 Martha Berry Hwy NE

415

13115

1083 Marietta Hwy.

86

13057

Vo Tech School Dr

102

13137

2792 Highway 21 S

407

13103

1000 North Main St

94

13233

1000 North Main Street

94

13233

Mm 1 GA 273

53

13185

1505 U S Highway 29 N

27

13059

55 Beaverdam Rd Ext

27

13059

232 Perry Farm Rd

92

13115

994 Highway 1

460

13107

HCO1, Box 175

396

13267

Hco1, Box 175

396

13267

3029 Memorial Dr

514

13299

1300 Joe Frank Harris Pkwy

91

13015

2000 Cleveland Rd

194

13139

4206 GA Highway 184

481

13257

2529 Washington Rd

476

13189

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

2092 Greenland Rd

57

13245

Po Box 751

396

13267

Rt 3, Box 546

132

13243

371 Gil Harbin Industrial Blvd.

495

13185

371 Gil Harbin Industrial Blvd

495

13185

746 W Bankhead Hwy

501

13045

2525 W. Hancock Street

316

13009

1725 S. Peterson Avenue

155

13069

348 Thomas Frier Dr

155

13069

2150 Iris Dr

121

13247

2148 Iris Dr

121

13247

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

13207

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

13207

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

13207 13207 13207 13207 13207

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

13207 13207

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ZIP 30605 31029 30720 31523 30114 31405 31408 31523 30513 30720 30461 30461 30461 30165 30165 30114 30523 31326 30125 30125
31723 30601 305062276 30124 30401 304539412 30453 31503 30120 30506 30577 30824 30805 30805 30805 30805 30805 30805 30805 30453 39840 31601 31601 30180 31061 315355110 31535 30094 30094 31029 31029 31026 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029

USER_ENTIT USER_SUBEN OWNING_ENT

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

0

466

0

466

290

466

290

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

290

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

ESTIMATED_ LATITUDE LONGITUDE GRIDCODE

0

2000

0.00000

0.00000 na

0

32054

0.00000

0.00000 na

0

1800000

0.00000

0.00000 na

0

0 31.24133

-81.54195

16

0

77440 34.23112

-84.49907

15

0

393760 32.06152

-81.20739

15

0

352800 32.06142

-81.20659

15

0

550560 31.24147

-81.54196

15

0

252000 34.85521

-84.32125

14

0

599040 34.80071

-85.01195

14

0

0 32.48399

-81.74779

13

0

294000 32.48449

-81.74773

13

0

0 32.48374

-81.74900

13

0

320000 34.31904

-85.17140

13

0

0 34.31903

-85.17158

13

0

0 34.23138

-84.49953

12

0

249466 34.64049

-83.52825

12

0

0 32.33269

-81.25707

12

0

0 34.03343

-85.24584

11

0

67200 34.03344

-85.24592

11

0

0 31.17114

-85.08662

11

0

0 34.01662

-83.32471

10

466

290

466

290

466

0

0

4053000 33.95075

-83.31189

10

0

249466 34.09698

-85.34772

10

0

0 32.62895

-82.35449

10

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

0

293200 32.00153

-82.16309

10

0

0 32.00157

-82.16338

10

0

400000 31.18634

-82.31208

10

0

597360 34.20645

-84.81521

9

0

563440 34.35193

-83.82339

9

0

539200 34.54088

-83.36543

9

0

200000 33.52832

-82.51872

9

0

70148 33.34491

-82.13230

9

0

66028 33.34472

-82.13228

9

0

66028 33.34457

-82.13226

9

0

2335 33.34437

-82.13222

9

0

2267 33.34437

-82.13212

9

0

948 33.34434

-82.13201

9

0

808 33.34434

-82.13189

9

0

0 32.05935

-82.14667

9

0

353920 31.78168

-84.78839

9

0

0 30.80772

-83.27418

9

0

0 30.80490

-83.26876

9

0

0 33.72975

-84.94204

8

0

0 33.07480

-83.24782

8

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

0

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

466

290

0

235200 31.48175

-82.85179

8

0

0 31.48174

-82.85172

8

0

626000 33.67492

-84.05765

8

0

0 33.67486

-84.05770

8

0

4462749 33.05778

-83.96502

8

0

620387 33.05785

-83.96487

8

0

354495 33.05786

-83.96472

8

0

1077286 33.05765

-83.96498

8

0

2668637 33.05905

-83.96382

8

0

26452108 33.05930

-83.96279

8

0

843806 33.05770

-83.96483

8

0

284144 33.05772

-83.96466

8

0

489489 33.05749

-83.96496

8

A P P E N D I X
Page 450

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 451

OID_1 BUILDING_I BUILDING_N

8861

10210 6200

8862

10211 4100

8863

10212 4200

8864

10213 4300

8865 8866 8867 8869 8870 8871 8872 8873 8874 8875 8876 8877 8878 8879 8880 8881 8882 8884 8885 8886 8887 8965 8968 8969 8970 8971 8973 8850 10555 10556 13152 13151
466 7332 9042 8256 10354 8713 8772 11470 10573 10581 8154 3268 3872 3934 4767 8868 8883 11898 7815 7820 1133 5853 5854 5855 5998 5999 4793 10877 11683 11693 2564 2599 5993

10214 4500 10215 4700 10216 2110 10218 3300 10219 3400 10220 3500 10221 3200 10222 2120 10223 7100 10224 6100A 10225 6100B 10226 6100C 10227 6100D 10310 6100E 10311 6100F 10312 6100G 10313 GBI 10315 8300 10316 8200 10317 6100H 10318 6100I 18369 GFA 18550 GPA 18552 18553 18554 18557
9612 P44 9460 P21 9461 P21DL 19156 P17 18545 260010972 22761 P33 2350 P15 6824 P08 6381 P25 32155 AUGUSTA2 9439 P34 32214 P34 8329 P16 8376 P14 19157 P14 18366 260011008 7637 P47 19162 OLDP24 22764 P30 3234 P40 10217 3100 10314 DJJ 9350 P02 18368 260010971 19163 18487 MACON 9379 DPSHQ 9380 CENT 9382 GARAG 19167 SWAT 19168 22758 AVALB 18367 260010067 18543 260011009 19158 P13 2359 P32DL 32156 ATHENS1 18544 260011131

BUILDING_1 BOMB RANGE BLDG FIRESTATION #1 GFA TRAINING TOWER GFA BURN BLDG & ASSEMBLY SHED GFA CONTROL TOWER, BLDG, TANK, SHED Firestation #2 Conference Center DRIVER HIGH SPEED TOWER Driver Tactical Tower-assb shd Driver Skid Pad Tower Vehicle Maint Bldg Dormitory Complex DNR Pavilion Mock Village - store Mock Village - Bank Mock Village - motel Mock Village - shops Mock Village - warehouse Mock Village residence Mock Village - chem agent bldg GBI SWAT entry bldg Gatehouse - entrance Gatehouse - rear of property Mock Village Trailer #1 MOCK VILLAGE - TRAILER #2 13 Cargo Containers 16 Cargo Containers Radio Room Bldg by Watertower Water Tower 100,000 gallon Pump Station, by driver training Pump Station, 15 FT well Forsyth P. 44 Sylvania P.21 Sylvania P. 21 DL (Vacant) Washington P. 17 GFA Live Fire simulator Milledgeville P.33 Perry P. 15 Madison P.08 Thomson P. 25 AUGUSTA SHED #2 12X20 Manchester P. 34 Manchester P. 34 Barrack Helena P.16 & D/L Donalsonville P. 14 Donalsonville P.14 GFA Live Fire simulator Forest Park P.47 & D/L Newnan P.24 & D/L Cordele P. 30 Albany P. 40 & DL Driver Training Skills Bldg DJJ LaGrange P. 02 and DL GFA Live Fire simulator Dublin P.20 Macon Regional Police Academy DPS HQ Atlanta Main Bld. DPS HQ Atlanta Centennial Bd DPS HQ Atlanta Garage Swat Bldg #11 DPS HQ Atlanta Maintenance Aviation Albany GFA Live Fire simulator GFA Live Fire simulator Tifton P.13 Athens P. 32 DL ATHENS SHED #1 GFA Live Fire simulator

ADDRESS 1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR 1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR 1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR 1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

CITY_ID COUNTY_FIP

96

13207

187

13207

187

13207

187

13207

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 INDIAN SPRINGS DR

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

887 Patrol Rd

187

329 Rocky Ford Rd

462

329 Rocky Ford Road

462

1015 Greensboro Rd

511

129 Recreation Dr

511

2525 W Hancock St

316

450 Larry Walker Pkwy

374

1060 Monticello Rd

296

2529 Washington Rd

476

2092 GREENLAND ROAD

57

7800 Scenic Height

298

7800 Scenic Height

298

Rt 1, Box 246

229

Route 1, Box 260

152

629 W 3rd St

152

200 Blanchard St

495

5036 Highway 85

186

201 Temple Ave

343

208 GA Highway 300

123

830 Liberty Expressway, SE

9

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

1000 Indian Springs Dr

187

2573 Hamilton Road

136

670 County Farm Rd

158

533 Southern Pines Rd

158

2055 Eisenhower Pkwy Bldg A

295

959 E Confederate Ave

28

959 E Confederate Ave

28

959 E Confederate Ave

28

959 Confederate Ave

28

959 E Confederate Ave

28

3411 Newton Rd

9

1583 Southerfield Rd

18

419 Old Omega Rd

478

455 Fulwood Blvd

478

1505 U S Highway 29 N

27

55 BEAVERDAM RD EXT

27

407 Ashwood Ave

28

13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13207 13251 13251 13317 13317 13009 13153 13211 13189 13245 13199 13199 13271 13253 13253 13185 13063 13077 13081 13095 13207 13207 13285 13175 13175 13021 13121 13121 13121 13121 13121 13095 13261 13277 13277 13059 13059 13121

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ZIP 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 31029 30467 30467 30673 30673 31061 31069 30650 30824 30805 31816 31816 31037 31745 39845 31601 30297 30263 31015 31705 31029 31029 30240 31021 31040 31206 30316 30316 30316 30316 30316 31701 31709 31794 31794 30601 30605 30315

USER_ENTIT USER_SUBEN OWNING_ENT ESTIMATED_ LATITUDE LONGITUDE GRIDCODE

466

290

0

48000 33.05754

-83.96479

8

466

290

0

5484737 33.05815

-83.97495

8

466

290

0

1316811 33.05757

-83.96462

8

466

290

0

1146920 33.05735

-83.96489

8

466

290

0

733210 33.05736

-83.96473

8

466

290

0

634902 33.05740

-83.96458

8

466

290

0

3806241 33.05918

-83.96329

8

466

290

0

128209 33.05973

-83.97274

8

466

290

0

208436 33.05595

-83.97356

8

466

290

0

120196 33.05735

-83.96986

8

466

290

0

1538510 33.05898

-83.97867

8

466

290

0

15932183 33.05990

-83.96378

8

466

290

0

148737 33.05940

-83.96388

8

466

290

0

34548 33.05718

-83.96484

8

466

290

0

23723 33.05722

-83.96468

8

466

290

0

150879 33.05723

-83.96450

8

466

290

0

800645 33.05709

-83.96447

8

466

290

0

80065 33.05705

-83.96463

8

466

290

0

99636 33.05700

-83.96480

8

466

290

0

13345 33.05687

-83.96479

8

466

290

0

6180 33.05924

-83.96430

8

466

290

0

72707 33.05967

-83.96133

8

466

290

0

72707 33.05977

-83.97922

8

466

290

0

94080 33.05689

-83.96461

8

466

290

0

87360 33.05691

-83.96445

8

466

290

0

0 33.05858

-83.97583

8

466

290

0

0 33.05860

-83.97566

8

466

290

0

20600 33.05271

-83.97264

8

466

290

0

0 33.05282

-83.97230

8

466

290

0

32054 33.05963

-83.97309

8

466

290

0

358440 33.05964

-83.97313

8

466

0

0

0 33.03031

-83.91614

8

466

0

0

296500 32.74904

-81.65213

8

466

0

0

120000 32.74895

-81.65252

8

466

0

0

0 33.72233

-82.76202

8

466

290

0

249466 33.73755

-82.75489

8

466

0

0

0 33.07282

-83.25496

7

466

0

0

1357000 32.44349

-83.74345

7

466

0

0

649040 33.57904

-83.48992

7

466

0

0

305280 33.52276

-82.50607

7

466

290

0

2335 33.26287

-84.30623

7

466

0

0

232000 32.84546

-84.62137

7

466

0

0

0 32.84546

-84.62137

7

466

0

0

369600 32.09949

-82.95382

7

466

0

0

0 31.04625

-84.89303

7

466

0

0

0 31.04622

-84.89316

7

466

290

0

249466 30.84482

-83.24668

7

466

0

0

1380880 33.61731

-84.40151

6

466

0

0

0 33.38504

-84.81725

6

466

0

0

0 31.92427

-83.78124

6

466

0

0

580320 31.53757

-84.11436

6

466

290

0

2163529 33.05864

-83.96450

6

466

290

0

2143543 33.05952

-83.96464

6

466

0

0

576000 32.98769

-85.00069

6

466

290

0

249466 32.49573

-82.92443

6

466

0

0

0 32.49681

-82.92238

6

466

290

402

838781 32.81726

-83.68223

5

466

0

0

9800000 33.72544

-84.35689

5

466

0

0

200000 33.72599

-84.35673

5

466

0

0

2703000 33.72574

-84.35680

5

466

0

0

0 33.72612

-84.35674

5

466

0

0

0 33.72597

-84.35668

5

466

0

0

0 31.53328

-84.18789

5

466

290

0

249466 32.11466

-84.19470

5

466

290

0

249466 31.44471

-83.52326

5

466

0

0

0 31.46611

-83.52808

5

466

0

0

224000 32.59470

-83.66425

4

466

290

0

32000 31.47918

-83.44119

4

466

290

0

249466 33.70572

-84.40245

4

A P P E N D I X
Page 452

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 453

OID_ LEASE BUILD1 D_BUI ING_N ADDRESS1

COUNTY CITY_ID _FIP ZIP

EN-

TITY_I

LONGI- GRID-

D

LATITUDE TUDE CODE

418 957 844 3021 865 3044 875 3054 964 3150 965 3151 966 3153 967 3154 968 3155 969 3156 972 3159 973 3160 974 3161 975 3162 976 3163 977 3164 978 3165 979 3166 980 3167 981 3168 982 3169 983 3170 984 3171 985 3172 986 3173 987 3174 1015 3207 1019 3212 1020 3213

5 Patton Road 2301 Airport Road I-20 East, Mile Marker 43 125 Rucker Lane Pine Log Mountain Bald Eagle Bend (Bent Tree Mountain) Mount Alto Road, S.W. (Mountain AltoHorseleg Mtn.) Firetower Road (Cuthbert) 427 North Expressway Park Ln. near 13th St. West 1452 Airport Road 402 Belwood Road, S.E. 1166 Lovers Lane, S.E. 281 Knight Trail Dug Gap Mountain 1599 U.S. Hwy. 23/42 South Fish Hatchery Road I-75 South/Northbound Mile Marker 190 Ga. Hwy. 189 3451 Cummings Highway (Buffington) 5645 Riggins Mill Road Rose Hill Road off U. S. Hwy. 19 Brasstown Bald Mountain South Lumpkin Street (Athens) Patrol Drive at Hudson Lane (Radium Springs) Btwn. Davis Rd. and Meadow Ln. Off Church Street along Railroad 291 First Street at Ga. Hwy. 21 73 Clines Ingram Jackson Road

31406-

-

427 13051 6432

466 32.05757 81.14627

19

31313234 13179 9492

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30122552 13097 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30458448 13031 3300

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30143252 13227 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30143252 13227 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30149415 13115 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31805131 13243 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30223213 13255 2018

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31793478 13277 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30453396 13267 4110

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3070182 13129 3954

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3070182 13129 4653

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30286474 13293 3935

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30720137 13313 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30253306 13151 7624

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30025441 13297 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31029187 13207 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30752483 13083 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3011459 86 13227 31

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31020295 13021 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30295536 13231 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3051252 13291 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3060127 13059 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

317019 13095 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3051355 13111 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3180375 13197 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31329445 13103 3059

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

94 13233 30125

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

\\

OID_ LEASE BUILD1 D_BUI ING_N ADDRESS1

1104 3302

Kensington Road & Durham Park Road

1105 3303

Groover Road (Blackjack Mountain)

1106 3304

200 U. S. Hwy. 441 East

1109 3307

1265 South Coastal Highway

1124 3323

I-16 Eastbound, Mile Marker 144

1127 3326

I-16 Westbound, Mile Marker 144

1148 3349

Currahee Mtn. Road on Currahee Mtn.

1149 3350

3411 Newton Road

1150 3351

130 Howard B. Stroud Drive

1151 3352

575 Myrtle Field Road

1194 3395

1000 Indian Springs Drive

1195 3396

1000 Indian Springs Drive

1197 3398

1000 Indian Springs Drive

1294 5062

Zion Hope Road and Moore Highway

1346 1374 1375

5979 6370 6371

320 Chester Avenue 6777 Scenic Highway 2661 Thompson Mill Road

1376 6372 1588 6588

2151 Eatonton Road Rose Hill Road

1599 6599

1090 Washington Road

1647 6647

517 Turkey Creek Road

607 2056

I-95 Southbound, Mile Marker 111

612 2063

I-95 Southbound, Mile Marker 55

702 2309 Post 35 901 Jekyll Parkway

666 2145 Post 9 1901 McCollum Parkway

694 2246

I-75 Southbound, Mile Marker 343

695 2247

I-75 Northbound, Mile Marker 343

703 2310 Post 41 1212 North Main Street

559 1969

4055 County Way Road

COUNTY CITY_ID _FIP ZIP

EN-

TITY_I

LONGI- GRID-

D

LATITUDE TUDE CODE

3000235 13089 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30006300 13067 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31631179 13065 3204

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31320314 13179 5230

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31308569 13029 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31308569 13029 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

30577481 13257 0000

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

317019 13095 7352

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3060527 13059 2291

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31069374 13225 4506

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31029187 13207 8836

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31029187 13207 8836

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31029187 13207 8836

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3179300 478 13277 00

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

28 13121 483 13083 242 13139

3031612 08
30752
30548

466 0.00000 0.00000 na 466 0.00000 0.00000 na 466 0.00000 0.00000 na

296 13211 474 13293

306505046
30286

466 0.00000 0.00000 na 466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3082475 476 13189 13

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

3026357 343 13077 39

466 0.00000 0.00000 na

31407-

-

383 13051 0000

466 32.21941 81.17225

18

31305-

-

141 13191 0000

466 31.47777 81.44848

16

31527-

-

561 13127 0928

466 31.05661 81.42180

16

30144-

-

260 13067 3637

466 34.01452 84.60857

13

30736-

-

408 13047 0000

466 34.88092 85.05283

12

30736-

-

408 13047 0000

466 34.87980 85.04838

12

30728-

-

265 13295 2135

466 34.72628 85.27875

12

30040-

-

130 13117 3954

466 34.26861 84.08444

11

A P P E N D I X
Page 454

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 455

OID_ LEASE BUILD1 D_BUI ING_N ADDRESS1

1282 3492

2301 Airport Road

611 2062

I-95 Northbound, Mile Marker 55

610 2061

11304 Ga. Hwy. 273

231 503

3100 Camp Road

598 2046

I-85 Northbound, Mile Marker 171

696 2248

I-85 Southbound, Mile Marker 169

COUNT CITY_ID Y_FIP ZIP
31310234 13179 9492
31305141 13191 0000
3982353 13185 9061
30143252 13227 4004
30553269 13119 0000
30553269 13119 0000

402 831

1900 Airport Road, McCollum Field

600 2049

I-20 East, Mile Marker 187

601 2050

I-20 West, Mile Marker 188

608 2059

I-75 Southbound, Mile Marker 23

609 2060

I-75 Northbound, Mile Marker 23

26 64

917 N. Tennessee St., Ponders Mtn.

Larmore 434 1273 PDC 5651 Stonewall Tell Road

Augusta

465 1542 SP

3001 Gordon Highway (Augusta)

614 2067

1313 Arthur K. Bolton Parkway

606 2055

4635 Mead Road

302 635

101 Lona Street

622 2076

4800 U.S. Hwy. 84 Bypass

252 538

U.S. Hwy. 319

602 2051

I-85 Southbound, Mile Marker 23

603 2052

I-85 Northbound, Mile Marker 23

700 2301 Post 14 629 West Third Street

176 397

James Road Extension

717 2442 Post 48 3940 Aviation Circle, S.W.

