Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Johnson County, Indiana
Original Adoption Date: 2008 Updated: 2015
Primary Point of Contact:
Emergency Management Agency of Johnson County Stephanie Sichting, Director 1111 Hospital Road Franklin, IN 47670 Tel. (317) 736-9064 [email protected]
Prepared by:
1200 Waterway Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46202 www.polis.iupui.edu
Acknowledgments
Johnson County’s multi-hazard mitigation plan was developed in 2008 and updated in 2015 by The Polis Center at IUPUI. The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency would like to thank The Polis Center and the planning team for their contributions and assistance in development of a plan that will help the county to continue to build its capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from disasters.
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 CEMP – Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CRS – Community Rating System DEM – Digital Elevation Model DFIRM – Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DHS – Department of Homeland Security 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 GIS – Geographic Information System HazMat – Hazardous Materials Hazus-MH – Hazards USA Multi-Hazard HUC – Hydrologic Unit Code IDEM – Indiana Department of Environmental Management IDHS – Indiana Department of Homeland Security INDOT – Indiana Department of Transportation IDNR – Indiana Department of Natural Resources IGS – Indiana Geological Survey ISDA – Indiana State Department of Agriculture MHMP – Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan NCDC – National Climatic Data Center NEHRP – National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF – National Science Foundation NWS – National Weather Service OCRA – Office of Community and Rural Affairs PPM – Parts Per Million SPC – Storm Prediction Center USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA – United States Department of Agriculture USGS – United States Geological Survey
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Section 1: Introduction ...... 2 Section 2: Prerequisites ...... 4 2.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption ...... 4 2.2 Jurisdiction Participation ...... 4 Section 3: Planning Process ...... 6 3.1 Planning Team Information ...... 7 3.2 Review of Existing Plans...... 8 3.3 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources ...... 9 3.4 Public Involvement ...... 10 3.5 Neighboring County and Community Participation ...... 10 Section 4: County Profile ...... 11 4.1 Geography, Topography, and Climate ...... 13 4.2 Demography ...... 14 4.3 Population Change...... 17 4.4 Special Needs Populations ...... 18 4.5 Economy and Industry ...... 20 4.7 Transportation ...... 24 4.8 Major Waterways and Watersheds ...... 26 4.9 Land-Use and Development Trends ...... 27 Section 5: Risk Assessment ...... 30 5.1 Identifying Hazards ...... 30 5.1.1 Existing Plans ...... 30 5.1.2 Historical Hazards Records ...... 31 5.1.3 Hazard-Ranking Methodology ...... 32 5.1.4 GIS and Hazus-MH Modeling ...... 34 5.2 Assessing Vulnerability ...... 35 5.2.1 Identify Facilities ...... 36 5.2.2 Facility Replacement Costs ...... 37 5.3 Profiling Hazards ...... 37 5.3.1 Tornadoes ...... 37 5.3.2 Flood Hazard ...... 45 5.3.3 Earthquake Hazard ...... 60 5.3.4 Severe Thunderstorm Hazard ...... 72 5.3.5 Winter Storm Hazard ...... 77 5.3.6 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard ...... 80 5.3. 7 Dam/Levee Failure Hazard ...... 89 5.3.8 Drought Hazard ...... 93 Section 6: Mitigation Strategies ...... 95 6.1 Community Action Potential Index (CAPI) ...... 95 6.2 Plans and Ordinances ...... 98 6.3 Mitigation Goals ...... 99 6.4 Mitigation Process, Prioritization, and Implementation ...... 99 6.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy and Actions ...... 102 6.6 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy ...... 117
Section 7: Plan Maintenance ...... 118 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ...... 118 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs ...... 119 7.3 Continued Public Involvement ...... 119 Appendix A: Meeting Minutes ...... 121 Appendix B: Local Media News, Stories Coverage ...... 132 Appendix C: Critical and Essential Facilities ...... 140 Appendix D: Adopting Resolutions ...... 157
Executive Summary
The Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed to guide the county in a risk-based approach 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.
This five-year update was a collaborative effort among the Johnson County planning team and The Polis Center of Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis.
The team updated the following content in the plan:
Historical hazards: Each hazard section within this plan documents the most current data about NCDC-reported hazards since the 2008 plan.
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, response and recovery reports, etc., were integrated into the plan update.
Community profile: Demographics, social, and economic data, as well as existing and future 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. 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 county. Updated loss estimation is provided for tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and hazardous materials releases. Mitigation: The team reviewed and updated mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies.
