The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCLARK COUNTY MULTI HAZZARD PLAN SEE 201• Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan • • • Clark County i October 2015 i i • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Clark County, Indiana • Original Adoption Date: 2008 Updated: 2015 Primary Point of Contact: Les Kavanaugh, Director . Clark County EMA 110 North Indiana Avenue Sellersburg, IN 47172 Telephone: 812-246-5538 . Fax: 812.246.5539 clark.ema@insightbb.com ow Prepared by: r River Hills EDD & RPC 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 r (812) 288-4624 .. r ow And or r r The Polis Center 1200 Waterway Blvd ■` Indianapolis, IN 46202 www.polis.iupui.edu r VW IV Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 wr Acknowledgments . Clark County's multi-hazard mitigation plan was developed in 2008 and updated in 2015 by The Polis • Center at Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI). The Clark County Emergency . Management Agency would like to thank The Polis Center, River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission (River Hills EDD & RPC), and the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation planning team for their contributions and assistance in development of the 2015 Clark County multi- hazard mitigation plan update. Through the combined efforts, input and support of these organizations, . Clark County continues to build its capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from . disasters. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r qw Vw Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 rrr it Acronyms AEGL—Acute Exposure Guideline Levels ALOHA—Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres BFE— Base Flood Elevation CAMEO—Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations CAPI—Community Action Potential Index it CDP—Census Designated Place CEMP—Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CRS—Community Rating System DEM— Digital Elevation Model DFIRM — Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DHS— Department of Homeland Security +ilrr► DMA—Disaster Mitigation Act EAP—Emergency Action Plan EMA—Emergency Management Agency EPA— Environmental Protection Agency FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Maps or GIS—Geographic Information System o, HazMat—Hazardous Materials w Hazus-MH —Hazards USA Multi-Hazard HUC—Hydrologic Unit Code o' IDEM —Indiana Department of Environmental Management o' IDHS—Indiana Department of Homeland Security it INDOT—Indiana Department of Transportation �r IDNR—Indiana Department of Natural Resources 11110 INDWD— Indiana Department of Workforce Development IGS—Indiana Geological Survey iw ISDA— Indiana State Department of Agriculture I(r► MHMP—Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan V NCDC—National Climatic Data Center r, NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program ir NAP—National Flood Insurance Program NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 111" NSF— National Science Foundation 1w NWS— National Weather Service 60 OCRA—Office of Community and Rural Affairs V PPM—Parts Per Million SPC—Storm Prediction Center 1V USACE—United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA— United States Department of Agriculture USGS— United States Geological Survey 1r w M %F Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3 Prerequisites.................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption..........................................................................................6 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation.........................................................................................................6 PlanningProcess...........................................................................................................................................8 3.1 Planning Team Information ....................................................................................................9 3.2 Review of Existing Plans........................................................................................................10 3.3 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources ............................................................................11 3.4 Public Involvement................................................................................................................11 3.5 Neighboring County and Community Participation..............................................................12 CountyProfile .............................................................................................................................................13 4.1 Geography, Topography, and Climate..................................................................................14 4.2 Demography 4.3 Population Change...........................................................................................................................16 4.4 Special Needs Populations....................................................................................................21 �r 4.5 Economy and Industry..........................................................................................................24 4.6 Commuting Patterns.............................................................................................................28 4.7 Transportation ......................................................................................................................28 4.8 Major Waterways and Watersheds......................................................................................29 ij�► 4.9 Land-Use and Development Trends......................................................................................30 RiskAssessment..........................................................................................................................................31 5.1 Identifying Hazards ...............................................................................................................31 r5.1.1 Existing Plans............................................................................................................31 5.1.2 Historical Hazards Records ......................................................................................32 5.1.3 Hazard-Ranking Methodology.................................................................................32 lip iw 5.1.4 GIS and Hazus-MH Modeling...................................................................................36 iw5.2 Assessing Vulnerability..........................................................................................................37 5.2.1 Identify Facilities......................................................................................................38 The Polis Center iv IW br r r . Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 . 5.2.2 Building Replacement Costs.....................................................................................39 . 5.3 Profiling Hazards...................................................................................................................39 r5.3.1 Tornadoes................................................................................................................39 r5.3.2 Flood Hazard............................................................................................................48 r 5.3.3 Earthquake Hazard...................................................................................................65 r5.3.4 Severe Thunderstorm Hazard..................................................................................78 r5.3.5 Winter Storm Hazard...............................................................................................82 5.3.6 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard ......................................................................85 r5.3.7 Extreme Temperatures............................................................................................95 r r5.3.8 Drought Hazard......................................................................................................101 r5.3.9 Dam/Levee Failure Hazard.....................................................................................105 5.3.10 Landslide Hazard/Ground Failure........................................................................112 rMitigation Strategies.................................................................................................................................118 r6.1 Community Action Potential Index(CAPI)..........................................................................118 r r6.2 Plans and Ordinances....................................................................................................................120 r6.3 Mitigation Goals..................................................................................................................120 r6.4 Mitigation Process, Prioritization, and Implementation.....................................................121 r6.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy and Actions...............................................................121 r rPlan Maintenance.....................................................................................................................................137 r7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan..................................................................137 r7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs.......................................................................138 r7.3 Continued Public Involvement............................................................................................138 Wr APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................................139 low w List of Tables rTable 1: FEMA-Declared Disasters for Clark County(2004-2014)................................................................5 Table 2: Participating Jurisdictions ...............................................................................................................6 rTable 3: Organizations Invited to Participate................................................................................................7 Table 4: Multi Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members.........................................................................9 rTable 5: Documents Utilized in the MHMP 2015 Update...........................................................................11 rThe Polis Center v r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 6:Technical and Fiscal Resources and Sources.................................................................................11 Table 7: Neighboring County Participation.................................................................................................12 i Table 8: 2010 Population of Clark County Communities............................................................................16 r Table 9: Population Change in Clark County(2000-2010)..........................................................................19 ►► Table 10: 2013 Clark County Employment by Industry Sector...................................................................26 imp Table 11: Clark County Major Employers....................................................................................................27 Table 12: Clark County Navigable Waterways............................................................................................29 Table 13: Clark County Watersheds............................................................................................................30 Table 14: Guidelines for Determining Probability and Impact lilo fir Table 15: CPRI Categories and Weighting...................................................................................................34 Table 16: Clark County CPRI and Hazard Ranking.......................................................................................34 Table 17: Essential Facilities of Clark County..............................................................................................38 Table18: Building Exposure........................................................................................................................39 Table 19: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Rating.................................................................................................40 Table 20: Clark County NCDC-Reported Tornadoes—50 Years..................................................................41 r Table 21:Tornado Path Widths and Damage Curves.................................................................................43 Table 22: F4 Tornado Zones and Damage Curves.......................................................................................44 Table 23: Estimated Building Losses by Occupancy Type...........................................................................47 Table24: Essential Facilities........................................................................................................................47 Table 25: Clark County NCDC-Reported Flood Events (2008-2014) .........................................................49 Table 26: Number of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy Table 27: Cost of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy.......................................................52 Table28: NFIP Claims Data.........................................................................................................................64 Table 29:Additional Information on Communities Participating in the NFIP............................................64 Table 30: Comparison of Building Exposure to Insured Buildings..............................................................65 Table 31:Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale...........................................................................67 r Table 32: Earthquake Magnitude vs. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale....................................................67 Table 33: New Madrid Scenario- Building Damage by Occupancy............................................................71 Table 34: New Madrid Scenario- Building Losses in Millions of Dollars....................................................71 Table 35: New Madrid Scenario- Essential Facility Damage......................................................................73 Table 36: Mt. Carmel Scenario- Building Damage by Occupancy..............................................................73 Table 37: Mt. Carmel Scenario- Building Losses in Millions of Dollars......................................................74 Table 38: Mt. Carmel Scenario- Essential Facility Damage 75 `► The Polis Center 6 vi 6 6 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 39: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Damage Counts by Building Occupancy ..................................76 RTable 40: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses in Millions of Dollars.......................................76 Table 41: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario- Essential Facility Damage.......................................................78 Table 42: Clark County Hail Events (2008-2014).......................................................................................79 Table 43: Clark County Winter Storm Events(January 1, 1996-May 31, 2014)..........................................83 Table 44: Estimated Exposure for all Zones (all ppm).................................................................................93 Table 45: Estimated Exposure for Zone 3 (30 ppm)....................................................................................93 Table 46: Estimated Exposure for Zone 2 (160 ppm) .................................................................................93 Table 47: Estimated Exposure for Zone 1 (1100 ppm) ...............................................................................94 Table 48: Palmer Drought Severity Classifications ...................................................................................103 Table 49: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Dams.....................................................................106 Table 50: Buildings in Levee-Protected Areas .................................................................................................108 Table 51:Essential Facilities of Clark County.............................................................................................116 Table 52: Indiana Communities with Highest CAPI Scores.......................................................................118 Table 53: Clark County Communities' CAPI Scores...............................................................................11918 rTable 54: Clark County Plans and Ordinances ........................................................................................1209 rTable 55:STAPLE+E Planning Factors .......................................................................................................123 Table 56: Mitigation Actions for Clark County......................................................................................12524 List of Figures ' Figure 1: FEMA Disaster Declarations for Indiana ........................................................................................3 ' Figure 2: Clark County Townships, Incorporated Communities and Census Designated Places(CDPs) ....13 Figure 3: Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).....................................14 r Figure 4: Climate Norms for Clark County..................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Clark County Population Pyramid................................................................................................17 Figure 6: Clark County Migration Patterns .................................................................................................21 rFigure 7: Special Needs Ranking Overall and by Indicator..........................................................................23 rFigure 8: Clark County Vulnerability Score .................................................................................................24 Figure 9: Unemployment and Poverty Rates(2008-2013).........................................................................25 rFigure 10: Clark County Inbound and Outbound Commuting Patterns......................................................28 rFigure 11: NCDC Events in Clark County(2007-2014) ................................................................................32 Figure 12• Risk Grid Methodology 35 Figure 13: Clark County Risk Matrix............................................................................................................35 rFigure 14: Community Risk to Flooding and Hazmat Events......................................................................36 r The Polis Center Vii r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 15: Clark County Tornado Tracks.....................................................................................................41 Figure 16: F4 Tornado Analysis, Using GIS Buffers .....................................................................................44 Figure 17: Hypothetical F4 Tornado Path in Clark County..........................................................................45 Figure 18: Modeled F4 Tornado Damage Buffers in Clark County.............................................................45 Figure 19: Modeled F4 Tornado Damage to Essential Facilities in Clark County........................................46 Figure 20: Tornado Dangers to Special Needs/Vulnerable Populations.....................................................48 Figure 21: Clark County Buildings in Floodplain 1%Annual Chance Flood Figure 22: Borden Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood)..............................................................54 Figure 23: Charlestown Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood).....................................................55 Figure 24: Clarksville Flood-Prone Areas(1%Annual Chance Flood).........................................................55 Figure 25: Utica Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood).................................................................56 Figure 26:Jeffersonsville Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood) ..................................................56 Figure 27: Sellersburg Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood-Clark County only)..........................57 Figure 28:Jeffersonville and Surrounding Flood-Prone Essential Facilities ...............................................58 Figure 29: Henryville Flood-Prone Essential Facilities................................................................................58 Figure 30: Henryville Flood-Prone Essential Facilities................................................................................59 Figure 31: Borden community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities.....................................................................60 Figure 32: Utica community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities........................................................................60 Figure 33:Jeffersonville community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities...........................................................61 Figure 34: Sellersburg community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities..............................................................61 Figure 35: Flood-Prone Critical Facilities near Clarksville and Sellersburg Communities...........................62 Figure 36: Flood Dangers to Special Needs/Vulnerable Populations.........................................................63 Figure 37: Indiana Historical Earthquake Epicenters..................................................................................66 Figure 38: New Madrid Scenario- Building Losses Figure 39: Mt. Carmel Scenario- Building Losses................................ 74 ...................................................... Figure 40: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses........................................................................77 Figure 41: Clark County Storm Events Reported to NCDC (2007-June 1, 2013).........................................80 Figure 42: Location of Chemical Release....................................................................................................88 Figure 43:ALOHA Plume Modeling Parameters.........................................................................................89 Figure 44: Plume Footprint Generated by ALOHA......................................................................................90 Figure 45: ALOHA Plume Footprint Overlaid in ArcGIS...............................................................................91 Figure 46: Clark County Building Inventory Classified By Plume Footprint................................................92 Figure 47: Hazmat dangers to Special Needs Population...........................................................................96 r The Polis Center Viii 6 6 1r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 6 Figure 48: NWS Wind Chill Temperature Index..........................................................................................96 Figure 49: National Weather Service Heat Index........................................................................................99 Figure 50: Sequence of Drought Occurrence and Impacts.......................................................................101 Figure 51: Clarksville and Jeffersonville Levees........................................................................................108 Figure 52: High and Significant Hazard Dams— Clark County..................................................................108 6` Figure 53: Ohio River Levee Breech— Clarksville and Jeffersonville........................................................108 6 Figure 54: Exposed Essential and Critical Facilities— Clarksville..............................................................108 Figure 55: Exposed Essential and Critical Facilities— Jeffersonville.........................................................108 Figure56: Regional Karst Map..................................................................................................................114 Figure 57: Karst Landscape and Populated Areas in Clark Count g p p y...........................................................115 Figure 58: CAPI Scores for Clark County and Jurisdictions........................................................................119 1 1 1 1 i i i The Polis Center ix vd rrr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 �r �. Executive Summary The Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed to guide the county in a risk-based lawapproach to preventing, protecting against, responding to, and recovering from disasters that may threaten the county's citizens, infrastructure, and economy.The plan is hazard-and community-specific. It documents historical disasters,assesses probabilistic disasters through Hazus-MH and GIS analyses,and addresses specific strategies to mitigate the potential impacts of these disasters. �Irr war This plan update was a collaborative effort among the Clark County multi-hazard mitigation planning team, River Hills EDD & RPC, and the Polis Center at IUPUI. Clark County and River Hills EDD & RPC have joined efforts in developing a hazard mitigation plan which protects and supports economic and community development in the county through effective hazard mitigation strategies. rr • Historical hazards: Each hazard section within this plan documents the most current data about NCDC-reported hazards since the 2008 plan. r • Profile Hazards:The planning team revised the hazard priority rankings and plotted each hazard on a risk grid according to probability(y-axis) and potential impact(x-axis). County planning documents, e.g. Risk MAP reports, CEMP, hazard-specific reports, etc.,were integrated into the plan update. • Community profile: Demographics, social, and economic data, as well as existing and future *W land use descriptions were updated to reflect the current status of the county and its jurisdictions. • NFIP:The plan includes the effective date of the DFIRM. '�Ir► • Planning description:The new planning team and updated planning process were described and documented. • Risk assessment: Hazus-MH and GIS analyses were updated using site-specific data from the 4W county. Updated loss estimation is provided for tornadoes,floods, earthquakes, and hazardous VW materials releases. err • Mitigation:The team reviewed and updated mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies. ver► tip The Polis Center Executive Summary Clark County MHMP Update 2015 2 I 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 6 Section Introduction r Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made reducing hazards one of its primary goals. Hazard mitigation planning and the subsequent implementation of the projects, measures, and policies developed as part of this plan, is a primary mechanism in achieving FEMA's goal. 6 The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires jurisdictions to develop and maintain a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) to remain eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation NW funding programs. Renewal of the plan every five years is required to encourage the continual awareness of mitigation strategies. In order for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities to be eligible for future mitigation funds, they must adopt the MHMP. In the past decade, FEMA has declared 1' 17 emergencies and disasters for the State of Indiana, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: FEMA Disaster Declarations for Indiana' Clark County Sa nJeiea g,gna„ ;_311 u Pone Nobb l;a.talo Mar.n alt $iarY.! Kae[NSILe Rdxsl:i futon VYkeley Alen WabaahHYnbn}an WMe axs ta'+^` W'e llfaNms !y,,Beeston CJllea F- I•w am atiM�Clderd eoanEn Chap LF SiG'wY erippe[anoe Delaware RandNpF SE LLEF55uRG� Midiian lgpmlry Doone Hamdlon Henry w Hancock 4Mayne tWIxSNut a 'PaM endn[La Manon "tars-.a =a,lne rFEEE 450MNUF swby Mo anJonnson Franklin Owen Monroe EhewnBs Number of Disaster Dedarstions ! 'g (Jan 2003-May 2014) ""°" d D®t_2-3-4-5-g-7_g xUarvaiMamn P*e Dulox U �. Hot*" Perry 'Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),2014 The Polis Center 3 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 6 it In the event of a federally declared disaster, individuals, families, and businesses may apply for financial assistance to help with critical expenses. Assistance may be categorized as Individual Assistance (IA), �r Public Assistance (PA), or Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA). +fir ow The following types of assistance may be available in the event of a disaster declaration. ow Individuals & Household Program: Provides money and services to people in presidentially declared ,t„ disaster areas. o' Housing Assistance: Provides assistance for disaster-related housing needs. rr ow Other Needs Assistance: Provides assistance for other disaster-related needs such as furnishings, owtransportation, and medical expenses. rr Public Assistance: Disaster grants assistance available for communities to quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the president. Emergency Work (Categories A-13): Work that must be performed to reduce or eliminate an immediate threat to life,to protect public health and safety, and to protect improved property that is �r significantly threatened due to disasters or emergencies declared by the president. Permanent Work(Categories C-G):Work that is required to restore a damaged facility,through repair or restoration, to its pre-disaster design, function, and capacity in accordance with applicable codes and standards. I` kv Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Provides assistance to states and local governments through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. it it �r kr rr Ir lir r r rThe Polis Center r 4 Ph 1110 IV to Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Clark County has received federal aid for seven disasters since 2004, listed in Table 1. Four disasters have been declared since the last Clark County MHMP was adopted in 2008. �r Table 1: FEMA-Declared Disasters for Clark County(2004-2014) Disaster Date of Incident Date Disaster Description Type of Number Declared Assistance DR-1520 5/24/04-6/25/04 6/3/04 Indiana Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding IA,PA, HMGP DR-1542 7/3/04-7/18/04 9/1/04 Indiana Tornadoes, Flooding PA, HMGP DR-1573 1/1/05-2/11/05 1/21/05 Indiana Winter Storm, Flooding IA, HMGP i DR-1795 9/12/08-10/6/08 9/23/08 Indiana Severe Storms, Flooding IA, PA, HMGP DR-1828 1/26/09-2/28/09 3/5/09 Indiana Winter Storm IA, PA, HMGP DR-1997 1/11/11-6/6/11 6/23/11 Indiana Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding PA, HMGP DR-4058 2/29/12-3/3/12 3/9/12 Indiana Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds, PA, HMGP es PA—Public Assistance program IA—Individual Assistance program HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Assistance(Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) • (7 The Polis Center 5 i io %W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 %W ow Section Prerequisites 2 %W *W The 2015 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan update meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require state, local,and tribal entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. It also meets the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation r Assistance (FMA)grant program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program, and other National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)grants. 2.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption *r This plan represents a comprehensive description of Clark County's commitment to significantly reduce or eliminate the potential impacts of disasters through planning and mitigation. Adoption by the local governing bodies within the county legitimizes the plan and authorizes responsible agencies to implement mitigation responsibilities and activities. To be eligible for federal mitigation funding, each participating jurisdiction must adopt the plan. After thorough review, the Clark County Commissioners adopted the plan on <insert date adopted>. Additional adoptions are included in Appendix I. AW 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation %W Table 2 lists each jurisdiction and describes its participation status in the 2008 plan and 2015 update of the multi-hazard mitigation plan (MHMP). Table 2: Participating Jurisdictions Participated in Participated in Jurisdiction Name Type 2008 MHMP 2015 MHMP Update WClark County County Yes Yes AOL Borden Town Yes Yes Charlestown City Yes Yes Clarksville Town No Yes RP Jeffersonville City Yes Yes Sellersburg Town Yes Yes Utica Town Yes Yes The Polis Center 6 �r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 The county also invited representatives from local businesses and organizations to participate in the plan.Table 3 lists additional team members with a description of their participation.The invitation to participate is included in Appendix A. The organizations which were invited included the American Red Cross, major businesses, and REMC operations, among others. Table 3: Organizations Invited to Participate Organization Name Organization Type Organization Description of Representative Name Participation The American Red Cross Disaster Relief Jennifer Adrio Invited to attend planning meetings Clark County REMC Utility Public Safety Manager Invited to attend planning meetings Clark Memorial Hospital Health services Martin Padgett Invited to attend planning meetings Clarksville Community Education Kimberly Knott Invited to attend planning School Corporation meetings Duke Energy Utility Public Safety Manager Invited to attend planning meetings No Greater Clark County Education Gary Green Attended public meeting Schools Indiana American Water Utility Troy Bryant Invited to attend planning meetings Ivy Tech Community Higher Education Thomas JSnyder Invited to attend planning College . ymeetings American Commercial Marine transportation, Patrick Sutton Invited to attend planning Lines/JeffBoat manufacturing meetings Kitchen Kompact Manufacturing Manager Invited to attend planning meetings ® Koetter Woodworking, Inc. Manufacturing Randy Koetter Invited to attend planning meetings 10 National Distributors Transportation Keith Vaughn Invited to attend planning Leasing, Inc meetings Silver Creek Water UtilitManaInvited to attend planning Corporation y ger meetings Summitt Trucking Transportation Manager Invited to attend planning meetings Vectren Corporation Utility Public Safety Manager Invited to attend planning meetings Washington Township Utility Steve Fouts Invited to attend planning Water Corporation meetings West Clark Community Education Monty Schneider Invited to attend planning Schools meetings The Polis Center 7 "W wr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Section 3 Planning Process The Clark County Emergency Management Agency (EMA), River Hills EDD & RPC, and the Polis Center (Polis) have joined efforts to develop this plan update. The planning process consisted of the following tasks: Task 1: Organize Resources r The Clark County EMA created a planning team to attend meetings, gather data and historical information, and participate in mitigation brainstorming sessions. Task 2: Risk Assessment The planning team identified the natural and technological hazards to include in this plan, and Polis developed hazard event profiles to address the possible magnitudes and severities associated with each hazard.The team then used local resources to inventory the county's assets and estimate losses. Task 3: Public Involvement The public was invited to attend a public input meeting and open house to learn about county emergency and disaster preparedness and review the hazard mitigation planning process in Clark County. During the public input meeting, the public had the opportunity to review risk assessment results,and discuss and provide input on mitigation strategies.The EMA posted an announcement for 1 111110 the public input meeting on the county government website and distributed the announcement to 6 jurisdictions, media outlets and other organizations which serve the public. Appendix A includes ir meeting minutes and the public meeting notice. 6, Task 4: Develop Mitigation Strategies r During the public input meeting,the 2008 MHMP and mitigation strategies or actions were reviewed. io Important changes in the county, including population trends, growth of minority and special needs populations, and land development and usage, were also discussed as these factors relate to hazard mitigation planning. The second half of the meeting was devoted to reviewing the status of 2008 mitigation actions and developing new mitigation strategies for the 2015 update with input from the public. llr �r Y, The Polis Center 8 1r 1W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Task 5:Complete the Plan Polis compiled all of the planning team documentation and research with the risk assessment and +lir mitigation strategies to produce a draft plan for review.The Clark County planning team had multiple opportunities to review and revise the plan before submitting to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security(IDHS) and FEMA for approval. Task 6: Plan Adoption The Clark County EMA coordinated the effort to collect adoptions from each participating jurisdiction. 