613 2065

315 Chester Avenue

604 2053

I-75 Southbound, Mile Marker 190

605 2054

I-75 Northbound, Mile Marker 190

211 478 219 487

208 Ga. Hwy. 300 South
Bowens Mill Road (LL 134, 6th District, Ga. Hwy. 32)

599 2048

I-20 West, Mile Marker 15

621 2074

506 West Lamar Street

189 418

222 Chestnut Avenue

300 13067 223 13073 223 13073 495 13185 495 13185
91 13015 114 13121 214 13073 213 13255 295 13021 158 13175 475 13275 475 13275 266 13285 266 13285 152 13253 495 13185
28 13121 28 13121 187 13207 187 13207 123 13081 155 13069 471 13045 18 13261 478 13277

30144
308140000
308140000
316010000
316010000
301202400
303492462
308133808
302234578
312062021
310213372
317922617
317990000
302410000
302410000
398451597
316010325
303361503
303161254
310290000
310290000
310158008
315330000
301790000
317093475
317944442

EN-

TITY_I

LONGI- GRID-

D

LATITUDE TUDE CODE

-

466 31.79692 81.64062

11

-

466 31.47796 81.44599

11

-

466 31.17068 85.08732

11

-

466 34.45542 84.44954

10

-

466 34.42708 83.15609

10

-

466 34.41520 83.17894

10

-

466 34.01086 84.60216

9

-

466 33.48712 82.23732

9

-

466 33.48771 82.23275

9

-

466 30.79454 83.30313

9

-

466 30.79592 83.30320

9

-

466 34.19301 84.75850

8

-

466 33.60136 84.55195

8

-

466 33.43151 82.18613

8

-

466 33.23363 84.23489

8

-

466 32.77677 83.63511

8

-

466 32.52382 82.92349

8

-

466 30.86904 83.99633

8

-

466 30.85149 83.94905

8

-

466 33.08375 84.91604

7

-

466 33.08782 84.91516

7

-

466 31.04628 84.89300

7

-

466 30.80666 83.33446

7

-

466 33.77554 84.52186

6

-

466 33.74618 84.35855

6

-

466 33.06906 83.97356

6

-

466 33.07028 83.97333

6

-

466 31.92468 83.77850

6

-

466 31.54556 82.89152

6

-

466 33.69665 85.08581

5

-

466 32.07171 84.23799

5

-

466 31.45278 83.50615

5

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

N

Hazard Category

Hazard Score Range

% Owned

% Leased

% Total Facilities

D

High

18-25

0.00%

4.88%

1.20%

I

Moderate

9-17

32.00%

43.90%

34.94%

X

Low

0-8

67.20%

51.22%

63.25%

Table 1: Department of Public Safety facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category
High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25
9-17
0-8

Estimated Value at Risk (Owned) $0
$10,614,414
$96,778,996

% Total Value
0.00% 9.88% 90.12%

Table 2: Department of Public Safety facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Notes: Only 16 buildings included in the Department of Public Safety agency category in BLLIP data. 127 buildings listed as owned and 90 buildings listed as leased. 52 buildings were not included in the hazard analysis (mostly leased buildings). Estimates of values given for the owned buildings.

Page 456

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

State of Georgia Enhanced Plan

P

E

Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education

N

D

November 13, 2007

I

X

Team member

Frank R. Howard, Director of Business Continuity, Planning

Brief summary of state agency (mission statement)

Mission

We envision a world-class educational system that utilizes leading edge technology and innovative design to supply a competitive workforce and quality communities, thus assuring Georgia's economic success in the global marketplace. The recognition this system will command throughout the state will make it the preferred educational option for that majority of adults whose career choices require qualifications beyond a high school diploma, for those companies that require customized training and retraining services, and for those seeking a lifetime of educational experiences. The mission of the Department of Technical and Adult Education is to contribute to the economic, educational, and community development of Georgia by providing quality technical education, adult literacy education, continuing education, and customized business and industry workforce training to the people of Georgia.

Vision for Georgia

Georgia will have a well-educated, technically trained, and highly competitive workforce that will be widely recognized as the best in the nation.

Page 457

Vision for DTAE
Our vision is of a dynamic system of technical education, adult education, and customized business and industry workforce training using industry-standard and emerging technologies and offering easy access to education and training for all Georgians. This system will be part of a seamless educational process in which students can easily transfer credits as they move among secondary schools, technical colleges, and other postsecondary institutions in which all Georgians can readily access information and advanced educational resources.
Programs that are related to preparedness, Emergency Management
Campus Safety The Technical College System of Georgia (TCS) is a large, diverse and dispersed system of 33 technical colleges administratively managed by the Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE). These colleges utilize more than 200 sites across the state to offer instruction in credit and non-credit programs, to 195,000 students annually by some 12,000 faculty and staff. System-owned facilities are valued at more than $1.2 billion, and furnishings and equipment increase the proximate value of TCS infrastructure to almost $2 billion.
For more than 25 years, DTAE has focused its efforts on providing the finest workforce development training possible to the citizens of Georgia. Campuses have been thoroughly integrated into local communities and are open and inviting places for students. While technical colleges function as a microcosm of society in many ways and experience many of the same risks and security challenges as their local communities,

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

colleges have historically addressed campus security situations individually and with little or no guidance, assistance or intervention from the agency. Since September 11, 2001, tensions on college campuses across the country have been heightened by the threat of a terrorist incident, and a number of tragic and wellpublicized campus shootings have dramatized and highlighted the need for effective campus security and emergency preparation.
In December of 2006, Commissioner Jackson hired a homeland security consultant to conduct a review of the state of current public safety measures available at each of the colleges. The consultant used a survey instrument/inventory completed by each college, as well as limited personal visits to colleges, and opinions and observations of the DTAE staff to develop a number of recommendations, which were presented in a report to the Commissioner in February of 2007. Commissioner Jackson met with the technical college presidents in May of 2007 and gave them his perspective on campus security. For the first time, campus security was identified as one of DTAE's top priorities. A subsequent draft cost projection for some basic campus security infrastructure improvements was prepared for the Commissioner by the DTAE staff in June 2007. In July of 2007, Commissioner Jackson hired a former technical college president as Director of Security and charged him with assessing the current state of campus security at the technical colleges, determining what is required to improve security at each college, and providing a prioritized cost projection for these improvements.
Since July, the Director of Security has established a campus security peer group, made up of key individuals from each college who are responsible for coordinating campus security actions. An email list serve for these individuals was established, and communications coordination was begun and encouraged. Additionally, the Director of Security committed to visiting every college to develop a full understanding of the problems and dangers faced by each one. A face-to-face campus security peer group meeting was held for the first time on August 29, 2007, and the Director of Security provided a campus security perspective for all. Dale Mann, Director of the Georgia Public safety Training Center, Tom Mackel, Chief of Police for the University of West Georgia, and Mark Muma, Director of the School safety Unit at GEMA, participated in the program. At this meeting, the Director of Security presented six focus areas for the group to address and proposed dividing the group into six security planning teams to begin to examine each focus area.
Focus areas are:
1. Develop a basic public safety/campus police/security model that is appropriate for system wide adop-
tion. The model must be reasonable and practical for small colleges but scalable to meet a larger college's needs. The model should include cost projections and job descriptions.
2. Develop a list of practical and reasonable security infrastructure enhancements that should be imple-
mented at every college immediately (12-18 months). Determine which colleges already have implemented these and develop a cost projection for bringing the other schools up to this standard.
3. Assess campus security and emergency preparedness training requirements and develop a statewide in-
service training program for all campus security personnel. Consider using resources from Gwinnett, Central Georgia and Chattahoochee, as well as GEMA. Develop security and safety awareness training for college students and staff.
4. Research applicable codes and develop a basic list of security features that should be designed into
every new DTAE building. This should include a cost projection.
5. Review applicable federal and state codes and DTAE policies and procedures pertaining to public
safety, security and emergency preparedness, and recommend necessary revisions and updates. Review emergency communication methods and systems currently in use in DTAE, in the USG and across the country, and develop a system-wide emergency communication plan with a 5-year cost projection.
Security planning teams will begin to meet in early October, and should have recommendations ready for presentation to the entire campus security peer group in mid-November. A report on their work and recommendations should be available for Commissioner Jackson in early December.
Assets Information concerning DTAE's assets are derived from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and state-leased (operated) facili-

A P P E N D I X
Page 458

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

ties. This database is sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GBT), Georgia State Financ-

P

ing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission

for a New Georgia in collaboration with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS)

P

division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia.

E

N

There are 386 buildings included in the Department of Technical and Adult Education agency category in BLLIP data. 333 buildings listed as owned and 53 buildings listed as leased. 82 buildings

D

were not included in the hazard analysis.

I

Estimates of values given for the owned buildings. The locations of the DTAE buildings in rela-

tion to the state of Georgia are shown in the following map.

X

Page 459

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order (hotlinks or referenced here, included in back of this document) Title 20 of The Official Code of Georgia Annotated

Page 460

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

Natural Hazard summary

Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard assessment

P

discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the

E

hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the attrib-

N

ute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls.

D

In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summarize percentages of state

I

facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard scores) as well as sum-

marize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. The summa-

X

ries for DTAE are included in the following tables.

Hazard gory High

Cate- Hazard Range 18-25

Moderate

9-17

Low

0-8

Score % Owned
0.00% 51.28% 48.72%

% Leased
0.00% 38.89% 47.22%

% Total Facilities 0.00%
50.66%
49.34%

Table 1: Department of Technical and Adult Education facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category
High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range
18-25 9-17 0-8

Estimated Value at % Total Value

Risk (Owned)

$0

0.00%

$173,320,898

48.78%

$182,021,811

51.22%

Table 2: Department of Technical and Adult Education facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Page 461

Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation)
Campus Mitigation DTAE has partnered with the Statesboro Office of GEMA to develop a Mitigation Program at Savannah Technical College. This unit of our system has the highest natural disaster risk, including Hurricanes, Tornados and Earthquakes. A new Technology Building will be addressed initially, followed by existing structures on campus.
Additional documents The Basic Education Act of 1985 created a separate State Board of Postsecondary Vocational Education within the Department of Education to promote the economic growth and development of Georgia by providing leadership, direction, and state-level management of public postsecondary technical schools, programs, and services. The new board was created as an agency separate from the Department of Education in 1987 to provide guidance to public technical institutes operated by the state or by local boards of education. The board was renamed the State Board of Technical and Adult Education in 1988 to govern the newly created Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE).
DTAE oversees 34 state-governed technical colleges, 31 branch campuses and 7 technical education centers. In addition, there are four technical education divisions housed within four of the University System colleges.
The department is divided into four programs: Technical Education, Adult Literacy, Economic Development, and Administration.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

P

Georgia's Technical College System includes 34 colleges and a total of 76 delivery sites. The col-

leges offer more than 1,200 programs and provide opportunities for students to learn new skills or

P

upgrade existing skills to keep pace with rapidly-changing technology and competition in a world

E

market. Students attending technical colleges have the option of short-term programs as well as courses of study leading to certificates, diplomas, and associate degrees. These programs can range

N

in duration from a few weeks to two years. The technical colleges serve approximately 150,000

D

credit students annually and produce about 26,000 graduates each year.

I

ADULT LITERACY

X

The Adult Literacy program, through its network of 37 service delivery areas throughout the state,

promotes and provides adult basic education and literacy programs, including the GED Testing pro-

gram that awards GED diplomas. The program is the primary fiscal agent for the U.S. Department

of Education adult literacy funds. It is also the largest adult literacy provider for other state agencies

and facilitates collaboration among state and local entities to improve literacy efforts for adults

needing basic, English literacy, or specialized skills instruction.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Economic Development program provides employee training services to new and expanding industries as well as existing industries at no cost through Quick Start. Quick Start plays a key role in the State's business recruitment and retention efforts by serving as a State training incentive. Supported by DTAE's network of technical colleges, Quick Start has provided training for new jobs in virtually every technology required by Georgia's manufacturing and service sectors.

ADMINISTRATION The Administration program fulfills overall administrative roles for the central office and the 34 technical colleges. These activities include budgeting, accounting, purchasing, asset management, personnel, information technology, research, public information, facilities management, legal services, planning, and evaluation.

Page 462

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 463

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

State of Georgia Enhanced Plan

P

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

E

November 2007

N

D

I

Contact Information

Gib Heuett

X

Assistant Deputy Director

GBI/Georgia Crime Information Center

3121 Panthersville Rd.

Decatur, Georgia 30034

Phone 404-270-8419

e-mail gib.heuett@gbi.state.ga.us

Agency Information Summary Mission: The mission of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is to provide the highest quality investigative, scientific, and information services and resources to the criminal justice community and others as authorized by law, for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and protecting life and property. The mission will be achieved by a team of skilled and dedicated employees, utilizing innovative programs and state-of-the-art technology.

Core Businesses: 1) Investigative Services 2) Scientific Services 3) Information
Programs related to preparedness/mitigation The GBI provides law enforcement services through ESF 13:
Victim Recovery Deceased Identification and Mortuary Services Fraud/Price gouging support General law enforcement support as needed Assets: Information concerning the GBI assets are derived from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and state-leased (operated) facilities. This database is sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GBT), Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission for a New Georgia in collaboration with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. Currently, the database includes 51 buildings with 37 state-owned and 14 leased that relate to GBI. Typically, the database attributes an estimated value to each structure. The locations of the GBI buildings in relation to the state of Georgia are shown in the following map.

Page 464

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 465

Some of the key facilities are listed in the table below:

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

GBI Headquarters

3121 Panthersville Road

Decatur

P

Central Regional Crime Lab 5615 Riggins Mill Road

Dry Branch

P

Cleveland Crime Lab

77 Cobb Vantress Drive

Costal Regional Crime Lab 925 Mohawk Street

Cleveland Savannah

E

Eastern Regional Crime Lab 1945 Phinizy Road

Augusta

N

NW Regional Crime Lab

533 Underwood Drive

Trion

D

SW Regional Crime Lab

330 Veterans Parkway N

Western Regional Crime Lab 8375 Beaver Run Road

Moultrie Midland

I

INV Region 1

132 Old Fairmount Hwy., SE Calhoun

X

INV Region 2

49 Gay Connector

Greenville

INV Region 3

321 McMath Mill Road

Americus

INV Region 4

351 Thomas Frier, Sr. Drive Douglas

INV Region 5

38 Joe Kennedy Blvd

Statesboro

INV Region 6

291 Industrial Park Drive

Milledgeville

INV Region 7

2549 Washington Road

Thomson

INV Region 8

79 Cobb Vantress Drive

Cleveland

INV Region 9

396 S. Pinetree Blvd.

Thomasville

INV Region 10

2120 Iris Drive

Conyers

INV Region 11

1170 U.S. HWY 29 N

Athens

INV Region 12

3111 9th Avenue

Eastman

INV Region 13

108 Woodlawn Drive

Perry

INV Region 14

111 North Gross Road

Kingsland

INV Region 15

2960 U.S. HWY 82 West Sylvester

INV Canton RDEO

1225 Univeter Road

Canton

INV Macon RDEO

634 Ogelthorpe Street

Macon

INV Savannah RDEO

925B Mohawk Street

Savannah

INV Training Unit

1000 Indian Springs Drive Forsyth

INV GISAC

PO Box 29649

Atlanta

INV SDTF

503 Oak Place, Suite 510 Atlanta

Laws, Regulations, Policies Investigative Directive 1045 Incident Command
Natural Hazard Summary Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard assessment discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls.
In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summarize percentages of state facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard scores) as well as summarize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. The summaries for GBI are included in the following tables.

Page 466

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Hazard Cate- Hazard Score % Owned

% Leased

% Total Facili-

P

gory

Range

ties

P

High

18-25

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

E

Moderate

9-17

50.00%

0.00%

50.00%

N

Low

0-8

50.00%

0.00%

50.00%

D

Table 1: Georgia Bureau of Investigation facility percentages in hazard categories

I

X

Hazard Category

Hazard Range

Score Estimated Value at % Total Value Risk (Owned)

High

18-25

$0

0%

Moderate

9-17

$20,182,000

24.34%

Low

0-8

$62,729,816

75.66%

Table 2: Georgia Bureau of Investigation facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Notes: Only 51 buildings included in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation agency category in BLLIP data. 37 building listed as owned and 14 buildings listed as leased. 21 buildings were not included in hazard assessment. Estimates of values given only for the owned buildings.

Agency Specific Goals and Objectives The GBI is currently creating our Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery plan.

Plan integration Upon completion of our BC/DR plan, we will update this mitigation plan accordingly. As the state's hazard mitigation plan is updated, we will also integrate into the GBI's strategic directions.

Additional Documents POLICY STATEMENT
1045 SUBJECT Incident Command System

DATE February 24, 2004
PAGE 1 of 1

Page 467

POLICY STATEMENT
The Incident Command System is a mechanism to exercise command and control of GBI resources during a critical incident, unusual occurrence, or special event. This policy provides guidelines for the planning and execution of any GBI response to situations involving unusual occurrences, critical incidents, and special events.
PROCEDURES
Each Division Director will designate a representative(s) to act as a liaison to the Investigative Division in the event the Incident Command System is activated in a situation requiring resources from each Division. The name of the representative(s) will be provided to the Deputy Director of the Investigative Division. To

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

insure personnel in each division are familiar with the Incident Command structure and can function effec-

A

tively within it, each representative will be trained on the activation criteria, procedures, and command pro-

P

tocol of the Incident Command System as detailed in Investigative Division Directive 11-1.

P

Attachments 0

E

02-24-04 (chl)

N

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

D

INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION

I

DIRECTIVE 11-1

X

TITLE: Critical Incidents/Incident Command System

PAGE 1 OF 19

DATE: March 1, 1998

REVISION DATE:

April 26, 2006

AUTHORITY: Kent E. Wilson

Deputy Director for Investigations
PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for the planning and execution of any GBI response to situations involving critical incidents, special events and other unusual occurrences.

Definition:

Critical Incident Any event requiring an extraordinary response by law enforcement authorities. This may include natural and man-made disasters, civil disturbances, mass arrests, bomb threats, hostage/ barricaded persons, incidents of terrorism/weapons of mass destruction, violence at educational facilities or correctional facilities, and other unusual occurrences.

Incident Command System Mechanism to exercise command and control of the GBI resources during a critical incident or unusual occurrence.

I. GENERAL
A. In the event of any usual occurrence requiring the utilization of Investigative Division resources, the Deputy Director for Investigations will serve as the Planning Officer/Incident Commander and will be responsible for the implementation of the Incident Command System, operational plan and oversight of the overall incident and operational plan.
B. For law enforcement operations and Incident Command purposes, the Deputy Director for Investigations may designate a supervisor to coordinate and prepare a plan of operations for his final approval.
C. If the critical incident will require the utilization of resources from the remaining divisions of the GBI, the Assistant Director may be designated as the GBI Planning Officer and Incident Commander.
D. The Deputy Director can designate an on scene GBI supervisor to assume operational responsibility of all critical incidents. The on scene supervisor will have responsibility for implementing the Incident Command System as it relates to responding GBI personnel.