Executive Summary Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 1
Section Introduction
1
Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made reducing hazards one of its primary goals. Hazard Mitigation Planning and the subsequent implementation of the projects, measures, and policies developed as part of this plan, is a primary mechanism in achieving FEMA’s goal.
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires jurisdictions to develop and maintain a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) to remain eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs. Renewal of the plan every five years is required to encourage the continual awareness of mitigation strategies. In order for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities to be eligible for future mitigation funds, they must adopt the MHMP. In the past decade, FEMA has declared 17 emergencies and disasters for the state of Indiana, as shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: FEMA Disaster and Emergency Declarations for Indiana1
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2014
1 Introduction Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 2
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), Public Assistance (PA), or Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HM).
The following types of assistance may be available in the event of a disaster declaration.
Individuals & Household Program: Provides money and services to people in presidentially declared disaster areas.
Housing Assistance: Provides assistance for disaster-related housing needs.
Other Needs Assistance: Provides assistance for other disaster-related needs such as furnishings, transportation, and medical expenses.
Public Assistance: Disaster grant assistance available for communities to quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the president.
Emergency Work (Categories A-B): 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 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.
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.
Johnson County has received federal aid for two declared disasters since 2004 and none since the last Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted.
Table 1-1: FEMA-Declared Disasters and Emergencies for Johnson County (2004-2014)2
Date of Type of Incident Disaster Description Declaration Assistance EM-3197 Jan 11, Indiana Snow and Winter Storm PA, HM Dec 21 – Dec 23, 2005 2005 DR-1766 June 8, Indiana Severe Thunder Storms and IA, PA, HM May 30, 2008 – June 27, 2008 2008 Flooding
PA – Public Assistance program IA – Individual Assistance program HM – Hazard Mitigation Assistance (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2014
1 Introduction Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 3
Section Prerequisites
2
The Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 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 Assistance (FMA) grant program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program, and other National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) grants.
2.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption
This plan represents a comprehensive description of Johnson 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 Johnson County Commissioners adopted the plan on
Table 2-1 lists each jurisdiction and describes its participation status in the 2008 and 2015 update of the multi-hazard mitigation plan (MHMP).
Table 2-1: Participating Jurisdictions
Participated in 2008 Participated in 2015 Jurisdiction Name Type MHMP MHMP Update Johnson County County Yes Yes Franklin City Yes Yes Greenwood City Yes Yes Bargersville Town No Yes Edinburgh Town Yes Yes New Whiteland Town Yes Yes Prince’s Lakes Town Yes Yes Trafalgar Town Yes Yes Whiteland Town Yes Yes
2 Prerequisites Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 4
The county also invited representatives from local businesses and organizations to participate in the plan. Table 2-2 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, COADs/VOADs, major businesses, REMC operations and local media, among others.
Table 2-2: Organizations Invited to Participate
Organization Description of Organization Name Organization Type Representative Name Participation Emergency/Disaster Indianapolis Red Cross Scott Tibbetts Planning Team Member Response Johnson County REMC Utility Jim Elkins Planning Team Member Indiana-American Water Co Utility Katherine Jamriska Planning Team Member
2 Prerequisites Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 5
Section Planning Process
3
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) and The Polis Center (Polis) have joined efforts to develop this five-year multi-hazard mitigation plan update. The planning process consisted of the following tasks:
Task 1: Organize Resources The Johnson 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 Johnson 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 the public input meeting on the county government website and distributed the announcement to jurisdictions, media outlets and other organizations which serve the public. Appendix A includes meeting minutes and the public meeting notice.
Task 4: Develop Mitigation Strategies During the public input meeting, the 2008 MHMP and mitigation strategies or actions were reviewed. 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.
3 Planning Process Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 6
Task 5: Complete the Plan Polis compiled all of the planning team documentation and research with the risk assessment and mitigation strategies to produce a draft plan for review. The Johnson 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 Johnson County EMA coordinated the effort to collect adoptions from each participating jurisdiction. 3.1 Planning Team Information
The planning team is headed by the Johnson 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 3-1 identifies the planning team members, organizations and jurisdictions represented.
