DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia County 2021 Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia County 2021 Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan Columbia County, Georgia and the Cities of Grovetown and Harlem Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021-2026 Columbia County, Georgia and the Cities of Grovetown and Harlem Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Original Plan Approval: 08/17/2004 st 1 Update Plan Approval: 10/04/2011 nd 2 Update Plan Approval: 08/08/2016 rd 3 Update Plan Approval: ??/??/2021 Prepared For: Prepared By: Columbia County Emergency Management Agency Central Savannah River Area 650-B Ronald Reagan Drive Regional Commission Post Office Box 498 3626 Walton Way Extension Suite 300 Evans, Georgia 30809 Augusta, Georgia 30909 Office - (706) 868-3303 (706) 210-2000 Fax - (706) 868-3343 FAX (706) 210-2006 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # Chapter One: Introduction to the Planning Process…………………………………………. 1 I. Purpose and Need of the plan, Authority & Statement of Problem………… 1 II. Local Methodology, Plan Update Process and Participants……………….... 2 III. Original Plan Review and Revision………………………………………….. 7 IV. Organization of the Plan……………………………………………………… 7 V. Local Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability…………………………..…………… 8 VI. Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations………………………………………….. 9 VII. Adoption, Implementation, Monitoring & Evaluation……………………..... 10 VIII. Plan Integration and Maintenance………………………………………….... 11 IX. Community Data……………………………………………………………...11 Chapter Two: Local Natural Hazard, Risk & Vulnerability (HRV) ………………………...19 I. Flooding………………………………………………………………..……..20 II. Tornado………………………………………………………………….….. .29 III. Earthquake…………………………………………………………………… 34 IV. Winter Storms …………………………… ………………………………… 38 V. Hurricanes/Tropical Storms ...……………………………………………… 41 VI. Drought…………………………………….…………………………............ 45 VII. Severe Thunderstorms……………………………………………………..… 49 VIII. Wildfires………………….………….………………………………………. 51 IX. Extreme Heat………………………………………………………………… 56 X. Dam Failures………………………………………………………………… 59 XI. Lightning…………………………………………………………………….. 62 XII. Hail………………………………………………………………………….. .64 Chapter Three: Mitigation Strategy…………………………………………………………..67 I. Introduction to Mitigation....……………….…………………………..……..68 II. Natural Hazards...…………………………………………………….............78 A. Flooding Action Plan………………...…………………….…………78 B. Tornado Action Plan....………………………………………….……78 C. Earthquake Action P………………………………………………….79 D. Winter Weather Action Plan………………………………………….79 E. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Action Plan……...……………………..…80 F. Drought……………………………………………………………….80 G. Severe Thunderstorm Action Plan……………………………………80 H. Wildfire Action Plan………………………………………………… 81 I. Extreme Heat Action Plan……………………………………………81 J. Dam Failure Action Plan……………………………………………..82 K. Lightning Action Plan………………………………………..……….82 L. Hail Action Plan………………………………………………………82 III. Mitigation Actions……………………………………………………………83 IV. Completed and Deleted Action Steps………………………………………...96 Chapter Four: Plan Integration and Maintenance…………………………………………....107 I. Implementation Action Plan …………………………………………………107 II. Evaluation, Monitoring, Updating……………………………………………110 III. Plan Update and Maintenance ……………………………………………...112 Chapter Five: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………......113 I. Summary……………………………………………………………………....113 II. References……………………………………………………………………..114 Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………...115 Columbia County 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS Table 1.1 provides a brief description of each section in this chapter and a summary of the changes made. Table1.1 Chapter I. Sections Section Updates I. Purpose and Need of the Plan, Updated text of this section Authority & Statement of Problem II. Local Methodology, Plan Update Updated list of committee members, revised Process and Participants information and text for the planning process. III. Original Plan Review and Revision All sections of the original plan were analyzed and revised as needed. IV. Organization of the Plan The plan is organized by GEMA local planning Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Update Template and includes a timeline. V. Local Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Reviewed all information and revised all content Summary, Local Mitigation Goals as needed. and Objectives VI. Multi-Jurisdictional Special Reviewed and updated information regarding Considerations multijurisdictional concerns. VII. Adoption, Implementation, This was evaluated. Additional text was added to Monitoring and Evaluation clearly delineate the task of implementation and monitoring. Plan was adopted and submitted to GEMA and FEMA review. VIII. Community Data Updated demographic and information for each jurisdiction SECTION I. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PLAN, AUTHORITY AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The Columbia County 2021 Plan Update is the review and improvement on our Multi-Hazard Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan approved in August 2005 and subsequently updated and approved on November 10, 2011 and August 8, 2016. The update is written to comply with Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Title 44 CFR as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The act gives state and local governments the framework to evaluate and mitigate all hazards as a condition of receiving federal disaster funds. The act provides federal assistance to state and local emergency management and other disaster response organizations in an effort to reduce damage from disasters. The plan has involved multiple community partners including elected officials, city and county personnel, fire, emergency medical services, law enforcement, and