Page 468

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 469

E. The GBI Incident Commander will be responsible for designating the person/position responsible for the completion of the after-action reports related to critical incidents or activation of the formal Incident Command System.
F. Critical incidents may include, but are not limited to:
1. Natural Disasters such as:
a. Earthquakes;
b. Floods;
c. Severe weather; and
d. Large scale fires
Man-made Disasters such as:
Incidents of terrorism/weapons of mass destruction;
Violence at educational facilities;
c. Mass transportation accidents;
d. Hazardous material accidents;
e. Hostage/Barricaded person situations;
e. Bomb threats; and
f. Explosions
Civil Disturbances
4. Mass Arrests
II. STATE DECLARED EMERGENCIES A. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has been directed by Executive Order of the Governor to respond in support of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) in the event of a state declared emergency. GEMA is under the direction of the Office of Homeland Security.
B. GEMA has primary responsibility for the preparation and implementation of the State Disaster Plan. When requested to respond to emergencies, the GBI will comply with all provisions of the State Disaster Plan which will be maintained by the Deputy Director for Investigations.
C. GBI will have primary Incident Command responsibility in state declared emergencies involving natural/man-made mass fatality incidents/disasters. The GBI has primary responsibility for the recovery, identification and disposition of human remains at the scene of the incident.
D. Dependant upon the situation, the GBI may also provide resources to assist in the following:
1. The collection, analyzing, and dissemination of intelligence information;
2. Providing specialized investigative assistance;
3. The establishment of an incident tracking system;

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

4. Crowd control to include the assignment of arrest and/or processing teams; and
5. Bomb Disposal Unit / Bomb related HAZMAT Response
III. CRITICAL INCIDENTS
A. On many occasions, the GBI is requested to respond to unusual occurrences such as civil disturbances or other critical incidents which are not state declared emergencies.
B. In most instances, either the SAC/ASAC of the affected region, an Inspector, or the Deputy Director for Investigations will assume Incident Command responsibility for the associated GBI operations and resources. Although the requirements of each incident will vary, the Incident Commander shall consider the following elements in the preparation of the operational plan:
1. Communications - Reliable communications must be established between the involved agencies and all operational elements to include the field command post. This may be accomplished through the utilization of mobile and/or portable radios as well as cellular telephones. If needed, Investigative Staff Services can coordinate the delivery of suitcase radios and/or additional portable radios.
2. Situation Maps - Maps depicting the operational area should be obtained, if not already on hand, to be utilized by the incident supervisors and command post personnel.
3. Field Command Posts - The establishment of a field command post should be considered to bring together command level supervisors and their support staff in order to enhance the emergency decision-making process. Certain situations may also dictate the need for the activation of a Tactical Operations Command Post (TOCP) for utilization by tactical and operational support personnel in close proximity to the incident scene.
4. Chain of Command - The establishment of a chain of command is imperative to the effective operation of any law enforcement operation, but is of critical importance in a multiagency operation. An immediate priority of command level supervisors from the participating agencies should be the establishment of a clearly defined chain of command. The GBI Incident Commander shall be responsible for the overall coordination and control of all GBI assets.
5. Casualty Information - Casualty information should be reported to and collected by the Field Command Post for use by command level supervisors and/or public information officers in briefing ranking governmental officials and media representatives.
6. Community Relations/Public Information Public Affairs Officers and/or other personnel should be designated, if necessary, to meet with community leaders in order to relay information, address concerns and suppress rumors and misinformation. Press releases and media briefing will be handled by either a representative of the law enforcement agency in charge, the GBI, or a combination of the two.
7. Outside Assistance - Requests for additional assistance from other law enforcement agencies and/or entities will be processed through the chain-of-command. Dependent upon the specific circumstances, other state agencies including the Georgia State Patrol, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Corrections and the Department of Transportation may be called upon to provide additional resources.
8. Military Support Should it be deemed necessary, the Governor can order the activation of the Georgia National Guard in accordance with Georgia law. Any GBI requests for the activation of the Georgia National Guard will be made by the Director to the Office of the Governor or, where applicable, through the Director of the Office of Homeland Security. Any proclamation of martial law will be at the discretion of the Governor.

A P P E N D I X
Page 470

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 471

9. Public Facility Security - The security of public facilities will normally be the responsibility of the law enforcement agency having normal jurisdiction over the facilities but in emergency situations, the GBI may assign agents to assist in this capacity.
10. Traffic Control - Requirements for traffic control should be coordinated with the requesting law enforcement agency and/or the Georgia State Patrol.
11. Equipment Requirements - The need for specialized or supplemental equipment beyond that routinely issued to agents will be coordinated through Investigative Staff Services.
12. Stand-down Procedures - Agents will be released from their assignments for return to normal duty status only upon the approval of the Incident Commander, an Inspector, the Deputy Director for Investigations, the Assistant Director, or the Director.
13. Post-occurrence Duties - Agents may be required to conduct follow-up investigations of criminal activities that occurred during the incident.
14. Transportation - Specialized transportation to include mass transportation and/or air transportation may be required for agents and/or other law enforcement personnel in certain situations.
Court/Prosecutorial Liaison - Representatives from the District Attorney's office and/or the State Attorney General's office should be consulted as necessary and may be requested to respond to the scene to confer with command level supervisors regarding legal matters relating to the incident.
IV. OVERVIEW OF INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM
The full Incident Command System (ICS) is comprised of five major functions, however only the components necessary to handle the incident need to be activated. If a function becomes too large to supervise, branches will be created as subordinate units to any given function. Branches in turn may require subordinate sectors, units, or teams to maintain a manageable span of control. The ICS functions are as follows:
The Command Function provides overall direction for the agency response to the incident and will be responsible for:
Activating the Incident Command System;
Establishing a Command Post;
Initiating the notification and mobilization of additional agency personnel;
Obtaining support from other agencies;
Establishing a staging area, if necessary;
Providing public information and maintaining media relations;
Maintaining the safety of all affected personnel; and
Preparing a documented after action report.
The Operations Function will be responsible for:
Establishing perimeters;

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Conducting evacuations;

P

Maintaining command post and scene security;

P

E

Providing for detainee transportation, processing and confinement;

N

Directing and controlling traffic; and

D

I
Conducting post incident investigations.
X

The Planning Function will be responsible for:

Preparing a documented incident action plan;

Gathering and disseminating information and intelligence; and

Planning post-incident demobilization.

The Logistics Function will be responsible for:

Communications;

Transportation;

Medical Support;

Supplies; and

Specialized team and equipment needs.

The Finance/Administration Function will be responsible for:

Recording personnel time;

Procuring additional resources;

Recording expenses; and

Documenting injuries and liability issues.

INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM ACTIVATION CRITERIA

The Incident Command System will be used when a Critical Incident meets one or more of the following conditions:

When the situation requires manpower from multiple GBI work units or outside agencies and cannot be resolved in a reasonable period of time.

When the situation or incident requires an alert of all Divisions of GBI or the entire Investigative Division.

During large incidents where a manageable span of control is problematic without the Incident Command System.

Page 472

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

VI. BARRICADED PERSON/HOSTAGE SITUATIONS

P

The actions of agents involved in situations involving barricaded persons will vary depending upon the

P

aggressiveness, mental condition, emotional state, and criminal background of the suspect(s). Barri-

E

caded persons can be expected to resist the forceful actions of law enforcement personnel. Agents

N

should attempt to avoid a confrontation, making tactical decisions or entering into negotiations unless exigent circumstances require such intervention to prevent the loss of life or the escape of the suspect.

D

I

X

Unless it is necessitated by exigent circumstances, agents will only respond to barricade/hostage situations pursuant to a request for assistance relating to the predicate offense, either arising from a con-

frontation or as a result of prior criminal actions. Pre-planned incidents with a high degree of probabil-

ity of causing a barricaded person or hostage situation will be planned with appropriate tactical and

negotiation support either from the State Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team or the equivalent

entity from the original jurisdiction.

Responding Agent's Responsibilities

1. Should an agent be the first law enforcement officer to arrive on the scene of a barricaded person/hostage situation, they must act quickly and decisively to establish control of the situation and ensure the safety of bystanders and responding officers. Actions to be taken include:

a.

An agent responding to an incident scene shall immediately notify the regional

Special Agent in Charge (SAC). This may be accomplished by contacting the

SAC directly or by relaying a message through the agent's work unit or the GBI

Communications Center.

b.

If law enforcement officers from the local agency having jurisdiction over the

incident scene are not already present, the agent should either contact the agency

directly or have the message relayed, if necessary.

2. The GBI will relinquish control of the incident to the affected local jurisdiction as soon as they arrive on scene.

If requested, agents will remain on the scene in a support role and prepare to investigate the incident once it is resolved.

4. If the GBI is requested to provide assistance in the on-going barricade/hostage incident, the agent shall initiate the appropriate notification through the chain-of-command.

5. If a barricaded gunman/hostage situation arises from actions of the GBI in pursuit of normal investigative functions, the senior GBI agent on scene will immediately notify a work unit supervisor and the local agency having jurisdiction, if representatives of that agency are not already at the scene.

Page 473

a.

A work unit supervisor will immediately travel to the location and, in conjunc-

tion with the local agency supervisor, will make a determination on what role the

GBI will assume in the continuing incident.

b.

If no local Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team is available to provide

assistance, the State SWAT team will be requested to provide trained negotiation

personnel and support staff to assist in the resolution of the incident. The State

SWAT team can be activated through the local GSP Post or by contacting the

GSP Atlanta Communication Center directly or through the GBI Communication

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Center. The work unit supervisor on the scene should make this contact. An Inspector will be notified prior to the deployment of the State SWAT team or as soon as practically possible after activation.
6. The initial responsibility of the first agent on the scene is to assist in securing the area for containment purposes in order to block the escape of the suspect(s) and to prevent innocent parties from entering the area. Family and friends of the suspect must also be restrained from entering the area and becoming actively involved in the incident.
7. Upon the arrival of sufficient law enforcement resources, the agent should assist in the attempted evacuation of injured persons and/or bystanders.
8. After the situation has been contained, the responding agent or agents who have arrived on the scene should attempt to identify witnesses and other persons with knowledge of the incident, knowledge of the identity of the barricaded person, or other knowledge that may be useful in making tactical and investigative decisions.
9. Agents at the incident scene should be prepared to brief the regional SAC/ASAC and the local agency Incident Commander.
VII. MASS ARRESTS
A. Because the GBI has state-wide jurisdiction, it is impossible to prepare a comprehensive plan that can be utilized in every situation. Due to the fluid nature of these incidents, GBI agents assigned to the detail may be called upon to perform a variety of functions.
B. When the GBI is requested to assist in situations involving mass arrests, a supervisor will be designated to coordinate the GBI response. When preparing the operational plans, the GBI supervisor should consider provisions for the following:
1. Arrest/Processing/Confinement Procedures - A supervisor should be identified and team members assigned to handle each of these functions. Prisoner identification may be assigned to an on-scene processing team or handled by detention facility personnel according to the urgency of the situation.
2. Juvenile Offenders - Juvenile offenders should not be routinely detained or transported with adult offenders.
3. Transportation - Secure prisoner transportation should be coordinated with the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the incident. If additional prisoner transport vehicles are required, requests should be directed through the chain-ofcommand to the Department of Corrections.
4. Detention Facilities - Unless precluded by the large number of arrests, the detention facility of the local law enforcement agency will be utilized for the housing of all prisoners. In emergency situations, state law enforcement resources can be utilized to include the temporary detention of prisoners on mobile jail buses or at National Guard armories. In extreme emergencies, DOC portable fencing can be requested to construct an improvised holding facility.
5. Evidence Collection - All evidence will be handled in accordance with Investigative Division Directives. Depending on the urgency of the situation, evidence may be collected prior to the transportation of the prisoners or left in place to be collected by detention facility personnel. The supervisor assigned responsibility for this function should ensure that assigned personnel have evidence bags, Receipt for Property forms, and latex gloves available for use.

A P P E N D I X
Page 474

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 475

6. Security - Prisoners will be properly secured at the time of arrest. Under exigent circumstances, prisoner searches may be conducted away from the arrest scene, but, in all instances, a search will be conducted prior to the transportation of the prisoners.
7. Interagency Agreements - Because of the state-wide responsibilities of the GBI, interagency agreements are not routinely utilized.
8. Defense Counsel Visits - Attorneys should normally be allowed to consult with client/prisoners only after the prisoners have been transferred from the temporary detention facility to the regular detention facility. In the event the prisoner asks to speak with an attorney, all questioning must stop per GBI Directive 8-2-1.
9. Court and Prosecutorial Liaison - If necessary, representatives from the District Attorney's office and/or the State Attorney General's office should be consulted and may be requested to respond to the scene to provide legal guidance.
10. Media Relations The GBI Public Affairs Officer or another designated point of contact will coordinate with the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the incident scene to establish an assembly area for media representatives and to arrange for media briefings as required.
11. Food, Water and Sanitation - If prisoners are detained at temporary holding facilities for longer than two hours, arrangements must be made to provide food, water, and portable toilet facilities.
12. Medical Treatment If not activated, emergency medical services personnel should be placed on stand-by to provide treatment to injured officers, bystanders, and prisoners.
VIII. EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following equipment shall be maintained in the vehicles of all Special Agents for utilization when responding to critical incidents:
Issued service handgun;
Shotgun;
OC spray;
Asp baton;
Handcuffs;
Body armor;
Flashlight;
Fire extinguisher;
Portable radio;
Camera;
Gas mask;

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Boots; and

P

Riot helmet, if issued

P

E

Taser and cartridges, if issued

N

Special Agents are responsible for inspecting assigned equipment on a monthly basis to ensure

D

that it is maintained in a state of operational readiness. Equipment will be inspected by

I

work unit supervisors on a quarterly basis when completing the required vehicle inspec-

tions.

X

In addition to the equipment maintained by Special Agents, the following equipment is maintained by many individual work units and can be requested, if needed, for use in critical incidents:

Night vision equipment;

All terrain vehicles;

Specialized technical/investigative equipment; and

Portable generators and light sets

If required, the following equipment can be requested from the Special Operations Unit for utilization on a temporary basis in responding to critical incidents:

Portable generators;

Mobile command post; and

Suitcase radio

IX. TRANSPORTATION The primary means of transportation utilized by Special Agents in critical incidents shall be their assigned state vehicles. The GBI Incident Commander shall be responsible for identifying and arranging for alternate means of transportation if required. Depending upon the specific circumstances, alternate transportation may include, but not be limited to:

Buses/vans provided by the Department of Corrections or MARTA.
Air transportation may be requested through other state agencies such as the Georgia State Patrol, Department of Natural Resources or the Georgia National Guard.
All requests for transportation from outside agencies require the prior approval of the Deputy Director for Investigations.

Page 476

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

X. EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION

P

A. When the GBI is requested to respond to a critical incident, the Deputy Director for Investiga-

P

tions or his designee will initiate the notification of the required personnel.

E

N

B. Required mobilizations will be handled in accordance with the guidelines set forth below:

D

1. Communications - GBI personnel will be notified of an emergency mobilization order

I

through the GBI Communications Center.

X

2. Alert Stages - The notification will include one of the designated Phase Classifications out-

lined below:

Phase A

On-call status: available to respond to duty in a maximum of thirty (30) minutes

Phase B

Prepare to activate with full equipment and clothing for three (3) days.

Phase C

Activate and report to designated area.

Phase D

Report immediately to troubled area 10-18.

The Phase Classification may be modified at any time by the Deputy Director for Investigations or an Inspector.

3. Primary and Alternate Assembly Area - The GBI Incident Commander will designate primary and alternate assembly areas.

4. Equipment Distribution - If warranted by the situation, the Deputy Director for Investigations or a member of the command staff will mobilize personnel from the Investigative Staff Services section to handle the issuance of supplemental equipment and/or the provision of other logistical support.

5. Special Task Force Activation - The assignment of GBI personnel to a special task force must be approved by the Deputy Director for Investigations.

6. Key Personnel Designations - The Incident Commander shall have the authority to designate personnel to staff key positions.

7. Coordination With Emergency Management Personnel - In the event of a state declared emergency, the GBI will comply with provisions of the State Disaster Plan as outlined above. Requests for GEMA assistance in emergency situations that are not state declared emergencies will be routed through the Deputy Director for Investigations.

8. Transportation Requirements - The primary means of transportation during emergency incidents will be assigned state vehicles. Special purpose vehicles or other means of mass transportation may be utilized as required by the individual situation.

9. Management Control Methods - The GBI Incident Commander will implement any procedures deemed to be necessary to ensure the effective utilization of personnel and/or other resources.

10. Rehearsals - GBI personnel will participate in mock disaster drills scheduled by GEMA to include the mobilization of required resources, if necessary.

Page 477

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND VIP SECURITY

A

P

Special events are normally the responsibility of the local law enforcement agency having jurisdic-

tion over the location where the event is to be held while security for VIP visits is primarily the

P

responsibility of designated agencies such as the Secret Service or Capitol Police. However, on

E

occasion, the GBI may be requested to assist with special events or assume primary responsibility for dignitary protection details.

N

D

A. Upon request and the subsequent approval of the Director or the Deputy Director for Investiga-

I

tions, the GBI may provide assistance in planning for and providing law enforcement resources

in support of a special event or VIP security detail.

X

B. The Deputy Director for Investigations will designate an agent/supervisor to prepare the operational plans for the detail in coordination with the requesting agency and to assume overall responsibility for the supervision of GBI personnel and assets.

C. The designated supervisor should consider the following factors when preparing the operational plan:

1. Influencing Factors - Obtaining information from the requesting law enforcement agency as to estimated traffic, crowd control procedures, anticipated crime problems, and contingency traffic plans.

2. Special Operations Personnel - The anticipated need for Special Operations Unit teams based on actual or perceived threats

3. Logistical Requirements - Logistical and equipment requirements including the consideration of special purpose vehicles, body armor, specialized weapons and radios with surveillance kits.

4. Coordination - On-going coordination with all involved law enforcement agencies throughout the planning and operational phase.

5. Participant Contacts - Site inspections and contacts with event organizers and any known counter-demonstrators as well as any other sources of information in order to identify potential problems.

6. After-action Report - The designation of the person or position responsible for the completion of the after-action report.

D. Additionally, in planning for VIP security details, the designated supervisor should also consider the following factors:

1. Planning for and reconnoitering primary and alternate travel routes;

2. Identification of hospitals, emergency first-aid clinics, and ambulance services;

3. Communications systems to be utilized; and

4. Identification of personnel involved in the detail (e.g. lapel pins)

XII. TRAINING

The GBI Training Unit will ensure that all sworn personnel are trained on the Incident Command System. The Training Unit will also be responsible for planning and coordinating exercises which incorporate the Incident Command System. The exercises will take one of two forms:

Page 478

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 479

A. Live Action:
B. Table Top
The GBI Incident Command System will be exercised annually.
XIII. PERIODIC REVIEW OF EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN AND THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM
The Deputy Director's command staff will review the Incident Command System plan set forth in this directive at least every three years and direct the updating of the plan as necessary. This review will include documented analysis of incidents and training effectiveness.
Coastal Lab Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Mission:
The Coastal Lab will need to remove all evidence from both vaults and individual scientific storage lockers, as well as all biological evidence from the tox cooler, the tox/ME freezer, and the DNA refrigerators. We will need to store and relocate any remaining hardcopy files still in existence as well as disconnect and load our servers. All of these items will be loaded into moving trucks and transported to a safe location.
Individual Responsibilities:
Ross Butler will reserve a moving truck 7-10 days from a predicted hurricane strike and make arrangements to pick up a moving truck within 5 days of a predicted strike. A refrigerated 16 foot truck can be rented from Ryder at 1499 Lissner Av. (poc Cindy Shipes at 964-1370) if available or a 24 foot non refrigerated truck will be rented from Mitchell's Service Center at 12306 Largo Drive (poc Debbie Mitchell at 9253155).
All of the below responsibilities will take place within 3-5 days of a predicted strike:
Alicia Hinely, Mary Carter, and Angie Mansur will be responsible for boxing up all evidence in both vaults as well as all existing hardcopy case files.
Beth White and Natasha Price will be responsible for boxing up all Tox/ME evidence from the Tox cooler.
Each scientist will be responsible for boxing up all evidence in their respective evidence lockers and loading it on the truck bound for GBI region 5.
All scientists will be responsible for securing all equipment in their respective areas as well as moving all desktop PC's and computer equipment into the vault to be stored above ground level.
Ben Chambless will be responsible for loading the servers as well as assist in moving PC's to the vaults.
Kristen Fripp, Barbara Retzer, and Rachel Dukes will be responsible for consolidating all biology samples, extractions, etc. into one DNA frigerator.
Pat Long, Deno Deveaux, Ross Butler, and Wally Campbell will be responsible for loading the Tox/ME specimen freezer, the biology refrigerator, and all evidence from the both vaults and the Tox cooler on the truck bound for Macon.
Wally Campbell will contact Shawn Davis (478-751-4157) of the Central Laboratory to make them aware of our need for their facilities.
Wally Campbell and Ross Butler will oversee the evacuation process. Ross will accompany an agent in transporting one truck to the GBI region 5 office and Wally will transport the other truck containing the bio-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

logical samples to the Central Laboratory.