Table 3-1: Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 Planning Team
Name Title Organization Jurisdiction Stephanie Sichting Director Johnson County EMA Johnson County Johnson County Highway Luke Mastin Director Johnson County Dept. Beth Boyce Representative Johnson County Council Johnson County Franklin Dept. of Public Rick Littleton Director Franklin Works Scott Tibbetts Program Manager D5 Indianapolis Red Cross Johnson County Johnson County Health John Bonsett Director Johnson County Dept. Johnson County Sheriff's Doug Cox Sheriff Johnson County Dept. James Sipes Chair Johnson County LEPC Johnson County Johnson County Planning & Dave Hittle Director Johnson County Zoning Dept. Johnson County Animal Mike Delp Director Johnson County Control Johnson County Barb Davis Coordinator Johnson County Government Johnson County Brian Baird Chairman Johnson County Commissioners Joe McGuinness Mayor City of Franklin Franklin Tom Maggard GIS Technician City of Greenwood Greenwood Kevin McGinnis Town Manager Town of Bargersville Bargersville Norm Gabehart Town Manager Town of Whiteland Whiteland Mike Watkins Director Johnson County E911 Johnson County
3 Planning Process Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 7
Name Title Organization Jurisdiction Street Utility Lee Rodgers Town of Trafalgar Trafalgar Superintendent Aaron Shaw Director Johnson County GIS Johnson County Carey Slauter Planning Chief White River Fire Department Johnson County Anthony Haywood Street Department Staff Town of Princes Lakes Princes Lakes Josh Rooks Street Superintendent Town of Princes Lakes Princes Lakes Maribeth Alspach Clerk Treasurer Town of New Whiteland New Whiteland Terry Spencer Town Manager Town of New Whiteland New Whiteland John Drybread Town Manager Town of Edinburgh Edinburgh Jim Elkins Representative Johnson County REMC Johnson County Katherine Jamriska Representative Indiana-American Water Co Johnson County
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 providing comments on the draft plans, coordinating and participating in the public input process, and coordinating the county’s formal adoption of the plan.
The planning team held two meetings to support the Johnson County MHMP Update process. The dates and goals of the meetings are highlighted below:
Meeting 1, September 10, 2014 (Planning Team Meeting):
Introduce/overview of project Review and update facility data Review and prioritize hazards Determine modeling scenarios Distribute 2008 mitigation strategies
Meeting 2, November 12, 2014 (Planning Team and Public Input Meeting):
Introduction and overview for new attendees Review risk assessment Review draft plan Discuss 2008 and 2015 mitigation strategies Solicit public input
3.2 Review of Existing Plans
Johnson 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 the existing natural hazard mitigation elements from these previous planning efforts.
3 Planning Process Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 8
The development of the plan utilized the following plans, studies, reports, 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 3-2 lists the plans, studies, reports, and ordinances utilized in the development of the 2015 update to the Johnson County MHMP.
Table 3-2: Documents Utilized in the MHMP 2015 Update
Document Content Utilized Document Title Year Description in 2015 Update Sections Johnson County Federal Disaster Mitigation Act 2008 Multi-Hazard Mitigation 2008 All sections requirement Plan (MHMP) Establishes the basis for coordinating Johnson County emergency activities across all four Comprehensive Emergency 2013 phases of emergency management: All sections Management Plan (CEMP) mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Section 4: County Profile Plan the Land 2030- Outlines vision and goals for future land Section 4.6 Transportation Johnson County 2011 development in the context of historical Section 5: Risk Assessment Comprehensive Plan conditions and trends. Section 6: Mitigation Strategies Includes provisions for lifesaving, Johnson County Mass transport, evacuation and related health Section 5: Risk Assessment Casualty Incident 2011 services of casualties during response Section 6: Mitigation Procedures operations resulting from a natural or Strategies man-made disaster. Compilation of county and local legislation Section 5: Risk Assessment Johnson County 2011 current through Ordinance 2014-04, Code of Ordinances Section 6: Mitigation passed 5-12-2014. Strategies
3.3 Review of Technical and Fiscal Resources
The MHMP 2015 Update 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.
On the next page, a list of technical and fiscal resources and sources are summarized in Table 3-3. Organizations contributing data, reports and other valuable resources included various federal, state and county departments and agencies.