the business community. The ultimate goal of this plan is to identify natural hazards and develop strategies to lessen the impact on our community. The Columbia County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is responsible for presenting this planning document on behalf of Columbia County, including all cities therein. The plan identifies Columbia County 1 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan all natural disasters that could threaten the lives and properties of our community. The scope of the update includes both short- and long-term mitigation strategies, implementation and possible sources of project funding. The plan also contains the following information on: • The vision of mitigation in our community; • The profile of Columbia County, its geography, history, physical features and other community indicators; • The planning process and the involvement of all municipal, state and federal governments, the public, industry and other community players; • Documentation of past and predicted exposure to natural hazards and the potential risks that include the impacts on critical infrastructure with anticipated losses; • An overview of all three jurisdictions’ capabilities to implement hazard mitigation goals and objectives and policies that will effectively mitigate risks to the community; • Procedures for maintaining an effective, long-range HMP and strategy to implement; • An assessment of current policies, goals and regulations that pertain to hazard mitigation; • Documentation of the planning process; • Updated hazard events that occurred since 2016; • Updated critical facilities; • Documented mitigation strategies implemented since 2016; and • Examined and updated mitigation strategy goals, objectives and action steps. The update is the product of the combined efforts of Columbia County and the cities of Grovetown and Harlem. Realizing that identifying the community’s risks and working collectively toward the prevention of disasters is in the county’s best interest, the EMA took the lead role in the update. Under the EMA’s leadership, there has been an endorsement and a commitment by Columbia County as well as the cities of Grovetown and Harlem. Continued mitigation planning is imperative to lessen the impacts of disasters in all three jurisdictions. This plan serves as an excellent method to organize and document current and ongoing mitigation strategies. The implementation of the plan and its components is vital to achieve a community that is resistant to the impact of a disaster. It is the goal of this plan, that implementation will result in a reduction of the loss of life and property, allowing the county to prosper with minimal disruption of services to the community. SECTION II. LOCAL METHODOLOGY, PLAN UPDATE PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS The Columbia County Board of Commissioners (BOC) contracted with the Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (RC) to assist in the plan update. The RC has assisted eleven counties in the completion and update of their Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plans. The RC was tasked to review the current plan and identify and incorporate new information. The RC in conjunction with the EMA Director, supervised the project, organized the data, set meeting dates, documented in-kind services, and worked with GEMA to complete the update. The EMA Director was tasked with developing the HMP Committee. Table 1.2 identifies the 2021 planning committee members. Columbia County 2 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 1.2 Name Title Organization Scott Johnson County Manager CC Board of Commissioners Glenn Kennedy Deputy County Manager CC Board of Commissioners Matt Schlachter Deputy County Manager CC Board of Commissioners Andy Leanza EMA Director *(former) CC Board of Commissioners Shawn Granato EMA Deputy Director *(current) CC Board of Commissioners Suzie Hughes EMA Specialist CC Board of Commissioners Connie Smith Floodplain Manager CC Board
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hurricane & Tropical Storm
    5.8 HURRICANE & TROPICAL STORM SECTION 5.8 HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM 5.8.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION A tropical cyclone is a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or sub-tropical waters and has a closed low-level circulation. Tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes are all considered tropical cyclones. These storms rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere around the center and are accompanied by heavy rain and strong winds (NOAA, 2013). Almost all tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin (which includes the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) form between June 1 and November 30 (hurricane season). August and September are peak months for hurricane development. The average wind speeds for tropical storms and hurricanes are listed below: . A tropical depression has a maximum sustained wind speeds of 38 miles per hour (mph) or less . A tropical storm has maximum sustained wind speeds of 39 to 73 mph . A hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher. In the western North Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons; similar storms in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific Ocean are called cyclones. A major hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 111 mph or higher (NOAA, 2013). Over a two-year period, the United States coastline is struck by an average of three hurricanes, one of which is classified as a major hurricane. Hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions may pose a threat to life and property. These storms bring heavy rain, storm surge and flooding (NOAA, 2013). The cooler waters off the coast of New Jersey can serve to diminish the energy of storms that have traveled up the eastern seaboard.