3.1 Planning Team Information The planning team is headed by the Clark County EMA. Other members of the planning team include representatives from various county departments,cities and towns, public and private utilities,and public safety and other organizations which respond to emergencies and disasters. Table 4 identifies the planning team members, organizations and jurisdictions represented. to 410 Table 4: Multi Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Members Name Organization Jurisdiction Les Kavanaugh Clark Co. Emergency Management Agency(EMA) Clark County Tom Upton Clarksville Fire Department Clarksville Amir Mousavi City of Jeffersonville Jeffersonville Tony Jackson Town of Charlestown Charlestown Rudy Cook Town of Bordon Borden Bryan Wallace City of Jeffersonville Jeffersonville Hank Dorman Town of Utica Utica Shane Bassett Clarksville Police Department Clarksville Brittany Montgomery Town of Clarksville Clarksville J Greg Dietz Town of Sellersburg Sellersburg Brad Meixell Clark County 911 Clark County Michael D McCutcheon II City of Jeffersonville Jeffersonville Chelsea Crump River Hills RPC& EDD Clark County Area Larry Wallace Building Commissioner Jeffersonville Ruth Sparks Town of Bordon Borden dbL _A_ The Polis Center 9 1W ", Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ver All members of the planning team were actively involved in attending the MHMP meetings, providing available geographic information systems (GIS) data and historical hazard information, reviewing and +rr providing comments on the draft plans, coordinating and participating in the public input process, and �r coordinating the county's formal adoption of the plan. The planning team held two meetings to support the Clark County MHMP Update process.The dates and goals of the meetings are highlighted below: Meeting 1, February 27, 2015 (Planning Team Meeting): • Introduce/overview of project • Review and update facility data • Review and prioritize hazards law • Determine modeling scenarios "W • Distribute 2015 mitigation strategies Meeting 2,June 11, 2015 (Planning Team and Public Input Meeting): • Introduction and overview for new attendees • Review risk assessment • Review draft plan rr • Discuss 2008 and 2015 mitigation strategies �. • Solicit public input �r► 3.2 Review of Existing Plans Clark County and the local communities utilize land use plans, emergency response plans, municipal ordinances,and building codes to direct community development.The planning process also incorporated +fir the existing natural hazard mitigation elements from these previous planning efforts. The development of the plan utilized the following plans and ordinances. The planning team and Polis reviewed the 2008 MHMP to determine which areas of the plan required updating. A description of updated sections is available in the Executive Summary.Table 5 lists the plans and ordinances utilized in the development of the MHMP 2015 Update. 6 6 6 6 6r � -_...__. The Polis Center 10 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 rrr► Table 5: Documents Utilized in the MHMP 2015 Update Document Title Year Description p 2015 Update Sections Clark County 2008 Multi-Hazard 2008 Federal Disaster Mitigation Act Mitigation Plan (MHMP) requirement All sections W Clark County Code of Compilation of county and local Sec 5: Risk Assessment Ordinances 2013 legislation current Clark County Code of "V Ordinances 9-17-2013 Sec 6: Mitigation Strategies "o Sec 4: County Profile Clark County Transportation Outlines transportation planning in the Sec 4.6 Transportation W Plan 2012 county Sec 4.9 Land Use Sec 5: Risk Assessment Sec 6: Mitigation Strategies City of Jeffersonville Stormwater Addresses the new flooding, drainage, Sec 5: Flooding Master Plan 2012 and water quality priorities within Jeffersonville Sec 6: Mitigation Strategies ` W 3.3 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources The MHMP planning team identified representatives from key federal,state and county agencies to assist in the planning process. Technical data, reports and studies were obtained from these agencies. A list of technical and fiscal resources and sources are summarized in Table 6. .r Table 6: Technical and Fiscal Resources and Sources "W Resources Sources �r ar Repetitive loss information FEMA Region V rr Digital flood maps, dam and levee information FEMA Region V r GIS data, digital elevation models(DEM), earthquake modeling scenarios Indiana Geological Survey +rr. rr. 2008 Clark County MHMP Clark County EMA Critical Facility GIS data and GIS Basemap data Clark County GIS Department/Beacon +rr Community Action Potential Index(CAPI)data FEMA Economy and industry, land use and development planning Clark County Plan Commission rr► Buyout/Retrofitting information and planning data Indiana Department of Homeland Security(IDHS) rr ■r 3.4 Public Involvement The planning team invited the public to a meeting on June 11, 2015 in order to encourage the public to actively participate in the planning process. Appendix A includes minutes from the meeting and a copy of r the public meeting notice that encouraged community representatives and the public to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. The Polis Center 11 illF err 4W ow Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 w. 3.5 Neighboring County and Community Participation ow The Clark County planning team invited neighboring counties and communities to review the draft plan ow and provide input on content, including mitigation strategies. Details of neighboring stakeholders' or participation in the planning process are summarized in Table 7. Nr b► Table 7: Neighboring County Participation Participant Name Neighboring Organization Participation Description County/Community Terry Herthel Floyd County, IN Floyd County EMA Received a draft of plan for review, comment Desi Alexander Washington County, IN Washington County EMA Received a draft of plan for review, comment Linda Dawson Scott County, IN Scott County EMA Received a draft of plan for review, comment Dave Bell Jefferson County, IN Jefferson County EMA Received a draft of plan for review, comment It I 60 1 60 16 r The Polis Center t 12 Ir r Ir L � • • Section 4 County Profile • • • • Clark County is located along 35 miles of Ohio River shoreline and has played a key role in the state's and region's early history, and in the growth and development of the Ohio River Valley. • The county is comprised of the Town of Borden, City of Charlestown, Town of Clarksville, City of • Jeffersonville, Town of Sellersburg, and Town of Utica. The communities are distributed across 12 townships, which include Bethlehem, Carr, Chalestown, Jeffersonville, Monroe, Oregon, Owen, Silver • Creek, Union, Utica, Washington, and Wood. Clark County's two largest communities, the town of • Clarksville and the neighboring city and county seat of Jeffersonville, are located on the riverfront,where • business and industrial activity have been concentrated since the Ohio River Valley's early settlement. These two communities along with New Albany in Floyd County, IN and across the river, Lousville, KY are • known as the Falls Cities. The area was named after the Falls of the Ohio, a series of rapids and an • expansive bed of rock where the river fell more than 26 feet within two and one-half miles. Figure 2 shows a map with Clark County's townships, incorporatied communities, and three unincorporated census • designated places (CDPs): Henryville, Memphis, and New Washington. • Figure 2: Clark County Townships, Incorporated Communities and Census Designated Places • (CDPs) a"• Washington •-� MOnfM vun,nyim Oregon Bethlehem Owen rr gym. Wood Can Unlon Charlestown o, Ip � wy a.+eno.n !kv n! IwrCwe aene.m.o . Utica . C- utk JNFemonvale qp Source IBRC at Indiana Uni a wtys Kelley School or auatnese.ussg data from the u.S Conus 6ursau July 2011 The Polis Center 13 1 V& 14W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 rr Clark County adjoins four Indiana counties and three Kentucky counties. Clark County and four other Indiana counties are included in the US Census Bureau's Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitian Statistical Area (MSA) which is the nations 43rd largest, shown below in Figure 3. The MSA covers 4,135 square miles which includes 477 square miles in urban areas. The MSA's population density is 2,040 persons per square miles. Clark County's densely populated urban areas and their location along the Ohio %r River and the county's close proximity to a major metro area are all important considerations in planning 1W hazard mitigation strategies. Natural geographic barriers such as major waterways or impassable terrain Vr, can restrict access to densely populated areas during evacuations and other emergency operations. "` Figure 3: Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) "W acksc^ Jefferson Switzerland 1 14W .,rang= Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN fir 4.1 Geography, Topography, and Climate r Clark County is situated in both the Scottsburg Lowland and Muscatatuck Regional Slope areas in the southern physiographic region of Indiana.The county's land area is a mixture of steep hills, particularly in the west and northwest regions, and large flat open areas. The county contains areas of karst sinkhole topography and the most notable landform is the Knobstone escarpment which crosses the county's northwest and north-central regions. The escarpment or ridge extends 150 miles from central Indiana southward to the Ohio River and ito Kentucky. The landform features a series of steep hills or "knobs." Escarpment elevations in northwestern Clark County include Round Knob at 1,001 feet above mean sea 60 level (msl) north of Deam Lake, and 951-foot Waggoner Knob near Speed. The lowest elevations are illy located along the Ohio River Valley in the county's east and northeast portions with Utica at 443 feet above msl. Other notable natural,geographic,and outdoor recreation features include the 220-acre Falls of the Ohio State Park along the Ohio River in Clarksville with its noteworthy fossil beds, wildlife, and wetlands areas. . Charlestown State Park includes 15,000 acres of undeveloped land, once part of the Indiana Army lie—Polis Center 14 ty Ir Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Ammunition plant and located between Charlestown and the Ohio River. The state's first state forest, 24,000-acre Clark State Forest, is in the west and northwest portions of the county. It features steep hills and deep ravines topography,the Knobstone Escarpment,and a portion of Indiana's longest footpath,the Knobstone Trail. Within the state forest is Deam Lake State Recreation area, with a 194-acre lake. The Ohio River Greenway is a 7-mile long recreation corridor along the Ohio River, connecting Jeffersonville, I Clarksville, New Albany, and Kentucky utilizing the historic Big 4 Bridge in Jeffersonville and a bridge in New Albany. In Jeffersonville, Big 4 Station is a park space adjacent to the Big 4 Bridge and trail. Clark County's climate is typical of Southern Indiana's uplands regions and areas along the Ohio River ' Valley. Figure 4 charts the temperature and precipitation climate norms for Clark County as recorded in 110 Scottsburg, a city in neighboring Scott County. It's important to note that the variables of temperature, precipitation, and snowfall can vary greatly from one year to the next. Weather can also vary greatly 60 among various geographic regions within the county, from the Ohio River Valley area in the south to the north-central and northeast uplands areas of the county. +1r► r Figure 4: Climate Norms for Clark County' +1r 100 q6r 90 40 80 VV 70 ® 60 . 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec tPrecip(in.) 3.18 2.87 4.12 4.66 5.20 4.S9 4.33 4.18 3.20 3.47 3.64 3.63 - -Min Temp.(°F) 22.0 24.5 31.3 41.3 51.5 61.6 64.6 62.3 53.7 42.4 33.4 24.7 Avg Temp.(°F) 30.8 34.6 43.2 53.8 63.4 72.7 75.7 74.3 66.7 55.3 44.5 33.8 --*-Max Temp.(°F) 39.6 44.8 55.0 66.3 1 75.4 83.9 86.8 86.3 79.7 68.3 55.7 42.9 The coldest month is January,with an average temperature of 30.8°F.Air temperatures reach a high point in July or August with averages for July of 75.7°F and 74XF in August. The coldest month was January which recorded an average temperature of 30.8°F. The wettest month was May, with 5.2 inches of precipitation. Z Source:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals The Polis Center 15 W hr rr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 4.2 Demography bo Among the demographic characteristics that are crucial to mitigation planning are population distribution ko among various age groups and genders,socio-economic characteristics, and population density. For Clark County hazard mitigation planning, it's particularly important to analyze the densely populated urban areas in relationship to the transportation network and the Ohio River, which can restrict direct access to densely populated areas in Clarksville and Jeffersonville. The largest city is Jeffersonville,the county seat,with a 2010 population of 42,148. In 2010,the combined population of Clark County's two largest and neighboring cities, Clarksville and Jeffersonville,was 64,645, r approximately 60% of the county's total population. Table 8 shows the 2010 population of Clark County communities, both incorporated and unincorporated census designated places (CDPs). For the decennial census,the US Census Bureau delineates CDPs as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places,such ow as cities, towns, and villages. The US Census Bureau states that CDPs are "delineated solely to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally 111' incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located." ow Ir Table 8: 2010 Population of Clark County Communities3 �► Incorporated Jurisdiction 2010 Population Borden (town) 796 Charlestown (city) 7,472 Clarksville(town) 22,947 Jeffersonville(city) 42,148 } Sellersburg (town) 6,115 Utica(town) 885 Incorporated Jurisdiction Total 80,363 Census Designated Place(CDP) Henryville(CDP) 1,905 Memphis(CDP) 695 New Washington (CDP) 566 CDP Total 3,166 3 US Census Bureau,2010 Census } The Polis Center 16 No 6 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 The urban location of more than three-quarters of Clark County's population together with population density and the Ohio River location of its two largest cities, Jeffersonville (1,319 persons per square mile density)and Clarksville's 2,178 density are important factors in developing effective mitigation strategies. 6, It is important to consider minority cultures and subcultures in mitigation planning in order to indentify 6► portentially vulnerable populations. Clark County's minority population is predominantly Black or African American at 7.3% of the county's population in 20134, compared to 9.5% of the state's population. The second largest minority group is Hispanic or Latino at 5.1% and the Asian population group which comprises 1%of the county's population. 6 Clark County has over 42,502 households with 2.58 persons on average per household. Clark County's home ownership rate is 71.6%, slightly higher than Indiana's average of 70%. Compared to the state's kv median value of$122,400 for owner-occupied homes,Clark County values are higher,averaging$127,400 1 6v in 2013. More than 88%of the county's residents have lived in the same house for one year or more. fir, In 2013,the median age of Indiana's population was 37.1 years,comparable to Clark County's 38.3 years. � Figure 5 on the next page shows Clark County's population pyramid, a visual profile that shows the 6r► distribution of the county's population by age segments and gender. 11110 Key population characteristics such as age, particularly groups that are 18 years and under and 65 years 6, and over, are crucial to hazard mitigation planning. For example, the increase in population for the 45 to 59 segments represents the tail end of the baby boom generation, which is defined as the population cohort born between 1946 and 1964. This increase will continue to travel upward as this population segment ages. Higher percentages in the 70 to 79 age segments usually reflect the increase in life expectancy. Along with mortality rates,the population pyramid is useful in depicting fertility rates,and thus population growth, by looking at the percentage of the population in the age 5 and under segments. Clark County's population pyramid shows relatively stable growth for the county with long life expectancy and low infant mortality. b �r wr k. I�r ■r Figure 5: Clark County Population Pyramids 4 US Census Bureau,Quickfacts,2013 estimates s US Census Bureau 2013 5-year estimates The Polis Center 17 6 • • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • • 85 years and over -- • 80 to 84 years -_ • 75 to 79 years • 70 to 74 years -- • 65 to 69 years --_ • 60 to 64 years • 55 to 59 years • 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years -„- • 40 to 44 years ■Male(%) • 35 to 39 years ■Female(%) • 30 to 34 years _ 25 to 29 years --, 20 to 24 years -- • 15 to 19 years • 10 to 14 years ■-," 5 to 9 years • Under 5 years �1 I I ITI 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 • Population(%) • • 4.3 Population Change • Migration trends inform hazard mitigation by highlighting areas of population growth and decline, revealing immigration and emigration patterns, and informing public officials of changes in such characteristics as net Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) as a result of migration. • . According to STATS Indiana migration data for 2013, Clark County registered a positive natural population increase of 361 (more people were born than died) and a net domestic migration loss of 70(more people moved out of the county than into the county). • • • • • • • • • • The Polis Center 18 • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 +wr Table 9 lists the breakdown of the population change in Clark County from 2000 to 2010. r Table 9: Population Change in Clark County (2000-2010) 20006 20107 %Change W Population Population 2000-2010 VP Incorporated Community V Borden 818 796 -2.7% W Charlestown 5,993 7,472 24.7% Clarksville 21,400 22,947 7.2% Jeffersonville 27,362 42,148 54.0% Sellersburg* 6,071 6,115 0.7% Utica 591 885 49.8% Total 62,235 80,363 15.5% Census Designated Place(CDP)2000-2013 Henryville 1,545 1,905 23.3% Memphis 400 695 73.8% New 547 566 3.5% Washington Total 2,492 3,166 27.0% Clark County 1 96,472 107,381 11.3% *A Senior Code Official from Sellersburg requested that it be noted that the Sellersburg's population for 2010 was actually 8,584. The map in Figure 6 on the following page was generated with the Forbes American Migration Map tool and shows Clark County's migration patterns between 2005 and 2010 in terms of inbound and outbound domestic migration. e US Census Bureau,2000 Census 'US Census Bureau,2010 5-year estimates • The Polis Center 19 60 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ho 6 6 L 6 r 6 r 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 kv 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 k' 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 The Polis Center 20 6 6 • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 s Figure 6: Clark County Migration Patterns iInbound migration 6,600 i Clark County(Jeffersonville), Ind. • Population(2010):110,232 Outbound migration Population(2005):101,781 3,300 • Inbound income per cap.(2010):$17,100 Outbound income per cap.(2010):$16joo • Non-migrant income per cap.(2010):$22,000 Select year(April-April): 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 • • • • • • • • s i • i • Sau Internal Revenue Service Tax Stats.The data presented here only include people represented as an exemption on an income tax return.Years represent filing seasons,which for most people end on April 15,but they include returns received as lata as the and of September. During the decade of 2010 to 2020, Clark County is projected to increase its population by more than 10%$. Clark is the only south-central county and among just nine counties in the entire state that are projected to make gains of 10%or more by 2020. 4.4 Special Needs Populations sCertain populations require special attention in mitigation planning because they may suffer more severely from the impacts of disasters. It's important to identify these populations and develop mitigation • strategies to help the population groups become more disaster resilient. Although there are numerous • types of vulnerable populations,Clark County has identified five significant population groups with special s Indiana Business Research Center,Kelley School of Business,Indiana University,March 2012 • The Polis Center 21 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 i' needs: those with a non-English language spoken at home, those below poverty level, those with a disability, those age 65 years and over, and the population group without a high school diploma. + The planning team compared Clark County to nearby counties, as well as Indiana and Kentucky, by averaging the percent population of each special needs category within the county/state. Of the seven geographies we compared (two state and five counties), Clark County ranks sixth, but is comparable to most of the surrounding regions. r Figure 7 shows how each county/state compares overall and per special needs indicator.The purpose of the comparison is to highlight special needs populations for further analysis. It does not necessarily mean that those communities are the most vulnerable. For example, Adams County, which is located in northeastern Indiana, has a high average of combined special needs indicators. This is due, however, to Adams County's significant Amish population,which may have special needs in terms of culture, but is not necessarily a concern in terms of safety for emergency managers and first responders. More than 17%of Adams County's population speaks a language other than English at home. But while many Amish speak Pennsylvania Dutch or German at home, they are also fluent in English. Additionally, the high percentage r of population without a high school diploma (15.5%) may be explained by the fact that many Amish children only attend school through grade eight. The special needs indicators most significant in Clark County are the population with a disability (15.1%), k► the population aged 65 and older (13.1%), and the population whose income in the past 12 monthes is r below poverty level (12.2%). In the event of a disaster, these groups have particular challenges and concerns. They may require life-sustaining medication, electricity-operated medical equipment, and assistance meeting basic human needs.They may also require special temporary housing needs that can r accommodate physical disabilities/limitations and varied levels of income. Clark County emergency management and personnel can help to mitigate these vulnerabilities by participating in specialized training to deal effectively with these populations or offering resources to the public, public assistance facilities, health care institutions and elderly care facilities to empower them with knowledge and tools NIF that could help them save their own lives. • Evacuation exercises for inmate communities and elderly care facilities ` • Public materials on when and how to shelter in place 6 • Construction of accessible safe rooms �Ir • Training for emergency shelter staff `r • Development of resource guide for seniors with available housing, medical, and basic needs 6. services 1111r • Development of accessible media announcements • Ensure comprehensive siren coverage in rural areas of the county. 6r 6► 6V 6 The Polis Center 22 �r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Figure 7: Special Needs Ranking Overall and by lndicator9 20 • 18 16 • 14 �I • • 0 12 Z 10 a o. 0 8 6 • 4 • • 2 • 0 1 • 1 Scott County 2 KENTUCKY 3 Washington 4 INDIANA 5 Jefferson 6 Clark county 7 Floyd County County County %With non-English Primary Language %In Poverty • �%With Disability %Age 65+ • �%Age 25+with less than 9th grade education Average Explanation of Special Needs Indicators: S • Percent of population speaking language other than English at home • • Percent of population with a disability within the civilian non-institutionalized population • Percent of all people whose income in the last 12 months is below poverty level • Percent of population age 65 and over • • Percent of population age 25 and over with less than 91h grade educational attainment • • • • • • • • 9 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,2009-2013 • The Polis Center 23 fir AW Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 4► V, Other factors important in mitigation planning include geographic areas with the highest vulnerability, as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Clark County Vulnerability Score 625 Ir l ,rh.rn FF 511 flip owesvolt .�" 42_. Bradford Gnwtvitt• W7r low y30 Roydt .,.v«.. w ... Snob• o m a u.» er bY►y nn, .nnnr caa..M.lkc,.,r.ma r� 61 G10rQ•folr ` �• s.i..lw.�e Mael.. r oohs"y�u`v �ritfd�� d rlolr ! IMI. D.41 l Special Needs Vulnerability Score By Census Tract D l 4 Il%Ipe, N � "t1,��y Low N High � ,... GMdm+floc While the vulnerability map and special needs population data are not definitive or conclusive, this information points to geographic areas and population groups that could benefit from further analysis in ow mitigation planning. The locations of vulnerable populations in Clark County are based on census tracts. ■r The scores for each tract are totaled to create the Special Needs Vulnerability Score. The score pertains lwr to the degree of vulnerability(low to high) of the population in the tract. or 4.5 Economy and Industry 1W The financial crisis of beginning in 2008 had a similar impact on Clark County as it did in Indiana and the i US. Although the unemployment rate in Clark County from 2008 through 2011 reflected the state's rate, it was lower than the US unemployment by approximately .5%, except in 2010 when it was .3% higher. Figure 9 illustrates unemployment and poverty in Clark County, Indiana, and the US from 2008-2013. Over the four-year period ending in 2011, unemployment in Indiana averaged 5.8% compared to Clark County's average of 5.3%. Clark County's unemployment from 2012 to 2013 was slightly lower, between .6%to.4%,than both state and US levels.The population below poverty level in Clark County has been at least 3.2% lower each year during the six-year period ending in 2013. 6 The Polis Center 24 • • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • • Figure 9: Unemployment and Poverty Rates (2008-2013)10 18 • • 16 14 • �%Unemployment-US 12 • 10 %Unemployment-Indiana Percent 8 �%Unemployment-Clark County • 6 Below Poverty Level-Indiana • %Below Poverty Level-Clark s 4 County 2 tr• 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Cllr' %V Note about above chart: Unemployed data is for age 16 years and over,civilian labor force population. Poverty level includes all people whose income is below the poverty level in the past 12 months. Poverty level guidelines are issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services. 40 Ir Since Clark County's early settlement, the Ohio River has been the primary economic driver, fueling significant business and industrial development in the riverfront communities of Utica,Jeffersonville and Clarksville. In 2008,Clarksville's long-time mainstay manufacturer,the Colgate-Palmolive Company closed operations.The soap factory's former site near the riverfront is being redeveloped as a mixed-use setting. The 2012 Clark's Landing North Master Plan includes business, retail, residential and recreation components. 6r Today, among the county's major businesses related to river commerce, industry and trade are Jeffersonville's Jeffboat, the largest inland shipbuilder in the US. Jeffboat builds barges, steamboats and other watercraft from its 68-acre shipyards on the Ohio River. Increasingly, the Port of Indiana- Jeffersonville (Clark Maritime Center) is a leading commerce and industrial force in Clark County. During the first quarter of 2015, the 1,057-acre port with 3,200 feet of river frontage reported the highest r quarterly shipments in its 30-year history. The port includes 25 tenants, including 13 steel-related 6 companies and an industrial park.The port also offers year round shipping to the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes through the US Inland Waterway System. 10 US Census Bureau:2008-2012,3-year estimates;2013,5-year estimates �fl The Polis Center . 25 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Clark County's median household income of$50,496 is comparable to the state's average of$48,24811 Table 10 describes employment in Clark County by industry sector. Table 10: 2013 Clark County Employment by Industry Sector 12 Industry Sector Number of %of Employees* Labor Force • Agriculture, forestry,fishing and hunting, and mining 267 1.2% • Construction 3,305 8.8% . Manufacturing 8,483 17.3% Wholesale trade 1,156 3.1% • Retail trade 5,980 11.7% • Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3,746 6.3% Information services 769 1.1% • Finance and insurance,and real estate and rental and • leasing 3,860 5.7% SProfessional, scientific, and management, and 4,044 7.6% administrative and waste management services . Educational services, health care and social assistance 11,594 18.6% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation 5,415 11.6% and food services • Other services, except public administration 2,691 4.7% • Public administration 2,186 2.3% Civilian employed population 16 years and over 53,496 100.0% • 11 US Census Bureau,2013 5-year estimates . 12 US Census Bureau,2013 5-year estimates • — _AL� . The Polis Center 26 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 The major employers of Clark County are listed in Table 11. Table 11: Clark County Major Employers13 Company/Employer Product/Service Location Employment . Amazon.com Inc. Retail-Warehousing Jeffersonville 2,500 Clark Memorial Hospital Hospitals Jeffersonville 1,600 • Greater Clark School System Education Jeffersonville 1,600 • Afge Local 1438 Labor Organizations Jeffersonville 1,500 • US Census Bureau Govt-Information Services Jeffersonville 1,200 Jeffboat LLC Boats-Manufacturers Jeffersonville 600 National Distributors Leasing Trucking-motor Freight Sellersburg 435 Ivy Tech Community College Higher Education Sellersburg 430 • West Clark School System Education Jeffersonville 430 • Humana Inc. Medical Insurance Plans Jeffersonville 373 Labor Ready Employment Contractors Jeffersonville 400 • Koetter Woodworking Inc. Millwork-Manufacturers Borden 399 • Kitchen Kompact Cabinets-Manufacturers Jeffersonville 300 Da Inc. Auto Parts&Supplies-Mfrs. Charlestown 300 Meijer Grocers-Retail Jeffersonville 300 Star Of America Bus Lines Clarksville 300 • Lifespring Mental Health Services Jeffersonville 287 Jeffersonville High School Schools Jeffersonville 280 Aig Service Net Warranty Warranty Programs Jeffersonville 274 • LLC • Harland Clarke Business Forms and Systems Jeffersonville 260 American Commercial Lines Barge Lines and Terminals Jeffersonville 250 Inc. Manitowoc Beverage Beverage Dispensing Equip. Sellersburg 250 • Systems Inc. Holland Trucking-Motor Freight Jeffersonville 205 Legacy Supply Chain Service Logistics Jeffersonville 200 Haas Cabinet Cabinets-Manufacturers Sellersburg 200 Essroc Cement-Manufacturers Speed 200 Kindred Sellersburg Health Rehabilitation Services Sellersburg 200 B Source:Business Lookup Tool,Indiana Department of Workforce Development,Q 12015 employers with 200 or more employees • The Polis Center 27 IV +air► wr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 .111• 4.6 Commuting Patterns County-to-county commuting patterns provide a gauge of the economic connectivity of neighboring communities. The US Census reports that over 27%of US workers travel outside their residential county to travel to work. • Approximately 70,987 people who live in Clark County are also working (implied resident labor force.)14 . Of these, 23,284 or 32.8% work outside the county. An additional 12,954 people live in another county and commute to work in Clark County. Figure 10 illustrates the inbound and outbound migration of the workforce in Clark County, nearby Indiana counties and Kentucky. • Figure 10: Clark County Inbound and Outbound Commuting Patterns 15 Into Clark ;4Tax %Vwhint ton S9391,393 Aut of State 1,666 1,631 i 1,905 AW3 Kcatuckv en I larrimm TATS Inclana STATS Indana ommuteng protiles Commuting Profiles Year 2012 Tax Year 2012 In 2013, the average travel time to work in Clark County was 22.5 minutes, higher than the state average • of 23.3 minutes and the 24.3-minutes commute in the Louisville Metro MSA. Commuter safety is an important consideration in disaster mitigation and planning. Employers can help their employees prepare ARL by encouraging the development of Commuter Emergency Plans, such as the template developed by imp FEMA are available for download at http://www.fema.gov/media-Iibrary/assets/documents/90370. w 4.7 Transportation Among the factors critical to both Clark County's growth and development, as well as effective mitigation planning, is the transportation network. Clark County's surface transportation network includes four . railroads which provide freight service only(CSX, MGR Railroad, Louisville&Indiana,and Southern Indiana . Railway) and two interstate highways, 1-65 and 1-265. In conjunction with the Ohio River Bridges Project, 1-265 will be extended from Prospect, KY to Utica, IN and include a new bridge. Since 2010, the area between Utica and Charlestown, eight miles northeast of Jeffersonville along the Ohio River Valley, has experienced significant growth and development, and is an important consideration for effective mitigation planning. 14 Source:STATS Indiana,Indiana IT-40 2012 tax year returns is STATS Indiana,2012 The Polis Center 28 14W arr w► Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 .r► According to INDOT vehicular traffic volume data collected in 2013, the highest traffic volume in Clark County is 91,497 vehicles a day on 1-65 within two miles of the Ohio River. Of those vehicles, 75% were .r passenger vehicles. Among the 1-65 traffic volume stations, the 1-65 100 N of Kentucky state line station recorded the highest commercial vehicle traffic volume with 66%commercial and 34%passenger vehicles. 1W wr Since the 2008 Clark County MHMP, there have been numerous improvements and several major expansions of the county's transportation network. Pending approval, Louisville & Indiana and CSX low railroads will offer high-speed service that can accommodate heavy freight and Hazmat shipments. Clark County has also identified a "heavy-haul" roadway route which will connect the Ohio River port, River r+r' Ridge Commerce Center, and Clark Regional Airport, which extended its longest runway to 7,000 feet for .r expanded cargo services. %W Among the most significant transportation projects launched since the 2008 MHMP is the Ohio River low Bridges Project.The two project areas are Louisville Downtown Crossing,with rehabilitation of more than • 20 bridges and structures, and a new 1-65 bridge. The East End Crossing includes a new bridge and 1-265 �r extension connecting the east side of Louisville, at Prospect, KY with Utica. qW Although the Ohio River Scenic Byway along SR-62 in Clark County might not be considered a strategic 1W transportation artery for mitigation planning purposes the route is an important cultural and historic asset,as well as an economic and tourism resource.The county's segment is part of a designated National +r Scenic Byway that spans 967 miles, from Illinois to Ohio. .rr 4.8 Major Waterways and Watersheds The surface water drainage of Clark County lies within the Ohio River Basin. Clark County crosses three watersheds, Blue-Sinking, Muscatatuck, and Silver-Little Kentucky16. The watersheds and their HUC 8 Ak codes are listed in Table 13. Clark County's navigable waterways are listed in Table 12. Major Ohio River Alit tributaries located in Clark County include Silver Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, and Camp Creek. Table 12: Clark County Navigable Waterways" Navigable Waterway Description Bull Creek Navigable from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.1 river miles. Camp Creek Navigable from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.7 river miles. Fourteen Mile Creek Navigable from its junction with the Ohio River for 2.9 river miles. • Lancassange Creek Navigable from its junction with the Ohio River for 0.3 river miles. . Ohio River Navigable throughout the county. Silver Creek Navigable from its junction with the Ohio River for 3 river miles. . "Source:EPA 17IDNR . The Polis Center . 29 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 13: Clark County Watersheds err `r Watershed HUC 8 Code Blue-Sinking 05140104 Muscatatuck 05120207 Silver-Little Kentucky 05140101 err The Blue-Sinking Watershed is located along the southwestern edge of Clark County. It covers eight Indiana counties and drains over 795,000 acres.A very small portion of the Muscatatuck Watershed dips into Oregon Township in northern Clark County. The watershed drains more than 731,300 acres and +rr covers eight counties in south-central and southeastern Indiana. Silver-Little Kentucky Watershed drains four Indiana counties: Clark, Floyd, Scott, and Washington. More than 80% of the watershed's 97,443 acres is within Clark County. Land usage within the watershed includes 28% urban, 36%forest, and 25% agricultural usage. 4.9 Land-Use and Development Trends The number of farms as well as acres of land used for farming and agricultural operations in Clark has been declining since 2007. By 2012, the number of farms had fallen to 515 from 585 in 2007. Land used • for farming also declined by 9.3%from 86,668 acres to 78,645 acres in 2012.According to the 2007 study • Rural and Urban Sustainability in Clark County by The Center for Environmental Policy and Management, University of Louisville, farmland loss is attributed primarily to the increased demand for residential, as well as commercial and industrial development. • Since 2010,the Jeffersonville and Sellersburg area,southeastern Clark County,and the Utica-Charlestown corridor have been experiencing significant population, residential, business, and industrial growth. The new 1-265 bridge over the Ohio River and River Ridge Commerce Center are attracting new business and industrial operations that are creating jobs and, in turn, increasing the demand for housing and residential development. River Ridge Commerce Center is redeveloping 6,000 acres of a former US military ammunition plant for an expansive, multi-faceted business and industrial park. According to a study conducted by Policy • Analytics, LLC, River Ridge is expected to have a $1.3 billion economic impact in 2015. The study also predicts that employment will rise to 10,084 in 2015, almost double the 5,258 jobs in 2012. •• To date, about 600 acres, or 10% of the complex, has been redeveloped, attracting high-profile clients such as Amazon.com Inc., The Standard Register Co., and Japanese labeling company American Fuji Seal Inc. Today, Amazon.com Inc., remains the park's largest employer, with a regular workforce of about 2,500. River Ridge is also planning to spend$7 million in improvements and expansion of the park's road system, including River Ridge Parkway,which will be a strategic commercial connector to 1-265,the east Louisville metro area, and beyond. The Polis Center 30 • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Section • • 5 Risk Assessment • --j • The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard including loss of life, property damage, • disruption to local and regional economies, and the expenditure of public and private funds for recovery. • Sound mitigation must be based on sound risk assessment. A risk assessment involves quantifying the • potential loss resulting from a disaster by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and • people. • This assessment identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of a disaster, how much of the • community could be affected by a disaster, and the impact on community assets. A risk assessment • consists of three components: 1) Hazard Identification, 2) Vulnerability Assessment, and 3) Risk Analysis and Hazard Profiling. 