A

P
DISASTER EVACUATION PLAN
P

I.

MISSION STATEMENT

E

II.

PREPLANNING STAGE

N

D

III. OPERATIONAL TIMELINE

I

IV. OPERATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS

X

V.

TRANSPORT AND SECURITY OF ALTERNATE SITE

VI. POST DISASTER RETURN

I.

MISSION STATEMENT

This plan is designed to provide an orderly and systematic way to transport evidence, case files, CI files, PEPI funds and selected equipment from Savannah RDEO, Coastal Regional Crime Lab and Medical Examiner's office to a safe location in the event of a natural or manmade disaster. This plan will be implemented in the event of an impending hurricane or other potential disaster that allows for prior notification and planning. This plan may also be implemented to the extent possible in the aftermath of an unforeseen disaster.

Attached to this plan are three appendices. Appendix A outlines the plans for evacuation for the Coastal Regional Crime Lab. Appendix B outlines the plans for evacuation of the DOFS Medical Examiner's Office. Appendix C outlines the plans for evacuation of SOU assets that are currently located at SRDEO.

II.

PREPLANNING STAGE

A. ASAC Tanya Perkins will locate and purchase 20 plastic containers of a size of approximately three feet in length by two feet in width by two feet in depth (3' L x 2' W x 2' D).

B.

S/A Kevin Waters will contact and arrange to have a 26 foot truck available for evacuation.

C.

The Coastal Regional Crime Lab will locate and obtain a refrigerated truck for evidence that must

remain in a cold environment.

D. During the hurricane season, supervisory personnel at SRDEO, Coastal Regional Crime Lab and Medical Examiner's Office will monitor weather reports on a daily basis for information and forecasts concerning hurricane activity.

Sources of weather monitoring will include, but not be limited to, local news, the National Weather Service, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Weather Channel and the www.intellicast.com website.

III. OPERATIONAL TIMELINE

The evacuation plan will be implemented in a phased operation depending on weather reports of an impending hurricane or information predicting any other type disaster that would necessitate evacuation.

7 10 Days in Advance

The clan lab van and surveillance van will be relocated to the GBI Region 5 office in Statesboro, Georgia. U-Save Auto Rental, 600 Northside Drive, Statesboro, Georgia, will be alerted to obtain a 26 foot truck for possible use. POC is Jeff Willow at (912) 764-7450 or (912) 690-5390.

Page 480

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

SOU will be alerted as per Appendix C.

P
5 7 Days in Advance
P

E

Obtain moving trucks.

N

Pack storage containers.

D

2 3 Days in Advance

I

Implement CJIS security plan.

X

Load storage containers into moving trucks.

Transport moving trucks to GBI Region 5 office in Statesboro,

Georgia.

A return of personnel and property to SRDEO, Coastal Regional Crime Lab and Medical Examiner's Office will depend on the nature and severity of the disaster or event that caused the evacuation.

IV. OPERATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS

Upon implementation of this plan, tasks will be completed by the following personnel in the assigned areas.

A Evidence Room

ASAC Tanya Perkins, S/A Fred Denson and S/A Joe McCutchen will pack all SRDEO evidence into containers and seal them appropriately. This will include contents of the safe, evidence files, evidence room log books and opened/closed CI files.

B Case Files, Criminal History Log and PEPI Ledger

I/A Kathy Peters and part-time secretary Erin Garrett will pack all case files, criminal history log and PEPI ledgers into containers and seal appropriately.

Administrative files will be placed in cardboard boxes from the evidence room and then placed on high shelves in the evidence room.

C Computers

S/A Lesley Dixon and S/A Kevin Waters will load the main server and the NCIC/GCIC server in the moving truck. They will also place all other SRDEO CPUs on high shelves within the evidence room.

D Office Electronic Equipment

S/A Lesley Dixon and S/A Kevin Waters will move sensitive and high cost electronic surveillance and monitoring equipment to high shelves in the evidence room.

IV. OPERATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS (Continued)

E S/A Keith Axtell will pack SOU technical equipment for loading on the moving truck.

F Truck Loading

All SRDEO personnel will assist with the loading of SRDEO boxes. SRDEO personnel will also assist the Medical Examiner's Office with large items.

V.

TRANSPORT AND SECURITY OF ALTERNATE SITE

Page 481

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

A - After loading has been completed, the moving trucks will be padlocked and the keys will

P

remain in the possession of the agents assigned to security of the trucks.

P

B - The truck will be driven to the GBI Region 5 office in Statesboro, Georgia, and parked in

E

the fenced-in area behind the office. Each truck will contain an agent and a scientist.

N

C - Two agents will be present to ensure security on a 24-hour basis. These agents will have

D

access to the Region 5 facilities during this time.

I

D - Assignment of agents to security duty will be flexible depending on length of disaster con-

X

ditions and impact of disaster on homes and families of agents.

VI. POST DISASTER RETURN

A - When safe to do so, SAC Micah Ward will coordinate with supervisors from the Coastal Regional Crime Lab and Medical Examiner's Office to inspect the respective buildings.

B - When the buildings are determined to be structurally sound, clean enough for habitation and have working utilities, a return date will be determined.

C - On the return date, the moving trucks will be returned to the SRDEO/Coastal Crime Lab/ Medical Examiner's Complex. Unloading and unpacking will be accomplished utilizing the same assignments as previously outlined.

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Lee Sweat Inspector

FROM: Greg Harvey SAC, Region 14

DATE: May 9, 2006

RE: Evacuation Plan for Files and Evidence for Region 14

Please find attached a revised Region 14 Disaster Evacuation Plan per your instructions. Letter from Agency
See page 1.

Page 482

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

M E M O R A N D U M

E

TO:

Rusty Andrews, Inspector

N

FROM: Mike McDaniel, SAC, Region 14

D

DATE: January 11, 2007

I

RE:

Evacuation Plan for Files and Evidence for Region 14

X

Please find attached a revised Region 14 Disaster Evacuation Plan per your instructions.

DISASTER EVACUATION PLAN

I. MISSION STATEMENT This plan is designed to provide an orderly and systematic way to transport evidence, case files, CI files, PEPI funds and selected equipment from Region Fourteen Field Office to a safe location in the event of a natural or manmade disaster. This plan will be implemented in the event of an impending hurricane or other potential disaster that allows for prior notification and planning. This plan may also be implemented to the extent possible in the aftermath of an unforeseen disaster. II. PREPLANNING STAGE Region 14 agents will locate and purchase plastic containers of a size of approximately three feet in length by two feet in width by two feet in depth (3'L x 2'W x 2'D). Region 14 agents will arrange to have a truck Available for evaction.During the hurricane season supervisory personnel at Region 14 will monitor weather reports on a daily basis for information and forecasts concerning hurricane activity. Sources of weather monitoring will include, but not be limited to, local news, the National Weather Service, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Weather Channel, the www.intellicast.com website and Camden County Emergency Management Services. Contact is established with Camden County Emergency Management Services Director Mark Crews, who will give Region 14 supervisors real-time updated information every three hours during the emergency event. III. OPERATIONAL TIMELINE The evacuation plan will be implemented in a phased operation depending on weather reports of an impending hurricane or information predicting any other type disaster that would necessitate evacuation. 7 10 Days in Advance Econo U-Haul Rental, 1135 E. King Avenue, Kingsland, Georgia, will be alerted to obtain a truck for possible use. POC is Raj Parbhoo at (912) 673-7336. 5 7 Days in Advance Obtain moving trucks. Pack storage containers. 2 3 Days in Advance Implement CJS security plan. Load storage containers into moving trucks. Transfer moving trucks to GBI Region 4 or 12 office, as space is available at the given time. A return of personnel and property to Region 14 will depend on the nature and severity of the disaster or event that caused the evacuation. IV. OPERATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Upon implementation of this plan, tasks will be completed as assigned by supervisors at the given time. Evidence Room
The Region 14 ASAC and Region 14 agents will pack all evidence into containers and seal them appropriately. This will include contents of the safe, evidence files, evidence room log books and opened/closed CI files. Case Files, Criminal History Log and PEPI Ledger Region 14 personnel will pack all case files, criminal history log and PEPI ledgers into containers and seal ap-
propriately. Administrative files will be placed in cardboard boxes from the evidence room and then placed on high shelves
in the evidence room. Computers
Region 14 personnel will load the main server and the NCIC/GCIC server in the moving truck. They will also place all other Region 14 CPUs on high shelves within the evidence room. Office Electronic Equipment Region 14 personnel will move sensitive and high cost electronic surveillance and monitoring equipment to high
shelves in the evidence room. Truck Loading
All Region 14 personnel will assist with the loading of Region 14 boxes.

V. TRANSPORT AND SECURITY OF ALTERNATE SITE After loading has been completed, the moving trucks will be padlocked and the keys will remain in the possession of the agents assigned to security of the trucks. The truck will be driven to the GBI Region 4 or 12 office and parked in the fenced-in area behind the office. Evidence will be secured in the local evidence room or the crime scene building of the respective office. Assignment of agents to security duty will be flexible depending on length of disaster conditions and impact of disaster on homes and families of agents. VI. POST DISASTER RETURN When safe to do so, the SAC/ASAC will coordinate with local emergency officials to inspect the Region 14 building. When the buildings are determined to be structurally sound, clean enough for habitation and have working utilities, a

Page 483

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 484

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 485

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA)

A

P
December 2007
P

1)

Team Members

E

Participants on the State Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Working Group from GEMA: Terry Lunn, Hazard Mitigation Division Director

N

Rick Bond, Hazard Mitigation Assistant Division Director

D

Paul Putnam, Hazard Mitigation Planning Program Manager

I

Derwent K. Langley, Hazard Mitigation Planning Program Manager

Alicia Soriano, Risk Reduction Program Manager

X

Dale Jobes, Hazard Mitigation GIS

Elizabeth Dunn, Hazard Mitigation GIS

Danielle Graham, Hazard Mitigation Planner

Scott Sherman, Hazard Mitigation Planner Alan Sloan, Hazard Mitigation Planner Jonna West, Planning Director Chris Walsh, Hurricane Program Manager Tim Albritton, Planner

2)

a) Agency Summary

GEMA is the lead state agency for the unified coordination of planning and response to events that

require multi-agency support. The agency director reports directly to the governor. GEMA serves

as the primary agency in administering FEMA grant programs to state and local governments.

Within GEMA there are 6 divisions: Finance, Hazard Mitigation, Operations, Public Affairs, Pub-

lic Assistance, and Terrorism Emergency Response and Preparedness. GEMA employs approxi-

mately 100 people and the annual budget is approximately $6 million dollars.

GEMA's mission is to provide a comprehensive and aggressive all-hazards approach to homeland security initiatives, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and special events in order to protect life and property and to prevent and/or reduce the negative impact of terrorism and natural disasters in Georgia.

Providing essential government services, particularly in the area of public safety and homeland security, is an immense challenge. Not only are we faced with natural threats, but the specter of terrorism has created new demands. At the same time, economic constraints require better and more resourceful management on our part. Our core business functions are Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery and support the Governor's Strategic Initiative of "A Safe Georgia".

Every disaster has a human side -- the victims, as well as the responders and volunteers who reach out and lend a helping hand when emergencies occur. With this in mind, our mission is clear. Our efforts in the areas of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery are carried out with the clear understanding that when all is said and done it is truly all about people. By working together with our partners in government and the volunteer and private sector, we can successfully confront whatever challenges come our way.

b) Programs related to preparedness, mitigation, and emergency management Information about each of the Divisions and pertinent programs are shown below. Information shown for each program may include purpose and need, roles and responsibilities, tangible products, annual budget, and success stories.

The Finance Division provides accounting, budgeting, human resources, procurement and grants management services to GEMA staff, GEMA's state partners and GEMA's local partners.

Page 486

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 487

The Hazard Mitigation Division coordinates the update to the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and provides technical assistance to state agencies and local governments in developing their local mitigation plans and projects. The focus of the Hazard Mitigation Division is to provide a comprehensive risk-reduction program that protects people and property by reducing their exposure to natural hazards. At the foundation of this program are risk-based and data-driven state and local mitigation plans that outline a strategy for avoiding or limiting disaster losses. Through this planning effort, state and local decision-makers identify mitigation measures that reduce the financial impacts of disasters and save lives.
The Division also administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Claims, Severe Repetitive Loss, and Pre Disaster Mitigation programs. Through these programs, federal funding is provided to state and local governments for cost effective mitigation projects. Specific details about these programs are listed below:
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Post Disaster The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
Since 1990, the State has averaged more than $5 million federal funds in this program per year. The State provides match on certain projects. The state match has averaged $250,000 per year.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) Pre Disaster The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Tangible products through this program include Flood Mitigation Plans developed by local governments and the mitigation of insured properties, primarily through property acquisition. Funding for the development of flood mitigation plans has been targeted towards those communities that have historically had the highest number of repetitive loss properties.
Since the program's inception in 1997, the State has averaged more than $400K federal funds per year. The State does not match any of the pass through grants to local governments for planning and projects. The State provides match only on the technical assistance grant which has averaged $9,000 per year.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) Pre Disaster The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds.
Tangible products through this program include DMA2K compliant state and local Miti-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

gation Plans and the mitigation of flood prone properties, primarily through property acquisition.
Since 2003, the State has averaged $5.4 million in federal funds for this program. The State does not match any of the pass through grants to local governments for planning and projects. The State provides match only on the technical assistance grant which has averaged $150,000 per year.
To date, 89 counties covering approximately 82% of the State's population have completed and approved mitigation plans. A high percentage of local mitigation projects submitted through this nationally competitive program have been funded.
Repetitive Flood Claims Program Pre Disaster The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist States and communities reduce flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Tangible products include mitigation of NFIP insured properties through property acquisition.
Since 2006, the State has averaged $1.8 million in federal funds for this program. There is no non-federal match requirement for this program. This program is new since 2006 and the State has been successful in grant funding through this program's first two years.
Severe Repetitive Loss Program Pre Disaster The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant program was authorized by the BunningBereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss (SRL) structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). SRL Properties are residential properties:
That have at least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each, when at least two such claims have occurred within any ten-year period, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or For which at least two separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the value of the property, when two such claims have occurred within any ten-year period.
The State has developed has strategy to support the overall federal initiative to reduce or eliminate flood damages to SRL properties.
The Operations Division is responsible for the day-to-day activities of the state's emergency management programs and coordinates the agency's response to disasters, emergencies and special events from an All- Hazards perspective. The seven sections of the Operations Division include: Field Programs, School Safety Unit, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, Statewide Training, Information Technology, Statewide Planning and the State Operations Center/ Communications. The Operations Division also houses the Statewide Exercise program.
The Public Affairs Division is responsible for the day-to-day activities related to constituent services, public affairs, legislative, and multi-media support. The need to communicate clearly is a constant priority of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. Actual and potential disaster situations compel our public affairs officers to provide accurate and timely information to the citizens of Georgia.
The Public Assistance (PA) Division is responsible for administering the millions of federal dol-

A P P E N D I X
Page 488

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

lars that communities are eligible for in the wake of disasters. The Division works closely with

P

local governments to ensure that reconstruction and rebuilding programs are completed in such a

way as to reduce the risk of further losses. PA also manages the reimbursement process for the

P

following grant programs: State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP), Urban Area Security

E

Initiative Grant Program (UASI), Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP),

N

Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP), Citizen Corps (CCP) and Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS).

D

I

The Terrorism Emergency Response and Preparedness (TERP) Division is responsible for

terrorism preparedness. TERP programs encompass critical infrastructure analysis, terrorism inci-

X

dent management and response, All Hazards Councils programs, fire services coordination, agro-

terrorism preparedness, exercise and training, intelligence gathering and analysis, and homeland

security grant services.

c) Roles and responsibilities (both pre-and post disaster) are included in the Division information, if applicable.

d) Assets Information concerning GEMA's assets are derived from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and state-leased (operated) facilities. This database is sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GBT), Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission for a New Georgia in collaboration with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia.

Currently, the database only includes 5 buildings (all state-owned) that relate to GEMA. Within the database, GEMA's buildings are listed under the Office of the Governor (which includes Homeland Security, GEMA, and other agencies). Typically, the database attributes an estimated value to each structure. However, the particular buildings associated with GEMA have not estimates of value. The locations of the GEMA buildings in relation to the state of Georgia are shown in the following map.

Page 489

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

e) Future assets No changes are anticipated
Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive orders (supports preparedness and mitigation actions) Federal
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Public Law 106-390, October 30, 2000
PL 93-234, as amended, Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (PL 81-9200) FEMA Regulations, 44 CFR, Part 206, Subparts M and N FEMA Regulations, 44 CFR, Part 13, Uniform Administrative Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 12612, Federalism Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Reports
State Georgia Emergency Management Act of 1981, as amended Homeland Security Executive Order, August 2004 GEOP Executive Order, February 2006 Georgia Emergency Operations Plan, February 2006 State Strategic Plan for Terrorism and All-Hazards Preparedness, 2006 Georgia Disaster Management Handbook, January 2007

Page 490

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Continuity of Operations Plan, June 2007

P

State of Georgia Administrative Plan for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, July 2007

P

Natural Hazard summary

E

Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard

N

assessment discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature

D

(BLLIP structure) is assigned the attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard

I

score) in which point falls.

X

In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summarize percentages

of state facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard

scores) as well as summarize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at

varied risk to hazards. The summaries for GEMA are included in the following tables. In

order to understand the data, note that GEMA's facilities total 5 and none of the facilities

are assigned an estimate of value. Being in the same complex, all the buildings attain the

same composite hazard score of 6, which is low on the hazardousness scale of 3 to 25.

Other agencies' summaries appear strikingly different due to numerous facilities and esti-

mates of value.

Page 491

Hazard gory High

Cate- Hazard Range 18-25

Moderate

9-17

Low

0-8

Score % Owned 0% 0% 100%

% Leased 0% 0% 0%

Table 1: Office of the Governor facility percentages in hazard categories

% Total Facilities 0%
0%
100%

Hazard Category High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range 18-25 9-17 0-8

Estimated Value at % Total Value

Risk

$0

0%

$0

0%

$0

0%

Table 2: Office of the Governor facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Goals, Outcomes and Objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation focus on loss avoidance, preparedness, emergency management, agency's role in providing services both pre-and post- event, improvement of agency roles and responsibilities and access to additional resources (federal) in improving mission)

Taken from Fiscal Year 2008 Strategic Plan Goals, Outcomes and Objectives Strategic Goal #1 (Supports OBJ3-T2g) Develop plans, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters, acts of terrorism and special events to enhance the protection of Georgia Citizens and visitors.
Strategic Outcome: Fewer Georgians will die or be injured in disasters, acts of terrorism and special events through more timely and comprehensive early warning capabilities.
Strategic Objectives: Increase the awareness and warning time for individuals and organizations to
prepare for severe weather and other hazard events in Georgia. Expand the GEMA regional partnership with FEMA and the partnerships with

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Alabama, Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina for evacuation traffic plan-

A

ning, management and communications.

P

Strategic Goal #2 (Supports OBJ3-T5)

P

Minimize the damage to Georgia's public facilities, natural resources and private property due to

E

disasters, terrorism and special events. Strategic Outcome:

N

Reduce the costs to citizens and the state to restore property and facilities through proac-

D

tive mitigation, public assistance, terrorism, preparedness, response and insurance pro-

I

grams.