    [Show full text]
  • The Extremely Active 1995 Atlantic Hurricane Season: Environmental Conditions and Veri®Cation of Seasonal Forecasts
    1174 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 126 The Extremely Active 1995 Atlantic Hurricane Season: Environmental Conditions and Veri®cation of Seasonal Forecasts CHRISTOPHER W. L ANDSEA NOAA Climate and Global Change Fellowship, NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida GERALD D. BELL NOAA/NWS/NCEP/Climate Prediction Center, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM M. GRAY Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado STANLEY B. GOLDENBERG NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida (Manuscript received 3 September 1996, in ®nal form 18 March 1997) ABSTRACT The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was a year of near-record hurricane activity with a total of 19 named storms (average is 9.3 for the base period 1950±90) and 11 hurricanes (average is 5.8), which persisted for a total of 121 named storm days (average is 46.6) and 60 hurricane days (average is 23.9), respectively. There were ®ve intense (or major) Saf®r±Simpson category 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes (average is 2.3 intense hurricanes) with 11.75 intense hurricane days (average is 4.7). The net tropical cyclone activity, based upon the combined values of named storms, hurricanes, intense hurricanes, and their days present, was 229% of the average. Additionally, 1995 saw the return of hurricane activity to the deep tropical latitudes: seven hurricanes developed south of 258N (excluding all of the Gulf of Mexico) compared with just one during all of 1991±94. Interestingly, all seven storms that formed south of 208N in August and September recurved to the northeast without making landfall in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulnerability of the Suncoast Connector Toll Road Study Area to Future Storms and Sea Level Rise
    Vulnerability of the Suncoast Connector Toll Road Study Area to Future Storms and Sea Level Rise Michael I. Volk, Belinda B. Nettles, Thomas S. Hoctor University of Florida April, 2020 Suncoast Connector Coastal Vulnerability Assessment 2 Abstract The Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance Program (M-CORES) authorizes the design and construction of three new toll road corridors through portions of Florida, including the proposed Suncoast Connector. This paper assesses the potential vulnerability of the Suncoast Connector study area and specifically the U.S. 19/U.S. 27/U.S. 98 corridor to coastal hazards including storms and sea level rise. The results of this analysis indicate that the study area and existing U.S. 19/U.S. 27/U.S. 98 corridor are not only currently at risk from flooding and coastal storms, but that sea level rise and climate change will significantly exacerbate these risks in the future. Findings include that at least 30 percent of the study area is already at risk from a Category 5 storm surge, with sea level rise projected to increase that risk even further. This region also provides one of the best opportunities for coastal biodiversity to functionally respond to increasing sea level rise, but a new major highway corridor along with the additional development that it facilitates will complicate biodiversity conservation and resiliency efforts. With these concerns in mind, it is critical to ensure that investment in new infrastructure, if pursued within the study area, is strategic and located in areas least vulnerable to impacts and repeat loss and least likely to conflict with efforts for facilitating the adaptation of regional natural systems to sea level rise and other related impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 1871-1993: an Historical Survey, the Only Books Or Reports Exclu- Sively on Florida Hurricanes Were R.W