5.1 Identifying Hazards 5.1.1 Existing Plans • • To facilitate the planning process,the planning team reviewed existing plans and data including the 2008 • Clark County Multi-Hazard mitigation plan and the current effective FEMA Flood Insurance Flood Maps (FIRMS). The 2008 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identified the following principal hazards • ranked from most to least severe: • 1) Flooding • 2)Tornado 3)Severe Storms • 4) Winter Storms • 5) Hazardous Material Release • 6) Earthquake 7) Drought • 8) Ground Failure • In 2015,the planning team updated the county's top hazards to: • 1) Flooding • 2)Severe Storms • 3)Tornado 4) Winter Storms • 5) Hazardous Material Release • • The Polis Center 31 • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 6) Fire 7) Earthquake 8) Subsidence 9) Drought 5.1.2 Historical Hazards Records To assist the planning team, historical storm-event data from the past five years was compiled from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The NCDC Storm Events Database includes events related to i tornadoes, severe storms, floods, winter storms, droughts, and extreme temperatures. NCDC records are estimates of damage reported to the National Weather Service from various local, state, and federal • sources. These estimates, however, are often preliminary in nature and may not match the final . assessment of economic and property losses related to given weather events.The NCDC data included 94 reported events in Clark County between January 1, 2007 and May 31, 2014. Figure 11: NCDC Events in Clark County(2007-2014) . 10 9 8 ■Flood S7 Severe Storm . 6 ■Hail 5 ■Tornadoes 4 ■Winter Storm 3 2 1 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ir 5.1.3 Hazard-Ranking Methodology �r During Meeting 1, held on February 27, 2015, the planning team reviewed historical hazard information and participated in a risk analysis exercise to rank hazards by community and severity of risk.The hazards are ranked using the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) criteria. The CPRI is calculated through four categories: 1) probability, 2) impact, 3)warning time, and 4) duration. The team calculated the probability rating(Highly Likely, Likely, Possible,or Unlikely)of each hazard,based on the number of events that have occurred in the county since the previous Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Throughout the planning process, the MHMP team had the opportunity to update the NCDC data with more accurate local information. For example, the NCDC records often list the locations of hazards, such as floods, under the county, not accounting for how the individual communities were The Polis Center 32 1 1 rr +rr MW Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 rrw wir affected. In such situations, the probability rating assigned to the county was applied to all jurisdictions within the county. Team consensus was also important in determining the probability of hazards not "' recorded by NCDC, for example, dam and levee failure, earthquakes, and hazardous materials spills.The QW probabilities for these hazardous events were determined by the planning team's estimation, derived 4W from local experience and records of the number of events that have occurred since the previous plan. aw After improving the NCDC data with additional local data, the team determined each hazard's potential impact on the communities (Catastrophic, Critical, Limited, or Negligible).The impact rating captures the potential magnitude and severity of the hazard. Table 14 lists the criteria used to determine both probability and impact. +r. Table 14: Guidelines for Determining Probability and Impact .r. r„ PROBABI LITY IMPACT g y co as rop is cident results multiple fatalitiesn s 10+events in 10 ye >Damage to critical infrastructure and property over a large area of community ow >Up to 50%of community facilities are damaged,destroyed,or inaccessible Likely Critical r >Incident results in a number of minor injuries,limited serious injuries ■r >Damage to critical infrastructure and property over a moderate area of community r 6-9 events in 10 years > o Up to 25%of community facilities are damaged,destroyed,or inaccessible >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for 2 weeks;some community operations must be cancelled or relocated temporarily Possible Limited >Incident results in a number of minor injuries,limited serious injuries,and few,if any, fatalities >Damage to critical infrastructure and property over a small area of community 2-5 events in 10 years >Up to 25%of community facilities are damaged,destroyed,or inaccessible >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for 1-2 weeks;some community operations must be cancelled or relocated temporarily Unlikely Negligible >Incident results in only minor injuries and no fatalities >Damage contained to a single incident scene and immediate area 0-1 events in 10 years >Less than 10%of community facilities are damaged,destroyed,or inaccessible >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for 24 hours or less; IF 'AOL community operations may be cancelled or relocated temporarily The overall hazard risk is calculated determined by weighting each CPRI category, and then combining them for a total value.Table 15 lists the CPRI categories and assigned weight values. 1 The Polis Center 33 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 15: CPRI Categories and Weighting • .45 Probability .30 Magnitude/Severity .15 Warning Time 10 Duration • 4- Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 4-Less Than 6 Hours 4-More Than 1 Week • 3-Likely 3-Critical 3-6-12 Hours 3-Less Than 1 Week • 2-Possible 2-Limited2- 12-24 Hours 2- Less Than 1 Day • 1 -Unlikely 1 -Negligible 1 1 -24+ Hours 1 -Less Than 6 Hours CPR[VALUE_ [(PROBABILITY X .45)+(MAGNITUDE X .30)+ (WARNING TIME X .15) + (DURATION X .10)] • Table 16 identifies the CPRI values for each hazard facing Clark County. • Table 16: Clark County CPRI and Hazard Ranking Hazard ProbabilityMagnitude/ Severity Warning Time Duration CPRI Flood 4-Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 3-6-12 Hours 3-Less Than 1 Week 3.75 Flash Flooding 4- Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 3-6-12 Hours 3- Less Than 1 Week 3.75 • Winter Storm 4-Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 3-6-12 Hours 3-Less Than 1 Week 3.75 • Tornado 4-Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 4-Less Than 6 Hours 1 - Less Than 6 Hours 3.7 Severe Thunderstorm 4-Highly Likely 4-Catastrophic 4- Less Than 6 Hours 1 -Less Than 6 Hours 3.7 • Hazmat 3-Likely 4-Catastrophic 4-Less Than 6 Hours 2-Less Than 1 Day 3.35 . Fire 3-Likely 1 -Negligible 4-Less Than 6 Hours 1 -Less Than 6 Hours 2.35 • Earthquake 2-Possible 2-Limited 4-Less Than 6 Hours 2- Less Than 1 Day 2.3 . Subsidence 2- Possible 1 -Negligible 4- Less Than 6 Hours 2- Less Than 1 Day 2 . Extreme Temps 1 - Unlikely 1 - Negligible 1 -24+ Hours 4-More Than 1 Week 1.3 • Drought 1 - Unlikely 1 - Negligible 1 -24+ Hours 4-More Than 1 Week 1.3 The Polis Center 34 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 The planning teams plotted each hazard on a risk grid according to probability(y-axis)and potential impact (x-axis). The following figure describes the methodology of plotting hazards by risk. In this example, an earthquake has a medium probability of occurring but a significant potential impact, while a tornado has a high probability of occurring in a given year with a significant potential impact. Figure 12: Risk Grid Methodology PROBABILITY High s Figure 12 illustrates the risk grid methodology. In this example,a ' tornado has a high probability r (y-axis) and a significant impact Medium (x-axis),so overall, Indiana is at i high risk for a tornado. 1 ar"uake i Low i t Minimal Moderate Significant IMPACT Low Risk High Risk Clark County listed flooding, severe storms, and tornadoes as the highest-risk disasters. Figure 13 illustrates the county's risk for each hazard. lr Figure 13: Clark County Risk Matrix PROBABILITY High Flood Flash Flood mte orna o storms Thunderstorms Illr Medium Hazmat Otandslile Fire Earthquake Drought Low Minimal Moderate Significant IMPACT The Polis Center 35 M • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 While some hazards are widespread and will impact communities similarly, e.g.winter storms, others are localized leaving certain communities at greater risk than others. The following diagram illustrates each • community's risk to flooding, dam/levee failure, hazmat incidents, and ground subsidence. ® Figure 14: Community Risk to Localized Hazards Flooding Dam/Levee Hazmat Subsidence Borden &diA MLA • Charlestown ARLA ALA • Clarksville ALA • Utica ALI 'Wil, MLA Jeffersonville AM K • Sellersburg .a&- & ' i L& ALA 5.1.4 GIS and Hazus-MH Modeling FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program is designed to provide assistance to local communities to develop and implement their hazard mitigation plan,thereby reducing risk to property and lives.The initial • multi-hazard mitigation plan (MHMP) for Clark County, Indiana, was submitted to FEMA and approved in • 2008. Existing Hazus-MH technology was used in the development of the vulnerability assessment for • flooding and earthquakes. With the implementation of new technology and locally available parcel datasets, more accurate results are now available. Multi-hazard mitigation plan updates may document significant variances from the original MHMP. . For this analysis, Hazus-MH generated a combination of site-specific (flood) and aggregated loss . (earthquake) estimates. Aggregate inventory loss estimates, which include building stock analysis, are . based upon the assumption that building stock is evenly distributed across census blocks/tracts.With this in mind, total losses tend to be more reliable over larger geographic areas than for individual census blocks/tracts. Site-specific analysis is based upon loss estimations for individual structures. For flooding, . analysis of site-specific structures takes into account the depth of water in relation to the structure. Hazus- . MH also takes into account the actual dollar exposure to the structure for the costs of building . reconstruction, content, and inventory. Damages, however, are based upon the assumption that each structure will fall into a structural class, and structures in each class will respond in a similar fashion to a The Polis Center 36 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • specific depth of flooding. Site-specific analysis is also based upon a point location rather than a polygon; . therefore the model does not account for the percentage of a building that is inundated. It is important to note that Hazus-MH is not intended to be a substitute for detailed engineering studies. Rather, it is intended to serve as a planning aid for communities interested in assessing their risk to flood, • earthquake, and hurricane-related hazards. This documentation does not provide full details on the processes and procedures completed in the development of this project. It is only intended to highlight .rr the major steps that were followed during the project. 5.2 Assessing Vulnerability • The Indiana Department of Homeland Security, through IndianaMa . Y� g p, provided parcel boundaries to the Polis Center, and the Indiana Department of Local Government and Finance provided the Clark County assessor records. Polis revised the Hazus-MH default data tables to reflect these updates prior to performing the risk assessment in order to improve the accuracy of the model predictions. • The default Hazus-MH data has been updated as follows: • The Hazus-MH general building stock(to include building count, building square footage, content . and structure exposure), Hazus-MH critical facilities, and Hazus-MH essential facilities have been • updated based on the most recent available data sources. Hazus-MH critical and essential point facilities have been reviewed, revised as necessary,and approved by local subject matter experts. • • The essential facility updates (schools, medical care facilities, fire stations, police stations, and • EOCs) have been applied to the Hazus-MH model data. Hazus-MH reports of essential facility • losses reflect updated data. The Polis Center M 37 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 �► 5.2.1 Identify Facilities CRITICAL FACILITIES are buildings that are deemed economically or socially viable to the county. Clark County has the following categories of critical facilities. • ■ Transportation Systems—2 airports, 5 railroad, 8 port facilities— necessary for transport of people • and resources including airports, highways, railways, and waterways. • 0 Lifeline Utility Systems — 7 wastewater treatment plants, 4 potable water systems, 27 • communications facilities—vital to public health and safety including potable water, wastewater, oil, • natural gas, electric power, and communication systems. ■ High Potential Loss Facilities — 16 dams (12 High Potential and 4 Significant Potential) — failure or • miss-operation may have significant physical, social, and/or economic impact to neighboring . community including nuclear power plants, high hazard dams, and military installations. ■ Hazardous Material Facilities-31 hazardous materials facilities—involved in the production,storage, and/or transport of corrosives, explosives,flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins. • Clark County's critical facilities are listed and mapped in Appendix C. • ESSENTIAL FACILITIES are defined as those that are vital to the county in the event of a hazard. These . include emergency operations centers, police departments, fire stations, schools, and care facilities. . Essential facilities are a subset of critical facilities. Ir Table 17 identifies the essential facilities that were verified, added or updated for the analysis. Clark County's essential facilities are listed and mapped in Appendix C. Table 17: Essential Facilities of Clark County . Category Number of Facilities . Care Facilities 70 . Emergency Operations Centers 1 . Fire Stations 25 . Police Stations 7 Schools 38 Total 141 The Polis Center 38 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 +wr 5.2.2 Building Replacement Costs The total building exposure for Clark County is identified in Table 18 along with the estimated number of buildings within each occupancy class.These counts and costs were derived from the county assessor and ilr► parcel data. Table 18: Building Exposure General Occupancy Estimated Total Buildings Total Building Exposure • Agricultural 2,735 $407,773,654 • Commercial 1,660 $1,283,363,902 Education 13 $11,476,914 • Government 281 $154,386,906 • Industrial 138 $272,982,324 Religious/Non-Profit 417 $267,069,982 Residential 37,076 $4,987,390,237 Total 42,320 $7,384,443,919 5.3 Profiling Hazards 5.3.1 Tornadoes . Tornadoes can occur at any time during the day or night and within any month of the year. The unpredictability of tornadoes makes them one of Indiana's most dangerous hazards.Their extreme winds . are violently destructive when they touch down in the region's developed and populated areas. Current estimates place the maximum potential velocity of tornados at about 300 miles per hour, but higher and lower values can occur.A wind velocity of 200 miles an hour will result in a wind pressure of 102.4 pounds per square foot of surface area—a load that exceeds the tolerance limits of most buildings. • Tornadoes are defined as violently-rotating columns of air extending from thunderstorms to the ground. Funnel clouds are rotating columns of air not in contact with the ground; however, the violently-rotating column of air can reach the ground very quickly and become a tornado. If the funnel cloud picks up and blows debris, it has reached the ground and is a tornado. Tornadoes are classified according to the Enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale shown in Table 19. The Polis Center ' 39 1 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Table 19: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Rating'$ • Fu'ita Number Estimated • J Wind Speed Path Width Path Length Description of Destruction • Light damage,some damage to chimneys, . EFO Gale 65-85 mph 6-17 yards 0.3-0.9 miles branches broken,sign boards damaged, • shallow-rooted trees blown over. Moderate damage,roof surfaces peeled off, FE1 Moderate 86-110 mph 18-55 yards 1.0-3.1 miles mobile homes pushed off foundations, • attached garages damaged. • Considerable damage,entire roofs torn from EF2 Significant 111-135 mph 56-175 yards 3.2-9.9 miles frame houses,mobile homes demolished, boxcars pushed over,large trees snapped or uprooted. • Severe damage,walls torn from well- • EF3 Severe 136-165 mph 176-566 yards 10-31 miles constructed houses,trains overturned,most . trees in forests uprooted, heavy cars thrown about. •• Complete damage,well-constructed houses EF4 Devastating 166-200 mph 0.3-0.9 miles 32-99 miles leveled,structures with weak foundations . blown off for some distance, large missiles generated. • Foundations swept clean,automobiles EF5 Incredible Over 200 mph 1.0-3.1 miles 100-315 miles become missiles and thrown for 100 yards or more,steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged. by Previous Occurrences for Tornadoes There have been seven tornadoes reported to NCDC in Clark County since January 2008 and a total of 19 in the past 50 years. According to the NCDS, March 2nd 2012 was the worst tornado outbreak since June . 2nd, 1990. This event caused one fatality and more than 6 million dollars in property damages. NCDC . reported tornado activity in Clark County is documented in Table 20 and Figure 15 below. r r 1 r ris NOAA Storm Prediction Center,http://www.srh.noaa.gov -fikr rThe Polis Center 40 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 20: Clark County NCDC-Reported Tornadoes—50 Years Location Date F-Scale Deaths Injuries Property Crop Damage Damage Clark County 9/3/1970 F1 0 0 $25,000 $0 Clark County 4/13/1972 F1 0 0 $25,000 $0 Clark County 6/16/1973 F1 0 0 $25,000 $0 Clark County 6/27/1973 F1 0 0 $250,000 $0 Clark County 4/3/1974 F5 1 23 $0 $0 Clark County 4/3/1974 F4 0 0 $250,000,000 $0 Clark County 6/2/1990 F3 0 4 $250,000 $0 Clark County 6/2/1990 F3 0 0 $2,500,000 $0 Borden 5/27/2004 F2 0 0 $1,000,000 $0 Clarksville 5/30/2004 F1 0 0 $500,000 $0 Vesta 10/18/2007 EF3 0 0 $1,000,000 $10,000 Henryville 1/29/2008 EF1 1 0 $50,000 $0 Borden 9/20/2009 ER 0 0 $10,000 $0 Watson 2/28/2011 EFO 0 0 $5,000 $0 16 Jeffersonville Arpt 4/19/2011 EFO 0 0 $0 $0 Jeffersonville Arpt 4/19/2011 ER 0 0 $0 $0 Jeffersonville Arpt 1/17/2012 EFO 0 0 $20,000 $0 . Blue Lick 3/2/2012 EF4 1 0 $6,000,000 $0 Blue Lick 3/2/2012 EF1 0 0 $300,000 $0 Figure 15: Clark County Tornado Tracks 1 if .5 A The Polis Center 41 1 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Geographic Location for Tornado Hazard The entire county has the same risk for tornadoes because they can occur at any location. flip Hazard Extent for Tornadoes 40 The historical tornadoes generally moved from west to east across the county. The extent of the hazard 40 varies in terms of the extent of the path and the wind speed. Tornadoes can occur at any location within the county. r Risk Identification for Tornadoes Low Risk High Risk r Based on historical information, the probability of a tornado in Clark County is high and the potential No impact of a tornado is significant; therefore the overall risk of a tornado in Clark County is high. 6` Vulnerability Analysis for Tornadoes Ir Tornadoes can occur within any area in the county; therefore, the entire county population and all buildings are vulnerable to tornadoes.To accommodate this risk,this plan will consider all buildings within the county as vulnerable. Essential and Critical Facilities All essential and critical facilities are vulnerable to tornadoes. These facilities will encounter many of the 6 same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction.The impacts will vary, based on the magnitude kv of the tornado, but can include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off, or windows broken by hail or high winds, and loss of facility functionality(e.g., a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Building Inventory The same risks to facilities are shared by other buildings within the county. The impacts can 60 include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds,and loss of building function(e.g.,damaged home will no longer be habitable causing residents 6r to seek shelter). 6 Infrastructure 6 During a tornado,the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Because the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that many of these structures could become damaged during a tornado.The potential impacts to these structures include broken,failed, or impassable roadways, broken or failed utility lines (e.g., loss of power or gas to community), and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable, causing risk to traffic. The Polis Center 42 Mr `r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • GIS Tornado Analysis • 2008 Tornado Analvsis For the 2008 MHMP, modeling was based on a historic F3 tornado event that ran for 2.8 miles starting west of Sellersburg in 1990. The analysis estimated that 238 buildings (primarily residential)would be damaged with losses totaling $9.5 million (within the .3 mile buffer zone). The following analysis is an example scenario to gauge the anticipated impacts of a tornado in the county in terms of numbers and types of buildings and infrastructure. GIS overlay modeling was used to determine the potential impacts of an F4 tornado. The analysis used a hypothetical tornado path that ran for 11 miles travelling extending from Clarksville through Jeffersonville. The selected widths were modeled after a recreation of the Fujita-Scale guidelines based on conceptual wind speeds, path widths, and path lengths. There is no guarantee that every tornado will fit exactly into one of these six categories.Table 21 depicts tornado damage curves as well as path widths. Table 21: Tornado Path Widths and Damage Curves Enhanced Fujita Scale Path Width(feet) Maximum Expected Damage EF5 2,400 100% EF4 1,800 100% i EF3 1,200 80% • EF2 600 50% EF1 300 10% Within any given tornado path there are degrees of damage.The most intense damage occurs within the center of the damage path with a decreasing amount of damage away from the center of the path. This natural process was modeled in GIS by adding damage zones around the hypothetical tornado path. Figure 16 and Table 22 describe the zone analysis. r The Polis Center 43 r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 16: F4 Tornado Analysis, Using GIS Buffers • Zone 4: 10%expected damage 900 feet 4W Zone 3: • 50%expected damage • 600 feet Zone 2: 80 e;pected damage F 300 feet ted damage eet • • Once the hypothetical route is digitized on a map, several buffers are created to model the damage 0 functions within each zone. An F4 tornado has four damage zones. Total devastation is likely to occur within 150 feet of the tornado path (the darker-colored Zone 1).The outer buffer is 900 feet from the tornado path (the lightest colored . Zone 4). Buildings within this buffer will be damaged by approximately 10%. Table 22: F4 Tornado Zones and Damage Curves Fujita Scale Zone Buffer(feet) Damage Curve F-4 4 600-900 10% F-4 3 300-600 50% . F-4 2 150-300 80% F-4 1 0-1501100% Irr ilr The Polis Center 44 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 The hypothetical tornado path is depicted in Figure 17 and the damage curve buffers are in Figure 18. _ . Figure 17: Hypothetical F4 Tornado Path for Clark County • H � � -r«n.ao Pam Figure 18: Modeled F4 Tornado Damage Buffers for Clark County - ,!� • Demeged Boildvgs �. I -Zone1 ' , Zone 2 Nj wun�w -Zone 3 /.0 Nis -Zone/ �,.�. s. 11� e The Polis Center ' 45 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 19: Modeled F4 Tornado Damage to Essential Facilities for Clark County fi S - VHA NAZARETH , HOME CARE n sl RE S C A R E 4 - ALT ER"AT 'ES s'E COMMUtIITY Jeffersonville lq Fire Dept QUALITY D IL Station 2 COMMUNITYEVII IN (� OUR LADY QF SERVICES INC ` PROVIDENCE TOP CARE e,an CERTIFIED NURSE JR.SRH HORi HAVEtI «` r•w i, ,� AIDE PROGRAMJ ELEMEt1TARY y SCHOOL hill ' tllll .irn M.r1*r01 60 ...; tsM'. 4t+ t• ■ InwaaA vMI1N0 ynarnhl 4 nM Ir �*1 + Damaged Care Facility "; ''� Nocklny,rtl P ^L, Damaged Fite Station 60 =p t o,n mwvnlloy Damaged School I ®ZOIIe 2 I N. s -Zone 3 r�" 50. ea IkZane 4 The results of the analysis are depicted in Table 23. The GIS analysis estimates 1,864 buildings could be damaged. The estimated potential building losses would be $171 million. The building losses are an estimate of building costs multiplied by the percentages of damage. The overlay was performed against parcels provided by Clark County(through IDHS and IndianaMap)that were joined with assessor records showing property improvement. The assessor records often do not distinguish parcels by occupancy class when the parcels are not taxable; therefore, the total number of buildings and the building replacement costs for government, religious/non-profit, and education may be underestimated. 6 Ir I 6 The Polis Center r 46 f `r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 23: Estimated Building Losses by Occupancy Type �r `ill' General Occupancy Buildings Damaged Building Losses W Agricultural 3 $147,209 40 Commercial 69 $30,155,652 W Education 2 $456,198 W Government 6 $4,160,897 Industrial 13 W $11,486,779 Religious 16 $8,021,729 Residential 1,755 r�r► $116,435,648 Total 1,864 irr $170,864,113 +Illi wlr Essential Facility Damage mr There were a total of seven essential facilities damaged in this hypothetical scenario. One fire station, 4W two schools, and care facilities were damaged.These are listed in Table 24. Air Table 24: Essential Facilities rir Damaged Essential Facilities Jeffersonville Fire Department Station 2 Northaven Elementary School Our Lady Of Providence Jr Sr High School • Res Care Community Alternatives SE IN Quality Community Services Inc Top Care Certified Nurse Aide Program . Vna Nazareth Home Care so Tornado Dangers to Vulnerable Populations fik Certain populations require special attention in the event of a disaster. Clarksville is located in area with a high Special Needs Vulnerability Score.These particular census tracts have a relatively higher proportion of the population with special needs when compared to the rest of the county. The tracts which includes Clarksville has 27.8%of its residents living in poverty and 10.7%aged 65 years or older.These populations r will need particular attention in the event of a disaster. Figure 20 shows those areas of the county which have a higher Special Needs Vulnerability Scores. 6 11106 6 611 --fic— The Polis Center 47 r rr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 20: Tornado Dangers to Special Needs/Vulnerable Populations • t a« z,s P • .rw 3s.\. �4 t • '' ' �� fT! tW+.a1.M � ••• aMwM t N1.W 1Y0. h• ,,, Spacial MssAs Wlnwapility SCOMM By Crips Tract • i Low—High • �_._.. i �. ; 1 t k f, Tomado Pam • Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Tornado Hazard Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all buildings and infrastructure in Clark County are at risk of damage including temporary or permanent loss of function. For tornadoes, it is not possible to isolate . specific essential or non-essential facilities that would be more or less likely to be located in a tornado impact zone. 5.3.2 Flood Hazard Flooding is a significant natural hazard throughout the United States. The type, magnitude, and severity of flooding are functions of the amount and distribution of precipitation over a given area, the rate at which precipitation infiltrates the ground, the geometry of the catchment, and flow dynamics and conditions in and along the river channel. Floods in Clark County can be classified as one of two types: flash floods or riverine floods. Both types of floods are common in Indiana. 1 Flash floods generally occur in the upper parts of drainage basins and are generally characterized by periods of intense rainfall over a short duration.These floods arise with very little warning and often result in locally intense damage, and sometimes loss of life, due to the high energy of the flowing water. Flood 1 The Polis Center 48 Ir • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 waters can snap trees, topple buildings, and easily move large boulders or other structures. Six inches of • rushing water can upend a person; another 18 inches might carry off a car. Generally, flash floods cause • damage over relatively localized areas, but they can be quite severe in the areas in which they occur. Urban flooding is a type of flash flood. Urban flooding involves the overflow of storm drain systems and can be the result of inadequate drainage combined with heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Flash floods • can occur at any time of the year in Indiana, but they are most common in the spring and summer months. •• Riverine floods refer to floods on large rivers at locations with large upstream catchments. Riverine floods are typically associated with precipitation events that are of relatively long duration and occur over large areas. Flooding on small tributary streams may be limited, but the contribution of increased runoff may • result in a large flood downstream.The lag time between precipitation and time of the flood peak is much • longer for riverine floods than for flash floods, generally providing ample warning for people to move to isafe locations and, to some extent, secure some property against damage. Riverine flooding on the large • rivers of Indiana generally occurs during either the spring or summer. Previous Occurrences for Flooding •• The NCDC database reported 29 flood events in Clark County since 2008. Most of these events were flash floods. Flash flooding can be very dangerous, especially for motorists who try to cross roads with flowing water. In June 2013, a three day event brought widespread substantial rains to southern Indiana producing localized flash flooding. This event caused $2,000 in property damages. i • • • • i r Table 25: Clark County NCDC-Reported Flood Events (2008 -2014) 1 The Polis Center 49 41 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 iLocation Date Event Type Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage Bennettsville 3/18/2008 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Underwood 3/19/2008 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Sellersburg 4/4/2008 Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Parkwood 6/26/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 • Sellersburg 6/26/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Henryville 7/30/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Borden 7/30/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Jeffersonville 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Sellersburg 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Charlestown 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Clarksville 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 4 Sellersburg 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 4-0 Cementville 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 41110 Sellersburg 8/4/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Charlestown 9/20/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Clarksville 9/20/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Bennettsville 9/20/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 tip Jeffersonville Arpt 9/20/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Sellersburg 10/9/2009 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 imp Oak Park 4/23/2011 Flash Flood 00 $0 $0 Borden 5/2/2011 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 r Clarksville 9/26/2011 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Clarksville 5/29/2012 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Clarksville 9/5/2012 Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Haps Arpt 6/26/2013 Flash Flood 0 0 $1,000 $0 Parkwood 6/26/2013 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $1,000 Sellersburg 11/17/2013 Flood 0 0 $5,000 $0 Sellersburg 4/4/2014 Flash Flood 0 0 $0 $0 fir Bonnenburger 9/11/2014 Flood 0 0 $0 $0 Geographic Location for Flooding Most riverine flooding occurs in the spring and is the result of excessive rainfall and/or the combination of rainfall and snowmelt. Severe thunderstorms may cause flooding during the summer or fall, but tend to be localized. liiw Flash floods, brief heavy flows in small streams of normally dry creek beds, also occur within the county. 1W Flash flooding is typically characterized by high-velocity water, often carrying large amounts of debris. 1 6p Urban flooding involves the overflow of storm drain systems and is typically the result of inadequate drainage following heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. r The Polis Center 50 Ir Ir 0 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 In Clark County, the unincorporated area has the greatest overall exposure to flooding with 1,078 residential units in the 1%-annual-chance-flood-risk area (AKA 100 year floodplain). There are 316 • residential units located within the floodplain in Jeffersonville; 194 within the floodplain at Clarksville;and • 168 within the floodplain of Utica. Table 26 contains a summary of building damage by occupancy. • Hazard Extent for Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) that identifies studied streams. The Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), which represents the • modeling of the 1%-annual-chance flood, was used in the analysis to identify specific stream reaches for • analysis. Flood hazard scenarios were modeled using GIS analysis and Hazus-MH. The existing DFIRM maps were used to identify the areas of study. Planning team input and a review of historical information provided additional information on specific flood events. Risk Identification for Flood Hazard • Low Risk High Risk Based on historical information, the probability of a flood is high, and the potential impact of a flood is significant;therefore the overall risk of a flood in Clark County is high. • Vulnerability Analysis 0 2008 Flood Analysis 0 For the 2008 MHMP,a Hazus-MH analysis of the 1%-annual-chance flood was modeled.That analysis "„ estimated that 303 buildings would be damaged with losses totaling$27.1 million. Better data collected for the 2015 plan update resulted in a more accurate estimation of damage, which is described in the . following section. The planning team analyzed vulnerability to flooding with an enhanced Hazus-MH analysis and an analysis of community participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is important to note that . the losses to buildings,particularly essential facilities and state-owned properties,extend beyond physical damage.The economic and social impacts associated with loss of governmental, public safety, and health . care infrastructure, are far more significant for a community. When assessing the cost of building . construction, it is important for government agencies to consider these impacts. Hazus-MH Analysis Hazus-MH was used to generate a flood depth grid for a 100-year return period based upon the DFIRM 6r boundary and a 1/3 ArcSecond DEM provided by the Indiana Geological Survey. Hazus-MH was then used r to perform a user-defined facility analysis of Clark County. This was accomplished by creating points representing building locations that were generated from IDLGF-provided assessor data linked to parcel data provided by the county (through IDHS and IndianaMap). These data were then analyzed to ' The Polis Center 51 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 determine the depth of water at the location of each building point and then related to depth damage 16 curves to determine the building losses for each structure. flip Hazus-MH estimates the 1%-annual-chance flood (historically referred to as the 100-year flood) would damage 2,277 buildings county-wide at a cost of$ 161.5 million. In the modeled scenario, Clark County's unincorporated areas sustained the most damage with 1,310 buildings damaged at a cost of$79.8 million. The total estimated numbers and cost of damaged buildings by community are given in Tables 26 and 27. �Ir Figure 21 depicts the Clark County buildings that fall within the 1%-annual-chance flood risk area (AKA 100-year floodplain). Figures 21 through 27 highlight damaged buildings within the floodplain areas in each flood-prone jurisdiction. ver Table 26: Number of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy Total Building Occupancy Class Community Buildings Damaged Agriculture Commercial Education Government Industrial Religious Residential Clark County (Unincorporated) 11310 142 53 1 9 3 14 1,088 Borden 16 0 0 0 2 0 2E12 Charlestown 22 0 7 0 1 0 1Clarksville 247 5 35 0 8 2 1 Utica 184 3 6 0 4 0 3 168 Jeffersonville 347 0 19 1 4 4 2 317 +fir Sellersburg 151 2 32 0 2 2 1 112 low Total 2,277 152 152 2 30 11 24 1,906 +fir ail► Table 27: Cost of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy tor Community Total$ Building Occupancy Class Losses Agriculture Commercial Education Government Industrial Religious Residential Clark County (Unincorporated) $79,822,874 $12,189,415 $7,228,939 $49,483 $2,320,996 $7,211,468 $2,562,855 $48,259,718 Borden $599,120 $0 $0 $0 $26,733 $0 $169,177 $403,210 bf Charlestown $2,089,912 $0 $1,452,357 $0 $21,000 $0 $11,000 $605,555 Clarksville $25,068,298 $427,656 $13,180,570 $0 $2,394,827 $836,399 $137,540 $8,091,306 Utica $11,195,285 $266,924 $837,062 $0 $550,723 $0 $342,578 $9,197,998 bo Jeffersonville $29,384,416 $0 $6,040,675 $722,000 $3,789,295 $452,482 $143,701 $18,236,263 Do Sellersburg $13,328,439 $284,976 $5,356,118 $0 $206,556 $1,272,313 $796,000 $5,412,476 Total $161,488,344 $13,168,971 $34,095,721 $771,483 $9,310,130 $9,772,662 $4,162,851 $90,206,526 lip IV 6 r The Polis Center r 52 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 21: Clark County Buildings in Floodplain (1% Annual Chance Flood) NabI low Mwr ysvrllc New Washington s� Q6s ` Blthllh! slow n IG- New Westport ovl dente ej qow a arla hewn -Amo F 4� rha Goa t— eenvl lle gw River Blur, r - — yss'�,s• Park o Prospect Lake - ow Floyds im Knobs Grr orchwrd C.