Strategic Objectives:

X

Coordinate the development and implement the State Mitigation Plan as required

by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

Immediate threats to life, public safety/health and improved property will be

eliminated or reduced during and after a disaster. Permanently restore local damaged infrastructure to pre-disaster condition or
current code or other stands. Administer a comprehensive equipment, exercise, training, planning and recov-
ery program. Partner with the Department of Natural Resources so that 100% of Georgia coun-
ties are qualified under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Strategic Goal #3 (Supports OBJ4-T1a) Identify, develop and implement policies, plans, programs and procedures that promote excellence in the provision of emergency management services.
Strategic Outcome: GEMA will be recognized as a "best practice agency" in the field of emergency management and delivering public services.
Strategic Objectives: GEMA will secure and maintain status as a certified Emergency Management
Agency Program through the National Emergency Management Association EMAP Accreditation Program. GEMA will be recognized for leadership in the implementation of the Georgia Customer Service Initiative. GEMA will be recognized for leadership in the implementation of Georgia Business Operations Center Initiative.
Primary Agency Performance Indicator We Are Ready: The Georgia Emergency Management Agency will maintain a state of readiness necessary to respond in a timely and professional manner with appropriate measure to all disasters, emergencies and special events.
Program Purpose The purpose of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency and the policy of the state is that all emergency management functions of this state shall be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions of the federal government; of other states and localities; and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparation and use may be made of the nation's manpower, resources and facilities for dealing with any emergency or disaster in Georgia may occur.
Program Description The Georgia Emergency Management Agency shall identify, develop and implement policies, plans, programs and procedures to 1) to take actions which will mitigate the adverse impacts of future disasters; 2 )to effectively train and exercise the individuals, organizations and state agencies involved in emergency management; 3) to provide confidence in the state that emergency manage-

Page 492

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 493

ment response to disasters are timely and effective; and 4) to minimize the cost and time required to restore Georgia's public resources, natural resources and private property to functioning conditions following disaster or acts of terrorism.
Fiscal Year 2008 Strategic Plan Program Objectives and Performance Measures Provide emergency and non-emergency communications services and dispatch for customer base and ensure the timely accurate assimilation and dissemination of warnings for natural man-made and terrorist threat information to appropriate stakeholder.
Percentage of complaints from service agencies will be registered on less than 0.5% of all calls.
Percentage of complaints from citizens will be registered on less than .2% of all calls. CS - GEMA will achieve a composite satisfaction score of 80% or better from all customers
and stakeholders for the provision of customer service that is good to very good for the customer service values of being Courteous, Helpful, Accessible, Responsive and Knowledgeable. 98% of all calls and requests for information will be answered in accordance with policy.
Determine and coordinate the appropriate state response to events overwhelming local governments' capacities to manage such events by accessing available volunteer, mutual aid, state and federal resources to stabilize the situation.
97% of all requests for state assets and mutual aid assistance provided successfully. CS - GEMA will achieve a composite satisfaction score of 80% or better for the provision of
customer service that is good to very good for the customer service values of being Courteous, Helpful, Accessible, Responsive and Knowledgeable by the local emergency management agency directors. 97% of all requests for assistance will be disposed of within established plans, policies or according to the direction of the Governor.
Ensure the local implementation of a comprehensive emergency management program in accordance with state/ federal guidelines and facilitate the coordination between local and state emergency management efforts.
Percent of local emergency operations plans accepted. Percent of validated state-wide mutual aid agreements 97% of all counties have executed state-wide mutual aid agreements and local emergency op-
erations plans
Prepare for and respond to terrorist threats and weapons of mass destruction events by administering a comprehensive equipment, exercise, training, planning and recovery program.
Percent of the state's area that will be within two hours of a properly equipped Hazardous Materials Team.
Percent of the state's area that will be within two hours of a properly equipped search and rescue (GSAR) team.
Percent of the state's area that will be within two hours of a Type II Hazardous Materials Team.
Percent of the state's area that will be within two hours of a properly equipped law enforcement Chemical and Biological (CHEMBIO) Teams.
In conjunction with the Public Safety Interoperability Communication Grant, develop State Interoperable Communication Plan according to applicable guidelines and administer grants within timeframes.
Percent of the state's Critical Infrastructure / Key Resource (CI/KR) Sites that have completed vulnerability assessment, protective action plans and surveillance detection plans.
Percent of the eight GEMA regions with completed Regional Plans for Terrorism and AllHazards Preparedness.
Develop and implement the State Mitigation Plan as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Completion of updated risk based State Mitigation Plan and maintain compliance status.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia will maintain eligibility for all Stafford Act Disaster Assistance funding.
Insure each Georgia county completes a risk-based local mitigation plan as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 by providing technical assistance as requested.
Federal funding approved for local mitigation plans in each county. Number of additional completed local mitigation plans. Local governments will obtain eligibility for competitive, federally funded pre- and post- dis-
aster mitigation projects.
Administer pre-disaster mitigation program. This includes providing technical assistance to state and local governments in the development of eligible mitigation activities and administration of approved grants, administration of the Flood Mitigation Program, and administration of the Repetitive Flood Claims Program.
Number of pre-disaster mitigation projects approved for funding. Number of funded pre-disaster mitigation projects completed. Local governments will develop flood mitigation plans to obtain eligibility for federally
funded flood mitigation projects. Number of flood mitigation projects approved. Number of NFIP insured properties with reduced or eliminated claims. Number of Repetitive Flood Claims projects approved Number of NFIP insured properties with reduced or eliminated claims Local pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation projects will be implemented that will reduce the
cost of repetitive losses, thereby making communities more disaster resistant.
Provide a comprehensive, systematic planning process which addresses wide-ranging threats and contingencies, identifies resources and delineates roles and responsibilities to insure a coordinated response effort.
Numbers of plans reviewed and approved. Numbers of personnel trained and courses provided by various disciplines Procedures, protocols and policies applicable to natural and man-made disaster will be estab-
lished.
Provide a comprehensive, systematic training process utilizing various programs of instruction that address conceptual and tactical level comprehension and skills which enable public safety personnel to better perform job functions.
Percent of exercises matching response to actual events. Percent of events managed where plans are utilized. Identify and organize appropriate state and local personnel and organizations with 24 hour
response duties to be utilized in the event of a natural and man-made disaster.
Reduce the loss of life and financial costs due to future natural and man-made disasters through the effective administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This includes providing technical assistance to state and local governments in the development of eligible mitigation activities and administration of approved grants.
Number of post-disaster mitigation projects approved for funding. Number of funded post-disaster mitigation projects completed. Local post-disaster hazard mitigation projects will be implemented and completed that will
reduce the cost of repetitive losses, thereby making communities more disaster resistant. The estimated annual savings from completed post-disaster mitigation projects.
To insure the economic recovery of affected communities, immediate threats to life, public health/ safety and improved property will be eliminated or reduced before, during and after a disaster.
Number of current Debris Removal (PA-Category A) projects. Value of current Debris Removal (PA-Category A) projects. Number of current Emergency Protective Measures (PA-Category B) Value of current Emergency Protective Measures (PA-Category B) projects. Critical Public Infrastructure (PA-Category C - G) projects.

A P P E N D I X
Page 494

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Value of current Critical Public Infrastructure (PA-Category C - G) projects.

P

Number of current Debris Removal (PA Category A) projects associated with the 2007 March

Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

P

Value of current Debris Removal (PA Category A) projects associated with the 2007 March

E

Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

N

Number of current Emergency Protective Measures (PA Category B) projects associated with the 2007 March Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

D

Value of current Emergency Protective Measures (PA Category B) projects associated with the

I

2007 March Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

Number of current Permanent Work (PA Categories C-G) projects associated with the 2007

X

March Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

Value of current Permanent Work (PA Categories C-G) projects associated with the 2007

March Tornado Outbreaks DR-1686.

100% of affected counties within a Presidential Declared Disaster area will secure federal Pub-

lic Assistance contracts to address Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures and

Infrastructure Repairs.

To insure the economic recovery of affected communities, permanently restore local damaged infrastructure to pre-disaster condition or current code and/or standards.
Number of projects in all Public Assistance categories completed. Value of restored projects in all Public Assistance categories completed. CS - 90% of all completed requests for reimbursement will be processed and payment released
within 10 working days of receipt by GEMA.

Plan integration All of GEMA's strategic goals listed in item 5 support the goals and objectives of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. These goals have been integrated as action steps in the plan update. GEMA is responsible for and maintains several plans that have incorporated mitigation data and resources. These plans include the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan and Annexes, Continuity of Operations Plan, HMGP Administrative Plan and GEMA Strategic Plan. Information from the State Hazard Mitigation Plan will be utilized to support any updates and changes to the various plans GEMA is responsible for. Timetables for integration will be based on the requirements for each plan.

As Director of GEMA, I endorse the information contained herein, and pledge the cooperation of this agency in the continued support of the state mitigation planning effort.

Page 495

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Forestry Commission
December 2007
1) Team Member: Alan Dozier, Forest Protection Chief, Georgia Forestry Commission
2) Mission Statement "To provide leadership, service, and education in the protection and conservation
of Georgia's forest resources.
The primary responsibility of the GFC is wildfire control. We employ approximately 650. Annual state budget is $30 million.
b) Programs: Forest Protection- GFC is mandated to protect Georgia's forests from wildfire. Georgia averages approximately 8,000 wildfires per year that burn 40,000 acres. GFC maintains a network of 130 offices, 340 fire suppression crawler tractors, 150 wildland fire engines, 22 air patrol aircraft, two fire suppression helicopters, and 500 fire management personnel. A state of the art high band radio system operates statewide for command and control of fire suppression activity. About 90% of the total GFC budget is for Forest Protection programs. Under the auspices of Forest Protection we have, Presuppression Firebreak Plowing offering mitigation firebreaks to landowners at a nominal charge. Some 35,000 miles of firebreaks are installed each year. Burning assistance is also provided for a nominal fee, mostly for forest fuels reduction burning, including annual average assistance to 3,000 landowners on 130,000 acres in 2007. Prescribed burning is promoted through a Certified Prescribed Fire Manager program resulting in nearly one million acres of mitigation burning per year. Forest Protection also offers Fire Prevention and Firewise education programs reaching nearly the entire Georgia population with 17,000 man hours invested on 46,000 programs in 2007. The GFC Rural Fire Defense program supports Georgia's fire departments by offering leased and loaned fire trucks (designed and built by the GFC) at cost. The Helping Hands program allows for purchase of low cost personal protective gear to fire departments and other fire suppression cooperators. The GFC administers Volunteer Fire Assistance grants for small fire departments to help with purchase of training and equipment. The Georgia Basic Wildland Firefighter course offered by GFC through the Georgia Fire Academy gives structural firefighters basic training on wildland firefighting. GFC is mandated by law to issue authorizations for most outdoor burning through the GFC Permit System where some 400,000 burn permits are issued each year providing the opportunity to insure that outdoor burning is conducted when it is safe to do so. The National Incident Management System was adopted by GFC in the middle 1980's with most GFC employees currently nationally qualified for incident management positions. The GFC maintains Georgia's only nationally qualified Type II Incident Management Team and is one of 3 State agencies (GFC, GEMA, GPSTC) that advise and train all of Georgia on NIIMS.
c) Emergency Management Roles and Responsibilities The GFC is tasked with Federal Response Plan Emergency Support Function, ESF 4, Firefighting for the State of Georgia. We are also tasked as support agency for most of the other ESF's, mostly for logistics and transportation. The Georgia Forestry Commission is the only state agency (other than GEMA) assigned to the command staff at Georgia's state operations center, being tasked with logistics for all incidents. GFC's presence at 130 locations across the state, incident management qualifications, radio communications capability, equipment and transportation fleet, air operations capability, and experience working many disasters gives us recognition as a powerful asset for emergency management.
3) Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order: Georgia laws relating to forestry and forest fire are found in Volume 10, Title 12, Chapter 6. Specifically 12-6-80 through 12-6-93 reference to forest fire prevention and control.
4) Natural hazard summary. Of Georgia's 37 million acres of land area, about 2/3 or 24.7 million are forested and protected by the Georgia Forestry Commission. Timber is the highest valued crop in Georgia with total economic impact of 26 billion dollars. Some 154,000 jobs are contributable to Georgia's forest and forest related industries. The

A P P E N D I X
Page 496

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 497

recent Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment completed by the Southern Group of State Foresters for the 13 southern states reveals that Georgia is second only to North Carolina in the total amount of area designated as Wildland Urban Interface with 25% of Georgia defined as being WUI, about 9 million acres. Some 12,000 Georgia communities are at risk from wildfire with more than 5,000 rated by the SWRA as high or very high. Georgia currently loses approximately 150 homes valued at $4.5 million and 200 out buildings valued at $2.4 million to wildfire each year. Approximately1800 structures (homes and outbuildings) valued at $162 million are saved each year by direct wildfire suppression efforts.
Fiscal year 2007 statistics describe potential losses as Georgia suffered its worst fire year on record with 9533 wildfires burning 504,000 acres; 12.5 times the average acres lost and a 30% increase in homes lost over the 5 year average. (199 homes lost in 07 compared to 150 homes lost 5 year average). The Georgia Forestry Commission received 5 FEMA fire assistance grants in 2007; spending some $87 million (nearly 3 times our annual budget) on fire suppression.
5) Agency specific goals and objectives: Goals on loss avoidance are to reduce the number of wildfires and acres burned. Our normal programs outlined above are all focused on this goal.
Special Projects and Initiatives:
Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment The SWRA is a regional project completed by the 13 southern states included in the USDA-Forest Service Region 8. It is a GIS project, illustrated in an Arc View product that documents and maps forest fuels, historical wildfire occurrence, values at risk from wildfires, communities at risk, wildfire susceptibility index, and levels of concern for damage from wildfires. The program also allows for illustration of mitigation treatments and the corresponding affect on wildfire susceptibility and level of concern. Working with GEMA, we plan to provide SWRA information to be included in county EMA plans statewide.
Community Wildfire Protection Plans A community wildfire protection plan outlines wildfire history and risk (SWRA), lists preparedness resources available for wildfire suppression, provides maps to illustrate the wildfire situation, and makes suggestions on how to prepare for, respond to and mitigate wildfires. The Georgia Forestry Commission will facilitate CWPP's on a county level for each Georgia County. Appropriate state, county, and community leaders will work in teams to provide wildfire planning that has buy in from all. The SWRA will be utilized not only to identify risk for CWPP's but will be used to help set priorities for getting started to insure that high risk counties are priority. GEMA and local fire departments will be important partners in completion of CWPP's for the entire state.
Firewise Communities The Georgia Forestry Commission embraces the Firewise Communities USA concept and employees one full time position to conduct Firewise workshops and encourage communities to become nationally recognized. There are currently 3 nationally recognized Firewise Communities in Georgia with several nearing recognition. Communities are recognized for developing wildfire mitigation teams, funding Firewise practices, completing mitigation projects, and promoting Firewise practices. National Fire Plan grants are used to fund this program. Communities showing special interest may receive small grants for projects. The Georgia Forestry Commission currently has a special focus project to address Glynn County; a fast growing population on the Georgia coast in a high risk wildland urban interface area.
Wildfire Prevention Wildfire Prevention efforts are an integral part of Georgia Forestry Commission routine efforts. Approximately $250,000 is granted through National Fire Plan to the Georgia Forestry Commission for fire prevention efforts each year. Georgia Forestry Commission has a special project named "32 County Wildfire Prevention" that targets specific wildfire causes in Georgia's top 32 wildfire occurrence counties. A scientific method for measuring success of this program compares reductions in the number of wildfires in this part of the state to reductions realized in the part of the state that is not served by this special program. Numbers of wildfires have been reduced 5% to 10% where $2,500.00 dollars have been applied to address prevention in individual counties.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Rural Fire Defense

P

Since 1975 the Rural Fire Defense program operated by the Georgia Forestry Commission has provided

planning advice and firefighting equipment to rural fire departments across the state. Today there are some

P

1375 fire engines leased or on loan to

E

143 Georgia counties. The program currently provides about 25 fire apparatus, at cost, per year to fire departments. Signed agreements provide for cooperation between state and local efforts for community protec-

N

tion from wildfires. Recent additions to the program include provision of wildfire personal protective gear

D

and specialized wildfire training allowing fire departments to participate more fully and safely in wildfire

I

suppression.

X

Prescribed Burning Georgia law, Georgia Prescribed Burning Act 12-6-145, makes provisions to protect prescribed burning as a forest management and wildfire mitigation tool and assigns Georgia Forestry Commission as the agency for promoting prescribed burning and certifying practitioners. Since 1992 nearly 2500 practitioners have received certification through the Georgia Prescribed Fire Manager Certification Program. Georgia law protects those who prescribe burn under this program by requiring that gross negligence be proven against any liability suits resulting from prescribed burning. Georgia's governor proclaims Prescribed Fire Awareness Week the first full week in February each year. Nearly one million acres of Georgia forestland are treated with prescribed fire each year.

Burn Authorizations One of the most effective wilfire mitigation tools is the Georgia Burn Permit System. Enacted in 1988, Georgia code 12-6-90, requires a permit to be obtained from the Georgia Forestry Commission for most outdoor burning. This allows management of outdoor burning for wildfire control and for air quality concerns. Since outdoor burning is the number one cause of wildfires, the system allows for some control over wildfire occurrences, especially on the highest fire danger days. The GFC issues some 400,000 permits per year for leaf burning, brush pile burning, land clearing, and prescribed burning. Wildfire suppression costs are charged to Georgians who have escaped fires when burning illegally, without a permit. Although the GFC law enforcement program is very small, burning without a permit is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 fine or 1 year imprisonment.

Fire Weather Forecasting In support of wildfire suppression readiness planning, burn permitting, prescribed burning and other forestry activities, the Georgia Forestry Commission employs a full time meteorologist who produces fire weather forecasts and manages the National Fire Danger Rating System for Georgia. Twice a day forecasts are posted on the Georgia Forestry Commission public internet site. This site includes specialized fire weather information that is not produced at this scale by the National Weather Service. Emergency managers across the state may utilize the fire weather forecast for management of other disasters.

Page 498

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 499

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Georgia Ports Authority

A

P

September 28, 2007

P

Team member

E

Danny Thompson, Risk Manager

N

Mailing address: P.O. Box 2406, Savannah, GA 31402

D

Physical address: 2 Main St., Garden City, GA 31408

Telephone: 912-964-3973

I

Fax: 912-966-3609

X

E-mail: dthompson@gaports.com

Brief summary of state agency Georgia Ports Authority mission statement: The Georgia Ports Authority's mission is to develop, maintain and operate ocean and inland river ports within Georgia; foster international trade and new industry for state and local communities; promote Georgia's agricultural, industrial and natural resources; and maintain the natural quality of the environment. The economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports $55.8 billion is sales (8% of Georgia's total Sales) 286,476 full & part time jobs state wide (7% of Georgia's total employment) $24.8 billion in gross state product (6% of Georgia's total GSP) $14.9 billion in income (5% of Georgia's total personal income) $6.3 billion in federal taxes, state and local taxes Programs that are related to preparedness, mitigation, Emergency Management. NOTE: For the purposes of this plan profile, only those programs related to preparedness, mitigation and Emergency Management associated with risks from natural disasters will be included. Protection of tangibles (facilities, buildings, equipment, etc) The Authority owns approximately $1.1 billion in replacement cost assets on the coast. There are likely billions of $ in assets not owned by the Authority located on Authority property at any given time. Numerous strategies are employed to help in the protection of physical assets Engineering, design, construction and maintenance. Participation in professional organizations, industry networking and sharing of information and best practices. Participation in Local and State level hazard planning and mitigation efforts. Pre and post disaster planning and training Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Procedures Manual

Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Preparedness Guide Strict compliance with all applicable policies and procedures. Subscription to weather monitoring services. Early warning system (process for dissemination of weather related information). Establishment of a single point of contact for all weather related matters potentially affect-
ing the Authority. The Authority has developed a strong working relationship with local emergency response
agencies and participates in joint training exercises, The Authority's Risk Management Department actively participates in numerous, on-
going Risk Management initiatives with the State of Georgia. The Authority has developed a world-class safety and loss control program that is incor-
porated into every facet of daily operations which lends itself to hazard exposure readiness.

Protection of intangibles (economy, community, State, jobs, etc.)