    3. 2b -.I 3 Contents List of Tables, Figures, and Plates, ix Foreword, xi Preface, xiii Chapter 1. Introduction, 1 Chapter 2. Historical Discussion of Florida Hurricanes, 5 1871-1900, 6 1901-1930, 9 1931-1960, 16 1961-1990, 24 Chapter 3. Four Years and Billions of Dollars Later, 36 1991, 36 1992, 37 1993, 42 1994, 43 Chapter 4. Allison to Roxanne, 47 1995, 47 Chapter 5. Hurricane Season of 1996, 54 Appendix 1. Hurricane Preparedness, 56 Appendix 2. Glossary, 61 References, 63 Tables and Figures, 67 Plates, 129 Index of Named Hurricanes, 143 Subject Index, 144 About the Authors, 147 Tables, Figures, and Plates Tables, 67 1. Saffir/Simpson Scale, 67 2. Hurricane Classification Prior to 1972, 68 3. Number of Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and Combined Total Storms by 10-Year Increments, 69 4. Florida Hurricanes, 1871-1996, 70 Figures, 84 l A-I. Great Miami Hurricane 2A-B. Great Lake Okeechobee Hurricane 3A-C.Great Labor Day Hurricane 4A-C. Hurricane Donna 5. Hurricane Cleo 6A-B. Hurricane Betsy 7A-C. Hurricane David 8. Hurricane Elena 9A-C. Hurricane Juan IOA-B. Hurricane Kate 1 l A-J. Hurricane Andrew 12A-C. Hurricane Albert0 13. Hurricane Beryl 14A-D. Hurricane Gordon 15A-C. Hurricane Allison 16A-F. Hurricane Erin 17A-B. Hurricane Jerry 18A-G. Hurricane Opal I9A. 1995 Hurricane Season 19B. Five 1995 Storms 20. Hurricane Josephine , Plates, X29 1. 1871-1880 2. 1881-1890 Foreword 3. 1891-1900 4. 1901-1910 5. 1911-1920 6. 1921-1930 7. 1931-1940 These days, nothing can escape the watchful, high-tech eyes of the National 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Radar Signatures of Tropical Cyclone Tornadoes in Central North Carolina
    278 WEATHER AND FORECASTING VOLUME 22 Radar Signatures of Tropical Cyclone Tornadoes in Central North Carolina DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER National Weather Service Forecast Office, Morristown, Tennessee SCOTT SHARP National Weather Service Forecast Office, Raleigh, North Carolina (Manuscript received 1 February 2006, in final form 10 August 2006) ABSTRACT During the tropical cyclone season of 2004, there were four tropical cyclones that spawned tornadoes in central North Carolina: Frances, Gaston, Ivan, and Jeanne. This study examines the environmental char- acteristics and radar signatures from these events. The tornado warning decision-making process is a difficult one during any severe weather event, but it is even more difficult in a tropical cyclone environment because of the subtlety of features and rapid tornadogenesis that can occur. Previous studies that have examined the characteristics of a tropical cyclone environment found that high low-level moisture content, high shear, and a midlevel intrusion of dry air are favorable for tornadoes. The tropical cyclones that are examined in the current study all exhibited these characteristics. Radar signatures associated with these tornadoes were more subtle and weaker when compared with nontropical cyclone tornadoes, but were still discernable. This study analyzed the radar signatures from tornadic and nontornadic storms in a tropical cyclone environment with the purpose of determining the best indicators of tornadogenesis. Three precur- sors were found to give good lead time for tornado touchdowns: 1) a near gate-to-gate mesocyclone rotational velocity of 20 kt (10.3 m sϪ1) or greater, 2) a hook or appendage signature in the reflectivity data, and 3) the presence of a velocity enhancement signature of 30 kt (15.4 m sϪ1) or greater between 7000 ft (2.1 km) and 14 000 ft (4.2 km) AGL.