— Hill, Sprine s.�s s "ll, Coldstream Crestwood and • � T;... InvDales aVrint Broe[k ori wortMri( valley ton Pewee etovm'ew 1 valley GOose rr� HMIs Cwys,N^a of ...� - Rhtll Creek I A� Drt arwloe b y d Willndv yvh du.R Kerneland Fnlli MoorlAnd Boll—d Lyndon Blue Lou Is v111P � Ns Norwood RWge l Lones.111Manor aNddletoWn Plymouth Dou`Ins Woo dl�nd }j' F Senora VI IIa¢e SC ReKI, Ihlls MI(d ,ar Jan: LtnCOln5111re P,rk 1 Itl wn. +-n Isrldyr / , -r.a40 ,J , C u Vllla[!`y St r.nth X00( j t111:tb Pnrk _. 'I Audubon 0 1.5 -'3 9lAdes/ Shlvely Pnrk - bileche) 1%Annual Chance Flood Area I . Wathrr:on wast...... P rk ow by kv Will Iw Ir bp Ir Ir Ir by S yy� I __4L_L The Polis Center 53 r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 22: Borden Flood-Prone Areas (11% Annual Chance Flood) Op I ow ow ow Iwback5on Rd IV NP ow owiN Rd Hey it ow Nw • Damaged Buildings N 0 0.115 0.3 0.6 Miles 1%Annuni Chance FIDodAres i . A 11w �11110, Iw 1111110 No Iw Iw w w The Polis Center 54 Ir or Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 23: Charlestown Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood) 4 It Y • xO • ao .',narleaiown Mme., �A of • Yy o s •L aP ♦ i �'6e . ri nrl esfown • Y µa • Damaged Buildings '� N 1%Annual Chance Flood Area _k 0 %40.3 0.4 Mies Figure 24: Clarksville Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood) 0 • F ow s r� +� ,s p yam'• �•' � wr• ® Aa Da magod Bwldmgs 0 0� Oa 17 ®1X Annual C h once Froo d Area The Polis Center 55 r r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 +ren Figure 25: Utica Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance Flood) IV _w1_ r• of f • 'r fir' it it 11� Irr N • Damaged Buildings 10 0 005 0.1 0.24i A.y 1%Ann Uel Lh.n0e Fl0ad Aree Figure 26: Jeffersonsville Flood-Prone Areas (1%Annual Chance Flood) y� 9 11w low I► ark r w Q•a� � Ca r �0 �P a� r - • y •• \ Glanvl aw y r o-r + Robinswood in`oh � L�u�lpe r ` rn+ry n.1�G rN C.nA Moc kinsbi Damaged Buildings Valley 0 0.3 0.8 1 fMiks -1%Annual Chance Flood Ansa r The Polis Center 56 r r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 27: Sellersburg Flood-Prone Areas (11% Annual Chance Flood-Clark County only) 4 X, Al Damaged Buildings 0 GAS 0.3 0.6 Miles 1%Annual Cha ce FloodArea 6F 1 1 1 6 Hazus Analysis of Essential Facilities 6V & An essential facility will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the flood boundary. 6 These impacts can include structural failure, extensive water damage to the facility and loss of facility IV functionality(e.g. a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). IV 60 Hazus estimates that seven essential facilities in Clark County could sustain damage. Four medical care facilities would be damaged by the 1% annual flood (Jeffersonville— 2, Henryville — 1, and Utica — 1) A total of two fire Stations (Jeffersonville) and one police Station (Utica) would also be damaged. These 6 Essential Facilities are depicted in Figures 28-30. 6, 6 The Polis Center 57 It Clark County Multi-HazardMitigationPlan Updated: October 2015 Figure 28: Jeffersonville and Surrounding Flood-Prone Essential Facilities RESCARE CONYYNIiYALTERNATNES SE BI ; ��'. ` �^'-�...�: AEL { 1 �, `' T �s.° _� ��, �Y RE3 CA qE CAYMNNITYALTEg11ATNE55EN "L < �� , �/ • `,�� JEFFER SONvt1E F�iE DE➢T,ST�TEIN � 4 FigureFlood-Prone u �I I � �♦ nnual Chan"Flood Ama The Polis Center p. •• , , K N »C. 0 J.035 0.07 O.t4 Yiles _ • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 30: Henryville Flood-Prone Essential Facilities • + Osmaged Cam • �1%Annual Chance Flood Acta Overlay Analysis of Critical Facilities • A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the flood boundary. These impacts can include structural failure, extensive water damage to the facility, and loss of facility functionality(e.g. a damaged waste water facility will no longer be able to serve the community). . As shown in Figures 31-35,the results of the overlay analysis indicate that a total of eight critical facilities . in Clark County could sustain damage. The community of Borden's wastewater treatment plants is in the . flood boundary. There are five hazardous materials sites in the flood boundary in Jeffersonville. Sellersburg and Speed each contain a hazardous materials site in the flood boundary The Polis Center ' 59 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 31: Borden community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities Damaged WasteWaterFadlity )( Damaged Hghway Bridges 1%Annual Chance Flood Area Figure 32: Utica community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities +� Damaged Port Facility 1%Annual Chance Flood Area rThe Polis Center 60 �r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 �r Figure 33: Jeffersonville community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities -v I � i Q Damaged Railway FaaW Damaged Communication Fadhty �+ Damaged Port Facility ® Damaged Hazmat Facility X Damaged Highway Bridges 1%Annual Chance Flood Area r rFigure 34: Sellersburg community Flood-Prone Critical Facilities r r r r r r r r r r r r i 2 Damaged Cormlunicatlon Faciht is Damaged Hazmat Facility X Damaged highway Bridges 1%Annual Chance Flood Area r r The Polis Center 61 r • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • • Figure 35: Flood-Prone Critical Facilities near Clarksville and Sellersburg Communities • Air• • • • 1 ® DamagedAirport t X Damaged Ffghwa/Bridges I%Annual Chance Flood Area • Flood Dangers to Vulnerable Populations • Certain populations require special attention in the event of a disaster. As previously noted, Clarksville and Jeffersonville have a high number of flood-prone buildings. These communities are also located in an area with a high Special Needs Vulnerability Score.These particular census tracts have a relatively higher • proportion of the population with special needs when compared to the rest of the county. The tract which includes Jeffersonville has 30.8%of its residents living in poverty and 11.5%aged 65 years or older.These . populations will need particular attention in the event of a disaster. Figure 36 compares the 1% annual . chance flood area with those areas of the county that have a higher Special Needs Vulnerability Scores. r r r r r r r r r r r The Polis Center 62 Ir Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 36: Flood Dangers to Special Needs/Vulnerable Populations +air `�I' .. Lsn natnn lit. \_ 1 In W sen F eM.raa '- 1 K+l Gos Irn A+sM i envslle Rsver bluff , rr► 5 (_ Park w Prospect � t•ke +-"ae Knobs Green Orchard Grass N tM llv Spina tt�µ Nlli •.J T_ Cddsb eam Crrs twooC FI Kaf tle r'L f `w [1a 1r•, sP�nl at uCG* Waf MS Mton Val ler l4sWn ara�1� s ,„r^ Val Tn^rano Special Needs Vulnerability Score By Census Tract ck1#0Y d wnv, F.11na Low-->High Ya11ey ron�. Fans ( row sboro —I f M^ .rs� . WNa{u D.ii�wnod Lana."1`/1 ITx' gnn«,tn 1%Annual Chance Flood Area t1Yaa ya Seneca Vsllateiq /ll Gardens Lsn.olnshr,«stp 6 NFIP Analysis 6 FEMA provides annual funding through the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) to reduce the risk of kv flood damage to existing buildings and infrastructure. These grants include Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and the Severe Repetitive Loss (SRC) program. The long-term goal is to significantly reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. FEMA defines a repetitive loss structure as a structure covered by a contract of flood insurance issued under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and has suffered flood loss damage on two occasions during a 10-year period that ends on the date of the second loss, in which the cost to repair the flood damage is 25%of the market value of the structure at the time of each flood loss. The Indiana State NFIP Coordinator and FEMA Region V were contacted to determine the location of 60 repetitive loss structures. FEMA Region V reported 65 non-mitigated and one mitigated repetitive loss structure in Clark County.Table 28 lists the number of repetitive losses by community. 10 10 �Ir The Polis Center 1. 63 t �r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 *WTable 28: NFIP Claims Data %of Num. • Insurance Value of Num. Community Community Insurance Repetitive Repetitive Losses • in SFHA Claims/ Claims/Pymts Losses in Dollars Losses • Clark County • 8.86/ 360 $4,627,121.00(Unincorporated) 35 $2,200,285.41 Borden 15.84% 5 $24,310.00 1 $6,479.98 Charlestown 2.93% 33 $152,494.00 1 $14,694.92 Clarksville 17.66% 37 $716,674.00 3 $21,193.55 Utica 62.28% 44 $1,128,882.00 6 $343,565.30 W Jeffersonville 10.70% 119 $807,267.00 16 $994,424.01 Sellersburg 14.63% 12 $125,157.00 1 $106,910.40 4W • Table 29: Additional Information on Communities Participating in the NFIP • Community Participation Date • Clark County 9/30/1980 Borden 4/16/2014 Charlestown 11/15/1979 Clarksville 8/3/1981 Utica 9/19/1984 • Jeffersonville 8/1/1979 • Sellersburg 8/1/1980 The NFIP'S Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. . As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from . the community actions that meet the three goals of the CRS: 1) reduce flood losses, 2) facilitate accurate insurance rating, and 3) promote the awareness of flood insurance. The communities of the Clarksville . and Jeffersonville joined the CRS program in 2014 and continue to be leaders in the NFIP program. Clark County has also recently joined the CRS. Since these communities have committed improving floodplain managmenet standards, the citizens of these communities receive a flood insurance discount(Clarksville r 5%and Jeffersonville 10%discount for policies located within the Special Flood Hazard Area). b 1 The Polis Center 64 1 Orr 1111111► %r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 1�r Table 30: Comparison of Building Exposure to Insured Buildings Buildings in Exposure of Number Insured Approximate Percent • Community 100-yr Buildings in of Value of Percentof Floodplain Floodplain Policies Policies Buildingss Exposure . Insured Insured • Clark County 1,310 $79,822,874 549 $86,672,100 42% 109%* • (Unincorporated) Borden 16 $599,120 16 $825,100 100% 138%* Charlestown 22 $2,089,912 6 $832,000 27% 40% Clarksville 247 $25,068,298 40 $8,045,800 16% 35% Utica 184 $11,195,285 51 $7,901,200 28% 74% Jeffersonville 347 $29,384,416 439 $90,519,400 127%* 308%* Sellersburg 151 $13,328,429 34 $5,336,500 23% 40% *Approximate percent of Buildings Insured and Percent of Exposure Insured is greater than 100%. to'' Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Flooding The Clark County Comprehensive Plan discourages new construction in the defined floodplains through the implementation of floodplain ordinances.The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the conservation of natural areas including wetlands and floodplains by limiting development in those areas. +lr► err 5.3.3 Earthquake Hazard An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface move slowly over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy.When the accumulated energy grows strong enough,the plates break free,causing the ground to shake. Ninety-five percent of earthquakes occur at the plate boundaries; however, some earthquakes occur in Ikr the middle of plates,as is the case for seismic zones in the Midwestern United States.The most seismically active area in the Central United States is referred to as the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Scientists have ,r learned that the New Madrid fault system may not be the only fault system in the central US capable of producing damaging earthquakes. The Wabash Valley Fault System in Indiana shows evidence of large earthquakes in its geologic history, and there may be other currently unidentified faults that could produce strong earthquakes. Figure 37 depicts Indiana's historical earthquake epicenters. Tables 31 and 32 provide guidance on how to interpret the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Ground shaking from strong earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and 6r communication (e.g. phone, cable, Internet) services; and sometimes trigger landslides, flash floods, and fires. Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil and trailers or The Polis Center 65 I, P' Yr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 IV homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake.When an earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage. Figure 37: Indiana Historical Earthquake Epicenters19 3.6 ° ° 0 0 f °EI 39 +rr 4.1 -_ �Ir► ` Fort °Wayne 3.3 err � 3.5 0 3.8 +rir - M ie 3.3 ° +tlli• - R" and �r► T-2* ® ° SIR. 4:7 3. 35 3.3 . ` 3.30 ilr 3.2 3.7 4.9 rr X3.0 Al a ' • 3:1 '*3.1 4.30 Vincennes 3.3 3.5 rr �4.4 3.2 3:1 3.0.E 4.3 3.9 3 _ 4.�s3.9 3.2 3.0%3.4-' 3. 3.3 4.44.3 4.6 •r Cj3. &3;J 4.4 Rr "Indiana Geological Survey The Polis Center 66 r �r imp %W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 60 lir Table 31: Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ® Mercalli 0 Intensity Description I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. iII Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. • Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do III not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the • passing of a truck. Duration estimated. ® Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day.At night, some awakened. Dishes, IV windows, doors disturbed;walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. • V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects • overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved;a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built 'ir► VII ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial VIII buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys,factory stacks, columns, monuments,walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Damage considerable in specially designed structures;well-designed frame structures thrown out IX of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. rM► X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI Few, if any(masonry)structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Table 32: Earthquake Magnitude vs. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale lir Earthquake Magnitude Typical Maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity 1.0-3.0 3.0-3.9 II - III 4.0-4.9 IV-V 5.0-5.9 VI -VII IV 6.0-6.9 VII - IX 7.0 and higher VIII or higher W Illy► lir r W The Polis Center 67 1r +fir Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Previous Occurrences for Earthquake Hazard At least 43 earthquakes M3.0 or greater have occurred in Indiana since 1817.The last such event was an M3.1 centered just north of Vincennes on May 10, 2010. An M3.8 earthquake occurred near Kokomo in December later that same year with approximately 10,390 individuals submitting felt reports to the USGS. Geographic Location for Earthquake Hazard The majority of seismic activity in Indiana occurs in the southwestern region of the state. Earthquakes originate just across the boundary in Illinois and can be felt in Indiana.The M5.2 Mt. Carmel event on April 19, 2008, was felt by residents in Indiana, Kentucky, and many more states across the Central US. Hazard Extent for Earthquake Hazard The extent of an earthquake is countywide.One of the most critical sources of information that is required %IW for accurate assessment of earthquake risk is soils data. Soils along rivers and other bodies of water have "r higher water tables and higher sand content.As a result,these areas are more susceptible to liquefaction ,` and land shaking. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by '�rr earthquake shaking as a result of water filling the space between individual soil particles. This can cause buildings to tilt or sink into the ground, slope failures, lateral spreading, surface subsidence, ground cracking, and sand blows. Risk Identification for Earthquake Hazard Low Risk . High Risk Based on historical information, the probability of an earthquake is medium, and the potential impact of an earthquake is moderate;therefore the overall risk of an earthquake in Clark County is medium. r► Vulnerability Analysis for Earthquake Hazard This hazard could impact the entire jurisdiction equally; therefore the entire county's population and all buildings are vulnerable to an earthquake and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. To accommodate this risk,this plan will consider all buildings within the county as vulnerable. IV Facilities io All facilities are vulnerable to earthquakes.These would encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the county. These impacts include structural failure and loss of facility functionality (e.g., a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Names and locations of essential and critical facilities, as well as community assets, are in Appendix C. Noto 10 The Polis Center 68 P Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 40 Building Inventory 60 Impacts similar to those discussed for facilities can be expected for the other buildings within the county. 410 These impacts include structural failure and loss of building function that could result in indirect impacts (e.g., damaged homes will no longer be habitable, causing residents to seek shelter). 46 Infrastructure During an earthquake, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, runways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Because an extensive inventory of the infrastructure is not available to this plan, it is important to emphasize that any number of these structures could become damaged in the event of an earthquake. The impacts to these structures include broken, failed, or r impassable roadways and runways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g., loss of power or gas to community); I&AF and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges also could fail or become impassable, causing traffic risks, and ports could be damaged, which would limit the shipment of goods. Typical scenarios are described to gauge the anticipated impacts of earthquakes in the county in terms of numbers and types of buildings and infrastructure. Hazus-MH Earthquake Analysis r r 2008 Earthquake Analysis For the 2008 MHMP, a Hazus-MH analysis of several earthquake scenarios including a 7.1 magnitude earthquake centered in the Wabash Valley, a 5.5 magnitude earthquake with the epicenter in Clark r County, a 500-year return period event, and an annualized earthquake loss. Similar to the flood and tornado models, the 2015 analyses revealed more accurate building damages and losses because r the quality and completion of data collected was significantly better than in 2008. 6 The Polis team reviewed existing geological information and recommendations for earthquake scenarios and ran three modeling scenarios—two deterministic and one probabilistic. The deterministic scenarios included an M7.7 epicenter along the New Madrid fault zone and an M6.8 epicenter in Mount Carmel, Illinois. Shake maps provided by FEMA were used in Hazus-MH to estimate losses for Clark County based on these events. The probabilistic scenario is based on ground-shaking parameters derived from US Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazard curves.The probabilistic scenario was a 500-year return period scenario.This analysis evaluates the average impacts of a multitude of possible earthquake epicenters with a magnitude that would be typical of that expected for a 500-year return period. These analysis options were chosen because they are useful for prioritization of seismic reduction measures and for simulating mitigation strategies. ' Modeling a deterministic scenario requires user input for a variety of parameters.One of the most critical sources of information required for accurate assessment of earthquake risk is soils data. Fortunately, a 1 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)soil classification map exists for Indiana. NEHRP 1 The Polis Center 69 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 40 soil classifications portray the degree of shear-wave amplification that can occur during ground shaking. The Indiana Geologic Survey supplied the soils map used for the analysis. FEMA provided a map for liquefaction potential that was used in the Hazus-MH analysis. An earthquake depth of 10.0 kilometers was selected for all deterministic scenarios based on input from IGS. Hazus-MH also requires the user to define an attenuation function unless ground motion maps are supplied. Because Indiana has experienced smaller earthquakes,the decision was made to use the Central Eastern United States (CEUS) attenuation function. �1r► The building losses are broken into two categories:direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake. The probabilistic scenario was based on ground-shaking parameters derived from US Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazard curves.The probabilistic scenario was a 500-year return period scenario.This analysis evaluates the average impacts of a multitude of possible earthquake epicenters with a magnitude that would be typical of that expected for a 500-year return period. These analysis options were chosen because they are useful for prioritization of seismic reduction measures and for simulating mitigation sir strategies. Results for 7.7 Magnitude- New Madrid, Kentucky Earthquake Scenario �Iw 6W Hazus estimates that the damages incurred from the 7.7 magnitude New Madrid earthquake scenario would be county-wide in scope. ` Building Damages ko Hazus estimates that about 95 buildings will be at least moderately damaged—only 0.002% of the total buildings in the region. There are no buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. Table 33 on the following page summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 24 identifies the total building-related losses totaled$9.76 million; 17%of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. The largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies, which made up over 57%of the total loss. 6 6 6 6 The Polis Center 70 c to 611, Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 +r Table 33: New Madrid Scenario -Building Damage by Occupancy wlr +r. None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Agriculture 2,696 6.53 37 3.86 2 2.15 0 0.37 0 0.00 Commercial 1,613 3.91 42 4.39 5 5.54 0 5.40 0 81.50 Education 13 0.03 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 274 0.66 6 0.67 1 0.61 0 0.37 0 0.00 Industrial 134 0.33 3 0.32 1 0.58 0 0.59 0 18.50 Other Residential 3,707 8.98 141 14.75 39 42.69 3 68.64 0 0.00 Religion 408 0.99 8 0.86 1 0.73 0 0.54 0 0.00 Single Family 32,426 78.57 717 75.14 44 47.69 1 24.08 0 0.00 Total 41,271 954 91 4 0 Numbers reported in tables generated by Hazus may not match numbers reported in text due to Hazus rounding conventions. Table 34: New Madrid Scenario - Building Losses in Millions of Dollars Category Area Single Other Family Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Income Losses _ Wage 0.00 0.01 0.28 0,01 006 0.36 I Capital-Related 0-00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.22 I Rental 0.08 0.06 0.26 0.01 0.02 0-44 Relocation 0.22 0.12 0.22 0.03 0.07 0-66 0.30 0.19 0.96 0.06 0.16 1.67 Capital Stock Losses Structural 0.57 0.16 0.22 004 0-10 1.10 Non-Structural 2.84 0.82 1.09 0.23 0-43 5.41 Content 0.53 0.13 0.47 0.13 0.21 1.47 Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.11 3.94 1.11 1.81 0.45 0.78 8.09 - 4.24 1.30 2.77 0.51 0.94 9.76 The Polis Center 71 1 r► Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 4W Figure 38: New Madrid Scenario - Building Losses - . ....._. Building Loss _ $48.742-S 117.645 • A" `w + $117 615 $194 94 680 S34 680 . ~2!:":.. 1111■ $1 8.275 w � +• -5348.275-5593.842 r" _ A %93.842-5781.266 Apo I Essential Facility Damage Before the earthquake,the region had 3,200 hospital beds available for use.On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 2,647 hospital beds (83%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake.After one week, 91%of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 98%will be operational. 1 1 The Polis Center 72 VV W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 411111111, Table 35: New Madrid Scenario - Essential Facility Damage #Facilities VIP Classification Total At Least Moderate Complete With Functionality r Damage>50% Damage>50% >50%on day 1 Ilr Hospitals 70 0 0 70 Schools 38 0 0 38 ECICs 1 0 0 1 PoliceStations 7 0 0 7 FireStations 25 0 0 25 Results for 6.8 Magnitude- Mt. Carmel, Illinois Earthquake Scenario Hazus estimates that the damages incurred from the M6.8 Mt. Carmel earthquake scenario would be • county-wide in scope. Building Damages • Hazus estimates that about 200 buildings will be at least moderately damaged, only 0.004% of the total buildings in the region. There are no buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The total building- related losses were$19.97 million; 17%of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 57%ofthe total loss. Table 36: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Building Damage by Occupancy • None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Agriculture 2,641 6.56 88 4.82 6 3.02 0 0.63 0 0.55 Commercial, 1,574 3.91 75 4.10 10 5.33_ 0 5.30 0 10.50 Education 13 0.03 0 0.02 0 s 0-02 0 a00 0 0.00 Government 268 1 0.67 12 0.64 1 0.63 0 0-41 0 fff 0.00 Industrial 131 0.33 5 0.30 1 0.55 0 0.5g 0 1.66 - .. -.. Other Residential 3,559 8.83 248 13.58 75 38.75 6 68.91 0 84.59 . Religion 400 0.99 16 0.87 2, 0.78 0 0.55 0 0.00 Single Family 31,703 78.69 1,383 75.66 99 50.91 2 23.61 0 271 Total 40,289 1,828 194 9 0 The Polis Center 73 1 1 ' lr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 37: Mt. Carmel Scenario -Building Losses in Millions of Dollars Category Area Single Other Family Residential Commercial Industrial . Others Total Income Losses I Wage 0.00 0.02 0.56 0.02 0.12 0.71 "IF Capital-Related 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.01 0.02 0.45 Rental 0.18 0.13 0.50 0.01 0.05 0.87 Relocation 0.51 0.24 0.45 0.07 0.16 1.43 I ® 0.69 0.39 1.92 0.12 0.34 3.46 Capital Stock Losses Structural 1.16 0.31 0.42 0.08 024 2.21VIP I Non-Structural 5.80 1.61 2.10 0.46 0.92 10.90 ;w Content 1.17 0.27 0.95 0.28 0.48 3.16 Inventory 0-00 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.25 Subtotal 8.13 2.19 3.53 0.93 1.72 16.61 Total 8.82 2.58 5.45 1.05 2.07 19.97 Figure 39: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Building Losses I ' �Ir t rtlln , -- i. Building Loss t 4 u _�:]5146.750 - •� 51.76 750-$378 266 $378.266-$575.597 .°w r 5578.597-$812,683 5812 683301-$1,647.573 i The Polis Center 74 kw (610 ililliv Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 'fir► Essential Facility Damage Before the earthquake,the region had 3,200 hospital beds available for use.On the day of the earthquake, VW the model estimates that only 2,453 hospital beds (77%) are available for use by patients already in the VV hospital and those injured by the earthquake.After one week, 87%of the beds will be back in service. By Ir 30 days, 97%will be operational. it Table 38: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Essential Facility Damage #Facilities Classification Total At Least Moderate Complete With Functionality Damage>50% Damage> 50% > 50%on day 1 Hospitals 70 0 0 70 1► Schools 38 0 0 38 EOCs -4- It 0 0 1 PoliceStations 7 0 0 7 FireStations 25 0 0 25 Results for Probabilistic 500-Year Earthquake Scenario The results of the probabilistic 500-year analysis are depicted in Tables 39 and 40 and Figure 40. Hazus estimates that about 93 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. The total building-related losses was $10.27 million; 15% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. Ir By far,the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 57%of the total loss. �r► 6 1r -A The Polis Center 75 kr • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Table 39: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Damage Counts by Building Occupancy • None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete • Count (/) Count N Count (%) Count M Count M • Agriculture 2,691 6.51 42 4.54 2 2.49 0 0.43 0 0.00 Commercial 1,618 3.92 38 4.12 4 4.86 0 4.57 0 73.07 • Education 13 003 0 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 • Government 275 0.66 6 064 0 0.55 0 0.36 0 0.00 • Industrial 135 0.33 3 0.30 0 0.51 0 0.50 0 26.93 Other Residential 3,701 8,961 143 15.61 y 42 46.60 3 71.33 0 0.00 • Religion 409 0.99 8 0.86 1 0.70 0 0.49 0 0.00 • Single Family 32,469 78.60 677 73.92 i 40 44.27 1 22.31 0 0.00 Total 41,310 916 90 4 0 • • • Table 40: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses in Millions of Dollars • Category Area Single Other Family Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total • Income Losses Wage 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.31 Capital-Related 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.19 . Rental 0.08 0.06 0.23 0.01 0.02 0.39 . Relocation 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.06 0.61 0.28 0.19 0.83 0.05 0.15 1.50 . Capital Stock Losses . Structural _ 0.54 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.11 _ 1.04 Non-Structural 2.94 0.88 1.13 0.26 0.50 5.72 . Content 0.69 0.16 0.56 0.16 028 1.86 . Inventory 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.14 4.18 1.21 1.92 0.53 0.93 8.76 . 4.46 1.40 2.75 0.58 1.08 10.27 The Polis Center 76 1 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 40: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses ji • /jam` .�_ ...- / Buldiag Loss :•••• , 0,208-14 7 8,785 118,785-198.719 198,779-309.911 309,911•117,981 .x-`. 16 s 117,981-827,878 Essential Facility Damage �r Before the earthquake,the region had 3,200 hospital beds available for use.On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 2,673 hospital beds (84%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 92%of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 98%will be operational. r The Polis Center 77 1 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Table 41: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario - Essential Facility Damage • #Facilities • Classification Total At Least Moderate Complete With Functionality • Damage> 50% Damage>50% > 50%on day 1 Hospitals 70 0 0 70 • Schools 38 0 0 38 EOGs 1 0 0� 1 • PoliceStations 7 0 0 7 . FireStations 25 0 0 25 Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for • Earthquake Hazard Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all buildings and infrastructure in Clark County are at risk of damage, including temporary or permanent loss of function. For earthquakes, non-reinforced structures . are more vulnerable to damages. New development vulnerability will be minimal due to new construction . codes coupled with the low earthquake probability. 5.3.4 Severe Thunderstorm Hazard • Severe thunderstorms are defined as thunderstorms with one or more of the following characteristics: strong winds, large damaging hail, or frequent lightning. Severe thunderstorms most frequently occur in Indiana during the spring and summer but can occur any month of the year at any time of day. A severe thunderstorm's impacts can be localized or can be widespread in nature. A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it meets one or more of the following criteria. • Hail of diameter 0.75 inches or higher • Frequent and dangerous lightning • Wind speeds equal to or greater than 58 miles an hour 1 1 1 The Polis Center 78 . Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Hail Hail is a product of a strong thunderstorm. Hail usually falls near the center of a storm; however, strong . winds occurring at high altitudes in the thunderstorm can blow the hailstones away from the storm center, i resulting in damage in other areas near the storm. Hailstones range from pea-sized to baseball-sized, but hailstones larger than softballs have been reported on rare occasions. There have been 25 NCDC reported hail events in Clark County since January 1, 2008 and these are outlined in Table 42. Table 42: Clark County Hail Events (2008 -2014) Location Date Diameter(in) . Sellersburg 4/10/2009 0.75 • Jeffersonville 4/10/2009 0.75 Charlestown 8/4/2009 1.75 Sellersburg 8/4/2009 1 Jeffersonville 8/4/2009 1 . Solon 4/5/2010 1 . Underwood 3/23/2011 0.88 Underwood 3/23/2011 0.88 . Sellersburg 4/9/2011 0.88 Charlestown 4/23/2011 1 • Otisco 3/2/2012 3 Sellersburg 3/2/2012 1 • Sellersburg 3/14/2012 1 . Henryville 3/15/2012 1 Utica 7/19/2012 1.5 . Blue Lick 7/26/2012 0.88 Jeffersonville 6/17/2013 1 • Cementville 5/10/2014 1.25 Clarksville 5/10/2014 1 . Jeffersonville 5/10/2014 1 Sellersburg 5/21/2014 1 . St Joseph Hill 5/21/2014 1 Sellersburg 7/27/2014 1 r Sellersburg 10/6/2014 1 Memphis 10/7/2014 1 r r r r r r rThe Polis Center 79 r r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Snowstorms Significant snowstorms are characterized by the rapid accumulation of snow, often accompanied by high winds, cold temperatures, and low visibility. A blizzard is categorized as a snowstorm with winds of 35 • miles an hour or greater and/or visibility of less than one-quarter mile for three or more hours.The strong winds during a blizzard blow about falling and already existing snow, creating poor visibility and • impassable roadways. Blizzards have the potential to result in property damage. Indiana has been struck repeatedly by blizzards. Blizzard conditions not only cause power outages and loss of communication but can also make transportation difficult.The blowing of snow can reduce visibility • to less than one-quarter mile, and the resulting disorientation makes even travel by foot dangerous, if not deadly. Previous Occurrences for Winter Storm Hazard • Winter weather hazards are prevalent natural events that can be expected to occur every winter in Indiana. The winter of 2013-2014 ranked among the coldest on record throughout the Midwest. The National Weather Service reported this season as "one of the coldest and snowiest winter seasons on record and certainly one of the most extreme winter seasons in several decades." NOAA's National Climatic Data Center stated that the period from December 2013 through February 2014 was the 34th • coldest for the contiguous 48 states since 1895. Table 43 documents the NCDC reported winter storm events since 2008. While there have been relatively few winter storms over this timeframe, it should be noted that precipitation types vary significantly throughout the course of each storm. Each type of precipitation carries its own dangers which are combined when multiple types occur in an individual storm. Table 43: Clark County Winter Storm Events (January 1, 2008-May 31, 2014) Date Type Precipitation 2/11/2008 Winter Storm 3"snow, '/4"freezing rain 1/27/2009 Winter Storm 4"snow, icing 1/7/2010 Winter Storm 4"snow . 2/4/2014 Winter Storm Yz"snow and sleet, 1/3"ice 3/2/2014 Winter Storm 2/10"ice, 3"sleet and snow S Geographic Location for Winter Storm Hazard . Severe winter storms are regional in nature. Most of the NCDC data are calculated regionally or in some . cases statewide. Hazard Extent for Winter Storm Hazard The extent of the historical winter storms varies in terms of storm location, temperature, and ice or snowfall. A severe winter storm can occur anywhere in the jurisdiction. 