Page 500

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 501

Over 286,000 jobs in the State are dependent upon Georgia's deepwater ports. The economic impact of a catastrophic natural disaster on the local, State and regional econo-
mies could be immeasurable. The ripple effect of an interruption in the national supply chain caused by a possible cessation
of the services of the 4th largest container port in the US could be staggering. Numerous strategies are employed to help in the protection of intangible assets
Engineering, design construction and maintenance. Participation in professional organizations, industry networking and sharing of informa-
tion and best practices. Participation in Local and State level hazard planning and mitigation efforts. Pre and post disaster planning and training Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Procedures Manual Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Preparedness Guide Strict compliance with all applicable policies and procedures. Subscription to weather monitoring services. Early warning system (process for dissemination of weather related information). Establishment of a single point of contact for all weather related matters potentially affect-
ing the Authority. The Authority has developed a strong working relationship with local emergency response
agencies and participates in joint training exercises. The Authority's Risk Management Department actively participates in numerous, on-
going Risk Management initiatives with the State of Georgia. The Authority has developed a world-class safety and loss control program that is incor-
porated into every facet of daily operations which lends itself to hazard exposure readiness.
Protection of the environment Consequences to the environment resulting from a catastrophic natural disaster impacting an international marine terminal must be considered. Numerous strategies are employed to help in the protection of the environment. The Authority has a professional Environmental Affairs Manager on staff to ensure that all business in conducted in harmony with the environment. The Authority has a contractual relationship with an Emergency Response Hazardous Materials Contractor to respond to all events related to hazardous materials. The Authority relies on a strong working relationship with our State and Federal partners, such as: Coast Guard, Corp of Engineers, EPA, EPD, DNR, GEMA and others in furtherance of efforts to provide protection for the environment in the event of a natural disaster. When feasible, specific requirements are embedded in contracts to require the owner of hazardous cargo to remove the cargo from GPA property prior to the arrival of an impending event. When feasible, specific requirements are embedded in contracts to limit hazardous substances that are allowed to be stored on Authority property. The handling of hazardous cargo on GPA property is only allowed within strict compliance of all applicable regulations and standards. The GPA Hurricane Procedure Manual specifically addresses hazardous materials issues reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Procedures Manual. Engineering, design, construction and maintenance. Participation in professional organizations, industry networking and sharing of information and best practices. Participation in Local and State level hazard planning and mitigation efforts. Pre and post disaster planning and training Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Procedures Manual Reference 2007 GPA Hurricane Preparedness Guide Strict compliance with all applicable policies and procedures Subscription to weather monitoring services. Early warning system (process for dissemination of weather related information).

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Establishment of a single point of contact for all weather related matters potentially affect-

A

ing the Authority.

P

The Authority has developed a strong working relationship with local emergency response

agencies and participates in joint training exercises.

P

The Authority's Risk Management Department actively participates in numerous, on-

E

going Risk Management initiatives with the State of Georgia. The Authority has developed a world-class safety and loss control program that is incor-

N

porated into every facet of daily operations which lends itself to hazard exposure

D

readiness.

I

Attached is a listing, and associated replacement cost, of assets owned by the Authority. The listing

X

also includes future assets that will be acquired in the immediate future.

The assets listed herein DO NOT represent the value of assets NOT OWNED by the Authority that may

be located on Authority property at any given time, such as: all cargo, containers, cargo handling

equipment owned by private parties, vessels, leased personal property, etc.

Information concerning the Georgia Ports Authority assets are derived from Georgia's Building, Land & Lease Inventory of Property (BLLIP) database and includes both state-owned and stateleased (operated) facilities. This database is sponsored by the Georgia Building Authority (GBT), Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), State Properties Commission (SPC), and Commission for a New Georgia in collaboration with the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS) division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. Currently, the database includes 188 buildings that are state-owned that relate to GPA. Typically, the database attributes an estimated value to each structure. The locations of the GPA buildings in relation to the state of Georgia are shown in the following map.

Page 502

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 503

Natural Hazard summary Overlaying the BLLIP data discussed in the "Assets" section on the composite hazard assessment discussed in Chapter 2 of the Standard Plan allows the spatial joining of the structure data with the

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

hazard assessment. In other words, each point spatial feature (BLLIP structure) is assigned the

A

attribute information of the raster cell (composite hazard score) in which point falls.

P

In terms of agency specific assessments, the BLLIP data is used to summarize percentages of state

P

facilities located in specific hazard categories (high to low composite hazard scores) as well as

E

summarize the estimated value of the structures (state-owned only) at varied risk to hazards. The summaries for GPA are included in the following tables.

N

D

Hazard Cate- Hazard Score % Owned

% Leased

% Total Facili-

I

gory

Range

ties

X

High

18-25

64.89%

0.00%

64.89%

Moderate

9-17

34.57%

0.00%

34.57%

Low

0-8

0.53%

0.00%

0.53%

Table 1: Georgia Ports Authority facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category
High Moderate Low

Hazard Score Range
18-25 9-17 0-8

Estimated Value at % Total Value

Risk (Owned)

$481,445,152

68.09%

$224,101,730

31.70%

$1,500,400

0.21%

Table 2: Georgia Ports Authority facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Notes: Only 188 buildings included in the Georgia Ports Authority agency category in BLLIP data. 188 building listed as owned and 0 buildings listed as leased. Estimates of values given only for the owned buildings.

Agency specific goals and objectives The number one priority of the Authority is to ensure the health and safety of all employees or other persons that may entry onto Authority property

Preparation, loss avoidance and loss mitigation are the primary goals of the Authority. The Authority has spent many years developing a hurricane procedures plan, honing skills related to the
plan, and performing practical exercises in relation to the plan. Prior to the start of hurricane season each year, the Authority requires all departments to review, update
and conduct drills of their plans. The senior staff of the Authority is committed to emergency preparedness and emergency management
efforts at all levels necessary for the Authority to be prepared for, and survive a natural disaster. The Authority is very proactive at loss prevention and mitigation. The most state of the art designs,
concepts, and standards are incorporated into every phase of all Authority projects and operations. The Authority has developed a very strong working relationship with the State of Georgia Emergency
Management Agency and relies heavily on the expertise the agency has to offer.

Plan approval See attached letter signed by David A. Schaller, GPA Chief Administrative Officer, dated December ___, 2007.

Plan implementation All phases of this plan has been implemented and are fully integrated into the ongoing operations of the Authority.

Page 504

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 505

Office of the Secretary of State

November 19, 2007

Team members

David

Carmicheal,

Director,

dcarmicheal@sos.georgia.gov, 678-364-3714

Georgia

Archives

Christine Wiseman, Preservation Services Manager, Georgia Archives cwiseman@sos.georgia.gov, 678-364-3761

Agency Summary and Responsibility The Office of Secretary of State is responsible for a wide range of services and regulatory duties. Responsibilities include supervising and monitoring elections, providing campaign finance disclosure, managing and preserving public records; licensing, monitoring, and registering professionals and businesses; and providing educational programs about the capitol. The Office consists of approximately 464 employees and includes the divisions of Administration, Archives, Elections, Corporations, Securities and Business Regulation, Professional Licensing Boards, the Capitol Tours, and several attached Boards and Commissions.

Agency Mission To be the most customer friendly government agency while protecting the public confidence by regulating businesses and professions, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, serving as a trustee of current and historical information, and reaching out through educational efforts to empower citizens with a better understanding of government. Through the utilization of Information Technology (IT) strategies, the Agency will deliver better, faster customer service in the most efficient manner. Number of positions in the agency: 464 FY 2008 budget - $41,139,767

Agency Projects and Programs supporting preparedness, mitigation and emergency management activities Project: Intergovernmental Preparedness for Essential Records (IPER) The Council of State Archivists (CoSA) was awarded a $2.6 million dollar grant from FEMA in October 2007. This three-year project will be housed and directed from the Georgia Archives. The purpose is to develop Web- and CD-based training for state and local governments on vital (essential) records and records-related emergency preparedness and response nationwide. The curriculum will be based on existing in-person workshops developed by the National Archives and incorporate additional content of particular interest or relevance to state and local officials. A curriculum for vital records training that will be tested in Georgia and used nationwide for local governments and state agencies. This wil provide for consistent, high-quality training on vital records identification and management and emergency preparedness around the country.

Project: HERA (Heritage Emergency Response Alliance) The Heritage Emergency Response Alliance (HERA) was formed in 2007 by staff at the Georgia Archives. It is an affiliation of institutions and persons interested in preserving the cultural heritage in the Metro Atlanta area, and serving as a resource to cultural institutions around the state. The primary aim of HERA is to mitigate the loss of cultural heritage materials in the event of a disaster. As preparedness is the key to any successful disaster mitigation, HERA's strategy is to enhance disaster preparedness through the following activities: Networking Information sharing Increased awareness and encouragement of Disaster Planning

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Providing opportunities for disaster recovery education Interaction with local and state Emergency Management Preparing and responding collectively to disasters in the Region Identify existing resources (materials and expertise) needed after a disaster HERA meets quarterly which provides a forum for its 50+ members to interact and network. Meetings usually involve some sort of educational program. The group has a steering committee that meets separately to discuss administrative issues such as setting up a formal mutual aid agreement among institutions. Although this group is new, it has provided the opportunity for cultural institutions to cooperate in emergency planning with the goal of helping one another in the event of a disaster and thus mitigating damage. It also offers a forum for staff from cultural institutions to meet and build relationships with emergency managers and first responders.
Project: Georgia's Heritage Health Index In October 2007, the Georgia Archives submitted a planning grant proposal to the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to conduct preservation and emergency preparedness planning in Georgia. The Georgia Archives (lead organization) and its partners consisting of Georgia Association of Museums and Galleries (GAMG), Georgia Department of Economic Development, Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA), Georgia Humanities Council, Georgia Public Library Service (Office of the State Librarian), Society of Georgia Archivists (SGA), and The Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) propose to conduct a statewide survey of cultural institutions to measure the state of collections care and readiness for emergencies in Georgia. The partners in this project comprehensively represent archives, public and academic libraries, museums, historical societies, and historic sites of Georgia, as well as organizations that can assist in promoting the importance of preservation and collections care and raise the visibility of collecting repositories. This grant, if funded, will produce a survey instrument that will be used to gather important preservation and emergency contact data from as many of the cultural institutions as possible in Georgia. This information will be used for future planning and to develop a comprehensive database of emergency contact information for all GA cultural institutions to be overlaid with GIS mapping. The planning grant period runs from May 1, 2008 April 30, 2009 and the budget is $40,000 (if funded).
The Georgia Archives provides training and disaster planning assistance to government agencies and not for profit organizations. Staff review organizational disaster plans, provide lectures and presentations upon request, and post informational leaflets related to emergency planning for records on the website. Post disaster, staff provide telephone assistance regarding recovery of records and referrals to services and vendors. Onsite recovery assistance is provided as staff time allows. On occasion, the archives provide temporary storage of records for other organizations and may be able to provide limited conservation treatment assistance.
3) Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order The Georgia Records act defines vital records as " any record vital to the resumption or continuation of operations, or both; to the re-creation of the legal and financial status of government in the state; or to the protection and fulfillment of obligations to citizens of the state" (O.C.G.A.50-1891(10)). It assigns to the Division of Archives and History of the Office of the Secretary of State responsibility for training state agencies in records management (including vital records protection) and to "develop and issue procedures, rules, and regulations establishing standards for ... vital records programs" (O.C.G.A.50-18-93(2)).
Agency specific goals and objectives Currently, the Georgia Archives provides training and disaster planning assistance to government agencies and not for profit organizations. Staff review organizational disaster plans, provide lectures and presentations upon request, and publish informational leaflets related to emergency plan-

A P P E N D I X
Page 506

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

ning for records on the website. Post disaster, staff provide telephone assistance regarding recov-

P

ery of records, and referrals to services and vendors. Onsite recovery assistance is provided as staff

time allows. On occasion, the archives may provide temporary storage of records for other organi-

P

zations and may be able to provide limited conservation treatment assistance

E

N

The Archives is working to expand the type (content and delivery methods) of training provided on disaster preparedness to local governments and other not for- profit cultural organizations in

D

Georgia.

I

The Archives plans to collect GIS information for all collection holding organization in Georgia in

X

a database, and to survey organizations to determine their level of emergency preparedness.

To expand the current Georgia Archives emergency plan to include provisions for business continuity and for water conservation.

To issue and get approval for a statewide contract for document recovery services to ensure that local governments and state agencies contract with the most qualified vendors for document restoration after a disaster.

Plan integration The Georgia Archives plans to incorporate hazard mitigation and risk information provided by GEMA into our local emergency planning. We will use this information in our training programs to help records and cultural organizations around the state with their planning efforts.

Page 507

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy A P P E N D I X
Page 508

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC)

P

Date: September 2007

P

Participant on the State Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Working Group from the GSWCC. William R.

E

Fulmer- Rural Water Resources Program Manager

N

GSWCC Mission: The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission provides soil and water re-

D

sources information; education; technical, financial, and planning assistance; and program over-site

I

to locally led soil and water conservation districts, land owners/users, and local, state, and federal

governments to maintain, conserve and wisely use the soil and water resources for all Georgians.

X

Summary of agency

Primary responsibility: The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC) was formed to

protect, conserve, and improve the soil and water resources of the State of Geor-

gia. The Commission's goal is to make Georgia a better place for its citizens

through the wise use and protection of basic soil and water resources and to achieve practical water quality goals. The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission employs approximately 60 people. Annual state budget is approximately $3 million dollars.

b. Programs related to emergency preparedness: The GSWCC is charged with coordinating the operation and maintenance of the 357 USDA/Soil and Water Conservation Districts sponsored watershed dams in Georgia. Georgia citizens realize a wide range of benefits from these structures, when properly operated and maintained, to include flood protection, recreation and water supply. Presently these watershed dams protect more than 5000 people and over a billion dollars in property and infrastructure. These dams were constructed in the 1950's through the 1970's with Federal funds under the USDA Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program.

Twenty-three (23) of Georgia's 40 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Districts) are sponsors on 356 of 357 Watershed Dams. The Districts are sole sponsors for 96 dams. County or City governments co-sponsor 260 of these dams with the Districts, especially where the dams include industrial, municipal, and recreation storage. Currently, 150 of these dams are designated as Category I Dams under Georgia's Safe Dams Act with another probable 60 that are being reviewed by Georgia's Environmental Protection Division, Safe Dams personnel.

The GSWCC and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have been working with the Districts, Georgia's Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Safe Dams Unit, and local units of government since 1991 on a program to provide needed maintenance, repairs and major upgrades to bring the Category I Dams in compliance with Georgia's Safe Dams Act.

Through cooperation with the NRCS the GSWCC maintains a detailed data base describing pertinent information about all 357 USDA/District sponsored watershed dams. This data base includes, but is not limited to information such as site name, county location, sponsor, GPS location, purpose, Georgia Safe Dam Categorization, structure age, as-built design information and most recent NRCS and EPD inspection dates.

Classification of dams as high hazard dams is necessitating the preparation of Emergency Action Plans (EAP) which will identify those downstream structures that will be impacted should there be dam failure. Breach zone maps developed for the EAP, delineate the location of the structures relative to the location of the dam. The Plan will describe the methods to be employed to insure contact and evacuation of potentially affected citizens in the event of a dam related emergency. The soil and water conservation districts are working with and through NRCS, and also with the appropriate state agencies, to insure that as applicable county level emergency management plans are updated and amended, to include the EAP as a part of the county emergency management strategy. (Supports OBJ3-T2g)

Page 509

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive orders
OCGA 2-6-20 thru 2-6-23 has established the Soil and Water Conservation District Law, Legislative determinations and declaration of policy, definition of appropriate terms and the establishment of the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
OCGA 2-6-27 Paragraph 7 prescribes the powers and duties of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission to formulate rules and regulations and to perform duties as are necessary to implement the administration of the Federal Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. These powers include the sponsorship and the operation and maintenance of flood control reservoirs and associated measures under the Act.
Natural Hazard summary 1. USDA/Soil and Water Conservation District Sponsored Dams Watershed dams not only provide significant flood protection and benefits but are also potential hazards for downstream structures and citizens should one fail. Significant losses including dwellings and other types of infrastructure could accrue in the breach zone in the event of a dam failure.
2. GSWCC owned or leased property-See Attachment 1-Leased and Owned Buildings, and Attachment 2-Hazard Assessment Summary.
Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation)
1. Develop breach zone studies to mitigate potential loss of life in the event of dam failure. (Supports OBJ4-T2) The future prevention of the installation of structures (i.e. houses) within the breach zone of flood control dams will be dependent on the willingness of local government entities to zone these areas. Historically this has not occurred in the past and will likely not occur in the near future. As an alternative the Commission will continue to work closely with the Districts and the NRCS in the preparation of breach zone studies necessary for development of EAPs. Future emphasis will be directed toward technical assistance for local emergency management groups in the preparation and utilization of EAPs in emergency management plans. The Commission will work closely with Districts in insuring that they understand their role in providing technical assistance to local Emergency Management Groups (EMGs) in making decisions as to when to implement the local EAPs. Establish a procedure for District personnel to work with county EMGs in practice drills or preparedness during a dam failure simulation. In the event of a dam failure the Commission will work with the appropriate District and local EMGs in assessing impacts to people and property (POST Event) The Commission will begin an initiative, as breach zone studies become available, to inform local emergency management groups as to the need to include breach zone data in county emergency management plans. Commission is seeking federal funding to enable NRCS to implement additional breach zone analysis below Category 1 dams.
2. Continue to seek funding that will allow the modification of existing NRCS constructed flood control dams in order to comply with state safe dam criteria for high hazard dams. (Supports OBJ1-T4) State dollars have been used to allow funding of upgrades to bring 3 of these flood control dams into compliance with safe dams criteria. The Commission will work closely with Soil and Water Conservation Districts in seeking additional state level funding for safe dam upgrades for flood control dams.

A P P E N D I X
Page 510

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

Gwinnett County Georgia has used partial NRCS funding and local funding initiatives

P

to upgrade a number of there existing flood control dams. The Commission

through the Districts will continue to support and endorse local funding that will

P

allow upgrades of Category 1 flood control structures.

E

N

Plan integration Flood plain inundation maps will be disseminated to appropriate counties as soon as prac-

D

tical after the preparation of the maps. Technical assistance will be provided in the prepa-

I

ration of the county EAP.

X

The Executive Director of the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission endorses the informa-

tion herein and pledges the cooperation of the Agency in the continued support of the state mitiga-

tion planning effort.

Brent L. Dykes Executive Director

Attachment 1-Owned and Leased Buildings

OI BUI

BUILD-

ADDRESS CITY COUN

ZIP

USER_ENT

LAT

D_ LDI

ING_1

_ID TY_FIP

IT

1 NG_

I

LON G

GRID COD
E

115 2065 Hooks-

50

2 Hanner

Environ-

mental

Resource

Center

115 2065 Region V

51

5 Field

Office

4344 Albany

143

13273

Hwy

4344 Albany

143

13273

Hwy

39842 39842

480

31.73421

-

5

84.40

02

480

31.73424

-

5

84.40

04

Page 511

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

OI LEASE ADDRESS1 CITY_ COU

ZIP

EN-

LAT LO GRI

D_1 D_BUI

ID NTY_

TITY_ID

NG D

P

FIP

CO

P

267 562 700 East Second 415 13115 30161-3359

DE

480

34.2438 -

12

E

Avenue

85.1

N

6681

D

I

124 3457 4310 Lexington 27 13059 30605-2526

480

33.9339 -

10

X

9

Road

83.3

1443

126 3472 1500 Klondike 121 13247 30094-5115

3

Road, S.W.

480 33.6643 -

6

84.0

3693

792 2813

3014 Heritage Road

316 13009 31061-9367

480 33.1195 -

6

83.2

6019

128 3493 151 Langston 448 13031 30458-7200

3

Chapel Rd.,

Bulloch Co. Ctr.

For Agr.

480

32.3988 -

12

81.8

0568

Attachment Two-Hazard Assessment Summary

Table 1: Georgia State Soil and Water Conservation Commission facility percentages in hazard categories

Hazard Category High

Hazard Score Range 18-25

% Owned 0%

% Leased 0%

% Total Facilities 0%

Moderate

9-17

0%

60%

42.86%

Low

0-8

100%

40%

57.14%

Table 2: Georgia State Soil and Water Conservation Commission facility value at risk according to hazard categories

Hazard Category High

Hazard Score Range 18-25

Estimated Value at Risk $0

% Total Value 0%

Moderate

9-17

$0

0%

Low

0-8

$0

0%

Notes: Only 7 buildings included in the Soil and Water Conservation Commission agency category in BLLIP data. 2 buildings listed as owned and 5 buildings listed as leased. All buildings were used in the hazard analysis. No estimates of values given for the buildings.