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Tornadoes Associated with Land-Falling Gulf
    CHARACTERISTICS OF TORNADOES ASSOCIATED WITH LAND-FALLING GULF COAST TROPICAL CYCLONES by CORY L. RHODES DR. JASON SENKBEIL, COMMITTEE CHAIR DR. DAVID BROMMER DR. P. GRADY DIXON A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Geography in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2012 Copyright Cory L. Rhodes 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Tropical cyclone tornadoes are brief and often unpredictable events that can produce fatalities and create considerable economic loss. Given these uncertainties, it is important to understand the characteristics and factors that contribute to tornado formation within tropical cyclones. This thesis analyzes this hazardous phenomenon, examining the relationships among tropical cyclone intensity, size, and tornado output. Furthermore, the influences of synoptic and dynamic parameters on tornado output near the time of tornado formation were assessed among two phases of a tropical cyclone’s life cycle; those among hurricanes and tropical storms, termed tropical cyclone tornadoes (TCT), and those among tropical depressions and remnant lows, termed tropical low tornadoes (TLT). Results show that tornado output is affected by tropical cyclone intensity, and to a lesser extent size, with those classified as large in size and ‘major’ in intensity producing a greater amount of tornadoes. Increased values of storm relative helicity are dominant for the TCT environment while CAPE remains the driving force for TLT storms. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Jason Senkbeil, and fellow committee members Dr. David Brommer and Dr. P. Grady Dixon for their encouragement, guidance and tremendous support throughout the entire thesis process.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin County Flood Mitigation Plan Task Force
    FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN Unincorporated Franklin County, Florida December 2016 FRANKLIN COUNTY FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PLAN – 2016 PAGE 1 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background ........................................................................... 2 Section 2: Planning Process.. .......................................................................................... 3 Section 3: Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 12 Section 4: Mitigation Strategy ........................................................................................ 34 Section 5: Plan Maintenance .......................................................................................... 58 Appendix A:...........................................................................................Adoption Resolution Appendix B:............................ ........................................... Planning Process Documentation Appendix C:...................................................................................Public Outreach/Education Appendix D:........................................................................................ Repetitive Loss Areas Appendix E:………………………………………………………….Franklin County Local Mitigation Strategy Appendix F:…………………………………………………………………………………………………Technical Data Tables Table 1: Members of the Franklin County Flood Mitigation Plan Task Force .......................... 7 Table 2 – Values of Structures in the Floodplain Area in Franklin County
    [Show full text]
  • The Extremely Active 1995 Atlantic Hurricane Season: Environmental Conditions and Verification of Seasonal Forecasts
    1174 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 126 The Extremely Active 1995 Atlantic Hurricane Season: Environmental Conditions and Veri®cation of Seasonal Forecasts CHRISTOPHER W. L ANDSEA NOAA Climate and Global Change Fellowship, NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida GERALD D. BELL NOAA/NWS/NCEP/Climate Prediction Center, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM M. GRAY Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado STANLEY B. GOLDENBERG NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida (Manuscript received 3 September 1996, in ®nal form 18 March 1997) ABSTRACT The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was a year of near-record hurricane activity with a total of 19 named storms (average is 9.3 for the base period 1950±90) and 11 hurricanes (average is 5.8), which persisted for a total of 121 named storm days (average is 46.6) and 60 hurricane days (average is 23.9), respectively. There were ®ve intense (or major) Saf®r±Simpson category 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes (average is 2.3 intense hurricanes) with 11.75 intense hurricane days (average is 4.7). The net tropical cyclone activity, based upon the combined values of named storms, hurricanes, intense hurricanes, and their days present, was 229% of the average. Additionally, 1995 saw the return of hurricane activity to the deep tropical latitudes: seven hurricanes developed south of 258N (excluding all of the Gulf of Mexico) compared with just one during all of 1991±94. Interestingly, all seven storms that formed south of 208N in August and September recurved to the northeast without making landfall in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Hazardous Weather Day-By-Day