3 Planning Process Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 9
Table 3-3: Technical and Fiscal Resources and Sources
Resources Sources
Repetitive loss information FEMA Region V
Digital flood maps, dam and levee information FEMA Region V
GIS data, digital elevation models (DEM), earthquake Indiana Geological Survey modeling scenarios
2008 Johnson County MHMP Johnson County EMA
Critical Facility GIS data and GIS basemap data Johnson County GIS Department/Beacon
Community Action Potential Index (CAPI) data FEMA
Economy and industry, land use and development Johnson County Development Corporation and planning Johnson County Plan Commission
Buyout/Retrofitting information and planning data Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS)
3.4 Public Involvement
The planning team invited the public to a meeting on November 12, 2014 in order to encourage the public to actively participate in the planning process. Appendix A includes minutes from the meeting and a copy of the public meeting notice that encouraged community representatives and the public to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. 3.5 Neighboring County and Community Participation
The Johnson County planning team invited neighboring counties and communities to review the draft plan and provide input on content, including mitigation strategies. Details of neighboring stakeholders’ participation in the planning process are summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Neighboring County and Community Participation
Neighboring Participant Name Organization Participation Description County/Community Received a draft of plan for Mike Schantz Shelby County, IN Shelby County EMA review; no revisions Received a draft of plan for Dennis Moats Bartholomew County, IN Bartholomew County EMA review; no revisions Received a draft of plan for TJ Shockley Marion County, IN Marion County EOC review; no revisions Received a draft of plan for Sara Vasquez Brown County, IN Brown County EMA review; no revisions Received a draft of plan for Jeff Neal Morgan County, IN Morgan County EMA review; no revisions
3 Planning Process Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 10
Section County Profile 4
Johnson County was formed in 1823 and named after John Johnson, an Indiana Supreme Court judge. Located in central Indiana, Johnson County adjoins Marion County where the state’s largest city and capital, Indianapolis is located. As shown in Figure 4-1, Johnson County is part of the Indianapolis-Carmel- Anderson Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Marion County and nine surrounding counties. According to US Census Bureau 2012 estimates, the Indianapolis MSA population is 1,928,982.
Between 2000 and 2013, Johnson County’s population increased 26.32% to 145,535 according to US Census Bureau 2013 estimates. Johnson County is also among the fast growing counties in Indiana. With a 1.6% increase in population between 2012 and 2013, Johnson County ranked fourth among the state’s fastest-growing 92 counties according to a study by the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.
Figure 4-1: Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 11
Johnson County covers a land area of 319.28 square miles, or 205,075 acres. Johnson County (pop. 139,6543 ) is comprised of eight incorporated jurisdictions, each with a municipal government. The incorporated jurisdictions include two cities, Franklin, the county seat (pop. 24,1944) and Greenwood (pop. 53,6655 ) and six towns, Bargersville, Edinburgh, New Whiteland, Prince’s Lakes, Trafalgar and Whiteland.
Figure 4-2 shows Johnson County jurisdictions and neighboring counties and its location within the state of Indiana. In addition to Marion County, four other counties--Shelby, Bartholomew, Brown and Morgan- -adjoin Johnson County.
Figure 4-2: Johnson County Jurisdictions and Surrounding Counties
Since 2000, growth and development in Johnson County has been fueled by a strong transportation network, including state, national and interstate highways and the expansion of metropolitan Indianapolis/Marion County. Even with its close proximity and direct access to a major metropolitan area, more than half of the land in Johnson County is still used for farming and other agricultural operations. Section 4.9 Land-Use and Development Trends details Johnson County’s current and projected land use.
3 US Census Bureau, 2010. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 12
The county’s nine townships as shown in Figure 4-3 below are all comparable in size except for Blue River, which is nearly half the size of the other eight. The nine townships are Blue River, Clark, Franklin, Hensley, Needham, Nineveh, Pleasant, Union and White River.
Figure 4-3: Johnson County Townships and Jurisdictions
4.1 Geography, Topography, and Climate
The topography of rectangular-shaped Johnson County ranges from relatively flat and tillable land in the northern two-thirds to rugged hills and woodlands in southern areas of the county. According to the Central Indiana Land Trust, woodlands at the Laura Hare Preserve at Blossom Hollow near Trafalgar are part of a large block of unbroken hardwood forest and among the few such areas that remain in central Indiana. Johnson County’s highest point is 1000 feet above sea level in the southwest corner of the county. Its lowest elevation is 630 feet in the county’s northwest corner and the greatest relief is 250 feet.
Several glacial events as recent as 17,000 years ago are thought to have shaped Johnson County’s geologic character and influenced its soils, as well as ground water and bedrock aquifer systems. Massive glacial or ice sheets originated in Canada and further north. These ice sheets extended south covering the northern two-thirds of Indiana including Johnson County. Nearly all of the modern landscape and
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 13
subsurface deposits in this glaciated area of the state are products of the Wisconsin Stage, which began about 50,000 years ago.6
The bedrock underlying these glacial deposits consists of the Borden Group in the western half of the county, and New Albany Shale, and Silurian and Devonian Carbonates in the eastern half. These bedrock formations are important as aquifer systems. The Silurian and Devonian Carbonates Aquifer System is restricted to the eastern third of the county are capable of meeting the needs of domestic and high- capacity users. Also, among the three bedrock aquifer systems, the Silurian and Devonian Carbonates is ranked at lowest risk of contamination.