Page 512

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

P

E

FEDERAL

N

D

National Weather Service

514

I

USDA-(NRCS) Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Geological Survey Georgia Water Science Center

518 521

X

Page 513

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

National Weather Service

A

P

December 19, 2007

P

Summary of Federal Agency

E

The National Weather Service (NWS) is an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

N

tion (NOAA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The mission of the NWS is to protect

D

life and property from the effects of hazardous weather and to enhance the U.S. economy. Throughout its

history, the NWS has been a close ally of emergency service professionals, and the same applies in the state

I

of Georgia. Collaborative initiatives such as All-Hazard NOAA Weather Radio expansion and StormReady

X

have fostered a close and effective working relationship between the NWS and GEMA. Numerous other

ventures of varying scope and complexity have been accomplished between the agencies and the NWS

looks forward to building on those successes with GEMA.

Six Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) and one River Forecast Center are responsible for providing hydrometeorological (i.e., weather and water) forecast and warning services to the State (see figure at right), including offices in Peachtree City; Tallahassee, FL; Jacksonville, FL; Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; and Greenville/ Spartanburg, SC. The Peachtree City offices houses the WFO, which is the liaison office to State agencies, and the Southeast River Forecast Center.

Figure 1. County Warning (jurisdictional) Areas of NWS
Each WFO has up to 27 staff members, and provides support 24 hours a day, with staffing increased during severe weather. The WFOs issue routine products each day for public, aviation and internal coordination purposes. Non-routine products issued include watches, warnings and statements for a variety of weather types. A few examples:
Watches, warnings & statements for: Tornadoes Severe Thunderstorms Flash Floods River Floods Winter Weather
Page 514

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 515

Non-Precipitation Weather Hazards including high winds, excessive heat, dense fog, blowing dust, etc.
Winter Weather Advisories (snow, ice, blowing snow, etc.) Fire Weather "spot" forecasts. Specialized forecasts in support of hazmat incidents, search-and-rescue, and other emergency re-
sponse activities.
The Southeast River Forecast Center (SERFC) is responsible for the issuance of river forecasts for all but a small portion of far north Georgia. The office provides a variety of products and services to inform emergency managers of floods. Most of this information can be found at the following web site: www.weather.gov/serfc
Flood forecast information is generally conveyed either by a categorical forecast or by specific stage forecasts. The NWS refers to the following flood categories.
Minor flooding - Minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience. Moderate Flooding - Some inundation of structures and roads near stream. Some evacuations of people
and/or transfer of property to higher elevations is necessary.
Major Flooding - Extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/
or transfer of property to higher elevations. Record Flooding - Flooding which equals or exceeds the highest stage or discharge at a given site during the period of record keeping.
Outlook Information Outlook information is intended to provide a "heads-up" on significant floods. The SERFC issues a Significant Flood Outlook days in advance of significant floods. This product is intended to provide longer-lead categorical outlook information.
Flood Forecast Hydrographs River forecasts are issued for many river forecast points within Georgia. These forecasts typically extend out to five days, in six-hour intervals. Information is available either in a text or graphical format. Tabular, XML, and RSS formats are also available.
Graphical Hydrometeorological Outlook This GIS-based graphical product is issued daily and shows anticipated rainfall and river impacts across the southeast U.S. over the next 24 hours.
Observed Precipitation Extensive observed rainfall data is available, including past 24 hours, past 7 and 14 days, and month to date. Comparisons can be made with normal amounts. Both rain gage and radar archives are available.
Forecast Rainfall The SERFC provides a rainfall forecast for the next 24 hours, in six hour intervals.
Water Resources Outlooks (WRO) A recorded WRO is updated several times a month. This product provides general hydrometeorological information of interest. The WRO typically provides water resources outlook information for a longer-term period, often months in advance.
Critical Event Briefings The SERFC can provide briefings to emergency management officials during flooding upon request.
Points of Contact
Lans P. Rothfusz, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Fore-
cast Office, Peachtree City, GA. 770-486-1133 x222
Paul Duval, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast Of-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

fice, Tallahassee, FL. 850-942-8831 x222
Steve Letro, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast
Office, Jacksonville, FL. 904-741-5186 x222
Michael Emlaw, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast
Office, Charleston, SC. 843-744-0303
Kimberly Campbell, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather
Forecast Office, Columbia, SC. 803-765-5501
Larry Gabric, Meteorologist in Charge, National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast
Office, Greenville/Spartanburg, SC. 864-848-9970
John Feldt, Hydrologist in Charge, NWS Southeast River Forecast Center, Peachtree City, GA.
770-486-0028 x322
Key Initiatives for State/NWS Interaction
Georgia Mesonet The NWS and its partners are working toward establishing a statewide network of automated, realtime, high-quality, high-density weather sensors. Data from these sensors will be used in a variety of ways for public safety, quality of life and improved decision making. Examples of the benefits include:
Enhanced detection, monitoring, and prediction of plumes originating from CBRNE weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Better real-time weather information for emergency management incident command centers at local, regional, and state levels.
Improved severe weather warnings (especially for damaging winds and tornadoes). Greater detail and success in winter weather (ice/snow) forecasting. More effective drought monitoring and water resource management. Improved support for agricultural decision makers. Better monitoring & forecasting of controlled and uncontrolled burns in forest manage-
ment.
Although the NWS is leading this project, several partners from local, state and federal government agencies are participating. Rather than building such a network from "scratch," these partners are integrating their existing sensors into one shared system. Partners involved in this project include:
1. Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) 2. Emergency Management Association of Georgia (EMAG) 3. Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) 4. Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) 5. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 6. Georgia Environmental Prediction Division (GEPD) 7. Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) 8. Georgia State Climatologist 9. University of Georgia Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering 10. Georgia Institute of Technology Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 11. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 12. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 13. National Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Upon implementation of the Georgia Mesonet, real-time, high-quality, high-density weather and water data available to everyone in a variety of formats. The annual cost for the program is estimated at $100,000, which is covered by in-kind resource contributions from each of the partners. Once the communications network is in place, local officials will be encouraged to pursue funding to procure weather stations for their community which, with the help of the mesonet partners, can be sited, configured, calibrated and linked into the Georgia mesonet system.
The NWS will continue it leadership role in this initiative, directing resources and activities where

A P P E N D I X
Page 516

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

needed to accomplish it. GEMA is asked to continue endorsement of the Georgia Mesonet project

P

and, where possible, work to secure funding for local and state partners involved in the program.

Funding may come through grants, special allocations, and/or a line item in the state budget.

P

E

In Oklahoma, which has one of the most comprehensive statewide mesonets, tactical use of the

N

data has proven effective in reducing losses and costs due to high-impact weather events such as severe storms, floods, tornadoes, and ice storms.

D

I

Modeling of man-made or natural plumes (e.g., smoke from fires) has been greatly improved where

weather and air-quality monitoring sensors are available at high spatial resolution.

X

StormReady

In 1999, GEMA partnered with the NWS to implement the StormReady Program in Georgia. Com-

munication and safety skills are key to saving lives and property prior to and during severe weather

in Georgia. Initiated by the NWS in partnership with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) and the Emergency Management Association of Georgia (EMAG), StormReady is designed to encourage communities to take steps to increase their preparedness for severe weather. NWS personnel, together with emergency management officials, work to strengthen existing safety programs. Planning, education, and awareness are crucial to community preparation. Although specific StormReady guidelines vary depending on the size of the community, to be designated in the program requires the following:
Establishing a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center;

Developing redundant ways to receive and disseminate severe weather warnings and forecasts

to alert the public;

Monitoring local weather conditions;

Promoting the importance of public readiness through community seminars; and

Developing a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe weather spotters

and holding emergency exercises.

Interacting routinely with NWS officials.

StormReady applications may be downloaded from the NWS Web site, www.stormready.noaa.gov. Applications are reviewed on a quarterly basis and site visits are scheduled accordingly. Once a site visit has been conducted by GEMA, NWS and EMAG representatives, recommendations are made at the next quarterly meeting and it is determined whether or not the community will be recognized as StormReady.

Incident Command Response and Support NWS offices are taking steps to be more proactively involved in (and supportive of) local emergency incident response. This can range from support as simple as periodic phone calls between emergency officials and the supporting NWS office to NWS meteorologists being on-site during prolonged incident support where weather may play a critical role.

Examples of the latter might include a large wildfire or a release or hazardous material, either accidentally or intentionally. Although this program is in the spin-up process, NWS offices look to GEMA for inclusion in planning and training activities whereby emergency management officials can take advantage of the resources provided by the NWS. The NWS is encouraging use of its personnel to support table-top and/or functional exercises conducted in the state, along with strategic planning and preparedness efforts at all levels of state government.

Page 517

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

USDA-(NRCS) Natural Resources Conservation Service

P

August 2007

P

E

Team members:

N

Jimmy Bramblett, ASTC for Water Resources

D

Cran Upshaw, Economist

I

X

Brief summary of Federal agency: (NRCS is to provide national leadership in the conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources. The NRCS provides balanced technical assistance and cooperative conservation programs to landowners and land managers throughout the United States as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency employs approximately 275 people.

Programs: Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program: Program objective is to assist sponsors and individuals in implementing emergency measures to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. Activities include providing financial and technical assistance to remove debris from streams, protect destabilized streambanks, establish cover on critically eroding lands, repairing conservation practices, and the purchase of flood plain easements. The program is designed for installation of recovery measures.

Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive order:
These laws set forth the requirements and procedures for Federal assistance provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under:
Public Law 81-516 Section 216, 33 U.S.C. 701b-1 Public Law 95-334 Section 403 of Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 Public Law 104-127 Section 382, Title III, of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Re-
form Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. 2203

Natural Hazard summary: An estimated 17,000 Georgia residents reside below 357 floodwater retarding structures. Additionally, there are an estimated $1.5 billion business property, utilities and transportation networks.

Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation)
To provide assistance to project sponsors and individuals in implementing emergency recovery measures (including the purchase of floodplain easements) to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster that causes a sudden impairment of a watershed.

Plan integration
Each STC will develop and maintain an EWP "Emergency Recovery Plan" (ERP) (See Part 505, Appendix A, Section 505.XX) that contains recovery procedures for implementation should a disaster occur, including floodplain easement acquisition. The STC should solicit input from the following as appropriate:
USDA Forest Service (USFS) USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) USDA Rural Development (RD) USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) USDOI Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Page 518

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 519

USDOI Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) DOD Army Corps of Engineers (COE) DOC National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Office of State Emergency Preparedness Tribal Historic Preservation Office Tribal Councils (State and/or federally recognized) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) State Association of Conservation Districts National Weather Service (NWS) Other appropriate State and tribal agencies.
Special Coordination
Emergency recovery plans must include special attention toward meeting the requirements of those laws, executive orders, and other requirements.
Additional documents (user defined)
All applicable Federal, State, tribal, and local laws and regulations must be adhered to in carrying out emergency watershed protection measures. The major federal laws and Presidential Executive Orders are as follows:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before they are implemented and document those impacts in the form of an environmental assessment or impact Statement, providing the public the opportunity to comment. The NRCS policy on compliance with NEPA is located at 7 CFR 650, General Manual Title 190, Part 410, and the National Environmental Compliance Handbook, NECH, 190-610.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended This law seeks to conserve and protect threatened and endangered species as defined by the United States Department of the Interior.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, requires Section 404 permits for placing dredged material of fill into or adjacent to navigable waters, including wetlands.
Executive Order 12898 "Environmental Justice" Requires each Federal agency to conduct programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities, because of race, color, or national origin.
Executive Order 11593 "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment" - Cultural resources requirements are governed by statute and apply in emergencies. States should contact their State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to establish procedural modifications and amendments for cultural resources as part of their emergency preparedness plan.
The National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended directed all Federal agencies to establish a (historic) preservation program. This program is intended to create policies and procedures that foster agency program and project development so that our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources will co-exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations. The NRCS policy is set forth in the General Manual Title 420, Part 401 and the National Cultural Resources Procedures Handbook, NCRPH, 190-601.
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands." Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

facilities; and (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and

A

improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, in-

P

cluding but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and li-

censing activities.

P

Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management." Each agency shall provide leadership and

E

shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial val-

N

ues served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing,

D

and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, fi-

I

nanced, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities

and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land re-

X

sources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.

Page 520

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

P

U. S. Geological Survey

P

Georgia Water Science Center Atlanta, Georgia

E

December 2007

N

D

Team member

I

U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Water Science Center

X

Brief summary of mission:

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation's premier earth science agency. The mis-

sion of the USGS, Georgia Water Science Center is to collect water resources information in

the State of Georgia to provide critical information needed for the management of those water

resources; to warn the public of water-related natural hazards, such as floods and droughts;

and, to monitor waters in order to protect human health, habitat, and the environment.

Agency Summary

Primary responsibility: Water resources data collection and analysis

100 staff located in four offices in Georgia

Annual budget: $13,000,000

Programs that are related to Preparedness, Mitigation, and Emergency Management.

1. USGS Georgia Hydrowatch a. Provides real-time streamflow, water level, precipitation, meteorological, water-quality, and groundwater information via the internet (NWIS-Web) to the National Weather Service (NWS), water resource managers, and emergency-management agencies for predictions of floods and droughts to protect life, property, and economic interests. A network of over 250 streamgages is operated throughout Georgia. See Figure 1.

b. Annual budget for this effort: $3,200,000 in cooperation with multiple Federal, State and local cooperators. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.

c. Role and Responsibility: To provide real-time, continuous hydrologic data to warn the emergency officials and the general public of impending hazardous conditions involving Georgia's streams, coastal zones and groundwater aquifers and monitor the duration and extent of those hazardous conditions.

Page 521

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure 1. The USGS Georgia Hydrowatch Real-Time Monitoring Network.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise. Network of over 250 streamgaging stations (see Figure 2) with a satellite data transmitter at each station. At least 75 percent of transmitters currently transmit the collected 15 minute interval data on an hourly basis. All stations are programmed to use the emergency transmit channel to transmit every 15 minutes for flood warning purposes. Over 200 of these stations are equipped to record and transmit precipitation data. More than 40 stations have some sort of continuous water-quality monitoring at each. Meteorological sensors (wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, air temperature) are located at 14 stations. Additionally, 25 groundwater wells have real-time telemetry for drought monitoring and water supply protection purposes. An automated data webpage called NWISWeb is available at:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/rt/

Page 522

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Page 523

Figure 2. Typical USGS Streamgage.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.1.
2. GEMA Operations Technical Support
a. The USGS provides technical support to GEMA during severe storm and hurricane threats. This support includes a full-time computer terminal in the GEMA Operations Center that has direct access to USGS data delivery systems and databases. Senior hydrologists are on-call during GEMA activation events to provide the insight to emergency managers concerning hydrologic hazards.
b. Annual budget for this effort: In-kind partnership. c. Role and Responsibility: The USGS sends senior hydrologists to the GEMA operations center when hydrologic hazards are threatening Georgia.
d. Assets: USGS computer terminal with direct access to USGS networks and databases. Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.2.
3. BacteriALERT
a. The USGS, in partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) and Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeepers (UCR), provides daily estimates of e. coli bacteria levels (see Figure 3) on the Chattahoochee River in metropolitan Atlanta to protect citizens from contact to waters high in bacteria content.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X
Figure 3. Bacteria sample testing.
b. Annual budget for this effort: $40,000 plus in-kind services. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.
c. Role and Responsibility: Personnel from the NPS and UCR collect waterquality samples at two locations along the Chattahoochee River and bring them to the USGS laboratory for processing and presentation to the public via the USGS webpages and email alerts. NPS has signs at boat launches along the river (see Figure 4).
d. Assets: USGS bacteria laboratory, database, and webpage/email delivery system. An example of the webpage and email delivery system products are shown in Figure 4 below.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.3.

Figure 4. BacteriALERT public notification products.
4. Storm Surge Determination
a.A new USGS initiative is designed to monitor the real extent and timing of hurricane surge along the coasts of the Southeast United States to provide more accurate surge data for calibration of NOAA Slosh models and FEMA floodplain maps. This program is providing data that has never been able to be collected previously, such as accurate surge hydrographs and surge velocity profiles that are already being used by NOAA modelers to improve surge forecasts. It also has demonstrated the potential inaccuracy of surge levels using traditional high-

Page 524

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

water mark surveying, affecting post-storm damage assessments. Improving the

P

accuracy of surge forecasts and damage assessments could save millions of dol-

lars through better public education and evacuation, and stronger building codes

P

for coastal areas.

E

N

D

I

X

Page 525

Figure 5. Deployment of USGS Storm Surge Sensor on utility pole. b. Per "event" budget for this effort: $75,000 estimated. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel deploy submersible pressure transducers prior to the storm in a dense pattern throughout the expected landfall region to develop a web-like coverage of monitoring locations. Following the storm, the personnel return to recover the instrumentation, download the collected data, and establish vertical datum at each location. During the recovery process, information, pictures, and video clips are uploaded via satellite communications to USGS offices for use by emergency personnel, forecasters, and the media. Post-storm analyses, quality-assurance of the data, and reporting of results would be included. See Figure 3 for example of storm surge monitor deployment.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise. Three USGS storm surge centers and personnel in Atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Florida and Ruston, Louisiana along with necessary field equipment and instrumentation. Personnel from these centers deploy prior to landfall and return for recovery efforts after the storm.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.4.
5. Real-Time Bridge Scour Monitoring
a. The USGS has the capability to install sensors on bridge pilings in conjunction with a real-time streamgage to monitor the potential danger of bridge collapse due to sediment scour (see Figure 6). Flood conditions can create velocity eddies around bridge piers that removes the sediment surrounding the pilings of the bridge, causing the failure of the bridge structure (see Figure 7). A pilot project with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) proved the success of this concept.
b. Annual budget for this effort: A proposal would need to be developed depending upon extent of deployment. Annual operating costs required. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Bed Elevation (feet) Discharge (cfs)

Figure 6. Schematic of bridge scour sensor monitoring instrumentation.

Chattahooche River near Cornelia, GA July 1-3, 2003
1126
14000

1125

12000

1124

10000

1123 1122 1121

8000 6000 4000 2000

1120

0

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Time (days)

Figure 7. Scour caused by 2003 minor flood event.

c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would install and maintain the instrumentation at each bridge crossing. Critical thresholds would be determined in cooperation with GDOT and GEMA to provide adequate time to implement road closures.

d. Assets: Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise.

e. Future assets: See section 5.a.5.

6. Real-time Evacuation Route Monitoring

a. The USGS has the capability to install sensors on roadways in conjunction with streamgages that collect traffic data for evacuation efficiency analysis, water level data for possible roadway inundation threats, and meteorological data for wind threats to large vehicles. Currently the GDOT traffic counting

Page 526

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

system utilizes phone line telemetry which is not robust during catastrophic

P

hydrologic events.

P

b. Annual budget for this effort: A proposal would need to be developed

E

depending upon extent of deployment. Annual operating costs required.

N

Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.

D

I

c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would install and maintain the

instrumentation at each location. Critical thresholds would be determined in

X

cooperation with GDOT and GEMA to provide adequate time to implement

road closures.

d. Assets: Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise.

e. Future assets: See section 5.a.6.

7. Toxic Spill Extent Determination

a. The USGS has the capability to install sensors at existing streamgages to measure the velocity of water at each location, as well as perform dispersion studies with dye tracing to determine the time of travel and dispersion of dangerous toxins during a spill or terrorist threat to public water supply intakes.