    FLORIDA HAZARDOUS WEATHER DAY-BY-DAY Bartlett C. Hagemeyer JoAnn S. Carney National Weather Service Office Melbourne. Florida November 1995 National Weather Service Southern Region Headquarters Fort Worth, Texas FLORIDA HAZARDOUS WEATHER BY DAY (to 1994) Bartlett C. Hagemeyer JoAnn S. Carney National Weather Service Office Melbourne, Florida 32935 1. Introduction An extensive search of weather records and publications was undertaken to document the occurrence of hazardous weather elements in Florida. The hazardous weather events were then organized with the goal of having at least one event for every day of the year - in other words - a Florida hazardous weather calendar. The authors felt this was a method for a variety of users to better understand, and put into perspective, all the hazardous weather elements Florida is subject to. Initially, brief descriptions of every event that caused a weather-related fatality were included, and any other hazardous weather events that caused significant injuries or property damage, or that was of an unusual nature. Most days of the year were covered in this fashion. To have an event for each day, events that did not cause injury or serious property damage were included on some days. Many days had several major events and several days had only one minor event. In the interest of brevity not all non-fatal events could be included on days with multiple occurrences. There are literally hundreds of minor events that are not included in this document. The authors attempted to include the most significant events. This document concerns short-term hazardous weather events ranging in time from several minutes to several days.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Edition
    Regional Association IV – Hurricane Operational Plan for North America, Central America and the Caribbean Tropical Cyclone Programme Report No. TCP-30 2017 edition TER WA E T A CLIM R THE A WE World Meteorological Organization WMO-No. 1163 WMO-No. 1163 © World Meteorological Organization, 2017 The right of publication in print, electronic and any other form and in any language is reserved by WMO. Short extracts from WMO publications may be reproduced without authorization, provided that the complete source is clearly indicated. Editorial correspondence and requests to publish, reproduce or translate this publication in part or in whole should be addressed to: Chair, Publications Board World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 7 bis, avenue de la Paix Tel.: +41 (0) 22 730 84 03 P.O. Box 2300 Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 80 40 CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 978-92-63-11163-0 NOTE The designations employed in WMO publications and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WMO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WMO in preference to others of a similar nature which are not mentioned or advertised. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in WMO publications with named authors are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of WMO or its Members.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Grid 06-04-08.Indd
    2-B IISLANDERSLANDER sstormtorm aavengersvengers ggameame pplannerlanner Don’t plan to weather these storms on AMI Hurricanes are categorized based on the power of the storms. Storm categories allow emergency management offi cials to determine time and need of evacuation. The Manatee County Emergency Management Division notes that “a Category 1 hurricane will kill you just as fast as a Category 5 storm, with the excep- tion that in a Category 5 storm you will be under a lot more water.” Hurricane veterans have noted it is extremely dif- fi cult to walk around in winds in excess of 50 mph — 24 Storm damage to boats is a severe problem for Anna Maria Island. Not only are the boats damaged, but sea- mph less than even a Category 1 storm. walls and docks can suffer the effects of the vessel’s crashes. There’s also a good chance offi cials will be forced to close the bridges to vehicles due to high winds before intensity. eastern Caribbean islands. That same year spawned Hur- evacuation of Anna Maria Island is complete, providing CATEGORY 2 ricane Roxanne as a Category 3 storm at landfall on the yet another reason Island residents should plan to leave Winds of 96-110 mph. Damage caused by wind Yucatan Peninsula. early if so ordered. is considerable, with some trees blown down. Major Hurricane Jeanne in 2004 was a weak Category 3 Hurricane forecasters use a “disaster-potential damage expected to exposed mobile homes and poorly storm. scale,” called the Saffi r-Simpson Hurricane Scale, to constructed signs.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Opal Assessment Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Study Products in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida October 3-4, 1995
    HURRICANE OPAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE USE AND VALUE OF HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDY PRODUCTS IN THE HURRICANE OPAL EVACUATION, ALABAMA AND FLORIDA OCTOBER 3-4, 1995 FEDERAL EMERGENCY U.S. ARMY MANAGEMENT AGENCY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HURRICANE OPAL ASSESSMENT Review of the Use and Value of Hurricane Evacuation Studies in the Hurricane Opal Evacuation, Alabama and Florida October 34, 1995 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District and Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District September 1996 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report presents the results of an assessment of the use and the value of products of the Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) available in the coastal areas of Alabama and Western Florida impacted by Hurricane Opal on October 4, 1995. Similar assessments were performed after recent major hurricanes including Hurricane Hugo (1989), Hurricane Bob (1991), Hurricane Andrew (1992), Hurricane Iniki (1992), and Hurricane Emily (1993). These assessments are one of the means employed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to continuously improve Studies and to learn how they can be used more effectively in state and local hurricane evacuation planning. The Hurricane Opal evacuation did not go smoothly. The evacuation network was not cleared prior to the arrival of pre-hurricane landfall hazardous conditions; some evacuees returned home because of traffic congestion; and for a number of hours on October 4 there was a real possibility that thousands of evacuees were going to be caught by violent winds on open highways.
    [Show full text]