Johnson County’s climate is typical of central Indiana. The variables of temperature, precipitation, and snowfall can vary greatly from one year to the next. Winter temperatures can fall below freezing starting November and extending through April. Based on National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2010 data, average winter temperatures range from 27° F to 43° F. In summer, the average low is 62° F and the high is 73° F. Average annual precipitation is 43 inches throughout the year and snowfall averages 29 inches from October through April. Table 4-1 shows Johnson County’s climate data.
Table 4-1: Johnson County Average Temperatures and Precipitation7
Average Month Average Temp Daily Max Daily Min Precipitation January 27.0˚ 35.9˚ 18.0˚ 2.62” February 30.0˚ 39.8˚ 18.0˚ 2.35” March 40.0˚ 51.0˚ 29.0˚ 3.44” April 51.2˚ 63.0˚ 39.3˚ 4.36” May 61.5˚ 72.7˚ 50.3˚ 5.61” June 71.2˚ 81.8˚ 60.5˚ 4.64” July 74.0˚ 84.8˚ 63.2˚ 4.37” August 72.7˚ 84.3˚ 61.1˚ 3.53” September 65.5˚ 78.1˚ 52.9˚ 3.12” October 53.5˚ 66.3˚ 40.7˚ 3.29” November 42.8˚ 53.4˚ 32.1˚ 3.79” December 30.6˚ 39.3˚ 21.9˚ 3.71”
4.2 Demography
According to the 2010 US Census, 139,654 people were residing in Johnson County and 6,483,802 in the state of Indiana. US Census Bureau estimates for 2013 show Johnson County’s total population at 145,535, a 4.2% increase over 2010. (Indiana’s population grew by just 1.3% over the same period.) Johnson County’s population density is 435.8 people per square mile. In 2010, over 66.95% of the population resided in Johnson County’s incorporated jurisdictions. Table 4-2 shows the distribution of population for
6 Source: http://igs.indiana.edu/Surficial/IceAge.cfm 7 Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 14
each jurisdiction in the county according to data from the 2010 Census. By 2020, Johnson County’s population is expected to growth to 160,036 or a 14.6% increase from 2010.
Table 4-2: 2010 Population of Johnson County Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction 2010 Population8 Bargersville 4,013 Edinburgh 4,480 Franklin 23,172 Greenwood 49,791 New Whiteland 5,472 Prince’s Lakes 1,312 Trafalgar 1,101 Whiteland 4,169 Total 93,510
The median age of Johnson County residents is 37.2, compared to Indiana’s median age of 37.4. Fig 4-4 shows Johnson County’s population pyramid and such characteristics as age and gender.
Figure 4-4: Johnson County Population Pyramid
8 2010 Census, US Census Bureau
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 15
As a visual profile of Johnson County’s population, the population pyramid shows the distribution of Johnson County’s population among various age segments and by gender. For example, the slight increase in population from 45 to 59 years 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 by looking at the percentage of the population in the age 5 and under and other age segments.
Johnson County’s population pyramid shows relatively stable growth for the county and includes slow steady growth, long life expectancy, and low infant mortality. It reflects the same general shape as the population pyramids for Indiana and the United States.
In hazard mitigation planning, population data for households is also useful. In 2012 according to estimates by the US Census Bureau, Johnson County had 51,952 households. For all households, the average household size was 2.76 persons. Of these households, approximately 71.7% or 37,244 were family households comprised on average of 3.85 persons.