Page 527

Figure 8. Example of sediment contamination in river system. b. Annual budget for this effort: A proposal would need to be developed depending upon extent of deployment. Annual operating costs required for instrumentation. Dispersion study would not be a long-term effort. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would install and maintain the instrumentation at each location. USGS hydrologists would perform dyetracing studies to establish dispersion rates at various riverine flow rates.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and instrumentation expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.7.
8. Flood Inundation Modeling & Visualization Study
a. Flood damage is a major emergency management issue, and timely, accu-

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

rate flood warning, and flood prediction are critical to public safety. Accurate simulation of flood inundation using 2-dimensional hydrodynamic model and GIS tools to visualize the extent of flooding, can provide critical information to assist in planning for future floods as well as emergency response during future floods. With a National Weather Service flood forecast and results of model simulations, emergency response groups will be able to assess what areas will require their assistance during a flood.
Potential flow characteristics of future flooding along a 4.8-mile reach of the Flint River in Albany, Georgia, were simulated by the USGS in cooperation with the City of Albany, and Dougherty County. Simulations were conducted using recent digital-elevation-model data and the USGS finiteelement surface-water modeling system for two-dimensional flow in the horizontal plane (FESWMS-2DH). Simulated inundated areas, in 1-foot increments, were created for a range of water-surface altitudes at the Flint River at Albany streamgage (02352500) and mapped onto monochrome orthophoto imagery for use in planning for future floods The model was calibrated to match actual floods during July 1994 and March 2005 and Federal Emergency Management Administration floodplain maps. The scope of the work included field examination of the study area; mapping of eight river cross sections; delineating land-use areas for about 13.7 square miles; and modeling. When the model was completed, field checks were completed for the flood-inundation extent at nine locations, as well as presentation of maps of the model results.
b. Annual budget for this effort: Conducting a similar study would take two years at an estimated cost of $195,000 per year. Expenses include salary for the project chief and support staff, and limited travel expenses.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would perform the data collection and modeling analyses to produce the final mapping product. Emergency management officials would be consulted during study to ensure desired expectations are met.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and modeling expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.8.
9. Digital Coastal Elevation Mapping
a. This acquisition is for current LiDAR derived high-resolution elevation data for the full extent of Coastal Georgia, approximately 50 miles (twocounties) inland, with an area of approximately 5547 sq. miles. This project is within the 50-mile Atlantic coastal priority area as defined by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) (see Figure 9). This project also supports the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and will advance USGS efforts related to The National Map.
OMB Circular A-16 "Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities" provides for improvements in coordination and use of spatial data. Spatial data refers to information about places or geography, and has traditionally been shown on maps. This Circular describes the effective and economical use and management of spatial data assets in the digital environment for the benefit of the government and the nation. The Circular affirms and describes the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
The NSDI supports and advances the building of a Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, consistent with national security, national defense, national intelli-

A P P E N D I X
Page 528

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

gence, and international trade requirements. The components of the NSDI

P

are data themes, metadata, the National Spatial Data Clearinghouse, stan-

dards, and partnerships.

P

E

N

D

I

X

Page 529

Figure 9. Map of Proposed LIDAR Acquisition Area.
The National Map is a consistent framework for geographic knowledge needed by the Nation. It provides public access to high-quality, geospatial data and information from multiple partners to help support decision-making by resource managers and the public. The National Map is the product of a consortium of Federal, State, and local partners who provide geospatial data to enhance America's ability to access, integrate, and apply geospatial data at global, national, and local scales.
A cooperative relationship between Federal, State, and local geospatial data producing agencies is essential for the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and successful implementation of The National Map. The highest priority activity for The National Map is the collection of high resolution framework data, which includes current elevation data covering the coastal priority areas as identified by the NGA. This Cooperative Agreement between the USGS and various partners will result in meeting the need for current high-resolution digital elevation data over the Coastal Ga., will effectively distribute the burden of production costs, and will eliminate duplication of effort between parties.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

b. Annual budget for this effort: Currently the USGS role is that of coordi-

P

nating the local entities, and does not have an annual budget. Once procure-

ment of the LiDAR begins, the State and local agencies will be required to

P

allocate funding.

E

c. Role and Responsibility: The U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospa-

N

tial Program Office (NGPO) seeks to partner with State, Local, and other

D

Federal agencies and organizations in the acquisition of high-resolution Li-

I

DAR derived elevation data for the entire Coastal area of Georgia (figure 1.).

This data should meet the needs of all partners involved and would be in the

X

public domain as part of The National Map framework. Attempts will be

made to incorporate any existing high-resolution data that may have been

previously acquired, assuming that it will be publicly available and will ac-

curately edge-match with newly acquired data.

d. Assets: Experienced personnel and GIS mapping expertise. Currently, the best available digital elevation data for the entire coastal area of Georgia is from the USGS 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). This data is woefully inadequate for anything but regional use, and only marginal at that. The coastal area of Georgia is in dire need of high-resolution elevation data accurate enough to produce 1-foot contours and suitable for a wide variety of economic and environmental needs including flood and storm surge modeling, community planning, and disaster preparedness.

e. Future assets: See section 5.a.9.

10. Updating Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) in Flood-Prone River Reaches across Georgia

a. Similar to the LiDAR effort along the Georgia Coast, Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are in need of updating for many river reaches throughout Georgia to provide more accurate elevation contours for more accurate flood forecasting.

b. Annual budget for this effort: Once procurement of the LiDAR begins, the State and local agencies will be required to allocate funding.

c. Role and Responsibility: The U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program Office (NGPO) seeks to partner with State, Local, and other Federal agencies and organizations in the acquisition of high-resolution LiDAR derived elevation data for various flood-prone river reaches in Georgia. This data should meet the needs of all partners involved and would be in the public domain as part of The National Map framework. Attempts will be made to incorporate any existing high-resolution data that may have been previously acquired, assuming that it will be publicly available and will accurately edge-match with newly acquired data.

d. Assets: Experienced personnel and GIS mapping expertise. Currently, the best available digital elevation data for the entire coastal area of Georgia is from the USGS 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). This data is woefully inadequate for anything but regional use, and only marginal at that. Many riverine areas of Georgia are in dire need of high-resolution elevation data accurate enough to produce 1-foot contours and suitable for a wide variety of economic and environmental needs including flood and storm surge modeling, community planning, and disaster preparedness.

Page 530

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

e. Future assets: See section 5.a.9.

P

P

11. Regional Flood Frequency Analyses

E

a. Updates to regional flood frequency equations every ten years are critical

N

in ensuring that the statistical return periods (a.k.a. XXX-year flood events) are based upon the latest hydrologic data collected. This is relevant to emer-

D

gency management official since FEMA flood zone maps, bridge and culvert

I

designs, and many other infrastructure designs are based upon the hydrologic

flood frequency equations.

X

In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Centers (WSCs) in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina received funding from their respective state cooperators to update each State's techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in rural basins. In past studies, floodfrequency analyses and regional techniques for estimating peak discharges at ungaged sites have typically been published as applicable within the State boundaries only. However, a comparison of the physiographic regions used in each of the States' previous flood-frequency studies shows differences at or near the State boundaries. These differences cause some discontinuity and confusion on which flood-frequency techniques and results are most appropriate for basins near or crossing State boundaries.

In an effort to resolve these discontinuities, the three WSCs are working collaboratively to develop a regional approach (that crosses State borders) for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in rural basins. The analysis will include approximately 375 sites from Georgia, 400 sites from North Carolina, 69 sites from South Carolina, 64 sites from Tennessee, 100 sites from Virginia, 38 sites from Alabama, and 37 sites from Florida. Additionally, the three WSCs also are working with the USGS Office of Surface Water to develop improved methods for determining generalized skews. An investigation of Bayesian statistics as a means for developing techniques to estimate the generalized skews will be undertaken. This aspect of the investigation will be a prototype for a more comprehensive national investigation to develop methods for estimating generalized skews, which will be part of an effort to update Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, March 1982).

Page 531

b. Annual budget for this effort: Annual costs of approximately $135,000 are required for a three-year period. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would complete the analyses of available hydrologic data and provide a citable USGS report upon completion.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and statistical expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.10.
11. Flood Tracking Charts
a. The USGS has created flood tracking charts for use by citizens who dwell near various flood-prone rivers in the United States. Started in Louisiana, these charts provide easy-to-understand means for finding the latest river information and translating that into a decision of whether to evacuate or

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

ride out a flood based upon collected historical data and NWS forecasts (see

A

Figure 10). Two charts have been produced in Georgia to date--the Flint

P

River Basin and the Middle Chattahoochee River Basin in Metropolitan At-

lanta. The original chart produced for the Amite River Basin in Louisiana,

P

in conjunction with the real-time flood warning system, saved taxpayers at

E

least $1 million annually in flood insurance premiums.

N

D

I

X

Figure 10. Flint River Basin Flood Tracking Chart.
b. Annual budget for this effort: There is only a one-time cost for the development and reproduction of each flood tracking chart. Typical costs are about $15,000 for the development and roughly $4,000 for reproduction costs.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS personnel would analyze the historical data for the basin in focus, and generate the graphics and meta-data for each chart. The USGS will reproduce the chart and deliver it to various public outlets, such as governmental offices and libraries located within the river basin.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and graphic artistry design expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.11.
12. Georgia Water Information Network (GWIN)
a. The USGS has developed a website called the Georgia Water Information Network (GWIN) that makes it easy for local or county officials to quickly find any hydrologic data collected by USGS. This includes streamflow, water-quality, and groundwater data. It also provides links to any real-time

Page 532

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

stations within each county. A snapshot of the main GWIN page is in Figure

P

11. The link to this page is:

P

http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/

E

N

D

I

X

Page 533

Figure 11. Snapshot of GWIN main webpage.
b. Annual budget for this effort: None.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS GaWSC personnel developed and maintain the GWIN website.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and website development expertise.
e. Future assets: None planned at this time.
13. StreaMail
a. The USGS has developed the capability for emergency management officials to obtain the latest streamflow and river level information via text message on cell phones and other PDAs. This project, called StreaMail, requires the user to send a message to streamail@usgs.gov and include the station number of the streamgage desired. Within minutes, a text message is returned to the user (see Figure 12).
b. Annual budget for this effort: This project has completed the beta test phase. A proposal would need to be developed to implement the next development phase. Cooperative matching funds of up to 50 percent are possible based upon availability.

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy
A P P E N D I X

Figure 12. Example of information provided by StreaMail.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS GaWSC personnel currently maintain the beta test product. The development of the next phase would be completed with USGS GaWSC in conjunction with IT specialists at the USGS headquarters.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and data delivery expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.12.
14. Hydrologic alarm notification system
a. The USGS has the expertise and capabilities to develop an automated hydrologic hazards notification system that uses faxes, automated telephony messages, and pager alerts to notify emergency management officials and even affected citizens of a potential threat. This effort could be tied in with the Georgia Hydrowatch monitoring network of gages and subsequent flood inundation modeling to target potential subdivisions for automated warnings based upon river readings.
b. Annual budget for this effort: A scope of work and proposal would need to be developed. Ongoing system maintenance and cost for phone lines, etc. would be required.
c. Role and Responsibility: USGS GaWSC personnel would work in tandem with GEMA officials to develop and test the implementation of this system.
d. Assets: Experienced personnel and data delivery expertise.
e. Future assets: See section 5.a.13.
3. Laws, regulations, policies, codes and executive USGS is subject to Federal law and Bureau business practice policies. Citations of these can be found at:

Page 534

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A P P E N D I X
Page 535

Policy--http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/ Programs--http://www.usgs.gov/programs.html

USGS position paper on Flood Hazards: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3026/

4. Natural Hazard summary: USGS, Georgia WSC exposure to natural hazards in Georgia. Assets in harms way: 40,000 square foot facility in Atlanta (Gwinnett County) housing approximately 90 personnel, laboratories, equipment and vehicles. Field offices in Albany, Tifton, and Savannah housing 8 personnel, vehicles, boats, equipment, and supplies. b. Potential losses : $15,000,000
5. Agency specific goals and objectives (specific to preparedness and mitigation) The following paragraphs provide details on future needs related to the projects described in section 2 that can provide emergency management officials with the tools to reduce losses from hydrologic events.
1. Additions to USGS Georgia Hydrowatch streamgaging program will be required as the population in Georgia continues to grow, especially in the metropolitan Atlanta and coastal areas where an increasing number of persons and infrastructure are at risk to hydrologic hazards. The following items are future needs to better support the emergency management officials with respect to hydrologic hazards.

Numerous ungaged locations exist where critical infrastructure and human lives are threatened by various hydrologic hazards, requiring installation of a real-time streamgage. Annual operation and maintenance costs are required for each station. These locations are listed by stream and county in Table 1 below, with the appropriate hydrologic hazard.

Table 1. List of Potential New Real-Time Streamgage Locations.

River Upper Broad Tybee Island Ogeechee Ossabaw Island Canoochee Sea Island Satilla Cumberland Is. St. Marys Alapaha Upper Ocmulgee Little Ocmulgee Altamaha Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Cartecay Ellijay Euharlee Pumpkinvine

County Banks, Franklin Chatham Bryan, Chatham Chatham Liberty, Bryan Glynn Glynn, Camden Camden Camden Irwin Monroe Dodge, Telfair Montgomery Hall, Forsyth Clay Early Gilmer Gilmer Polk Bartow

Hazard(s) Droughts, Floods Hurricanes Floods, Hurricanes Hurricanes Floods, Hurricanes Hurricanes Floods, Hurricanes Hurricanes Floods, Hurricanes Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods Floods Droughts Droughts Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods Droughts, Floods

Of the existing USGS streamgaging network, roughly 25 percent of the streamgages

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

require upgrading to hourly transmitters to provide more frequent updating of hydrologic conditions. Installation of additional meteorological sensors at existing stations would provide beneficial information for monitoring roadway and bridge conditions during wind and ice storms.
Installation of water-quality instruments to continuously monitor the inflows into critical water supply intakes and downstream of effluent discharges for spill detection.
2. An increased level of technical support to GEMA can be expanded with increased long-term monitoring projects as a hydrologic event is happening, and provide more accurate post-event analyses. All projects described in this document are designed to address particular dangers to civilian life, public infrastructure, and economic loss, that when tied together in a uniform system would provide an integrated hydrologic warning system for Georgia and a significantly higher level of real-time knowledge and technical support from the USGS to the GEMA officials.
3. The BacteriALERT program is beneficial to recreational users of the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta, protecting them from bacteria-laden waters during storm events. Many other metropolitan areas with scenic recreational rivers would benefit from this type of program, including Rome, Helen, Columbus, Albany, Macon, and Savannah. Public use beach areas would also benefit from this type of program.
4. The storm surge monitoring program provides more detailed and comprehensive data sets for better building design standards in coastal areas related to the force and depth of storm surge. Continuing development and testing of new instrumentation that includes real-time telemetry for storm surge monitoring. Installation and long-term maintenance of a coastal crest-stage gage network to augment the storm surge project and provide a denser network of peak water level locations would benefit Georgia in having an accurate, dense network of surge monitoring instruments to improve structure designs pre-storm and provide a more accurate post-storm account of actual surge heights.
5. The real-time bridge scour project could avoid loss of life and severe disruption of traffic patterns and economic impacts by notifying emergency personnel of possible bridge collapses due to sediment scour caused by floods. Proposed installations could be at any critical bridge crossings and evacuation routes in Georgia.
6. The real-time monitoring of coastal hurricane evacuation routes would provide vital information concerning the inundation and wind hazards associated with approaching storms to protect the evacuees using the routes. Traffic counters would tell emergency management officials how efficient the evacuation process is. Proposed installations would be at critical bridge crossings and evacuation routes.
7. The protection of public water supply intakes from toxic spills or terrorist attack is a critical infrastructure need that could potentially affect millions of people. The USGS has the ability to model and determine the time of travel and dispersion of toxic chemicals from a traffic accident or terrorist attack along various waterways in Georgia. This study would require hydraulic modeling and dye-tracing to be able to estimate the time from the point of the spill to the nearest public water supply intakes and the subsequent concentration of that toxic substance upon arrival at the intake. This project has applications around large population centers that have surface water intakes, such as Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, Macon, and Columbus.
8. Losses caused by flood waters represent the largest category of natural hazards damages in the United States. Providing accurate inundation maps prior to a storm allow

A P P E N D I X
Page 536

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

A

emergency planners to develop more efficient evacuation and resource deployment

P

plans. Additionally, these maps would provide community planners with a more real-

istic approach to zoning and development, preventing the losses from occurring in the

P

first place. These maps, when used in combination with real-time streamgages, pro-

E

vide emergency management officials for more efficient notification of citizens in the

N

threatened areas through the use of automated notification systems.

D

9. The USGS Geospatial Liaison for Georgia established a committee of potential part-

I

ners to begin the process of seeking funds for data acquisition. These partners involve

local, State, federal, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's). This committee

X

has established both the area and data parameters of interest, and a time-frame for

acquisition. In addition, negotiations are on-going to acquire data from an existing

source. Currently however, sufficient funding has not been committed to cover antici-

pated project costs. A workshop on the basics of high-resolution elevation data has

been scheduled to help education potential partners on the benefits of this project.

This coordination effort could be applied to the updating of DEMs for various flood-

prone rivers throughout Georgia.

10. Community planners and developers rely on FEMA flood zone map products to reliably design buildings to best avoid losses from flooding. These flood zone maps are based upon the flood frequency studies usually updated once a decade. The current USGS effort to update the regional flood frequency study will be complete at the end of 2008, but it will not include critical areas such as metropolitan Atlanta and coastal Georgia. These areas will require separate study due to the complex hydrologic impacts caused by the extensive development over the past 10-20 years.

11. The ability to educate the general public to the flood threats near their homes and towns is critical to the success of any evacuation and loss avoidance plan. The flood tracking chart has been proven to provide local citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions regard the safety of their families and property. This product has direct benefits for other river basins in Georgia, including the Coosa River Basin near Rome, Georgia, the Upper Ocmulgee River near Macon, the Ogeechee River near Eden, and the Middle Chattahoochee River near Columbus.

12. The ability for an individual to have access to the latest hydrologic information on a cell phone or PDA eliminates the need for Internet access, minimizes the time to access hydrologic data, and reduces the time required to initiate storm response plans. The StreaMail pilot product fills this specific data delivery void for emergency managers. Implementation of the next generation of StreaMail would provide a more robust program that could withstand the increased accessibility loadings caused by a major hydrologic event.

13. The ability to reliably deliver meaningful hydrologic data to emergency management officials and the general public is vital to successful loss avoidance and protection of lives. Data delivery must be via multiple communication paths, including the Internet and cellphone/PDAs (already discussed), and automated fax/voice/email systems. Meshing automated delivery systems with the USGS database would require sophisticated computer hardware systems that are currently available commercially, along with a bank of telecommunications lines. This automated delivery system would be the capstone to a statewide integrated hydrologic warning system.

14. To increase our preparedness efforts, USGS and GEMA officials should meet on a regular basis to review hydrologic data needs for Georgia and activities between both agencies. GEMA can potentially assist with pre-storm streamgaging network analysis needs with USGS and local counties, with hopes of potential grant monies to be used for installation costs of these stations.

Page 537

2008 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy

Summary

A

The key role for USGS in emergency management is providing the real-time data and

P

analysis of that data to emergency officials during storm threats. This role is dependent

upon reliable data delivery mechanisms to emergency management officials, of which the

P

USGS has addressed many; including having a computer terminal in the GEMA opera-

E

tions center for direct data access to USGS computers.

N

Most activities the USGS can provide to assist GEMA would require pre-storm planning

D

and funding, since these activities require installation of real-time sensors in the field, data

I

analyses, and product generation and distribution. These activities, as described in previ-

ous sections, when implemented into a uniform data acquisition and delivery system,

X

would provide the State of Georgia with an integrated hydrologic warning system for

emergency officials. The USGS can also assist with post-storm assessments of inundation

extent, flood frequency level of a storm, and reporting of the hydrologic event.

The USGS is continually improving field documentation instrumentation and procedures, as well as data delivery infrastructure to ensure that data from severe hydrologic events are documented and delivery in a highly efficient, meaningful manner. Examples of these efforts include the installation of a redundant receive station for satellite telemetry data coordinated with other Federal agencies, the development of redundant web delivery systems in case of local system failure, and the use of acoustic instrumentation to more measure field conditions more accurately and faster.

Much of the USGS activities are funded at least in part by other Federal, State, or local partners to ensure that our work is relevant to the needs of Georgia. Several new initiatives, including the Storm Surge Program and the upcoming Water Census in 2009 will provide Federal dollars for various hydrologic data collection and analytical studies related to hydrologic hazards.

6. Plan integration Logical linkage of USGS programs to the State Hazard Mitigation strategies will be analyzed in the upcoming months and possible funding avenues explored.

Page 538

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 539