1 ' The Polis Center 83 1 s • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 . Risk Identification for Winter Storm Hazard • Low Risk M High Risk Based on historical information, the probability of a winter storm is high, and the potential impact is moderate; therefore, the overall risk of a winter storm in Clark County is medium to high. Vulnerability Analysis for Winter Storm Hazard • Winter storm impacts are distributed equally across the entire jurisdiction;therefore,the entire county is vulnerable to a winter storm and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. • Facilities All facilities are vulnerable to a winter storm.These facilities will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the jurisdiction including loss of gas or electricity from broken or damaged utility lines, damaged or impassable roads and railways, broken water pipes,and roof collapse from heavy snow. • Names and locations of critical and essential facilities, as well as community assets are in Appendix C. Building Inventory The impacts to other buildings within the county are similar to the damages expected to the facilities. These include loss of gas or electricity from broken or damaged utility lines,damaged or impassable roads and railways, broken water pipes, and roof collapse from heavy snow. • Infrastructure . During a winter storm, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, runways, . utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that any number of these structures could become damaged during a winter . storm. Potential impacts include broken gas and/or electricity lines or damaged utility lines, damaged or t impassable roads, runways, and railways, and broken water pipes. Additionally, aerial navigations aids in Clark County, including components of the national air traffic control system, could be damaged or destroyed possibly impacting nationwide air travel. • Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Winter Storm Hazard ® Because winter storm events are regional in nature, future development will be impacted equally across . the county. Any new development within the county will remain vulnerable to these events. r r r r The Polis Center 84 r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 5.3.6 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard The State of Indiana has numerous active transportation lines that run through many of its counties.Active railways transport harmful and volatile substances between our borders every day.The transportation of chemicals and substances along interstate routes is commonplace in Indiana. The rural areas of Indiana have considerable agricultural commerce, creating a demand for fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides,to • be transported along rural roads. Indiana is bordered by two major rivers and Lake Michigan. Barges • transport chemicals and substances along these waterways daily. These factors increase the chance of hazardous material releases and spills throughout the State of Indiana. The release or spill of certain substances can cause an explosion. Explosions result from the ignition of volatile products such as petroleum products, natural and other flammable gases, hazardous materials/chemicals, dust, and bombs. An explosion potentially can cause death, injury, and property damage. In addition, a fire routinely follows an explosion, which may cause further damage and inhibit emergency response. Emergency response may require fire, safety/law enforcement, search and rescue, • and hazardous materials units. Previous Occurrences for Hazardous Materials Hazard Clark County has not experienced a significantly large-scale hazardous material incident at a fixed site or during transport resulting in multiple deaths or serious injuries. However,there have been minor releases • that have put local firefighters, hazardous materials teams, emergency management, and local law • enforcement into action to try to stabilize these incidents and prevent or lessen harm to Clark County . residents. r Geographic Location for Hazardous Materials Hazard The hazardous material release hazards are countywide and primarily are associated with the transport of materials by highway and/or railroad. Interstate 65 is the main north/south route in the county and runs parallel to State Road 31. These two major roadways travel through Sellersburg and Clarksville. Clark County had a lower than expected HazMat density, a rather surprising result considering all the industry in the surrounding area. Our study showed 3.78%of all commercial traffic carried placards. From our experience in Indiana,we expect about 4.5%of commercial vehicles carry hazardous materials on the roadways. Generally, HazMat densities above 6% or 7% are rather unusual, indicating a significantly rgreater presence of HazMat than one would normally expect to see on a given roadway. Roadways and counties,for that matter,with lower traffic densities may show higher HazMat densities, simply because . HazMat shipments are present throughout any community. Fuels, like gasoline and propane, make up large parts of all HazMat shipments. There are two major rail lines running through the county. CSX and Norfolk Southern operate several rails in Clark County. Flammable liquids made up over 21%of all HazMat shipments with alcohol being the most frequent individual commodity in that category.Class 2 Gases were about 10%with Class 8 Corrosives at over 19. ' The Polis Center 85 i • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 In addition, Clark County is bordered on the south by the Ohio River with the towns of Jeffersonville and Utica sitting on the river's edge. The US Army Corps of Engineers reported that over 200 tons of cargo were shipped on the Ohio River in 2012, including many toxic chemicals and other hazardous • substances. • Hazard Extent for Hazardous Materials Hazard The extent of the hazardous material (referred to as hazmat) hazard varies in terms of the quantity of material being transported as well as the specific content of the container. • Risk Identification for Hazardous Materials Release • Low Risk High Risk Based on historical information, the probability of a hazardous materials release is medium to high, and • the potential impact is significant; therefore the overall risk of a hazardous materials release in Clark County is medium/high. . Vulnerability Analysis for Hazardous Materials . Hazardous material impacts are an equally distributed threat across the entire jurisdiction; therefore the . entire county is vulnerable to a hazardous material release and can expect the same impacts within the . affected area.The main concern during a release or spill is the population affected.This plan will therefore consider all buildings located within the county as vulnerable. Facilities All facilities within the county are at risk.These facilities will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction including structural failure due to fire or explosion and loss of function of the facility (e.g., a damaged or chemically-contaminated police station will no longer be able . to serve the community). Names and locations of critical and essential facilities, as well as community assets, are in Appendix C. Infrastructure Components During a hazardous material release,the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads,and bridges.The release or spill of certain substances can cause an explosion. Explosions result from the ignition of volatile products such as petroleum products, natural and other flammable gases, hazardous materials/chemicals, dust, and bombs. An explosion potentially can cause death, injury, and property damage. In addition, a fire routinely follows an explosion, which may cause further damage and inhibit emergency response. The Polis Center 86 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 GIS Hazardous Materials Release Analysis 2008 Hazmat Analysis For the 2008 Report, a chlorine release in Jeffersonville was modeled. That analysis estimated that rr 19,218 buildings would be impacted at a potential loss of over$3.2 million. Better data collected for the 2015 plan update resulted in a more accurate estimation of damage, which is described in the following section. The EPA's ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) model was utilized to assess the area of impact for an ammonia release on the north side of Sellersburg just south of the intersection of US 31 and Old Indiana 403. Anhydrous ammonia is a clear colorless gas with a strong odor. Contact with the unconfined liquid can cause frostbite. The gas is generally regarded as nonflammable but can burn within certain vapor concentration limits with strong ignition. The fire hazard increases in the presence of oil or other combustible materials. Vapors from an anhydrous ammonia leak initially hug the ground. Prolonged exposure of containers to fire or heat may cause violent rupturing and rocketing. Long-term inhalation of low concentrations of the vapors or short-term inhalation of high concentrations has adverse health • effects.Anhydrous ammonia is generally used as a fertilizer,a refrigerant,and in the manufacture of other chemicals. i ALOHA is a computer program designed especially for use by people responding to chemical accidents,as i well as for emergency planning and training.Anhydrous ammonia is a common chemical used in industrial • operations and can be found in either liquid or gas form. Rail and truck tankers commonly haul ammonia to and from facilities. For this scenario, moderate atmospheric and climatic conditions with a slight breeze • from the southwest were assumed.The target area was chosen due to its proximity to densely populated areas. The geographic area covered in this hypothetical analysis is depicted in Figure 42. i► r r r r r r r r r r r r rThe Polis Center r 87 Ir 60 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 42: Location of Chemical Release i - ", ra Fye o o+e 13nra alums oaa. • The ALOHA atmospheric modeling parameters, depicted in Figure 43, were based upon the actual conditions at the location when the model was run, including a southwest wind speed of 8 mph. The temperature was 80.67 with 81% humidity and partly cloudy. The modeled source of the chemical spill was a tanker with a diameter of 8 feet and a length of 33 feet(12,408 gallons).The model incorporated a tank that was 100%full with the ammonia in its liquid state at the time of its release. This modeled release was based on a leak from hole with a 2.5 inch diameter. According to the ALOHA . parameters, approximately 8,650 pounds of material would be released per minute. �r 1 rr The Polis Center 88 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Figure 43: ALOHA Plume Modeling Parameters SITE DATA: • Location: SELLERSBURG, INDIANA Building Air Exchanges Per Hour: 0. 59 (sheltered single storied) Time: June 16, 2015 0931 hours EST (using computer's clock) CHEMICAL DATA: chemical Name: AMMONIA Molecular weight: 17.03 g 'mol AEGL-1 (60 min): 30 ppm AEGL-2 (60 min): 160 ppm AEGL-3 (60 min): 1100 ppm • IDLH: 300 ppm LEL: 150000 ppm UEL: 280000 ppm Ambient Boding Point: -28.7` F • vapor Pressure at Ambient Temperature: greater than 1 atm Ambient saturation concentration: 1,000,000 ppm or 100.0% • ATMOSPHERIC DATA: (MANUAL INPUT OF DATA) wind: 8 miles./hour from sw at 3 meters Ground Roughness: urban or forest cloud cover: 5 tenths Air Temperature: 80.6` F stability class: D No Inversion Height Relative Humidity: 81% .r SOURCE STRENGTH: Leak from hole in horizontal cylindrical tank c Flammable chemical escaping from tank (not burning) Tank Diameter: 8 feet Tank Length: 33 feet Tank volume: 12,408 gallons Tank contains liquid internal Temperature: 80.6' F chemical Mass in Tank: 31.0 tons Tank is 100% full circular opening Diameter: 2. 5 inches opening is 1.00 feet from tank bottom ® Release Duration: 12 minutes Max Average sustained Release Rate: 8,650 pounds/min (averaged over a minute or more) r Total Amount Released: 58,693 pounds Note: The chemical escaped as a mixture of gas and aerosol (two phase flow). THREAT ZONE: Model Run: Heavy Gas Red : 1604 yards --- (1100 ppm = AEGL-3 [60 min]) Orange: 3.0 miles --- (160 ppm = AEGL-2 [60 min]) Yellow: greater than 6 miles --- (30 ppm = AEGL-1 [60 min]) Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) are intended to describe the health effects on humans due to once-in-a-lifetime or rare exposure to airborne chemicals. The National Advisory Committee for AEGLs is developing these guidelines to help both national and local authorities, as well as private companies, deal with emergencies involving spills or other catastrophic exposures. • AEGL 1: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic non-sensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are - transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure. • AEGL 2: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long- lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape. r • AEGL 3: Above this airborne concentration of a substance, it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life-threatening health effects or death. _A_ The Polis Center 89 r`s 0 0 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • According to the ALOHA parameters, approximately 8,650 pounds of material would be released per • minute.The image in Figure 44 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA. Figure 44: Plume Footprint Generated by ALOHA • Eil To is ThmA za+E z J0� • miles 2 1 i • 1 r 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 miles • greater than 1100 ppm (AEGL-3 [60 min]) . greater than 160 ppm (AEGL-2 [60 min]) O greater than 30 ppm (AEGL-1 [60 min]) �r Confidence Lines As the substance moves away from the source,the level of substance concentration decreases. Each color- coded area depicts a level of concentration measured in parts per million (ppm). For the purpose of r clarification, this report will designate each level of concentration as a specific zone. The zones are as follows: • Zone 1 (AEGL-3):The red buffer(>=30 ppm) extends almost 1 mile from the point of release after one hour. 1r • Zone 2 (AEGL-2): The orange buffer (>=160 ppm) extends more approximately 3 miles from the point of release after one hour. kr • Zone 3 (AEGL-1): The yellow buffer (>=1100 ppm) extends more than six miles from the point of release after one hour. • Confidence Lines: The dashed lines depict the level of confidence in which the exposure zones kv will be contained. The ALOHA model is 95% confident that the release will stay within this r boundary. Ir The Polis Center 90 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • The image in Figure 45 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA. The modeling program, • however, does not account for terrain. In portions of southern Indiana, the terrain is very hilly. Because • ammonia vapor is a very heavy gas,the vapor cloud will follow the contours of the land rather than flowing • over the hills as depicted below. Figure 45: ALOHA Plume Footprint Overlaid in ArcGIS 4 •�, • 7J 7 �. • 04, l L. i • i � _ 4 J 'RsC�S fr s� i' C1uA� • r✓ /r ,r u • 0LI �I V I J . �'*"' �� + /.✓" * Plume Origin 1100 ppm=AEGL-3(60 min) . �� -,•'"� "�� `; a s 160 ppm=AEG L-2(60 min) �J n 30 ppm=AEGL-1(60 min) 3 0 03 0.6 1.2NMa Confidence The Clark County Building Inventory was added to ArcMap and overlaid with the plume footprint. The Building Inventory was then intersected with each of the three footprint areas to classify each point based upon the plume footprint in which it is located. Figure 46 depicts the Clark County Building Inventory after the intersect process. r The Polis Center 91 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Figure 46: Clark County Building Inventory Classified By Plume Footprint • !O ,.ti • /l .,may o'q • ` O DOD° _ i �✓ f a DDD ``� . � o t • � � j D _ V Ir e • %1 % r J � o • � • `P AEGL3=Exposed Buildng • '4, AEGL 2=Exposed Building • ♦� t ✓ AEGL 1 =Exposed Building ;',�,!/ ,• r'�/r �oq� _1100 ppm AEGL-3 180 min) • t ,.� ° ," 180 ppm=AEGL-2(80 min( /.M 0 03 o8.e 12 Milos j 30 ppm=AEGL-1(80 min) _ Cwfidence V Results B summing the Building Inventor within all AEGL zones Zone 1: 30 . Y g g Y ( ppm, Zone 2: 160 ppm, and Zone 3: 1,100 ppm), the GIS overlay analysis predicts that as many as 287 buildings and 623 people could be exposed. The population is estimated based on 2.5 people per residence. . Building Inventory Exposure The results of the analysis against the Building Inventory points are depicted in Tables 44 through 47. Table 44 summarize the results of the chemical spill by combining all AEGL zones. 11r► 1 1 1 1 The Polis Center 92 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 44: Estimated Exposure for all Zones (all ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts E79 e Afih Agriculture 0 25 Commercial 0 9 Education 0 0 Government 0 2 $721,959 Industrial 0 1 $16,317,621 Religious 0 1 $381,540 Residential 623 249 $31,630,359 ver Total 623 287 $55,639,127 Tables 45 through 47 summarize the results of the chemical spill for each zone separately. Values qw qw represent only those portions of each zone that are not occupied by other zones. Table 45: Estimated Exposure for Zone 3 (30 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure 4w Agriculture 0 25 $4,017,847 Commercial 0 0 $0 ow Education 0 0 $0 Government 0 2 $721,959 Industrial 0 1 $16,317,621 Religious 0 1 $381,540 Residential 438 175 $23,308,376 Total 438 204 $44,747,343 o" Table 46: Estimated Exposure for Zone 2 (160 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Agriculture 0 0 0 Commercial 0 6 $1,830,685 Education 0 0 0 Government 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Religious 0 0 0 Residential 60 24 $2,514,306 Total 60 30 $4,344,991 The Polis Center 93 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 %W Table 47: Estimated Exposure for Zone 1 (1100 ppm) Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Agriculture 0 0 $0 Commercial 0 2 $411,558 Education 0 0 $0 Government 0 0 $0 Industrial 0 0 $0 Religious0 0 $0 Residential 125 50 $5,807,677 41110 Total 125 52 $6,219,235 11111111110 Essential Facilities Exposure i6r AW There are no essential facilities within the limits of the chemical spill plume. ti' Hazmat Dangers to Vulnerable Populations to to Certain populations require special attention in the event of a disaster. The particular scenario modeled ALI involves a ammonia vapor plume in Sellersburg.This community is also located in area with a high Special IV Needs Vulnerability Score.This particular census tract has a low to moderate proportion of the population with special needs when compared to the rest of the county.The tract which includes Sellersburg 7.8%of its residents living in poverty and 12% age 65 years and over. In addition, 13.5% of its population has a disability. Figure 47 compares the ALOHA-generated plume with those areas of the county which have a higher Special Needs Vulnerability Scores. Gi r rThe Polis Center ® 94 F • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Figure 47: Hazmat Dangers to Special Needs/Vulnerable Populations t 1` } 1 w u • C' d -1100p;-AEG3 L 30 ppm.AEGL-1 Cwfidwm /V ,t 1 Low->Nigh 0 0.75 1.5 .3 Miles aim • Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Hazardous Material Release Hazard Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all buildings and infrastructure in Clark County are at risk of rIllr damage including temporary or permanent loss of function. 4. iv rrr► 5.3.7 Extreme Temperatures Extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, can have significant impact on human health and safety, commercial businesses,agriculture,and primary and secondary effects on infrastructure(e.g. burst pipes, power failures,etc.).Weather conditions described as extreme heat or cold vary across different areas of the country, based on the range of average temperatures within the region. Severe Cold Hazard Definition 1 What constitutes an extreme cold event and its effects varies by region across the United States. In areas unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered "extreme cold." Extreme 1 The Polis Center 95 1 to ilillir Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 to tip cold temperatures are typically characterized by the ambient air temperature dropping to approximately 61 0 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Exposure to cold temperatures, indoors or outdoors, can lead to serious or life-threatening health problems, including hypothermia,cold stress, and frostbite or freezing of the exposed extremities such as fingers, toes, nose, and earlobes. Certain populations, such as seniors age 65 or older, infants and young children under five years of age, individuals who are homeless or stranded, or those who live in a home �lr that is poorly insulated or without heat (such as mobile homes), are at greater risk to the effects of extreme cold. Extremely cold temperatures often accompany a winter storm,so individuals may also have to cope with power failures and icy roads. Although staying indoors can help reduce the risk of vehicle %W accidents and falls on the ice, individuals are susceptible to indoor hazards. Homes may become too cold W due to power failures or inadequate heating systems. The use of space heaters and fireplaces to keep ,V warm increases the risk of household fires, as well as carbon monoxide poisoning. The magnitude of extreme cold temperatures is generally measured through the Wind Chill Temperature (WCT) Index.Wind Chill Temperature is the temperature that is felt when outside and is based on the rate �Ilrr of heat loss from exposed skin by the effects of wind and cold. As the wind increases, the body is cooled V at a faster rate causing the skin's temperature to drop. In 2001,the NWS implemented a new WCT Index,designed to more accurately calculate how cold air feels on human skin. The index, shown in Figure 48, includes a frostbite indicator, showing points where r temperature, wind speed, and exposure time, will produce frostbite in humans. rrr► Figure 47: NWS Wind Chill Temperature Index .%A 1.I %W NWS Windchill Chartlow Temperature(oF) 36 31 25 19 13 7 1 5 11 -15 34 27 21 15 9 3 4 10 -16 32 25 19 13 6 0 -7 13 0 30 24 17 11 4 2 -9 15 25 E 3029 23 16 9 3 4 11 17 28 22 15 8 1 5 12 ,. 80 -87 35 28 21 14 7 0 7 14 27 20 13 6 1 8 15 26 19 12 5 2 9 16 26 19 12 4 3 10 17 ,, 25 18 11 4 3 11 25 17 10 3 4 11 Where,T�Air Temperature(-F) V=Wind Speed(mph) The Polis Center 96 . Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 . Each National Weather Service Forecast Office may issue the following wind chill-related products as • conditions warrant: 0 Wind Chill Watch: Issued when there is a chance that wind chill temperatures will decrease to at least 24° F below zero in the next 24-48 hours. • • Wind Chill Advisory: Issued when the wind chill could be life-threatening if action is not taken. The criteria for this advisory is expected wind chill reading of 15° F to 24° F below zero. • • Wind Chill Warning: Issued when wind chill readings are life-threatening. Wind chill readings of 25° F below zero or lower are expected. Summary Vulnerability Assessment • Excessive cold affects most) • y humans, particularly special needs populations, and animals. These events may be exacerbated by power loss. For this planning effort, it was not possible to analyze the number of lives or amount of property exposed to the impacts of extreme cold. Previous Occurrences for Extreme Cold Although the NCDC database does not include any reported past occurrences of extreme cold, residents • of Clark County should be prepared for such an event in any given year. Geographic Location for Extreme Cold Hazard • Extreme cold events are regional in nature. All areas of the state are vulnerable to the risk of excessive . cold. . Hazard Extent for Extreme Cold Hazard Extreme cold events typically occur in the winter months. The extent of extreme cold varies in terms of the Wind Chill Temperature and duration of the event. • Risk Identification for Extreme Cold Hazard Low Risk High Risk The planning team determined that the probability of an excessive cold hazard is low in Clark County,the impact of such an event is minimal to moderate, resulting in an overall calculated risk of moderately low. . Vulnerability Analysis for Extreme Cold Hazard Extreme cold can result in damages to buildings, utilities, and infrastructure, due to the strong winds that often accompany these events.Additionally,extreme cold events often lead to severe short and long term health conditions,or even death. Extreme cold events can occur within any area in the county;therefore, the entire county population and all buildings are vulnerable to extreme cold hazards. The Polis Center 97 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Extreme Heat Hazard Definition Temperatures that hover 10 degrees Fahrenheit or more above the average high temperature for a region, and last for several weeks, constitute an extreme heat event (EHE). An extended period of extreme heat of three or more consecutive days is typically referred to as a heat wave. Most summers see EHEs in one or more parts of the US east of the Rocky Mountains. They tend to combine both high temperatures and • high humidity; although, some of the worst heat waves have been catastrophically dry. Prolonged exposure to extreme heat may lead to serious health problems, including heat stroke, heat exhaustion, or sunburn. Certain populations, such as seniors age 65 or older, infants and young children • under five years of age, pregnant women,the homeless or poor,the overweight,and people with mental illnesses, disabilities, and chronic diseases, are at greater risk to the effects of extreme heat. Depending on severity, duration, and location, EHEs can also trigger secondary hazards, including dust storms, • droughts, wildfires, water shortages, and power outages. • Criteria for EHE typically shift by location and time of year and are dependent on the interaction of • multiple meteorological variables (i.e. temperature, humidity, cloud cover). While this makes it difficult • to define EHEs using absolute, specific measures, there are ways to identify conditions. Some locations • evaluate current and forecast weather to identify conditions with specific, weather-based mortality algorithms. Others identify and forecast conditions based on statistical comparison to historical meteorological baselines(e.g.the criterion for EHE conditions could be an actual or forecast temperature that is equal to or exceeds the 95th percentile value from a historical distribution for a defined time . period). Heat alert procedures are based primarily on Heat Index Values. The Heat Index, given in degrees Fahrenheit, is often referred to as the apparent temperature and is a measure of how hot it really feels when the relative humidity is factored with the actual air temperature.The National Weather Service Heat Index Chart can be seen in Figure 49. lir The Polis Center 98 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 48: National Weather Service Heat Index20 NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index • Temperature("F) • 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 40 80 81 83 85 88 91 94 97 101 11 1 45 80 82 84 87 89 93 96 100 104 109 114 119 124 f30 137 • air 50 81 83 85 88 91 95 99 103 108 113 118 124 131 137 a. 55 81 84 86 89 93 97 101 106 112 117 124 130 137 • ��_ 60 82 84 88 91 95 100 105 110 116 123 129 137 6 65 82 85 89 93 98 103 108 114 121 128 136 • = 70 83 86 90 95 100 105 112 119 126 134 • 75 84 88 92 97 103 109 116 124 132 a 80 84 89 94 100 106 113 121 129 85 85 90 96 102 110 117 126 135 ' 90 86 91 98 105 113 122 131 95 86 93 100 108 117 127 • 100 87 95 103 . Likelihood of Heat oisorders with Prolonged Exposure or Strenuous Activity ❑ Caution ❑ Extreme Caution 0 Danger M Extreme Oangw •i Each National Weather Service Forecast Office may issue the following heat-related products as conditions warrant: • • Excessive Heat Outlooks- issued when the potential exists for an EHE in the next 3-7 days. An • Outlook provides information to those who need considerable lead time to prepare for the event, • such as public utility staff, emergency managers, and public health officials. • • Excessive Heat Watches- issued when conditions are favorable for an EHE in the next 24 to 72 hours. A Watch is used when the risk of a heat wave has increased but its occurrence and timing . is still uncertain. A Watch provides enough lead time so that those who need to prepare can do . so, such as city officials who have excessive heat mitigation plans. . • Excessive Heat Warnings/Advisories-issued when an EHE is expected in the next 36 hours.These products are issued when an excessive heat event is occurring, is imminent, or has a very high . probability of occurring. The warning is used for conditions posing a threat to life or property.An ® advisory is for less serious conditions that cause significant discomfort or inconvenience and, if caution is not taken, could lead to a threat to life and/or property. Summary Vulnerability Assessment 20 Office of Atmospheric Programs.(2006).Excessive Heat Events Guidebook.Unites States Environmental Protection Agency.Washington,D.C. _A_ The Polis Center 99 610 G to Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ilio Excessive heat affects mostly humans, particularly special needs populations, and animals.These events may be exacerbated by power loss. For this planning effort, it was not possible to analyze the number of lives or amount of property exposed to the impacts of extreme heat. Previous Occurrences for Excessive Heat Although the NCDC database does not include any reported past occurrences of excessive heat, residents of Clark County should be prepared for such an event in any given year. ' r Geographic Location for Excessive Heat Hazard lr Excessive heat events are regional in nature. All areas of the state are vulnerable to the risk of excessive heat. Hazard Extent for Excessive Heat Hazard Excessive heat events typically occur in the summer months.The extent of excessive heat events varies in terms of the Heat Index and duration of the event. The duration will vary although it could span up to several months. Risk Identification for Excessive Heat Hazard Low Risk High Risk 76r The planning team determined that the probability of an excessive heat hazard is low in Clark County,the impact of such an event is minimal to moderate, resulting in an overall calculated risk of moderately low. r Vulnerability Analysis for Excessive Heat Hazard Extreme heat may lead to severe short and long term health conditions, or even death. Extreme heat events are widespread and can occur within any area in the county; therefore, the entire county +' population and all buildings are vulnerable to extreme heat hazards. The elderly are particularly Ir vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat;approximately 13.1%of Clark County's population is aged 65 or over. A secondary hazard that may be produced by extreme heat is drought. Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for IV Excessive Heat Hazard Unlike other natural hazard events, extreme heat events leave little to no physical damage to communities; however, they can lead to severe short and long-term health conditions, or even death. Extreme heat events can also impact environmental and economic vulnerabilities as a result of water r shortages and drought. 6 60 6, 60 The Polis Center 100 6 F AW �r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 5.3.8 Drought Hazard �r Drought is a climatic phenomenon that occurs in Clark County.The meteorological condition that creates a drought is below-normal rainfall. However,excessive heat can lead to increased evaporation,which will enhance drought conditions. Droughts can occur in any month. Drought differs from normal arid conditions found in low rainfall areas. Drought is the consequence of a reduction in the amount of precipitation over an undetermined length of time (usually a growing season or more). There are several common types of droughts including meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic. Figure 50 describes the sequence of drought occurrence and impacts of drought types by ,► the degree of dryness (as compared to an average) and the duration of the dry period. These are region- specific and only appropriate for regions characterized by year-round precipitation. • Hydrological:Associated with the effects of periods of precipitation shortfalls(including snow)on surface or subsurface water supply(e.g.stream flow, reservoir and lake levels, and groundwater). 1 ► Impacts of hydrological droughts do not emerge as quickly as meteorological and agricultural droughts. For example, deficiency on reservoir levels may not affect hydroelectric power production or recreational uses for many months. • Agricultural: Links characteristics of meteorological or hydrological drought to agricultural err impacts. An agricultural drought accounts for the variable susceptibility of crops during different `,► stages of crop development from emergence to maturity. • Socioeconomic: Links the supply and demand of some economic good (e.g. water, forage, food grains, and fish)with elements of meteorological, hydrological, or agricultural droughts.This type of drought occurs when demand for an economic good exceeds supply as a result of weather- related shortfall in water supply. ilr Illi �r �r U► Ir► IIr► 1r Ilr rrr rr The Polis Center 101 1r r 40 to it Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 50: Sequence of Drought Occurrence and Impacts • Natural Climate Variability Precipitation deficiency High temperature,high winds,low (amount,intensity,timing) relative humidity,greater y sunshine,less cloud cover Im . Reduced infiltration,runoff, 1 2 O deep percolation,and Increased evaporation m p . ground water recharge and transpiration 6 -- - ------ ---- - -- --- - ---- -- - ------- - Soi I water deficiency R . 1 3L 3 � Plant water stress,reduced �a o biomass and yield rn0 -- - ---- ------ --- - ---- -- - --- - ---- --- - Reduced --- ------ --- - ---- - - --- - ---- --- Reduced streamflow,inflow to reservoirs,lakes,and ponds; Z reduced wetlands, o m wildlife habitat 00 r - -—————————————— ——--———— ———————— — -- Economic Impacts social Impacts Environmental impacts Sequence of drought occurrence and impacts for commonly accepted drought types. All droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation or meteorological drought but other types of drought and impacts cascade from this deficiency. (Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, U.S.A.) In the past decade, the US has continued to consistently experience drought events with economic impacts greater than$1 billion. FEMA estimates that the nation's average annual drought loss is$6 billion to $8 billion. For Indiana alone, the National Drought Mitigation Center reported hundreds of drought impacts from June 2010 through October 2010, ranging from water shortage warnings to reduced crop yields and wild fires. �r The severity of a drought depends on location, duration, and geographical extent. Additionally, drought severity depends on the water supply, usage demands made by human activities, vegetation, and agricultural operations. Drought brings several different problems that must be addressed. The quality and quantity of crops, livestock, and other agricultural assets will be affected during a drought. Drought can adversely impact forested areas, leading to an increased potential for extremely destructive forest �r and woodland fires that could threaten residential, commercial, and recreational structures. lip Drought conditions are often accompanied by extreme heat,which is defined as temperatures that hover 107 or more above the average high for the area and last for several weeks. Extreme heat can occur in The Polis Center 102 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 humid conditions when high atmospheric pressure traps the damp air near the ground or in dry conditions, which often provoke dust storms. The Palmer Drought Severity Index(PDSI), developed by W.C. Palmer in 1965, is a soil moisture algorithm utilized by most federal and state government agencies to trigger drought relief programs and responses. The PDSI, shown in Table 48, is based on the supply-and-demand concept of the water balance equation, taking into account more than just the precipitation deficit at specific locations.The objective of the PDSI is to provide standardized measurements of moisture, so that comparisons can be made between locations and periods of time, usually months. The PDSI is designed so that a -4.0 in South Carolina has the same meaning in terms of the moisture departure from a climatological normal as a -4.0 does in Indiana. Table 48: Palmer Drought Severity Classifications Classification Rating Classification Description 4.0 or greater Extremely Wet 3.0 to 3.99 Very Wet 2.0 to 2.99 Moderately Wet 1.0 to 1.99 Slightly Wet 0.5 to 0.99 Incipient Wet Spell 0.49 to-0.49 Near Normal -0.5 to-0.99 Incipient Dry Spell -1.0 to-1.99 Mild Drought -2.0 to-2.99 Moderate Drought -3.0 to-3.99 Severe Drought -4.0 or less Extreme Drought Previous Occurrences for Drought Hazard Although the NCDC database reports numerous drought events that affected Indiana in the past five years, there are no reports of drought directly impacting Clark County. Geographic Location for Drought Hazard Droughts are regional in nature.All areas of the United States are vulnerable to the risk of drought. Hazard Extent for Drought 1 Droughts can be widespread or localized events.The extent of droughts varies both in terms of the extent of the heat and range of precipitation. 1 r The Polis Center 103 1 b �r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 by it Risk Identification for Drought Hazard Low Risk High Risk 6r Ir The planning team determined that the probability of drought hazard is low in Clark County, the impact iW of such an event is minimal to moderate, resulting in an overall calculated risk of moderately low. kv Vulnerability Analysis for Hazard iW Droughts affect mostly humans, particularly special needs populations, and animals.These events may be i' exacerbated by power loss. For this planning effort, it was not possible to analyze the number of lives or In amount of property exposed to the impacts of drought. illo 6 Drought impacts can be an equally distributed threat across the entire jurisdiction; therefore, the county is vulnerable to this hazard and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. The entire b+ population and all buildings have been identified as at risk. ir Facilities 60 All facilities included in this plan are vulnerable to drought. These facilities will encounter many of the , same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction,which should involve only minor damage.These lip impacts include water shortages, fires as a result of drought conditions, and residents in need of medical care from the heat and dry weather.A complete list of essential and critical facilities and their locations is included as Appendix C. Building Inventory The other buildings within the county can all expect the same impacts similar to those discussed for the essential and critical facilities. These impacts include water shortages, fires as a result of drought IV conditions, and residents in need of medical care from the heat and dry weather. ir Infrastructure ko During a drought,the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads,and bridges.The risk to these structures is primarily associated with a fire that could result from the hot, dry conditions. Since the county's entire infrastructure is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that any number of these infrastructure components could be impacted during a drought. Illy Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Drought Hazard 111111, Future development will remain vulnerable to these events. Typically, some urban and rural areas are more susceptible than others. For example, urban areas are subject to water shortages during periods of drought. Excessive demands of the populated area place a limit on water resources. In rural areas, crops and livestock may suffer from extended periods of heat and drought. Dry conditions can lead to the ignition of wildfires that could threaten residential, commercial, and recreational areas. The Polis Center 104 1 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 60 Because droughts are regional in nature, future development will be impacted across the county. Although urban and rural areas are equally vulnerable to this hazard,those living in urban areas may have a greater risk from the effects of a prolonged heat wave. According to FEMA,the atmospheric conditions that create extreme heat tend to trap pollutants in urban areas, adding contaminated air to the excessively hot temperatures and creating increased health problems. Furthermore,asphalt and concrete store heat longer, gradually releasing it at night and producing high nighttime temperatures. This phenomenon is known as the "urban heat island effect". Local officials should address drought hazards by educating the public on steps to take before and during w the event,for example,temporary window reflectors to direct heat back outside,staying indoors as much or as possible, and avoiding strenuous work during the warmest part of the day. Irr tr rr 5.3.9 Dam/Levee Failure Hazard Dams are structures that retain or detain water behind a large barrier. When full, or partially full, the r difference in elevation between the water above the dam and below creates large amounts of potential energy, creating the potential for failure. The same potential exists for levees when they serve their purpose, which is to confine flood waters within the channel area of a river and exclude that water from land or communities landward of the levee. Dams and levees can fail due to either 1) water heights or flows above the capacity for which the structure was designed or 2)deficiencies in the structure such that it cannot hold back the potential energy of the water. If a dam or levee fails, issues of primary concern include loss of human life/injury, downstream property damage, lifeline disruption (of concern would be transportation routes and utility lines required to maintain or protect life), and environmental damage. Many communities view both dams and levees as permanent and infinitely safe structures.This sense of security may well be false, leading to significantly increased risks. Both downstream of dams and on floodplains protected by levees, this false sense of security leads to new construction, added infrastructure,and increased population over time. Levees in particular are built to hold back flood waters only up to some maximum level, often the 100-year (1% annual probability) flood event. When that maximum is exceeded by more than the design safety margin, the levee will be overtopped or otherwise fail, inundating communities occupying the land previously protected by that levee. It has been suggested 6► that climate change, land-use shifts, and some forms of river engineering, may be increasing the b, magnitude of large floods and the frequency of levee failure situations. IV In addition to failure that results from extreme floods above the design capacity, levees and dams can fail due to structural deficiencies. Both dams and levees require constant monitoring and regular M maintenance to assure their integrity. Many structures across the US have been under-funded or otherwise neglected, leading to an eventual day of reckoning in the form either of realization that the structure is unsafe or, sometimes, an actual failure. The threat of dam or levee failure may require substantial commitment of time, personnel, and resources. Since dams and levees deteriorate with age, minor issues become larger compounding problems, and the risk of failure increases. Itr — The Polis Center 105 II it �Ilr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 wl�r Previous Occurrences for Dam and Levee Failure There are no records or local knowledge of any dam or certified levee failure in the county. +Ir► Geographic Location for Dam Failure low Ar The Indiana Department of Natural Resources identified 16 dams in Clark County. Table 49 summarizes the dam information. Table 49: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Dams Dam Name River/Stream City Hazard EAP Level Harry Hughes Lake Dam Tr-Sugar Run,Sinking Fork, Speed Low N Deam Lake Dam Big Run Tr-Muddy Fork Carwood High N ® Muddy Fork Structure No.2 Souders Branch Muddy Fork New Providence High N Franke Lake Wolf Run Henryville Severe N Country Lake Dam Tr-West Fork Silver Creek Underwood Area Severe N ® Southern Hills Lake Tr-Muddy Fork Of Silver Creek Carwood High N Muddy Fork Structure No. 1 Packwood Branch Borden High N Muddy Fork Structure No.3 Fordyce Br Muddy Fork New Providence High N Shady Hollow Lake Tr-Sugar Run,Sinking Fork, Otisco Severe N 60 Ski Starlite Dam No. 1 Unt-Muddy Fork Wilson Low N 60 Ski Starlite Dam No.2 Unt-Muddy Fork Wilson Low N ho Munk Lake Dam Silver Creek-Offstream Speed Low N 60 Hideaway Lake Dam Turkey Run,Tr-Muddy Fk.Ck. Memphis High N 11111110 - Stumler Dam Tr-Campbell Br,Jersey Park Cr Crandell Low N I 111111111F Schlamm Lake Dam Tr-Mill Branch Henryville Severe N Muddy Fork Structure No.5 Koetter Hollow New Providence High N Geographic Location for Levee Failure The Jeffersonville-Clarksville levees protect the both Clarksville and Jeffersonville from the Ohio River.The principal structural method for flood control in Clark County is the floodwall and levee system that protects an area of 4,190 acres, including most of the downtown portion of the City of Jeffersonville.The 11111111F system is comprised of 5.1 miles of earth levee, 1.8 miles of concrete floodwall, 10 pumping plants for the removal of interior drainage during high river stages, and other necessary appurtenances. Portions of the �r City of Jeffersonville are impacted by an accredited levee which is shown as a moderate-risk area, and is labeled Zone X (shaded) on a FIRM. If this levee accreditation is maintained, based on the National Flood IMIr The Polis Center 106 I�. Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement is not required. However, FEMA recommends the purchase of flood insurance due to the risk of flooding from potential levee failure or overtopping. The City of Jeffersonville also has a levee along the Lancassange Creek, as shown depicted by FEMA in the northeast corner of Figure 51. This levee stretches along Parrin Lane between Woodland Road to Rudie Drive. �r Figure 51: Clarksville and Jeffersonville Levees J, i Clark 1 / CouutN till r Clarksville r" r „3�' Jeffer soui•ille � � 0 0.325 0.65 ®Miles Legend Flood Hazard Zones Clark County ■ 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Levee type ■ Flood Hazards& Levees i i Unaccredited Levee Regulatory Floodway :zI Accredited Levee 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard IS Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee Hazard Extent for Dam and Levee Failure When dams are assigned the low (L) hazard potential classification, it means that failure or incorrect operation of the dam will result in no human life losses and no economic or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner's property. Dams assigned the significant (S) hazard classification are those dams in which failure or incorrect operation results in no probable loss of human life; however, it can cause economic loss, environment damage, and disruption of lifeline facilities. Dams classified as significant hazard potential dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in populated areas with a significant amount of infrastructure. Dams assigned the high (H) hazard potential classification are those dams in which failure or incorrect operation has the highest risk r to cause loss of human life and significant damage to buildings and infrastructure. The Polis Center 107 fir fr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 . According to the IDNR, 11 dams in Clark County are classified as high or significant hazard. Figure 49: High and Significant Hazard Dams— Clark County . MO�Rd000 NAB 6ountY Llne Rd 183A r ...-iiio-....�....... hem .�.—..._�..�..i l BRA R J YAR vSYIIIE 8erhfNEW IV �w tA,nBle 16Q- j ] WASHINGTON h R I 0 . N R ILLS 011SCO SINEW NLENEI Ila E Bide I", Q 524 c uet ,4 WESTPORT VIMCE _11. cNA0.LESTowN � I � � � � �. I rftlYf9iC e v HBENNETTS EIOS SPRIAVILIE � a L GOSM M�..«_.......-...�-........�. SELBURG or su ] - 711. -.GxB6o 11,t ,D 6REENVILLE / *poll --,��aed Bridge Rd or \ C .OROS CT ID4i )?9 1 fLOYDI `NAR DS c EN A� neBao ROEBTNOOD x 4Lp1 . PfYfEE'" 1We GEORr ET IS CL RR ILLE1J7 VALLEY! "= S Dam Hazard 0 High Potential 0 Sign III Polenbw None of the dams in Clark County have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). An EAP is not required by the State of Indiana, but is strongly recommended in the 2007 Indiana Dam Safety& Inspection Manual. Risk Identification for Dam/Levee Failure Low Risk High Risk Based on historical information, the probability of a dam failure that would impact Clark County is low. The planning team determined that the potential impact of a dam failure is minimal to moderate; therefore,the overall risk of a flood hazard for Clark County is moderately low. �rr fir 6 Ill The Polis Center 108 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Vulnerability Analysis for Dam and Levee Failure In order to be considered creditable flood protection structures on FEMA's flood maps, levee owners must provide documentation to prove the levee meets design, operation, and maintenance standards for protection against the one-percent-annual-chance flood. Levee Failure A GIS overlay analysis was performed on the protected areas to estimate the potential impact of a breach of the levees located along the Ohio River.There are a total of 1,971 buildings within the areas protected by the Ohio River with a total exposure of approximately$438.6 million. Figure 53 depicts the potential buildings at risk. Additionally,there are two essential facilities in the protected areas—one police station and one fire station. Figure 54 depicts the essential and critical facilities at risk which could be damaged in the event of a breach for the Town of Clarksville,while Figure 55 shows these same facilities for the City of Jeffersonville. Table 50: Buildings in Levee-Protected Areas Levee Number of Buildings Building Exposure Jeffersonville-Clarksville Levee 1,971 $438,590,873 The Polis Center 109 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ` r Figure 53: Ohio River Levee Breech— Clarksville and Jeffersonville j t Flovil fi ' Couur. county i i 1111 ' Ir. Ilil 11 ll! • - ClarksNille 'T ,111 tyt1,1+• A ' Intl, - •S., . • • MA • •.mow • Nell�l souf illy � it s•' • 0 035 0.7 •� I••••` Miles - `r '14 Legend Flood Hazard Zones Clark County • Buildings behind levees 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Buildings in a flood zone Levee TV pe Regulatory Floodway Unaccredited Levee 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard t�ehindtheOhioRiverlevees Accredited Levee 41 Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee 1 1 1 1 ` The Polis Center 110 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 . Figure 54: Exposed Essential and Critical Facilities— Clarksville ' . �� ✓'Almay P x � �►. v} "� Y•y .q� � � � �'r fi.'.vain. , ,Clark • �``' "' S Coun y y wClarksv><lle / f i�'IA ,r s« fix` �`:� •� �I 'ice , ty t Y hz �t k`s IV- • , wIs , �� °i F , ��rr4ti-i' y��j i ' # i i' Clark County Critical and Essential Legend Fire station Flood Hazard Zones Facilities behind levee. ♦ Can:Faddy ■ 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard / v Levee type Regulatory Fbodway 0 0.15 0.3 '? 0.2%/lnnual Chance Flood Hazard • I1 UnaaritedL Levee ®Miles a Accredited Levee / Area Mih Reduced Risk Due to Leve • Figure 55: Exposed Essential and Critical Facilities— Jeffersonville i 1 1,1 t� . �•, t i Clarksville Jeffersonville r U. s \ 'II t'rlll rr�1111�f1141111�1��, PI � �,,J OF ,y Clark County Leg� Flood Hazard Zone: Critical and Essential © Airport Facey + Care Featly / 1%Ann Mhanoe Flood Hazard Facilities behind levee / euary Flaodway eCommunkslgn Fadlily Levee Type R®iet V II Unacaetlded Levee 0.2%MnwlChance Flood Hazard 0 0.15 0.3 .94, Police Statim M Acaeo Red Levee rA Area with Reduced Rik Due to Levee ®Miles .t>, Fre Station The Polis Center 111 4 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Dam and Levee Failure The county recognizes the importance of maintaining its future assets, infrastructure, and residents. Inundation maps can highlight the areas of greatest vulnerability in each community. 40 4P 41101 5.3.10 Landslide Hazard/Ground Failure According to the USGS, the term ground failure is a general reference to landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreads, and any other consequence of land shaking that affects ground stability. This plan will only address land subsidence and landslides. Landslides are a serious geologic hazard common to almost every state in the United States. It is estimated that, nationally, they cause up to $2 billion in damages and from 25 to 50 deaths, annually. Globally, landslides cause billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths and injuries each year. The term landslide is a general designation for a variety of downslope movements of earth materials. Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually,whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include: saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, earthquake shaking, and volcanic eruptions.There are three main types of landslides that occur in Indiana: 1) rotational slump, 2) earthflow, and 3) rockfall. Land Subsidence Southern Indiana has a network of underground caves formed by what is known as karst landscape. According to the Indiana Geological Survey, karst landscapes usually occur where carbonate rocks (limestone and dolostone) underlie the surface. Freely circulating, slightly acidic water in the soil slowly dissolves the bedrock causing karst formations. These karst formations have the potential to collapse under the weight of the ground above them, creating a sinkhole. Ground failure of this nature is known as land subsidence. Any structures built above a karst formation could potentially be subject to land subsidence and collapse into a resulting sinkhole. 6 6 6 r lip 6' r --Ah- The Polis Center 112 Irr iI Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Landslides A landslide is a rapid movement of surface land material down a slope. The main causes of landslides include: • • Earthquake or other significant ground vibration • • Slope failure due to excessive downward movement, gravity • Groundwater table changes (often due to heavy rains) • Preventive and remedial measures include modifying the landscape of a slope, controlling the • groundwater, constructing tie backs, spreading rock nets, etc. . The USGS claims that landslides are a significant geologic hazard in the United States, causing$1-2 billion in damage and over 25 fatalities per year. The expansion of urban and recreational development into . hillside areas has resulted in an increasing number of properties subject to damage as a result of landslides. Landslides commonly occur in connection with other major natural disasters such as earthquakes,wildfires, and floods. r Although landslides may not be preventable, their effect on people and property can be mitigated. . Mitigation includes any activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chance of an emergency happening,or lessen the damaging effects of unavoidable emergencies. Investing in preventive mitigation steps now, such as planting ground cover(low growing plants)on slopes,or installing flexible pipe fittings r to avoid gas or water leaks,will help reduce the impact of landslides and mudflows in the future.21 Previous Occurrences for Landslide/Ground Failure r While there have been no major incidents involving landslide or ground failure in Clark County, minor events have occurred throughout the area. r Geographic Location for Landslide/Ground Failure • Clark County is located directly over an area of karst landscape which covers much of south central Indiana. As a result, sinkholes and caves, which are associated with a karst landscape, are scattered throughout the county. The regional locations of karst landscape are shown in Figure 56 on the next page. r r r r r r r rZ'http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?termlD=105 The Polis Center 113 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 50: Regional Karst Map .,. tom°. ' r , r N A = Karst Landscape ' a . m aux: O Clark County u. Figure 57 on the next page illustrates the intersection of populated areas and karst in Clark County. As can be seen, multiple communities in Clark County lie above known areas of karst. These communities stand a greater risk for subsidence events than do the other communities. The Polis Center 114 ■r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Figure 51: Karst Landscape and Populated Areas inClark County n� N� N� m� Hazard Extent for Landslide/Ground Failure ow 6W The extent of the ground failure hazard is closely related to development near the regions that are at risk. 6V The extent will vary within these areas depending on the potential of elevation change, as well as the size to of the underground structure. The hazard extent of ground failure is spread throughout the county in various concentrated areas. or �- Risk Identification for Landslide/Ground Failure Low Risk High Risk o� �~ Based on historical information, the probability of ground failure is medium. In Meeting#1, the planning 6 team determined that the potential impact of a ground failure event is minimal;therefore,the overall risk 6F of0roundfai|u,c for Clark County is low. 6�11 Vulnerability Analysis for Landslide/Ground Failure Because of the difficulty predicting which communities are at risk of ground failure,the entire population �0 _ and all buildings have been identified as at risk.As a result this plan will consider all buildings as vulnerable. w� The existing buildings and infrastructure of Clark County are discussed in types and number below. � �� 1110 �r �� m � �rm Center 115 � � � � i Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Facilities Any facility built above karst landscape or near a steep slope could be vulnerable to land subsidence. An essential or critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the affected area.These impacts include damages ranging from cosmetic to structural. Buildings may sustain • minor cracks in walls due to a small amount of settling,while, in more severe cases,the failure of building • foundations causes cracking of critical structural elements.Table 51 lists the types and numbers of all the essential facilities in the area. Critical and essential facilities are included in Appendix C. Table 501: Essential Facilities of Clark County • Category Number of Facilities Care Facilities 70 Emergency Operations Centers 1 Fire Stations 25 • Police Stations 7 Schools 38 Total 141 0 Building Inventory to . The buildings within the county can all anticipate the impacts similar to those discussed for critical facilities.These impacts include damages ranging from cosmetic to structural. Buildings may sustain minor cracks in walls due to a small amount of settling, while, in more severe cases, the failure of building foundations causes cracking of critical structural elements. Infrastructure In the area of Clark County affected by land subsidence,the types of infrastructure that could be impacted . include roadways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, and bridges. The risk to these structures is primarily associated with land collapsing directly beneath them in a way that undermines their structural integrity. Since all infrastructure in the affected area is equally vulnerable, it is important to emphasize that any . number of these items could become damaged as a result of significant land subsidence. The impacts to these items include broken,failed,or impassable roadways; broken or failed utility lines(e.g. loss of power or gas to community); and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. In addition, bridges could fail or become impassable causing risk to traffic. • Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets for Ground Failure All future communities, buildings, and infrastructure,will remain vulnerable to ground failure in the areas of Clark County where karst landscape features exist and in areas of significant elevation change. In areas with higher levels of population, the vulnerability is greater than in open areas with no infrastructure demands. Karst-related subsidence or landslides may affect several locations within the county; therefore, buildings and infrastructure are vulnerable to subsidence. Continued development will occur The Polis Center 116 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • in many of these areas. Currently, Clark County reviews new developments for compliance with the local • zoning ordinance. Newly planned construction should be reviewed with the geological maps to minimize i potential subsidence structural damage. i i i i i i • • • ! ! i i r r r r rThe Polis Center r 117 r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 i ' Section 6 Mitigation Strategies g g The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard includingloss of life,, property damage, disruption to local and regional economies, and the expenditure of public and private funds for recovery. Mitigation actions and projects should be based on a well-constructed risk assessment provided in Section it 5 of this plan. Mitigation should be an ongoing process, adapting over time to accommodate a l community's needs. 6.1 Community Action Potential Index (CAPI) FEMA Region V mitigation planners developed the Community Action Potential Index (CAPI) in 2013 as a tool to prioritize communities for Risk MAP initiatives and mitigation activities. CAPI includes a number of indicators that, when weighted, sum to a total score for each community in the state. This helps federal and state planners determine which communities would be most likely to advance mitigation strategies through the Risk MAP program. CAPI currently includes index scores for every Indiana community, a total of 661. Of those communities, 60 slightly more than half(325) have been deployed, which means that Risk MAP activities have occurred or sp are in the process of occurring. All of Clark County's communities are deployed. 116 Table 521 lists the Indiana communities with the highest CAPI scores (the highest possible score is 131). The higher the score, the higher the potential risk the community faces in the event of a disaster. But a r high score also indicates that the community has the potential to move mitigation activities forward. For ,, example, communities that participate in the NFIP's Community Rating System and/or have approved 6F local mitigation plans will be assigned a higher CAPI score. 1111111' Table 51: Indiana Communities with Highest CAPI Scores i11110 County Name Community Deployed? CAPI Score Marion City of Indianapolis Yes 92.24 Vanderburgh Vanderburgh County No 85.14 ko Allen City of Fort Wayne No 83.62 Bartholomew City of Columbus Yes 83.20 Hamilton City of Noblesville Yes 79.43 6 6 6 6 r The Polis Center 118 1r E 1�r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Table 53 lists Clark County communities' high risk factors as well as their composite CAPI scores. The arrows illustrate how the community compares to the state average. As shown below in Table 53 and Figure 58 on the following page, Clark County (unincorporated) has the highest CAPI score. Table 52: Clark County Communities' CAPI Scores CommunityTotal % Individual Name CAPI Community Insurance Insurance Repetitive loss$ Repetitive Assistance Score within SFHA claims$ claims# loss# $per Capita Clark County ♦ 69.34 7 8.86 A 4,627,121 360 A 1,697,311.13 27 Jeffersonville A 59.50 A 10.70 A 807,267 xk 119 A 956,191.09 A, 16 V 6.00 Utica ♦ 53.44 A 62.28 ♦ 1,128,882 A 44 A 343,565.30 A 5 V 4.52 Sellersburg ♦ 45.65 A 14.63 V 125,157 V 12 A 106,910.40 V 1 V 10.77 � Clarksville a� 41.84 17.66 716,674 A 37 T 21,193.55 V 1 V 1.71 Borden ♦ 37.38 A 15.84 V 24,310 V 5 T 6,479.98 V 1 A 524.42 Charlestown ♦ 30.10 1 2.93 V 152,494 33 0.00 V 0 V 14.52 KEY: Better than State Average • Worse than State Average Figure 52: CAPI Scores for Clark County and Jurisdictions ------- , ------- �.. low Score-•-- High ->0 core The Polis Center 119 +�Ir► Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 err 6.2 Plans and Ordinances Clark County and its communities have several ordinances, listed in Table 54, that are relevant to emergency management and disaster planning. Table 53: Clark County Plans and Ordinances Community OrdinanceNear Clark County(unincorporated) Clark County Zoning Ordinance, 2007(Amendments 2012) Charlestown Charlestown City Ordinances, updated 2014 Clarksville Clarksville Zoning Ordinance,2011 Clarksville Comprehensive Plan, 1992 Jeffersonville Jeffersonville Zoning Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, 2030 Sellersburg Sellersburg Zoning Ordinances, 1993 Sellersburg Building Ordinances, 2012 Utica Utica Ordinances, 2014 (Ordinance for Flood Hazard Area) As an element of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Clark County has an erosion control plan to mitigate adverse land use effects. 6.3 Mitigation Goals The MHMP planning team members understand that although hazards cannot be eliminated altogether, Clark County can work toward building disaster-resistant communities. Following are a list of goals, objectives, and actions. The goals represent long-term, broad visions of the overall vision the county would like to achieve for mitigation. The objectives are strategies and steps that will assist the communities in attaining the listed goals. Goal 1: Lessen the impacts of hazards to new and existing infrastructure, residents,and responders Objective A: Retrofit critical facilities and structures with structural design practices and equipment r that will withstand natural disasters and offer weather-proofing. Obiective B: Equip public facilities and communities to guard against damage caused by secondary effects of hazards. Objective C: Minimize the amount of infrastructure exposed to hazards. Objective D: Evaluate and strengthen the communication and transportation abilities of emergency services throughout the community. Objective E: Improve emergency sheltering in the community. The Polis Center 120 6 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ow Goal 2: Create new or revise existing plans/maps for the community . Objective A: Support compliance with the NFIP. Objective B: Review and update existing, or create new, community plans and ordinances to support hazard mitigation. Objective C:Conduct new studies/research to profile hazards and follow up with mitigation strategies. . Goal 3: Develop long-term strategies to educate community residents on the hazards affecting their . county . Objective A: Raise public awareness on hazard mitigation. . Obiective B: Improve education and training of emergency personnel and public officials. 6.4 Mitigation Process, Prioritization, and Implementation Upon completion of the risk assessment and development of the goals and objectives, the planning . committee was provided a list of the six mitigation measure categories from the FEMA State and Local . Mitigation Planning How to Guides. The measures are listed as follows: Prevention: Government, administrative, or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built.These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space . preservation, and stormwater management regulations. . Property Protection: Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education programs. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor 6r restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. . Emergency Services:Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities. Structural Projects:Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include dams, levees,floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • —ll— The Polis Center 121 %W • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 MHMP members were presented with the task of individually listing potential mitigation activities using • the FEMA evaluation criteria. The MHMP members presented their mitigation ideas to the team. The • evaluation criteria (STAPLE+E) involved the following categories and questions. • Social: • • Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? • • Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts,or cause the relocation • of lower income people? • Technical: • How effective is the action in avoiding or reducing future losses? • • Will it create more problems than it solves? • Does it solve the problem or only a symptom? • Does the mitigation strategy address continued compliance with the NFIP? Administrative: • Does the jurisdiction have the capability(staff,technical experts, and/or funding)to implement the • action, or can it be readily obtained? • • Can the community provide the necessary maintenance? . • Can it be accomplished in a timely manner? Political: • • Is there political support to implement and maintain this action? • • Is there a local champion willing to help see the action to completion? • • Is there enough public support to ensure the success of the action? • How can the mitigation objectives be accomplished at the lowest cost to the public? • Legal: • Does the community have the authority to implement the proposed action? • • Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolution in place to implement the action? • Are there any potential legal consequences? • Is there any potential community liability? • Is the action likely to be challenged by those who may be negatively affected? • Does the mitigation strategy address continued compliance with the NFIP? rte. Economic: • Are there currently sources of funds that can be used to implement the action? • What benefits will the action provide? • Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and likely benefits? . • What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action? • • Does the action contribute to other community economic goals such as capital improvements or . economic development? . • What proposed actions should be considered but be "tabled" for implementation until outside sources of funding are available? _A_ • The Polis Center 122 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Environmental: • • How will this action affect the environment(land, water, endangered species)? • • Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? • • Is the action consistent with community environmental goals? Implementation of the mitigation plan is critical to the overall success of the mitigation planning process. • The first step was to review the strategies developed for the 2008 MHMP. In addition, Clark County • jurisdictions participated in a FEMA 2012 Risk MAP Resilience meeting in which specific flood mitigation • actions were documented. The planning team was presented with the task of evaluating the both of these • mitigation strategies and documenting the status of each activity for their jurisdiction. • Then the team brainstormed a new list of strategies, which in some cases, reiterated 2008 and 2012 . strategies that were not implemented due to lack of funding or resources.Finally,the team decided,based • upon many factors, which actions should be undertaken first. In order to pursue the top priority first, an • analysis and prioritization of the actions was important. Some actions may occur before the top priority due to financial, engineering, environmental, permitting, and site control issues. Public awareness and input of these mitigation actions can increase knowledge to capitalize on funding opportunities and monitoring the progress of an action. • The planning team prioritized mitigation actions based on a number of factors.A rating of high, medium, • or low was assessed for each mitigation item and is listed next to each item in Table 56.The factors were the STAPLE+E (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental) criteria listed in Table 55. • Table 54: STAPLE+E Planning Factors • S—Social Mitigation actions are acceptable to the community if they do not adversely affect a • particular segment of the population, do not cause relocation of lower income people, and if they are compatible with the community's social and cultural values. T—Technical Mitigation actions are technically most effective if they provide a long-term reduction of • losses and have minimal secondary adverse impacts. • A—Administrative Mitigation actions are easier to implement if the jurisdiction has the necessary staffing and . funding. • P—Political Mitigation actions can truly be successful if all stakeholders have been offered an opportunity to participate in the planning process and if there is public support for the action. • L—Legal It is critical that the jurisdiction or implementing agency have the legal authority to implement • and enforce a mitigation action. E—Economic Budget constraints can significantly deter the implementation of mitigation actions. It is important to evaluate whether an action is cost-effective, as determined by a cost benefit • review, and possible to fund. • E—Environmental Sustainable mitigation actions that do not have an adverse effect on the environment, • comply with federal,state, and local environmental regulations, and are consistent with the community's environmental goals, have mitigation benefits while being environmentally • sound. • The Polis Center 123 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 6.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy and Actions • As a part of the multi-hazard mitigation planning requirements, at least two identifiable mitigation action items have been addressed for each hazard listed in the risk assessment and for each jurisdiction covered under this plan. • Each of the seven incorporated communities,within and including Clark County,was invited to participate • in a brainstorming session in which goals, objectives, and strategies were discussed and prioritized. Each participant in this session was armed with possible mitigation goals and strategies provided by FEMA, as well as information about mitigation projects discussed in neighboring communities. All potential strategies and goals that arose through this process are included in this section. • This section includes a comprehensive list of all mitigation strategies from the 2008 plan, 2012 Risk MAP • Resilience actions, and new strategies developed for the 2015 update. We categorized the progress of each strategy using the following symbols and guidelines. Mitigation action has been identified and prioritized. Funding has not yet been secured. 0 (1 0 Mitigation action is in early phase of implementation. Community has identified source of 0 funding and submitted project proposal. Implementation will begin once funding is secured. 0 • Mitigation project is in progress or ongoing. Funding and/or resources are available to • complete it. • Mitigation project is complete. 0 0 • Table 55 on the following pages lists completed strategies followed by incomplete and new mitigation • strategies in order of priority.Assuming funding is available, it is the intention that high priority strategies • will be implemented within one year of plan adoption,medium priorities will be implemented within three 0 years, and low priorities will be implemented within five years. 0 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency will be the local champion for the mitigation actions. l►' The County Commissioners and the city and town councils will be an integral part of the implementation 0 process. Federal and state assistance will be necessary for a number of the identified actions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • The Polis Center 124 0 0 � � Lr) LL LL w < $ ƒ \ � k 7 \ D ° U) E E _ _ » E » » u o ] § 2 § \ § a m e a t o q o 2 E o 3 0 $ � \ % a 0. m \ + § � 0 o0 \ ƒ0 / \ � = 3 » f R f 2: /e § f 2G m t\ f fe f t\ k\ / kk f ) ƒ/E 2 � m\ O \ 0 o m 3 8 0 n 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 E O 0 e E E 0 E £ { a 2 G 2 a 2 S $ e o § o m » G o § m1-= E G § \ _ - 7 t E ) e 2 = / ƒ G ƒ 7 2 0 0 \ 2 ® @ e g k § S m 7 f@@ = k / c E e 4 I c n 0 e E E e k I c m c El Z 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 x O 0 E o 0 e c � $ $ @ £ G _ _ ® o / R / \ � / $ } qw o = c0CUf �k % 2 G } 0) _ = n _ c c & c ' / -0S06 E \ / § .\ \ E f ) CL Ln ° ° C k / \ f \ ƒ / k 2 CL E E a) % _ _ 7 E _ 5 _ » = E / _ � 2 2 2 G § / § / / / / << \ d \ � � . . . . . . . . . .. . 0a \ . . © . v 2 ` E§ _ 0 0 ° / _ m_ _ 0 ` c ° \ \ « g I 2 / CT ° « « c ° _ � / $ _ o < q = » _ -0 $ O c % E & ° § a 0 $ a o � ƒ J R{ 3 2 \ E 2 2 / \ C14 Cr- "0 LO f Q) LO � � ILa = : � — = 2 \ ] # \ 7 § # E 7 22 0E2 E 03 � � � � � � / ! 2 ; � @ » u CO ƒ § j k 0 0) \ _ §_ Q © E © 5 5 ® k tt G © O \ OE / } LL � £ : r E E m E % _ » E » E % 2 ) 2 § � § \ S � § 2 m { e a \ o ) 0 2 E + 5 ° E ° 2 E f E I § r G y U t o / - t f 0 \ 0 2 % / I o 0 \ k / Of L) QQ gE = IQ OO QEo � = 3 » = f » / 3 c m 0/ / j § 0 / \ 2 t © E ) d 2 f © -2 ° - m \ \ \ $ \ f m \ / / S § � / \ S E E S e e S R E S E E E E % � ~ 0 ° -0 ± 2 a S $ ± ] ° 2 \ N \ _ / � / m = -0 m E 0) / 2 E o = f w § 2 \ E o t = { § 2 \ m / ƒ j / f c / 3 / i j / / f o / j O E o O E e E o n E o R E E n c c c ) 0 (D ) = \ a _ \ q 7 £ 0 D ) @ § c e _ % >1 6 z & % a) 0 2 2 : ` % % / & _ ' / & §� @ \ m 0 2 m � me9 m Jf &» / § 3 § / ƒ fb7 / Q ® R � k E _ @ g \ 2 % E ± / % D . % R % # m E m # « _ ? a = _ ) = 7 & f $ 2 7co » »/ cn % E =30 |� S ƒ \ $ / S 3 $ / %CL > \ c 0 ± 2 I _ - � � g \ / _ 2 0 = - _ = 2 E g = a = q 0 = _» J U o 0 q \ 5 r q % ƒ 2 E 2 = 2 / 7 2 = ¥ c ° a C £ � S0 EE � 0 / ° _ co 0 ° ° 0 = c a m _ 0 _ � @ a c ( -0 \ § \ \ / \ \ & n 2 » I = E S S 2 o ° ° 7 E _ E = 7 5 I / f 2 n � � = -0 a) = e ® e ! 2 / m U = 2 # \ I n = 5 \ E a I # u \ E � � � � \ ! C: ( °C ° L = t e z f f d 2 2 = 5 > m \ 2 \ / k \ � k c E 2 E / _@ ® E % o ] » § 0 \ \ $ E 2 = o c { 2 e a \ o £ o o E e e ) R 7 G = ° 0 I § y \ y \ f \ a- o E Q y o z f I §L) 5 _ o g % / $ o \ o \ / Of L) L) L) QEc Q L) L) O = 0 � a » _ D » / ± \ j / 3 > / k E $ / } 2 f § / / 2 f E 2 ° / \ O 3 $ \ Q j \ / % \ 5 / \ E E M M E M x 0 0 0 O O 0 M � C e ° E E 0 _ / 2 \ \ ° k \ \_ / 2 k > 0 o m 6 o m » G e 2 = / 2 m k 7 ? 2 = £ k § / k § @ 1 § S \ = ) P g % k R m 7 @ § t b e E w e I c m c e E E e I o m = M E M M M X M X M M O c 2 g M 2 2 2 _ co / c u ® \ � @ k 2 m E LD c: \ q k 00 of � » \ \ \ E ( / 2 \ / \ _ ? E o a ® m m S Q 7 2 « / § / O R 4 E § E \ § ® 7 5 a _ @ _ - = o = o = o i o = \ Q : m - = m u - = a I Q \ _ a / \ / ) k 2 / m a ld = a e _ _ = o » = Q 0 e g@ 7 E 7 0 m 7 % E o % 2 = § Q 5 a E < @ - � \ o ± j E k ± e c a m e § { @ u = . » 2 / |/ \ G _ ¥ 9 ] / g S \ $ -M \ 9 = } N m E = # M = o > _ E 5 = \ m 2 t < E = E M £ $ \ E e � f 2 \ ) G / w } \ £ \ G G c = 2 = g « 0. \ a & _ : _ = 9 O & $ f m f 2 g 7 |k $ a Lao � \ R) k / c = MS \ S q q \ q \ .4. 2 \ § 2 0 2 : 0 2 \ I \ / I \ - D . ° ° ® \ ■ ' _ u � % / E \ C: E ƒ : _ « 2 \ C: ) # \ 7 f o = \ E2 \ & 2 � � � � N Q � C:2 o • L U .� LU E U m LL p) c c • C co 2 U C N N U IL 0 � LL LL • y c L C • O C L CL4 � (6 YO Y O CO O_ C O_ C C cu • F- O U c n O O) O F- f4 • ° rn E E c U = a) O o m m Cc)- 2 C2> C 2: >> 3 •� O) C � QI C a+ U (U • C — c =3 O = c O N c 0 U c ami con U) U • E o L 10 a) U m O L N a) a) U co O co U U -5 to Z) U m U U -oi cn Z) U � U ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 11 El El El El °N° o • N i v i 0 Y O U N Y O U N U o C9 U) c > O co � � � > • O N 'O Q a) N L -p J 'p a) m L a) Cp co -p L C CD E y CO -p -c C N E O - • = E O V_ 7 C N p _C) E E O 'C 7 C N Op L E � p O O L c6 7 c0 p m L c6 7 f0 H Li w H 2 0 U) 0 H LL w H 2 0 cn O CL ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D • h N a) c N .� COCE 0) O C v) O f0 C (a a) 3 y 'p Q C @O C N 4 L O L f9 C1 U a) p L C Y c cn «. in- O O o U to a) U Uf>6` p o 7C Cm0 p L � E O Z E O ,� o o f tO p C > E o O M Cn N to '0 Cn U N C O (6 f0 L N U •- CU U) 'o U v3 U) = c 3 > -o o c a) p ca c � Cp M N p :: coOo °) °) E > m - o L 3 c L cn q a.. c o m `� ° a) c m p E c • aC N(n � 0 0) 0 0C ad c E O apE U O T 'p E Cap) c a) CcCc @U U m in U O Z O (n a O •� o a 0 • ao +_ c m • _o m m N U)O CO @ L c a) m • mC c0 caQ a. N _p ( E E � C6 `� C @ N U cu a O • = Q U -p •c c 3 a) N m >, p _ -p c . cc o E c f c c O p Q �N, 7 E O m U cn N O p • m .