The distribution of the population in Johnson County and its townships by race and minorities is another important population characteristic in developing effective strategies for hazard mitigation. According to US Census Bureau 2013 population estimates, Johnson County’s population is 94.2% White. Although minorities account for a small percentage of the Johnson County population, language and cultural factors are important in mitigation planning. The predominant minority in Johnson County is Hispanic or Latino, comprising 3.4% of the population. At 2.3%, the Asian population is second largest minority and the third largest is the Black or African American population at 1.7%.9
Among those minorities, the Asian population with the influx of the Burmese Chin and Karen ethnic groups to southern Marion County and northern Johnson County is an important minority population in mitigation planning. While US Census population data does not further delineate the Asian population by ethnic group, the Burmese American Community Institute (BACI) in Indianapolis has generated migration data for Burmese refugees. According to 2012 BACI data, 97,713 Burmese refugees have settled in the United States since 2001. Of those, 13% of the population or 12,225 have settled in Indiana. Currently, BACI 2012 data shows 8,225 reside in Indianapolis, including a major concentration in Perry Township of southern Marion County. In Johnson County, the townships with the largest Asian populations are Pleasant (Greenwood, Whiteland, New Whiteland) with a population of 1,420 or 40.4 people per square mile and White River (Bargersville) with 17.8 people per square mile and a population of 841.10
9 STATS Indiana; 2010 Census, US Census Bureau 10 SAVI; US Census Bureau 2012 estimates
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 16
4.3 Population Change
Populations grow or decline through migration and natural increase, and often these two components offset each other. Because international migration data was not as consistent as domestic migration data, this plan only references net domestic trends. In the most recent census estimate (2013), Johnson County registered a positive natural increase (more people were born than died) and a negative net in-migration (more people moved out of the county than into the county).
The breakdown of population change by incorporated areas is documented in Table 4-3 below.
Table 4-3: Population Change by Community
Increase Increase 2013 Community 2000 Population11 2010 Population12 2000- 2010- Population13 2010 2013 Bargersville 2,120 4,013 89.29% 6,409 59.70% Edinburgh 4,045 4,480 10.75% 4,526 1.02% Franklin 19,463 23,172 19.05% 24,194 4.41% Greenwood 36,037 49,791 38.16% 53,665 7.78% New Whiteland 4,579 5,472 19.50% 5,733 4.76% Prince’s Lake 1,506 1,312 -12.88% 1,332 1.52% Trafalgar 798 1,101 37.96% 1,147 4.17% Whiteland 3,958 4,169 5.33% 4,284 2.75%
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 net adjusted gross income (AGI) as a result of migration.
In Figure 4-5on the next page, the map generated with the Forbes American Migration Map tool shows Johnson County’s migration patterns between 2005 and 2010 in terms of inbound and outbound domestic migration.
11 2000 Census, US Census Bureau 12 2010 Census, US Census Bureau 13 US Census Bureau, 2013 estimates
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 17
Figure 4-5: Johnson County Migration Patterns14
4.4 Special Needs Populations
Certain populations require special attention in mitigation planning because they may suffer more severely from the impacts of disasters. It is important to identify these populations and develop mitigation strategies to help them become more disaster resilient. Although there are numerous types of vulnerable populations, Johnson County has identified five significant population groups with special needs: non- English language as a primary language, below poverty level, disability, age 65 and over, and the population with no high school diploma.
Table 4-4 Johnson County and Surrounding Counties Special Needs Populations on the next page lists data for each of the five groups in Johnson County and seven surrounding counties. Among these eight counties, Johnson County’s total special needs population is the second lowest. Comparatively, Johnson County’s special needs population is low, however approximately half of Johnson County’s population is in one or more of these five special needs groups. Other factors important in mitigation planning include areas with the highest vulnerability, such as southeast Johnson County and the city of Greenwood as shown in Figure 4-6: Johnson County Vulnerability Score on the next page. While the vulnerability map and special needs population data are not definitive or conclusive, this information points to geographic areas and population groups that might benefit from further analysis in mitigation planning.
14 http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/migration.html
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 18
Table 4-4: Johnson County and Surrounding Counties Special Needs Populations15
Non- Below No High English Age County Poverty Disability School Total Primary 65+ Level Diploma Language Johnson County 4.9% 9.3% 9.7% 12.4% 19.4% 55.7% Brown County 3.1% 13.3% 11.4% 17.7% 23.4% 68.9% Bartholomew County 8.7% 11.8% 11.6% 14% 23.2% 69.3% Morgan County 2.1% 10.7% 13.5% 13.1% 23% 62.4% Hendricks County 5.6% 4.9% 7.8% 10.9% 4.5% 33.7% Marion County 12% 19.4% 12.6% 10.7% 10.4% 65.1% Shelby County 4.5% 11.9% 12% 14% 28.3% 70.7% Monroe County 9.3% 25% 9.7% 10.2% 3% 57.2%
At 19.4%, the special needs population group with no high school diploma or the equivalency is the largest and most significant group in Johnson County. The age 65 and over group is the second highest special needs group at 12.4% of the population.
In the event of a disaster or emergency, literacy and communication are typically issues for groups without a high school diploma and non-English as a primary language. More than 35% of the population age 65 and over are also in the disability group16 and their needs require special accommodation. For example, the age 65 and over population might require life-sustaining medication, electricity-operated medical equipment, and special mobility assistance. They may also require special temporary housing needs that can accommodate physical disabilities/limitations and varied levels of income. Johnson County emergency management and personnel can help to mitigate these vulnerabilities by participating in specialized training to deal effectively with the age 65 and over population or offering resources to the public and elderly care facilities to empower them with knowledge and tools that could help them save their own lives.
Examples of activities to improve emergency mitigation and preparedness for the age 65 and over population include, but are not limited to, the following:
Evacuation exercises for communities and elderly care facilities Public materials on when and how to shelter in place Training for emergency shelter staff Development of resource guide for seniors with available housing, medical, and basic needs services Development of accessible media announcements
15 US Census Bureau, 2012 estimates 16 Americans with Disabilities, Household Economic Studies, US Census Bureau, July 2012
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 19
Figure 4-6: Johnson County Vulnerability Score
4.5 Economy and Industry
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 had a similar impact in Johnson County as it did in Indiana and the US, although the unemployment rate in Johnson County has historically been less than both the state and the nation. Figure 4-7 illustrates how the county’s unemployed population has changed over time compared to Indiana and the US according to US Census Bureau data. It also shows the percent of Johnson County’s population below the poverty level.
Although the below poverty level population declined by nearly 2% from 2010 to 2011 to 8.7%. Since 2011 this population has been increasing to 9.6% in 2012 and in 2013, 13.7% according to US Census Bureau estimates for 2008-2013. In 2013, the rate of unemployment in Johnson County fell to 3.7% from 5.1% in 2012 and five-year highs of 5.5% in 2010 and 2011.
The 2012 estimated annual per capita income in Johnson County was $39,287 which when adjusted for inflation declined by 1.9% from 2002. For households in Johnson County, the mean or average income was $76,444 in 2012.17 The cost of living in Johnson County was 87.2% of the US national average in 2012.
17 STATS Indiana, 2012-2013
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 20
Figure 4-7: Population Unemployed and Below Poverty Level (2008-2012)18
Note: Employment data is for the civilian labor force. 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.
In 2012, the US Census Bureau reported that the Johnson County civilian labor force (age 16 years and over) employed 69,778. Johnson County employment in 2012 by occupation is listed in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5: Johnson County Employment by Occupation19
Civilian Employed Population Occupation Age 16 Years and Over (2012) Management, business, science, arts 36.6% Service 14.7% Sales and office 27.6% Natural resources, construction, 8.1% maintenance Production, transportation, moving 13.1% materials
18 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2008-2013 19 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2012 estimate
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 21
In 2012, the civilian-employed population age 16 years and older totaled 69,778 in Johnson County. The data in Table 4-6 below shows the percentage of the civilian population (16 years and older) employed in various industries.
Table 4-6: Johnson County Employment by Industry20
Civilian Employed Population Industry Age 16 Years and Over (2012) Educational services, health care, social 22.2% assistance Manufacturing 14.4% Retail Trade 11.9% Professional, Scientific and Management 9.5% Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation and 8.2% Food Services Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 7.5% Finance and insurance, real estate 7.1% Construction 5.0% Other Services 6.4% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 2.8% Wholesale Trade 2.1% Agriculture, Forestry, Mining 1.2% Information 1.2%
The Indiana Department of Workforce Development reports business and industry data for the state. Using their Business Lookup Tool, employment data on the major employers in Johnson County (2014) is included in Table 4-7: Johnson County Major Employers and Employees. The data included in this table is provided by Infogroup®, an independent data service under agreement with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development to provide data on employment in Indiana. It’s important in mitigation planning to analyze employers in terms of the number of employees, as well as the number of customers, client, patients and students served at a business, facility or organization location. The Business Lookup Tool only reports data on the number of employees.
Among the employers that serve large populations and warrant further analysis for hazard mitigation planning is Franklin College. The college campus covers more than 200 acres and is adjacent to downtown Franklin. More than 1,000 students are enrolled at the college with four residence halls. The campus employs approximately 110 persons. Other businesses and organizations serving large employee, customer, student, patient and resident populations, often with special needs, include the retail corridors, Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, school systems, Johnson Memorial Hospital, and long-term care and healthcare facilities. Greenwood Park Mall merchants together make the regional shopping center one of the largest employers in Johnson County.