� c o @ > ''p o 3 .3 c .r E -o O` p U L �O 'C @ c 7 �2 C_ - 't T CO ~ -O a) c O cp N • U 3 > cid m tm D .cn o • �_ o a) c •c 2 a) OCn L a) fn U Y o a U • • • y C C Lp E L � m U• m O L _ � 0 • L C C J LL LL 7 L w � W . N C y c o CUCU � a) CL m E 2 c w e w E E Lcu c Z 0 • O CL .O c 0 c c -t m a 0 c c '� a) H cn o U) o m E o a H @ In 'o a) m c m m — a o U •� V a o a o U .� cn 0 • cm E E L c a m m E Y E V = a) O D O m m m p0 2 aa)) O _m m p O m 0 J LL Of U U d (n U U) C a) >, w 30 a) 5; m n 3 N > m C • O c > N U c v) > O W p 'a cL0 @ °� m '� o '� m m m Y _ U m U L m U U fn Z) U O Q m m m V m U U cn U rn '�� El El El El El ❑X © ❑X ❑X ❑X © ❑X N Or, • N L • E E E t3 Y O U N Y O U O m O 7 ` a) a) O m a) fn C > N m Q -Op L (0 -p J -p 7 a) L @ L a) a) tf = Cp OL CN m 9 7� O m O m w w H o m 0 _0 ® ® 00x0 ® ® ® ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • '_ m Y m m co a) o _m (n m cu • m a) o 3 p U p s - U) m c 0 O N «>. an d OO U ~ m • Q C a) C a) c a) a) 'p E C N 'o y N p0 O N C C (/) C Q � 0-G cu a Od N O cn u) O E . U) .0 C 'C 2 m N c aT m C U (A . j a W L O C ma) cu N E a) a) C p Y N a) O () T � OL h N L 0 30 d m U) C) 3 7 a 'C Iz � . O • Q C d U ..L. N ` u .c .C_ D. .� a Y E = a U a) U C O L O • LL. Ll (t`6 m U (n U um) Ll (n 3 vOi a O :E • C � r m L c 0 2 2 '0 a • > c -a E c � m m 0 co c • N O 00 N O m 0 p m C) m �, p• E N N cu O_ (� L m N +; Q O "O N C C a) ,C • O a CU o f L) n E 0 CD ' c E m e > c cu 0 . U 'C .00 C w CCL 0 U U) w 0 n2 • C E E Q C s LU Lcc 0LLm U m Q W J E _ • • m w C ` C ` CC m m C >` C >, E m C >, C >, N m p N • a f UE U Q a N = N =3 a) a) > O O 6) m N m _ o v) c UC Q n C nE Co C ° U V = a) O m o m m 0 2 m O N o m cco m °p • U U U U U (n U U U U a ❑ U � li C: c a) c a) y • C d OOC Q p ° O c O C Uc U O U c Cn > i n 7 Cu m m co 0 _ m j m U U Ln (n U m U U in Z) U m U U U) U • ❑x ❑ ❑x ❑x © © ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑x © ® ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ � O N i E E E E 0 V Y o U Y O U Y O U • CD p � > m c = E °O tf = C N 0 � E O 7 C N 0 E E O 'C 7 C N O E • 4+ O m L Cu 3 m O O m L Co 7 m Q ° m L m C m m E: w F- § z ❑ cn ❑ F- Ff w F- § z ❑ cn ❑ F- � w ►- z ❑ U) ❑ • a ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑x ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D Co a) N O to Q) C .� .c � m F- C U a) O' • Q L �-N N �, N Co N O C U N 2 > Q C C — m m E) (� m Cu 0 =p C m > > Cn L > n t Y L C f/) O to oC (n Cn � p CY - O CoN mO j w U in N U a Co O (n N L N C > m m c a) m U o m 3 ) c m Q ° > O O U p 7 c °- O � i Q ° � � � m .= • E ° ° ° m QL � m a) c a E w a) a) 0) o > a p. c C � a c o Q o m E m ° @ o c a E o la � cn a U) a Q ° m o n � Q m c � L L C L CL m m C a . o 0 +=LXO C 0 3 c o w L N U L f6 L c E m O N C E _ m O C) O O C C m < U m 2 > @ C U O d Cn O O O Cn Q > m N Q m N �' .D m m . Q a E � .S c T) m � M o � U +J C a) C O O a) C v m a) :+ N .Cn E 2 a O U C O N O N U a > rn N L a CD c °o aa) c .o E > o a) C m -p -� -O .0 m O m U w V Y d tv Y N a) U E 0 c c �a 0 y c U c Q c .c a) c . Y 0 L) °) ° _ o .0) 02 = .c O ami E .mE '55 f6 cn .S 3 n t m n O n 2 m ° O .� . U _ _ 9 \ _ 1 / ` _ U. 2 \ 0 w vw 22ƒ _ 2 k ) o a % \ 0 E 32f / « » \ 0 / d3 � \ \ m 2 = > e £ _ _ = 0 2 = _ o Z5 0 W Q = m a ° E m _ * m 2 E / 7 ƒ 2 § t 2 % \ / ] ® E Q 0 % / S O m 0 Q 3 \ \ § \ n E 0 0 2 0 n 0 0 0 c e 0 0 \ � � e E E E E ° 2 z 3 a E $ ± 2 a E $ N \ 9 ( a £ E $ ° § 0 ® $ $ C m E = \ » 2 = / 7 " E k 2 $ E ° t = 7 w g = E E o = = f ° ® _ _ _ = 0 0 = _ m § = \ f / E I e 10 m 0 w E I e 4 I c m c o E o S E 2 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 c O 0 '73 k 0 z ( \ § V ® c ® $ k 2 � k c \ % § \ d ƒ k ) $ 2 / k0 0.k cu c \ kk 2 $ @ @ r z �c \ / -0 2 ` 2 5 Q ? \ m a % m = s a k s . U . / </ |/ £ I a . LXO .. ~ C: c 2 5 n ® ƒ 2 2 \ g » \ 0 0 Co U) m < CD m < \ — G 'a -0 ( � _ U) 2 z o 2 § f 3 2 $/ 2 � ] \ E e E E e / ' > @ m 12 E % $ 2 E r ƒ _ t % ƒ � $ \ ƒ § E � % - S 0 /CU � » _ c — . — a 2 / � ,/ s \ \ S - _� # / ° E CT 0 \ ® ® u O m £ 0 f es < I 0 � u � � • • d Q N C • C ED 0 O LL• N O m Y ` 0 N 0 a. Z C) • jn c m C0 E2_ C_ L L E c6 C .�'. C w E c6 C >. c 2 • O a)cu O 0 0 O O a) ~ a o O O O O a) U U U) • O O Y Y C c0 0_ O E Y Y C N C CCL • U � U UU UO_ 0 C� U C) C) UO_ 0 ! c Y c Y 30 •> 2) C 30 � C • C .5 C -0 O .5 C 7 =O aci ami y U) (n U a) -C0 M 0 W U 'p m - a) N ` -p Y O N c6 �c p L c6 U c6 O fB _V c6 10 U U U U CO U U °i U) U • .--1 V ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® M O i-1 • N i a1 ! 'p Y -O O U N Y O U a) • O N 'O 6 '0 - i6 O7 'a -1 "0 Q -0 " i6 J _ � 7 C � � to C • a) O O N L C c6 OL 7 c6 p O 63 L C N O` O a3 m w = o U) o FL w = o U) o • a ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ L O Y co N _co O N C c .- U Y O C OL O C o .� C .c - U N L >' • 'p (n c6 L o 'O a) 'C C C L j) N U C a) > a 'O •� • c N 0 O O L CO @ C ` a y a) US 0 co U U a) c ( L m N .� y C C c6 m O` C) O0 c a) D ! (n 'O Q .� M a) d a (n () Y w • Q) rn o a) 7 a) C 7 L p co , a) wO Q c C: U -O > c O @ ,. • h a) O' > C Y (C9d m O � 7 U 2 L c6 C C O C C O- Y a C U - '3 • U f0 6) cu T s wcc o m Z M U IO ) a.a o@ OJo LL o OU NU)) :s H ! C w E E • (- ` a o C • 2 a 0 0 • .ao C�C N • G c LUCL L 00 O = • N o c 'o a) E LO f6 "' a c6 N � p. 2 - • :IF O in - V � am 4) 3 o oN • D C a) a) Oa O U — a) r= p ` w U 4) • O O (6 (0 N O a y d a) LO O Y p U O 5 .0 N L U a) C •� Q C O O_Z •C w H "O U s M11111'oil low—m • • • y • = C LL w w U • LL Y • U) U) _ = m � � U • N m c • Q C ` C ` U) m E N C >+ C >+ • Q Cu a p c p c C m a O C O C c C c c O a) U 7 '� 7 () 0 (D 7 H m U) O U) O 0) E H � o �, o m o > E O ca � o U U .� c o o '� U U U 3 � U E • L L C L C L L L C U = aIe mi o m o m m aa) _ aO7) o m o m m 0 m 0) m m o • U U U U d 0 U U U U d 0 0 2 0 U U • c ? c a) w c 0 w 3 m c 3 0) c 3 m c • E -2 m Cu c`6 m m m -'.4'2 m m °) L) c`6 ULr) apo U U U) 5 U Co U U U) Z) U CoOU U fn Z) U Cn C El El El El El ® ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® m • N L • • LH li 0OO O Yo UO Y N Yo ( U a) Cum C > Cu C > Cu C > O O O M CU _0 L ' 'O 0 0 J Q J0 C E -a7 N0 c (n Eo CN _ E O V- C O .0 E 7 E O o o m Oo OCu L m p L m ` 7 m w 2 0 v) 0 H li W H = 0 U) 0 H E w H § 2 0 U) 0 CL ® ® ® ® ® El El El El El ® El El El El El 11 El El 1:1 ® El El El El -` Co CD a) Cb m a) m t . Co C (- C @ 0 U) `� O) 5 O m O O > U O m a C y O 0 > m 3 a) O o- O a) . Q In m o OU .S .�. O. �6 0 c O C 4 y > d C p C fn N L C m w Cl) U o L o m C '0 .0 N m f- m O O ma E . U) O ` m e m Fn O c w m tCD 3 0) u0i vi O a 0 O O a) p +: a) N .- U 0 w 3 3 . (n Y OL o Co p L .L.• C U E U U " c U) fn O C .p N a > > C O C V) .L. L' m >O L a) m " rn m o m a) a a) CM U U c ,� O L a w .N > 0 jCM N >, w N 0) (n N w- O C C O> - -O I C • C m .2 C: '00 (D 6 <n U N OU U p) y C E Y C a) . a m Uc !E5 0 m 'C a a c c E mCD $ c a a 3 L a 0 . E L cn c 0 Co m m o a) Cu L m E m (a c E E E . m > > a 0 o C a • o 0 • O N C -6 C C O • 0 N L Cu N 0 m p C an d m cn " (n '= C V) �= w a) m C m m C (n m C Q ° -o .o -0 .0 0) 0 .s U (n a U a)Co 0 c a 0 o C 0 o m 0) O m N o m c L rn mm a) a) `O 0- o (n a) o a_ a) m m o a c E E °- L -p •c g r= '0 '0 'c 2 m 'c a) � > a m > CL _n >, C • O 0 U v m E g c O m E g m m m E U :2 .c o c_ : 0) a) c _> > > c � Y > U p 01 'p C .0 C -p 00 d O -p 00 L o L c a) 0 3 0 c m o m E m C) f6 (n O E N U) a O E N O E N U • 0 '4W vrr o in a 'a U c �w ti E C7 C7 c +1r+ m m w Z> D W LU LLW lowN w � O O CL L mv ` p >' -p to O U c 0 Y +�. 0 > � o U a� O Ear Uma C p• Z) wlew U m D 0) C C C C p O N c 7 0 O c m 3 aci a 0 -0i U c upi U c > vpi w U "D a) N U Y D @ a) c0 Y O O a) m Y O L N 5 mV m t (0 .0 qw U m U U fn 2) ULn m U U U) D U m U UCD (n D U o El El ® El El El El El El ® El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ m N VH L E U c E EE LOE LE0 O O pO O U L > Cs p 0 U > Ca) J>O '0 _IO C6 p 'O 0 c E Jm • , C 0 -co Ns N vO E0 f0 0 O = mO O o Lm Fw n o Fw i- n o w U) opa) �r � El ® El ® ® El El El El 11 ® El ® ® El El El El El El ® ® El El El El raw N cu :s m ow O 0 U O DO O �► p N q Cl)_ ( c cn a d) O O O w -E C ) U w w '�' 3 � � O U O) O O +' "0 O '0 N za •cn ca O C CO t: a - CU U cn L) 0 _rn _� 'cO C O v r o E � g Ea C� C m :3 a) as 0 00 0 Z Q U (6 Z > L Z > L I=C tom^ CD C w E E 0 a m 60 co U > U :3 � C U C m O _ m 0 C L m O N O O mCa Q Y J m Q Y N "�'. fC9 < U O m m °' m U m m g L Q C L _� U "C E j '0 y U C U 10 h (� c3 C O O 2' C O 0 L O_ cr C E m E n Q' C — 0 CL O 5 _ 0- u' m -0 d N a E v, N 0 +�+ 0) O` .0 > N Y C N O a3 o > c = a ) � cOm _0 a) U (� cn � N � a) a) (D 0 a) a) C -0 C 7 Q >, w C 0� O` X >, y U 7 C 0 >, Y U r U aNi c .0 O- m e aci m e @ c c _ c a> m "0 a> c aD a> m m Mn c aa) a) m c E n U Q c O � 2 aim O -= UJd O .� it P bw w. Irl► N a) a1 C 7 LL � LQ C/)� c � N =3 w = U) LL LL _0 ow N Q O p LLI E mW w L L = = LL c 0 0o a) > > O c c a) f0 a m > C C — p •UPO c O E a) O a) LL C O a) N (O 0 ca j E@ U a U � T U U U w « c c a) c a) 3 O) O O — 3 aci a`�i C U c O m 0 cn > c 0 U 'O xO N f6 Y 'O ` O O N 'a a) a) a3 Y r V O L m m '� io `o s O t ca .� cu m U U cn Z) U m U U (n :D U 00 U U fn D U C 1:1 El El 11 ® El El El El El0 ® El El ® 0 ® ® 0 ® 0 m N � L C L L O a) O a) O O 41 -Ie O O a) a) O E a) N 0 !0 O N (n t O a) p > N (n _ a) O 0 _ L N > R ns o s a) a o _� m o @ � ` E _ O 7 c N 0 0 c E O op d O c6 L c0 L ca p O m -C C N L 7 W ` O 7 C N 2 w I— 2 cn 0 H LL w = 0 U) O fo— LL w H 2 in 0 l El ® El ® ® El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or a m 0) .c ow Z L a) m vii N -Oo U 3 ow •o � m a� > o a o wo U p r C Ln a) L a) C C a H c c c 0 m o � "� y 0 0 kv Q cn c o o a) >, a) U am 3 j N a) Co a m ' o Q) 3 l a Z Z d c w E E E ! L a O o a m p UCL o a)C C m c a @ a . U :3 o U C a. U O Q Y a. cn Q Y O 2 v E Lo 0 � � � 0 0 � cu co 5 � (D Q C N :3c m a� 0 0 mCL 3 o a) _ O O O N 0 U o U p O N w 2 o_ m — a -o ,0 a) a Y v 4 cu r- O N Q_' _O 0) (0 O N C a+ 6 C >. O a) LL C- 7 C .L U E V C C a) @ C N ca C a) a) 0) E N _O _ __ L _O U .0 _ (D U L m E fo 0) m E U C U r oir +err m < m +11r c o Li m c = c c ii +fir m � H CC C '� w c f0 CL Y d .0 O = O f6 5a E VY C °� a CL c6 a� a� vo U) 0 ami o ca, > o) m = 2)o O UNwUU£ N N N V m 0 U � fn U am 0 U cn U p ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ M N L EE 0 Y O U O Y O U 4, OC OO O O U)N f6 : ( L 'D E D)= C = C O J O 4 J O CL) O (6 L C (6 O (6 O O (6 L C f6 0 = w H w F 10 cn 0 IL w H m 0 cn O L ❑ ® ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y U y O 3 C C m � a V d O O U c6 3 0 c � 6v a o 0 c a J J •o 0 _0ao COL � 0' c6 c a w c m o E o o `�, °ELO o cum Q CN o N + 'C 4, 4, (0 0 o p 0 = 0 U o CU G X m — f6 L Q m L_ >- Of O O 3 c O N c c a c m 3 O co o a � U a _0 o cn o — cn O — 0 N oC > m 3 .S H U H -o U e. r low a. qW %W Section VW Plan Maintenance AW 7 "r "r ►► 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Relevant data, information, maps, and tables developed for this local mitigation plan will be integrated as appropriate into other planning efforts to include zoning,floodplain management, and land use planning. Many of the planning team members, representing the county as well as participating jurisdictions, will integrate these data as part of their roles as floodplain enforcers, zoning officers, and community administrators. Throughout the planning cycle, Clark County Emergency Management Agency and the MHMP planning committee will monitor, evaluate, and update the plan on an annual basis. Additionally, a meeting will be held during June of 2019 to begin planning for the next update of this plan. Members of the planning committee are readily available to engage in email correspondence between annual meetings. If the need for a special meeting,due to new developments or a declared disaster occurs in the county, the team will meet to update mitigation strategies. Depending on grant opportunities and fiscal resources, mitigation projects may be implemented independently by individual communities or through local partnerships. The committee will then review the county goals and objectives to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county. In addition, state and federal policies will be reviewed to ensure they are addressing current and expected conditions.The committee will also review the risk assessment portion of the plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified. The parties responsible for the various implementation actions will report on the status of their projects, and will include which implementation processes worked well, any difficulties encountered, how coordination efforts are proceeding, and which strategies should be revised. Updates or modifications to the MHMP during the five-year planning process will require a public notice and a meeting prior to submitting revisions to the individual jurisdictions for approval. The plan will be updated via written changes, submissions as the committee deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the county commissioners. ' The GIS data used to prepare the plan was obtained from existing county GIS data as well as data collected as part of the planning process.This updated Hazus-MH GIS data has been returned to the county for use and maintenance in the county's system.As newer data becomes available,this updated data will be used for future risk assessments and vulnerability analyses. The Polis Center 137 Ir kv Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 VW ,. 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs The results of this plan will be incorporated into ongoing planning efforts since many of the mitigation +�r projects identified as part of this planning process are ongoing. Clark County and its incorporated jurisdictions will update the zoning plans and ordinances as necessary and as part of regularly scheduled VW updates. Each community will be responsible for updating its own plans and ordinances. r► 7.3 Continued Public Involvement Continued public involvement is critical to the successful implementation of the MHMP. Comments from the public on the MHMP will be received by the Clark County EMA director and forwarded to the MHMP planning committee for discussion. Education efforts for hazard mitigation will be ongoing through the Clark County EMA. The public will be notified of any periodic planning meetings through notices in the local newspaper. Once adopted, a copy of this plan will be available on the Clark County website, in each i jurisdiction and in the Clark County EMA Office. 60 qW so so kv r r r r r r r r r � The Polis Center 138 ver err. rr vrr APPENDICES Appendix A: Meetings 4110 Appendix B: Newspaper Articles and Announcements Appendix C: List and Locations of Clark County Facilities r Appendix D: Historical Disaster Photographs Appendix E: Mitigation Photographs Appendix F: THIRA List Appendix G: Clarksville Flood Impact Statement Appendix H: 2012 Stormwater Master Plan Recommended Projects Appendix I:Adopting Resolutions b 610 16 k' 6 6 The Polis Center 139 1r qw 40 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 rr �. Appendix A Meetings r. ow w 4w r NW The Polis Center 140 r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • CLARK COUNTY MHMP MEETING#1,FEBRUARY 27,2015 • • TOTAL HOURS INVESTED NAME TITLE COMMUNITY (Include transportation, • research,and 1.5 hours for �' / this meeting) • '�—_ iG^/ �'�.err✓�� /`ly1C �h-li �/�7P�.I3��F 14 AJ 77 J ✓,�� J?��Srn'1 ,^�'Ps�owr.�,,,b1i�t �,/iGs/Ps�c��'t • � ed�, v,+au..Ru: �e[sfrov�tA.6 sro2av+wzs,¢ AFF • - � /.._ArS r_(1 isV To �1 3NfIGIM oTM, ,unr� 7-0-1n d-1-5e/ke. !! 9 C C C f • I�' �c 0 /1'1 Ide..`� FIA e NL,asL+( C• e�<Te f� �Je s�•%�llP �d� ¢•�� ika►wiaQ i Iv PYi- rLIIS The Polis Center 141 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 MEETING 41 MINUTES CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE February 27,2015—2:OOPM (local time) John Buechler, Director of Geoinformatics, The Polis Center, introduced himself and his associate, Kavya Beerval Ravichandra, G15 Analyst,and went on to explain that the County's Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP( has expired and needs to be updated. Mr. Buechler then asked participants to introduce themselves. Representatives from the following communities were present: Borden, Charlestown, Clarksville, Jeffersonville, 5ellersburg, and Utica. Also in attendance were representatives from Clark County Government and River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Buechler discussed the meeting's agenda and shared background information on The Polis Center. He asked that all participants keep track of their hours worked on this project as it will be used towards the local match. He then explained that the Clark County MHMP was adopted in 2008. Clark County needs this plan in order to access future funds from FEMA and that all communities must participate to access funds as well. Mr. Buechler stated that this meeting is the first of three meetings, and that during this first meeting, the committee will review critical facilities data and profile and prioritize hazards. During the second meeting, the committee will review risk assessment results and brainstorm mitigation strategies. A portion of the second meeting will be open to the public. Mr. Buechler explained that after the second meeting, The Polis Center will take all comments and ideas and prepare a report. The committee will meet for a third time to review the plan,before it is sent to FEMA for approval. Mr. Buechler shared a tentative schedule with the participants. The second meeting is expected to be dk held in approximately six weeks and the draft plan should be finished and submitted to FEMA by October of this year. 16 i Mr. Buechler described the equation to be used to determine risks and prioritize hazards, and explained sk that they would be putting together a risk profile for each community. Risks could include rain, hail, earthquake, etc and be unique to each community. Mr. Buechler shared Clark County's history of disasters since 2008,which include 126 severe weather reports and four federal disaster declarations. The committee looked at the risk profile graph pulled from the last MHMP and discussed changes.Tony Jackson, Charlestown, asked if terrorist attacks on local power plants should be considered in the plan. Mr. Buechler responded that terrorism Is not considered in this plan.The committee should focus more on man-made hazmat issues such as those that are related to transportation. Brad Meixell, Clark County 911, stated that a study conducted in 2013 showed there would be an increase in hazardous materials moving through the county. Mr. Buechler suggested that they move Hazmat up on both probability and impact on the chart. Ms. Ravichandra made note of this. Mr. Buechler asked if the Polis Center could get a copy of the study to include in the plan.Mr. Meixell said that wouldn't be a problem. The Polis Center 142 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Mr. Buechler asked if there were any other comments. Rudy Cook, Borden, asked where Tornados were listed on the graph as he couldn't see it very well. Mr. Buechler responded that it was listed at the top under Flood. Mr. Cook stated that Borden has been hit with three tornadoes since 1974. The school has been affected directly two of the three times. Mr. Buechler said that they would make note of this when they discussed Borden. Michael McCutcheon,Jeffersonville Fire Department,asked what category straight line winds fell under. Mr. Buechler responded that they would fall under Thunderstorms. Mr. McCutcheon mentioned that these winds have been one of the biggest hazards in the community over the past few years. Brittany Montgomery, Clarksville, asked if Flood covered both flash flooding and river line flooding. Mr. Buechler responded yes and noted that they would address this on the map. Ms. Montgomery added Ask that flash flooding has a bigger impact on the area than river line flooding. Mr. Buechler suggested they break the two out on the graph.Ms.Ravichandra agreed. Les Kavanaugh, Clark County EMA, asked where stormwater fit in?Mr. Buechler responded that it would be related to flash flooding and that it can be documented as an ongoing mitigation strategy. • Mr.Buechler asked if there were any other comments.There were none. Ms. Ravichandra handed out a list of Jurisdiction Hazards to each participant. Mr. Buechler explained that The Polis Center looked at topography, roads, railroads, dams,etc.to come up with this list. ® The committee then looked over the corresponding Jurisdiction Hazards slide and suggested adjustments to Borden's risk profile. Mr.Cook suggested that tornadoes should be added to the hazards list. Mr. Buechler agreed and asked if the Town had four dams. Mr. Cook said yes,and added that there is a possibility of a fifth being constructed. Hazmat should stay High as there is a highway that runs through the town, as well as a railroad. Next, the committee suggested adjustments to Charlestown's risk profile. Mr. Jackson stated that Flooding should be moved up to a medium level due to stormwater. They also experience flooding in some subdivisions.The Hazmat category should stay where it is. The committee then suggested adjustments to Clarksville's risk profile. Ms. Montgomery explained that Flooding should be moved to a higher level as the City Is bordered by Silver Creek and the Ohio River. She added that they drain half the county or more. Ms. Montgomery asked if inadequate pumping of the levee system would fall under Dam/levee Failure. Mr. Buechler said yes. Ms. Montgomery said that the category should be moved up to Medium as they have inadequate pumping on their levee system that causes flooding. The committee suggested adjustments to Utica's risk profile. Hank Dorman, Utica, stated that the graph was on point with Flooding and Hazmat.They do not have any landslide issues. Next, the committee suggested adjustments to Jeffersonville's risk profile. Mr. McCutcheon stated that he has been on the fire department for 23 years and has never experienced a hazmat event. He questioned why that category was listed High. Mr. Buechler explained that it was a subjective guess based on the highways and railways that exist there. Mr. McCutcheon said that he feels Hazmat should The Polis Center 143 �r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 r be listed as Medium. Mr. Meixell stated that he felt it should be High due to the increase in 60 transportation moving through the area, Ms. Montgomery added that river transportation should also be considered. A barge turned over in the 1980's and caused a chlorine spill. Greg Dietz, Sellersburg, stated that although the probability is low, the risk is high. Mr. Buechler said they would make note of that. ® The committee then suggested adjustments to Sellersburg's risk profile. Mr. Dietz discussed problems with railroad crossings and suggested that upgrades should be considered. He stated that Flooding is on point as they get backwater flooding from Silver Creek.They would like to conduct a study and look into the possibility of flood gates or pumps as a solution. Mr. Dietz stated that the Hazmat category is ok as is,but Landslides should be moved to Medium.The town has a moderate risk under Dam/Levee Failures at Deams Lake due to backwater flooding from Silver Creek. Mr. Buechler asked if there were any more comments.There were none. Mr. Buechler directed the attendees to a map of the county. He explained that critical facilities and care facilities have been plotted on the mals. The Polis Center can add any community assets that the committee sees fit.These assets can include industry, government facilities, historical facilities, etc.The committee members were also asked to circle any other hazards that were previously discussed. V Mr. Buechler stated that the Polis Center will create a model of hazard scenarios. The scenarios will include a flood,earthquake,tornado, and hazmat situation. Mr. Buechler tasked each community with completing the following items before the next meeting: 1) review the 2008 mitigation strategies handout, 2) gather articles, photos, count/$damage summaries, etc. related to hazards since the last update and 3)document on handout strategies implemented since the last update as well as ideas for new strategies that could be implemented. Mr. Buechler reminded attendees that the second meeting would be open to the public, and that they should be prepared to review risk assessment results and brainstorm new mitigation strategies at this meeting. Ib Mr. Buechler asked if anyone in attendance had any further questions or comments.There were none. IV Mr. Buechler thanked everyone for coming.The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm(local time). Minutes Prepared by: Chelsea Crump, River Hills EDD& RPC The Polis Center 144 kr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 CLARK COUNTY MHMP MEETING#2,JUNE 11,2015 • TOTAL HOURS INVESTED NAME TITLE COMMUNITY (Include transportation, • research,and 1.5 hours for / this meeting) J • • e.nl W a LL A(.E; e xa wg1�f� CPoz��w�•2 ��F+Si�tS v t 4E 3 t4 • R t*� CtOM •3S/a+•c. K d /YI/fie/Q M�CwC c �l�FF !^P�r )j ►kQ4�a/ r f The Polis Center 145 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 4► MEETING#2 MINUTES CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE June 11,2015—2:OOPM(local time) John Buechler,The Polis Center, introduced himself,and went on to explain that he and his staff pulled together information from the Clark County Emergency Management Agency, River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission, and the local jurisdictions to draft the first five chapters of the Clark County Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) update. Christine Schmitz, The Polls Center, passed out a copy of the draft plan and the 2008 Mitigation Strategies spreadsheet to each participant. Mr. Buechler informed the room that during the meeting they would briefly go over the draft plan and work on Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies. He also explained the purpose of updating the plan as well as funding opportunities. Mr. Buechler stated that each participant's time spent on the planning process should be documented and would count towards the match($5,000). Mr. Buechler asked participants to introduce themselves: Brian Wallace, City of Jeffersonville; Larry Wallace, City of Jeffersonville and the Town of Utica; Mike McCutcheon, City of Jeffersonville Fire Department; Ruth Sparks, Town of Borden; Brittany Montgomery, Town of Clarksville; Amir Mousavi, City of Jeffersonville and Clark County EMA; Greg Dietz, Town of Sellersburg; Les Kavanaugh, Clark County EMA;Gary Green,Greater Clark County Schools;and Chelsea Crump, River Hills EDD&RPC. Mr. Buechler gave a brief explanation of the remaining steps for the MHMP update plan. Jurisdictions should get any comments or updates to the Polis Center within two weeks. The Polis Center will complete the final draft and the planning committee can review It at the third meeting in approximately 4—6 weeks. Mr. Buechler stated that the Polis Center would make needed updates and then send the plan to FEMA for conditional approval. Once approval is received from FEMA, the plan will go to each 160 Jurisdiction board for adoption by resolution. Mr. Buechler asked Ms. Crump to reach out to the local jurisdictions that were not present to get input on the plan and strategies. Ms.Crump said that she would take care of it. Mr. Buechler then went on to review the first five chapters of the draft MHMP plan,which includes: - Information on jurisdiction,community and neighboring county participation - A profile of Clark County - Risk assessment information Historical hazards records j - Guidelines for determining probability and impact - Previous hazards and their rankings Modeled disasters:tornado,flood,earthquake,and hazmat - Karst Map kv Mr. Buechler asked Ms. Crump to send the information to the County's GIS person. Mr. Mousavi asked that she send it to the City of Jeffersonville's GIS person as well. Ms. Crump said that she would take care of doing that. 6 The Polis Center 146 rr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Mr. Dietz explained that the hazmat model should have been located at 403 and 31 in Sellersburg, to include the schools and the 911 Center. Mr. Buechler stated that they would remodel the hazmat plume. Mr. Buechler asked the participants to go through the draft plan and get any changes or suggestions to the Polis Center in two weeks. He reminded the participants to keep track of their time and get that information to Ms.Crump. Mr. Kavanaugh asked how they should categorize a wind storm, such as Hurricane Ike. Mr. Buechler explained it should be categorized as straight line winds. Ms. Montgomery asked if a levee failure was modeled. Mr. Buechler responded that there is only a 1% chance of levee failure, and so it was not modeled. Mr. Kavanaugh added that the County has experienced breaches in the highway 60 area, and have 11 or 12 other areas that are considered high risk. Mr. Buechler suggested that they include a breach analysis as a mitigation strategy. Mr. Kavanaugh added that they have previously conducted an analysis of Deam Lake. Mr.Buechler asked if anyone had any questions.There were none. Mr. Buechler asked Ms. Crump if she was aware of any upcoming projects in the County that could be ® considered a mitigation project. Ms. Crump stated that the 2013 CEDS included a priority for improved warning systems in the County. Mr. Kavanaugh explained that their current system has experienced two lightning strikes and is in need of a software update and reprogramming. However,the County is in the process of getting a new system. Mr. Mousavi added that he is looking into getting a county-wide system through Code Red. Mr. Mousavi added that both the City of Jeffersonville and the County Government are certified through the StormReady program. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that he has weather radios for each of the school buildings, and they will be delivered before the end of summer. Mr. Mousavi asked if responder communication improvements,through centralized 911,would count as a mitigation strategy. Mr.Buechler said it should be documented. Mr. Buechler asked Ms. Crump if she had anything to add. Ms. Crump stated that the Town of Borden • has had several tornadoes in the past, and asked if they have warning sirens. Ms. Sparks replied that they have a siren near the Town Hall, only a few feet from the school. Mr. Kavanaugh added that Daisy Hill has petitioned for a siren, but funding is an issue. Mr. Buechler stated that they would make that a potential mitigation strategy. ` Ms. Crump asked if anyone had any drainage projects. Mr. Mousavi stated that they have a large number of drainage projects going on in Jeffersonville. Mr. Wallace added that they have completed a master stormwater plan and have already begun on some of the projects. Ms. Montgomery added that 1 Clarksville has one as well. 1 ' The Polis Center 147 1 .............. Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Mr. Dietz asked if the double crossing arms for railroads would be something to include in the strategies. Mr. Buechler replied yes. Mr. Dietz stated that CSX will be running the tracks and carrying hazardous materials. it Mr. Buechler stated that he would like to go over each of the 2008 Mitigation Strategies. The planning committee discussed the following: Harden existing critical facilities:some critical facilities still in flood plain and should be flood proofed - Community outreach and education: continuous process; FEMA handouts, Facebook and Twitter accounts,flooding education,drills at schools Reverse 511:in process for some jurisdictions, previously discussed Code Red - Siren/warning signal installations countywide: previously discussed Daisy Hill,several others in progress, installing cameras with voice command - Training and support of storm watcher teams and emergency personnel: should include response training for police and fire departments, EMA currently offers two storm spotter classes a year, National Incident Management Training for fire/police/EMS completed recently,damage assessments training completed in Sellersburg Anchors for large propane tanks:yes,several located in flood plain - Sanitary sewer construction:ongoing, replacing old lines, etc. - Storm drainage improvements:ongoing, previously discussed = Vehicle to transport debris removal workers:already have plans in place Buyout of flood prone private property: yes, Jeffersonville currently buying out homes, Clarksville and Sellersburg have plans for buyouts but no available funding, some homeowners not cooperating - Identify and publicize evacuation routes: in need of a traffic study, can include evacuation routes,should get KIPDA Involved - Provide a plan for emergency distribution of food/water: COAD, VOAD, faith-based organizations,Salvation Army,other volunteers all assist with this - Provide emergency generators for critical facilities: all of Sellersburg's facilities have them, the same goes for Jeffersonville, remove from list Swinging flood gates at flood prone roads: underpasses in Jeffersonville could use them, the same goes for Clarksville,currently just have warning signs,stay as a medium priority - Re-evaluate existing snow removal plan: have better equipment now, Sellersburg has a larger fleet of snow removal vehicles, should continue to work on burying infrastructure to prevent downed lines - Plum Run acquisitions:complete - Erosion on Ohio River near McAlpine Loch: still an issue, road is currently closed, medium priority - Mill Creek (Clarksville) and Cane Run (Jeffersonvil le/Cla rksvi lie) interior drainage projects: some analysis in stormwater plan for Mill Creek, full study conducted for levees, much infrastructure is gone, high priority . - Hamburg Pike flooding:has not been elevated Oak Park revised hydraulic study: completed, Lancasange Creek is currently being studied - Camp Run Commons Basin: need levee/gate system for backwater flooding r - Servend Retention Pond (Clarksville): remove from list Forest Estate Retention Pond: some upgrades have been completed Terry Lane Giola Subdivision Acquisitions: has flooded several times, available for FEMA buy r outs ® The Polis Center 148 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • - Upgrade flood control pump station: experience backwater from Silver Creek, need levee/gate system Mr. Buechler asked if anyone had any questions or comments.There were none. Mr. Buechler reminded everyone to send in any additional comments over the next few weeks as well as to continue tracking all time spent on the project.The committee will meet again in approximately 4-6 weeks to finalize the draft plan and submit it to FEMA for approval. • Mr. Buechler thanked everyone for coming.The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 pm (local time). Minutes Prepared by: Chelsea Crump, River Hills EDD& RPC 1 r r r r r r r r r The Polis Center 149 r r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting Announcement The Clark County Hazard Mitiga- tion Steering Committee will host a public Information and strategy planningsession at 2:OOPM on June 1 , 2015 at the office of River Hills EDD & RPC, 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A, Jeffersonville, IN 47130. Over the last several months, a planning committee consisting of community members has worked with The Polis Center at Indiana University-Purdue University Indi- anapolis (IUPUI) to develop a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for Clark County. Once the plan Is complet- ed, the committee will submit it to FEMA for approval. The committee will also work to develop funding for any mitigation activities that are identified. The steering committee is interested in receiving public input on the plan. Anyone who has ques- tions or would like to provide input should contact Leslie K. Kavanaugh Sr., Clark County Emergency Management Director, (812246- 5538. hsapxlp The Polis Center 150 to 060 I► Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 lir` 40 RivERHILLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT i REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of.Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington June 4,2015 • American Red Cross Louisville Area Chapter Attn:Jennifer Adrio,CEO PO Box 1675 Louisville,KY 40201-1675 Ms.Adrio: • The Polis Center IUI'U1 and River Hills Econornic Development District & Regional Planning Commission are partnering with the emergency management agencies of Clark, Floyd and Harrison Counties in Indiana to update their Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans(MHMP).The plans are unique in that • they will utilize state-of-thc-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates, corresponding to predetermined disaster scenarios.The finished plans will then be reviewed and accepted by the Counties and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves, the Counties will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster.The Counties will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plans to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held a public meeting in Corydon, IN on June 3, 2015 and discussed mitigation strategies for the Harrison County MIIMP. We would love your input on the draft plan,as well as to note any current or future mitigation strategies that your organization is involved in within Harrison County.At your request, . 1 would be more than happy to forward the draft document for your review. A public meeting is being held on Thursday, June 11 at 11:00 am at the Pineview Government Center,Room 102 located at 2524 Corydon Pike,New Albany,IN to discuss Floyd County's draft plan and mitigation strategies. We are also holding a public meeting regarding Clark County's plan on Thursday,June 11, 2015 at 2:00 pm at the Office of River Lillis located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We greatly appreciate any input on the plans, and would like to invite you and your staff to attend both meetings.Local participation is the key to our success. iPlease do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 or send an email to ccrurnp®riverhills.cc should you have any questions. Thank you, • CA__� Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist • 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 i ! The Polis Center 151 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVERHI < < s - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION • Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark,Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington • • June 2,2015 • Clark County REMC Attn:Public Safety Manager 7810 State Road 60 PO Box 411 Sellersburg,IN 47172-0411 • The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River • Hills Economic Development District & Regional Plaluting Conunission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA • modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the • mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. • We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Bills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous • MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills • EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville, 1N.We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. • Sincerely, • Chelsea Crump SCharitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 �r The Polis Center 152 r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RivE "RHILLS $�ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION • Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington • June 2,2015 • Clark Memorial Hospital Attn:Martin Padgett,President&CEO 1220 Missouri Avenue Jeffersonville,iN 47130 Mr.Padgett: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUi and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval.Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River IIills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous • MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills • EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN.We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key • to our success. • Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. ® Si cercly, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 6 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 111I► The Polis Center 153 I` irtr • 0 ® Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 i - - • RivERHI < < s • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION • Serving the Indiana counties of.Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Scott and Washington • • June 2,2015 • Clarksville Community School Corporation i Attn:Kimberly Knott,Superintendent • 200 Ertel Lane Clarksville,IN 47129 Superintendent Knott: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(M1IMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for ® federal approval. Once FEMA approves, the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous iMIIMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. ® Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Bir Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 r r r The Polis Center 154 r W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVE�RHILLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark,Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 Duke Energy Attn:Public Safety Manager 30 Jackson Street New Albany,IN 47150 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling sollware to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves, the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Bills EDI)& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, *10 Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 1W to iw 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 Ir Y The Polis Center 155 rr r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 tip r"' = RivERHILLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION serving the Indiana Counties of.Clark, Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 Greater Clark County Schools Attn:Dr.Andrew Melin 2112 Utica-Sellersburg Road Jeffersonville,IN 47130 Dr.Melin: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for . federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pIn at the office of River Hills EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, r r r Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist r r k. w or 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 r Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 r The Polis Center 156 r W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVERHI < < s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington • . June 2,2015 Indiana American Water Attn:Troy Bryant 555 East County Line Road,Suite 201 Greenwood,IN 46143 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County . Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster • scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval.Once FEMA approves, the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. .• We held our fust meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD &RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate • your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. • Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. . Sincerely, . Chelsea Crump . Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 ' The Polis Center 157 r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R I V E R H I L L S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 • Ivy Tech Community College Attn:Thomas J.Snyder,President 8204 Hwy 311 Sellersburg,IN 47172 Mr.Snyder: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MIIMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval.Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MIIMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist iIr �Ir 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 IW Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 rM The Polis Center 158 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R I V E R H I L L S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION • Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington • June 2,2015 American Commercial Lines/JeffBoat Attn:Patrick Sutton,Vice President 1701 E Market Street Jeffersonville,TN 47130 Mr.Sutton: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the ® mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development ® District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key • to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump ® Charitable Financial Specialist 4W 11111110 4r or 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 r• tlrr The Polis Center 159 ® Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R I V E R H I L L S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington • June 2,2015 Kitchen Kompact • Attn:Manager 911 F,I Vh Street Jeffersonville,IN 47131 • The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center 11jPUI and River IIills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River IIills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,1N. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist IP 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 The Polis Center 160 AIL Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R_IVERHI < < s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 Koetter Woodworking,Inc. Attn:Randy Koetter,President 533 Louis Smith Road Borden,IN 47106 iMr.Koetter: ® The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist I� 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Far: 812.288.8105 �► , The Polis Center 161 1W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVERHI < < s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION serving the Indiana Counties oh Clark,Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 National Distributors Leasing,Inc. ® Attn:Keith Vaughn,CEO 1517 Avco Boulevard Sellersburg,IN 47172 Mr.Vaughn: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves, the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. • We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills • EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. . Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. • . Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 The Polis Center 162 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVERHILLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT dW &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION . Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington • • June 2,2015 • Silver Creek Water Corporation • Attn:Manager PO Box 102 Sellersburg,IN 47172 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Comrnission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates, corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. sWe held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of Rivcr Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,.Jeffersonville,IN.We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 6 hr or 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 1 11110 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 Iltr i>r The Polis Center 163 rr ILr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 i RIVERHILLs ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison,Scott and Washington • June 2,2015 i Summitt Trucking Attn:Manager 1800 Progress Way ;, Clarksville,IN 47129 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD&RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. 4W Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, o, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist up Iii► 11111111+ ilii 1W ho 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 10 IV The Polis Center 164 Yr rr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 RIVERHILLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION serving the Indiana counties of:Clark, Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 Vectren Corporation Attn:Public Safety Manager PO Box 209 Evansville,TN 47702 The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County to Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MI-IMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for r , federal approval. Once FF,MA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the 4111, mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. 41 We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MI-IMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Far: 812.288.8105 lir+` `r The Polis Center 165 rlr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R _I v� ,ER H i < < s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT or &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Serving the Indiana Counties of:Clark, Floyd,Harrison,Scott and Washington June 2,2015 Washington Township Water Corporation Attn:Steve Fouts 108 Pierce Street New Washington,IN 47162 Mr.Fouts: The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center RJPUJ and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP). The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster AWL scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our first meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development District and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville, IN. We would greatly appreciate your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 shouldyou have any questions. Ir Sincerely, Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Far: 812.288.8105 The Polis Center 166 1 P, Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 R_IVERH I LLS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT &REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION • serving the Indiana counties of:Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Scott and Washington June 2,2015 • • West Clark Community Schools • Attn:Monty Schneider,Superintendent 601 Renz Avenue . Sellersburg,IN 47172 Superintendent Schneider: •• The Clark County Emergency Management Agency is partnering with The Polis Center IUPUI and River Hills Economic Development District & Regional Planning Commission to update the Clark County . Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan(MHMP).The plan is unique in that it will utilize state-of-the-art FEMA modeling software to provide casualty and damage estimates,corresponding to a predetermined disaster scenario. The finished plan will then be reviewed and accepted by the county and sent to FEMA for federal approval. Once FEMA approves,the county will be eligible for emergency relief funding in the event of a natural disaster. The county will also be eligible for federal funding to implement the mitigation measures defined in the plan to minimize the effects of a natural disaster. We held our fust meeting on February 27, 2014 at the office of River Hills Economic Development iDistrict and Regional Planning Commission in Jeffersonville and discussed hazards from the previous MHMP.Our second meeting is being held on Thursday,June 11 at 2:00 pm at the office of River Hills EDD& RPC located at 300 Spring Street,Suite 2A,Jeffersonville,IN. We would greatly appreciate • your input on the plan and would like to invite you and your staff to attend.Public participation is the key to our success. Please do not hesitate to call me at(812)725-3854 should you have any questions. Sincerely, • . Chelsea Crump Charitable Financial Specialist 300 Spring Street, Suite 2A • Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Ph: 812.288.4624 • Fax: 812.288.8105 . , 1W irr The Polis Center 167 r �Wr .r Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 .r Appendix B Newspaper Articles and Announcements ". mr ,or qW RW r r r r r r r r _A_ rThe Polis Center 168 MW err •rr Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 .r Officials brace for flood risk as snow melts quickly Posted:Mar 08, 2015 3:56 PM EDT Updated:Mar 08, 2015 6:11 PM EDT By Gordon Boyd LOUISVILLE, KY(WAVE)-You didn't have to walk far onto the Great Lawn of Louisville's Waterfront Park Sunday to realize that the ducks seemed to be swimming closer to shore. There was less shore,and the boat ramp was partially underwater. 40 "97's the highest I've seen,"Jeffersonville's Bob Earinger said. "It was up to my deck." Earinger has lived along the Ohio River for more than fort y years. He's owned his home off of Arctic Springs Road for almost thirty years. "This is basically normal flooding right now," Earinger said. "We are looking at a flood threat,"said Mike Lanham, superintendent of the Jeffersonville-Clarksville Joint Flood Control District. "There's always a severe threat this time,when the water's this high." The Ohio River was expected to be about 1.8 feet above flood stage Monday, cresting at 3.25 feet above at noon Tuesday. Lanham's crews have charged up Cane Run and two more of his district's ten pumping stations to prepare for it. "The ground can't take any more. It's a saturated sponge," Lanham said. "Melting ice and snow has nowhere else to AIL go.,, Saturday and Sunday's warmer temperatures melted much of the previous week's ice-and-snow blast. "Gradual would have been wonderful,"Lanham said. "I'm looking for the spring, but now I would prefer a little winter, a little colder weather." The Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District has focused efforts to prevent pooling, breaking up ice dams around catch basins. "If we had to, we'd just continue energizing more pump stations and getting them ready for flood pumping,"Lanham Ak said. IV A ion boat was the best way to tour flooded areas when the Ohio River overflowed in 1997, Earinger recalled. "Went over to Cox's Park. Drove up and down River Road,"he said. "Got some pretty good pictures. It was a nice adventure for the day." He was not expecting an encore this coming week, nor was he bracing for an evacuation. "This is my little spot on Earth," he said. "I'm staying." Source:2015 WAVE 3 News.All rights reserved. The Polis Center L 169 6 W 411► sir► Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Parts of Southern Indiana come to halt after heavy snow Posted: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:56 pm • Associated Press Parts of southern Indiana have ground to a halt after as much as 10 inches of fresh snow fell. The National Weather Service had an unofficial report of 10.5 inches of snow having fallen New Salisbury in Harrison County by late Thursday morning.The weather service says 8-12 inches of snow fell in a band along the Ohio River, including southern Indiana, and 5-9 inches fell farther north. r Clark, Floyd and Harrison counties issued travel warnings, the most severe travel status, urging motorists to refrain from all travel. Most government buildings were closed there. Indiana State Police say they handled more than 550 calls during a 31-hour period ending at 7 a.m. Thursday.They included 160 crashes,with one fatality and 32 others involving injuries, and 175 slide-offs. The winter storm blanketed the Northeast on Thursday after zipping across much of the South, leaving hundreds of drivers and their passengers stranded on highways in Kentucky and thousands without power in West Virginia. By Thursday afternoon, a strong cold front moving across the eastern U.S. had dumped more than 20 inches of snow on parts of Kentucky, and conditions worsened in the Northeast as snow started to pile up, reaching 11.5 inches and counting in the northern Maryland community of Lineboro. The massive snow in Kentucky left hundreds of people stranded on two major highways and National Guard members delivering them food or driving them to warming centers. Authorities say that hundreds of drivers were stuck on two major highways in Kentucky,where snow totals topped 2 feet in some places. Many had to spend the night in their vehicles. The National Guard was sent out to check on the people who were stuck, deliver them food and water and, in some cases,take them to warming centers. Source:www.tribstar.com/news/indiana_news/parts-of-southern-Indiana-come-to-halt-after-heavy- snow/article 16748caa-2ce6-5a61-b408-3ed941b25c22.html r The Polis Center 170 it or tv %W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 to Appendix C List and Locations of Clark County Facilities 'fir► w qtr �r fir fir► r ` The Polis Center 171 b Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE&HIGH RISK FACILITIES IN FLOODPLAIN,JEFFERSONVILLE Date Aolodiffed:2-27-15 • kcal Infrastructure In FkKKIplain --- Contact Phone No• • McCulloch Fire Station Allison Lane Fire Chief,Eric Hedrick (S02)376-2897 Jeffersonville Potter Road Substation 2301 Coopers Lane Duke Energy(Emergency Line) (800)521-2232 Clark Maritime Substation 4010 Middle Road Duke Energy(Emergency Line) (800)521-2232 • French Quarter Sewer Lift Station 2000 Paddle Wheel Court Utility Director,Len Ashack (502)639-0775 Allison Courtyards Sewer Lift Station 2121 Paddle Wheel Drive Utility Director,Len Ashack (S02)639-0775 Spring Street Sewer Lift Station 2203 Hamburg Pike Utility Director,Len Ashack (502)639-0775 0 Hith Risk Facilitla • Chemtrusion(Port) 1403 Port Road Site Manager,Denis Beckman (502)548-7145 • Jeffboat 1030 East Market Street Facility Manager,George Childers (502)777-7088 Industrial Container Services(Silver Creek Ind Park) 6213 Gheens Mill Road Facility Manager,Cindy Setser (812)283-7659 SilGas(Silver Creek Ind Park) 6101 Hamburg Pike Manager,Mike Kaelin (502)693-1135 • High Risk Facilities Protected by Levee . Clark Memorial Hospital 1220 Missouri Avenue VP Support Svcs,Scott Hicks (812)283-2217 • (502)758-5247 Director Engineering,Don Ingle (812)283-2443 • (502)718-2262 President/CEO,Martin Padget (812)283-2147 Hillcrest Village Nursing Homes 203 Sparks Avenue Executive Director,Lisa Tetrick (812)987-3277 Robert Hardin (502)SU-0987 Pfau Oil 800 Wall Street Anne Pfau (812)989-0195 Chip Pfau (812)987-2447 • City Wastewater Lift Station Intersection 10th St/Spring St Utility Director,Len Ashack (502)639-0775 • City Fire Station t1 Intersection 8th St/Wall St Fire Chief,Eric Hedrick (502)376-2897 • Jeffersonville Kentucky Avenue Substation 621 Kentucky Ave Duke Energy(Emergency Line) (800)521-2232 Additional High Risk Facilities Protected by the levee include: IV Clarksville Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 Leuthart Drive Clarksville Pump Station 0 707 S. Sherwood Drive 6 kv 6 6 r The Polis Center 172 Ile QIP dw Aw 4w Clark Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Lux x x �.. x x x C+1 570 W N 4`e X 1 ® � x f .. + x i x i y.x s .,.,w X P SMUMSBUF4, +Wurq X11 In vR► .% X ,K ! .r ` f JJ t ^��.. x x xx i cLARKSVLLE (rt r R r LLI UTICA �[ ar ^sem �.A. %� ■ T ,. ©.EFFfFiSdIVILLE �` © Irp y i x IV�iC I/X•'1 2 T_X X *' v~ M� ••� R" © . ' RoMnew 000 Nvr r, valley w;nnr r' erownwara ,u'. or © efcare j efSchool tmsport ® uulWater N ow �] efEOC © trnsAirport hzRailwayBndge uhlWasteWater n efFireStation tmsBus ..* tmsRail ® hplfDam Q efPohceStation hzHighwayBndge 0 05 1 2 Miles �- utilCommunication 4W- hplfHazmat i The Polis Center 173 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 x x x • ! x _ x�t IL ■ 7 x 1 ■ ■ ".e x x • x ■ • •�_� R�r. ._..�.____we_rr.w..r• r. �. r.w.._.._.w._��.�__ww�r_��.._w�rr_�.. © efCare j efSchool tmsPort utilWater N eefEOC ® tmsAirport n hzRailwayBridge >�_ utiNVasteVYater /� efFireStation ,:w tmsBus ,rg tmsRail ■ hplfDam ® efPoliceStation x hzHighwayBridge 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ¢ utilCommunication hplfHazmat r r r r r r r r r r r r The Polis Center 174 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Ij • x '�, x Jh X XX■ N+rmeley X X r. x T YA �J X X X XX x �a�_s ■ X 7iwew X X ISYuhMttm f 7CY` X X __•� 6MhM x X X - efco x Ww' • T ■ X X X X Li X ° X X_ � X ® X X ■ X n X X xx X1,77an XX X X X X ■ X •V�1C ,m: 4 r X +T X X X X X ■ ■ X X X X'' X ✓� X m x x .; .w..+. .. • X X „ X W W P X X Ohin R.ver rintown ■ J h.�,v« X x X • .._.,_ __._ X .. ._.._..F X cr tAOur� o T nre X Gesh�n • ■■■■■ X © efCare j, efSchool Z tmsPort utilWater N efEOC tmsAirport hzRailwayBndge utilWasteWater (1 • effireStation A tmsBus A ■ ® efPoliceStation x hzHgtmsRail hplfDam hwayBndge 0 1 2 4 Miles ^!, utilCommunication hplfHazmat r r r r r r r r r r rThe Polis Center 175 1r r • • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • • Appendix D • Historical Disaster Photographs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Polis Center 176 1 60 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Photo#1: Clark County Flooding, 2011 • • • • • • • • y • • • • • Source:www.crh.noaa.gov • r • r r r r r r r r r r r rThe Polis Center r 177 w • • • .�• 1 -. .. <r �---. _ -- '� .. �.. .�, ,-, -�'"� yy '._-, _ _: �: _ aH-. ,�, ..:._ -�" .�.7 �i.y` ;. �._... _ ...;, .�_ _. .. . .,1 "a .� .. �.. _ s. _.... _ ::;y �� i i � r � � � • • • .�• 1 '` �. ,� '_ . � _ . -• a { „�" '°+► i �� ,�. § n C ,� ai � r t � � ., .. � ' J .+�L a :. ,� - �r � r e fi , �, �� ' j g�'' 1 1 I r , �� - - r � � I :, t, .• , , . . r n: .f ,,�� .., r �. �,,.• • _ . �. , _ _ �— �,,, ,� ..a ..- ..:,�„F . . � f . ., Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Appendix E Mitigation Photographs +ir '+fir fir► s. r The Polis Center 179 to mmffmm� Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 r. e w k r r r .. r r r { r r r r r The Polis Center 180 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 A ,j +s ' The Polis Center 181 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 r.� r r r r r r r The Polis Center 182 r �v Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 w Appendix F Threats and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) Checklist fir +`fir► r r fir i�► �lr The Polis Center 183 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Please check any of the following threats of concern to your county. Man-Made International Threats Natural Hazards International Terrorism Severe Storms ❑ Al-Qa'ida 1X Wind ❑ AI-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula(AQAP) V Lightning r ❑ Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant(ISIL) X Hail «r ❑ Hezbollah X Derecho O AI-Shabaab ❑ Tropical Cyclone Remnants ❑ Boko Haram Flash Flood ,W ❑ Homegrown Violent Extremists Major Flood Domestic Terrorism Tornado '"" ❑ White Supremacists Winter Storm aw ❑ Separatist Groups 'P Heavy Snow ❑ Anarchists KI Blizzard 4W ❑ Environmental Extremists ❑ Lake Effect Snow ,., ❑ Animal Rights Extremists Ice Storm �$[ Lone Offenders ❑ Temperature Extremes Other Violent Offenders X Drought Earthquake mw Technological Hazards O Magnitude 5.0 and Higher ❑ Magnitude 4.9 and Lower �r Communication Systems Failure ❑ Animal Disease Outbreak Transportation 0 Human Disease Outbreak �( Highway Transportation Incident Invasive Species �.. Commercial Air Transportation Incident ❑ Plant 19 Rail Transportation Incident ❑ Animal y.. ❑ Marine Transportation Incident ❑ Insect +� Hazardous Materials ❑ Wildland Fire lX Hazardous Materials Transportation Incident ❑ Geomagnetic Storm ❑ Hazardous Materials Fixed-Facility ❑ Ground Failure 4W ❑ High Hazard Dam Failure *W ❑ Major Levee Failure Other Hazards Not Listed Public Utility Failure ❑ Click here to enter text. "� � Explosion low O Large Fire/Conflagration ❑ Click here to enter text. ❑ Click here to enter text. ❑ Pipeline Transportation Incident ow ❑ Structural Collapse Please list your top 5 hazards of concern ow 1. Click here to enter text. /0PAS60 2. Click here to enter text. D?mAL) U�� 3. Click here to enter text. F�j 1 L fkoV3 4. Click here to enter text. zac S-kr.(" +r 5. Click here to enter text. ` R-4:1 Tu,4ff4+,4,, T,x� ow w rr r r„ The Polis Center 184 r r *w Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 "W V& Appendix G AW Clarksville Flood Impact Statement 60 The Polis Center 185 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 2011 Flood Impact Statement The Town of Clarksville is currently in a financial crisis. Like many communities across the State, we have j► been hard hit by property tax caps. The new caps have limited the Town's ability to cover basic services, let alone stay competitive in this economy. The Town just received our new levy certification and the Town's General Fund was cut by 47%from the Town's certified budget. This is the second year in a row whereby the Town has had the state cut our certified budget by over 45%. However, the Town did see a i► slight increase in our certified rate and certified levy in 2011. This was mainly due to an increase in the Town's assessed value. In addition to the property tax caps that has hit everyone across Indiana. The Town suffered three major disasters since 2008. The first was Hurricane Ike which caused winds over 70 miles an hour to hit our community. Hurricane Ike cost the Town almost a million dollars in repairs,debris clean up and overtime. In addition it also caused widespread power outages. Less than five months later that Town was hit with a massive ice storm that dropped over two inches of ice on the community in a few days. The ice storm came just as the community was returning to normal after Hurricane Ike. Once again the Town had to find the funds to pay for the clean-up required. The Town did receive assistance from FEMA for both of these disasters; however the assistance did not cover the full cost of the two disasters. In August and September of 2010, the Town once again experienced two major disasters. This time flash flooding and rainfalls that exceeded 6 inches an hour flooded the community. The August flooding, led to collapse of a main roadway connecting the Town with a neighboring community. The roadway was eventually shut down for four months and had to be completely rebuilt at a cost of almost 500,000 to the community. A second set of storms hit the town in September and once again caused widespread flooding. However, unlike other disasters where FEMA came in with disaster assistance, the Town was left on its own. This was due to the fact that the flooding was localized to Clark and Floyd counties the State did not qualify for disaster assistance. This combined with the collapse of the roadway put the Town in severe financial trouble. In addition the Town's citizens were demanding action to prevent future flooding by the upgrading of the Town's stormwater system, another huge cost that the Town is just now beginning to bear. Here it is less than two years later and the Town is dealing with another major disaster. The rainfall over the past three weeks has caused significant flooding in the Town of Clarksville. The flooding located primarily along the Ohio River, Silver Creek and Cane Run Creek has overwhelmed the Town once more. In order to prevent flood waters from entering homes and businesses, the Town had several employees working 24 hour shifts pumping water and cleaning catch basins for a week straight. In addition,the Town had to handle the closing of roadways and water rescues. By the end of the worst of it,the Town's Street and Stormwater Department had to spend over $150,000 to try to save the Town. This is money was earmarked for making drainage and street improvements. To make matters worse,the Town is still dealing and will continue to deal with costs associated with debris clean-up and the possible loss of another roadway. The worst areas of flooding are located along the banks of the Ohio River. The rise and fall of the river levels has left several feet of driftwood, trash and i other debris that must be removed and disposed of in order to allow for the safety of visitors and proper roadway traffic. It is estimated that the costs associated with the debris removal will easily be over $500,000 and this is just too much for the community to bear. Thus if the Town is unable to receive assistance from the State or federal authorities most of the debris will be left to lie. If the debris is not removed, it will cause a significant fire hazard to the community and thus cause further damage to the community. In addition to the staff, equipment and debris removal costs, the Town is also likely facing significant ko roadway repairs. The worst of the roadway damage is located along Harrison Avenue, which is a roadway that is adjacent to the Ohio River. Due to the location of the McAlpine Locks and Dam, the roadway is The Polis Center 186 F lop Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 susceptible to erosion. Before the most recent round of the flooding, the Town was in the process of working with the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to prevent further erosion of the roadway and prevent a full collapse. As part of the discussions it was understood that a large flood event will most likely make the erosion worse and could lead to a full collapse of the roadway. Well, we got lucky and there has not been a full collapse, but the roadway is significantly more unstable • and the Town is not going to have the luxury of developing a long-term plan to deal with the situation. Instead, the Town has decided to temporarily close the roadway until all floodwaters have receded and the Town's engineers can complete an analysis of the situation. If the analysis determines that the • roadway is unsafe and must be moved, then it is expected to cost the Town over 2 million dollars. Again • this is money that the Town does not have readily available. The closing of the roadway will also have a significant impact on the businesses and parks located along its path. In closing, the Town of Clarksville has been significantly impacted by this most recent flood event. This is • the fourth disaster we have suffered in less than three and a half years. These disasters have taken a toll • on the Town and its residents, both financially and emotionally. Every time the Town finishes the clean- up process or tries to plan a mitigation project we are stopped by another disaster. If we continue down this path, the Town will never fully recover. This is why federal assistance is so important. 40 r r r r r r r r r The Polis Center 187 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Appendix H 2012 Stormwater Master Plan Recommended Projects +fir �r fir► +rrr► yr �r �r ver �r The Polis Center ' 188 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 2012 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS YO�. Quick facts on... s CITY Of ' JEFfERSONVILLE voluntary Acquisition and/or v Mayor Mike Moore Floodproofing Program in Waverly s (Master Plan Project PS-30) `r The 2012 City of Jeffersonville The Situation... Stormwater Master Plan,prepared There are approximately 45 structures in Waverly that have experienced or been under the direction of the threatened by flooding. This Is a low-lying area outside of the floodplain. leffersonvflk Drainage Board, AW addresses existing and anticipated What Can We Do? future flooding,drainage concerns Voluntary acquisition and/or +� and water quality problems. floodprooflng of structures low This series of Fact Sheets provides a subject to flooding are proposed summary of the 33 recommended in the Waverly area. Removing or structural and non-structural projects modifying these structures - listed in the Master Plan. reduces the risk of future flood- related losses. Property that is acquired must forever remain as +ittr The larger neighborhood and regional open space and serve as E scale problem areas identified in this Floodplain storage. Participation .� Master Plan fall into the following 9 in this programs is strictly - Target Study Areas: voluntary and no homeowners t{), 1)Buildings In the floodplain are ever forced to relinquish their , 2)CSD/DowntownArea property, t 3)Mill Creek 4)Woodland Court �► 5)Oak Park Conservancy District 6)Waverly .9 OF • . 7)tick Run 8)lentzier Creek �Ilr 9)Citywide Programs&Policies Reduce flood-related losses • Allow naturally low-lying +lir areas to store floodwater What are the Next Steps? •�Me � I.Implementation depends on the completion of the Prioritization Plan for Voluntary ` f j Int" Acquisition and/or Floodproofing Program(PS-2). kc."G` 2.Create outreach materials and conduct meetings with interested participants. 3.Assemble supporting materials for grant application including elevations,past flood- related losses,acquisition and/or floodproofing costs. "P `OCOw3 4.Secure mitigation funding frorn FEMA to acquire and/or floodproof buildings as listed MaLaeupV in the Prioritization Plan(PS-2). o�r•■u ESTIMATED TIME TO: ESTIMATED " fONl[M"»CY OISr■KY COMPLETE NEXT STEP COMPIETE NEXT STEP: rJLV_t11_X •ST • . " •,. cso{oo w Multiple years;depends on $43,000 to develop cost Varies;up to$1,500,000 fOi °"t" funding&willing owners share&grant administration (cost share portion) District 1 District 2 Dstrct 3 District 4 •Dist-ct; District 6 'v,sit WWW.CITYOFIEFF.NET to view the full Stormwater Master Plan crweluPneatl tlux><c EYGnEU»6_L:: V The Polis Center 189 r rr 46 16 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Appendix I Adopting Resolutions low yr VP IV qw mr ow +r. vl�r wr err► �r r`r► �r �r The Polis Center 190 to 410 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 Resolution# ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, Clark County recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHEREAS, Clark County participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Clark County Commissioners hereby adopt the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2015. County Commissioner Chairman County Commissioner County Commissioner �I► County Commissioner Attested by: County Clerk The Polis Center 191 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 ' r 40 Resolution# ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN tip 60 WHEREAS, the Town of Borden recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and Go property; and to WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for 60 harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding IV for mitigation projects; and SO to WHEREAS, the Town of Borden participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; 111110 410 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Borden hereby adopts the Clark County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of , 2015. Town President Town Council Member Town Council Member Town Council Member Attested by:Town Clerk i The Polis Center 192 `r 4W Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 �In Resolution# ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN �Ilr WHEREAS, the City of Charlestown recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding it for mitigation projects; and tip WHEREAS, the City of Charlestown participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Charlestown hereby adopts the Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and r BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. ADOPTED THIS Day of 2015. r City Mayor City Council Member 6r City Council Member lir 6 110 City Council Member Attested by: City Clerk �r Y ► The Polis Center 193 r • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Resolution# • ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN • WHEREAS, the Town of Clarksville recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and • property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for • harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and . WHEREAS, the Town of Clarksville participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; • NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town of Clarksville hereby adopts the Clark County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf • of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana • Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. • ADOPTED THIS Day of 2015. . Town President . Town Council Member Town Council Member Town Council Member 1 1 Attested by: Town Clerk 1 tThe Polis Center 194 1 . Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 • Resolution# • ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN • WHEREAS, the Town of Sellersville recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and • property; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for • harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and • WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and . WHEREAS, the Town of Sellersville participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Sellersville hereby adopts the Clark County • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf • of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana • Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. . ADOPTED THIS Day of 2015. Town President Town Council Member Town Council Member Town Council Member Attested by: Town Clerk The Polis Center 196 1 • Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated: October 2015 0 Resolution# ADOPTING THE CLARK COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN qW WHEREAS,the Town of Utica recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property; and Ir ror WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions before disasters occur will reduce the potential for harm to people and property and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future grant funding for mitigation projects; and WHEREAS,the Town of Utica participated jointly in the planning process with the other local units of government within the County to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Utica hereby adopts the Clark County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clark County Emergency Management Agency will submit on behalf • of the participating municipalities the adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Indiana • Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review and approval. . ADOPTED THIS Day of 2015. . Town President Town Council Member 1 Town Council Member 1 1 Town Council Member 1 1 Attested by: Town Clerk ' The Polis Center ' 197