20 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2012 estimate
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 22
Table 4-7: Johnson County Major Employers and Employees21
Employer Location Employees Type of Business Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Edinburgh 1,001 Military, police training services Johnson Memorial Hospital Franklin 800 Hospital and health care David R. Webb Company Edinburgh 350 Plywood, veneer manufacturer Retirement communities Indiana Masonic Home Office Franklin 387 management Holland Greenwood 350 Trucking, motor freight Automotive parts, supplies KYB Manufacturing Franklin 350 manufacturer Meijer Greenwood 325 Retail NSK Precision Inc. Franklin 300 Ball, roller bearing manufacturer Sears Greenwood 300 Retail Industrial measuring, controlling Endress Hauser, Inc. Greenwood 300 equipment manufacturer Automotive parts, supplies Hisada America Inc. Edinburgh 250 manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Franklin 250 Compressors manufacturer CTI Inc. Edinburgh 250 Trucking, dump Sterophonic, high fidelity Alpine Electronics of America Greenwood 200 equipment manufacturer Castings, aluminum Casting Technology Co. Franklin 200 manufacturer Adhesives, sealants Sunoco Flexible Packaging Edinburgh 200 manufacturer JC Penney Co. Greenwood 200 Retail Super Target Greenwood 200 Retail
The new I-69 corridor, which will be routed along SR-37, in the northwest corner of the county, is also expected to stimulate business and job growth, as well as commercial and industrial business in the county. The I-69 corridor is detailed in section 4.7 Transportation. 4.6 Commuting Patterns
County-to-county commuting patterns provide a gauge of the economical connectivity of neighboring communities. The US Census reports that over 27% of US workers travel outside their residential county to travel to work.
According to STATS Indiana 2012 data, there are 96,833 people who live and work in Johnson County. Of these residents, 35,061 (36.2%) work outside the county. An additional 12,909 people live in another county and commute to Johnson County. Figure 4-8 illustrates the inbound and outbound migration in Johnson County and nearby counties.
21 Infogroup®; Indiana Department of Workforce Development
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 23
Figure 4-8: Johnson County Inbound and Outbound Commuting Patterns22
The average travel time to work in Johnson County is 23 minutes compared to a 25-minute average in the US. Commuter safety is an important consideration in disaster mitigation and planning. Employers can help their employees prepare by encouraging the development of Commuter Emergency Plans, such as the template developed by FEMA are available for download at http://www.fema.gov/media- library/assets/documents/90370. 4.7 Transportation
Between 2000 and 2010 Johnson County’s population grew by 20%. Among the factors critical to its past and also future growth and development is the county’s strong network of highways, including I-69 (not yet complete as of 2015), I-65, US-31, a four-lane highway, and state highways, SR-135, SR-44 and SR-37. The 2011 comprehensive plan for Johnson County, Plan the Land 2030 considers the county’s transportation system, particularly its roads and highways, which is critical to future growth and development in the county.
Nearly 23 miles of the north-south interstate highway, I-65 is in Johnson County. According to 2011 Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) traffic data, on average 1,035,000 vehicle miles are traveled each day on I-65 in Johnson County. For 1,103.58 miles of roads in Johnson County, the 2011 INDOT data shows on average 4,175,000 daily vehicle miles traveled. A new interchange on I-65 at Worthsville Road is scheduled for completion in November 2015. In addition to enhancing safety and providing additional I-65 access in Johnson County, the new interchange is expected to reduce congestion at the existing Main Street and Whiteland Road interchanges.
By 2020, the Johnson County segment of I-69 is expected to be complete; however, several delays in construction may impact this timeline. The I-69 extension project, as shown in Figure 4-9: I-69 through Central and Southern Indiana, is constructing the interstate highway from Evansville to Indianapolis. The Johnson County segment is expected to be routed along SR-37 in the county’s northwest corner. By late
22 STATS Indiana, 2012
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 24
2016, the Bloomington segment, which is 45 miles southwest of Johnson County, is expected to be complete. The Johnson County comprehensive plan calls I-69, “a major driver of transportation needs in Johnson County, and specifically in White River Township.” The plan notes that I-69 interchanges are anticipated at its crossings with County Line Road, Smith Valley Road, and SR 144. As a transcontinental highway, I-69 will eventually span the United States, connecting Canada, the US and Mexico.
Figure 4-9: I-69 through Central and Southern Indiana23
Most fixed-route transit services in Johnson County serve the northern suburban areas. IndyGo (Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation) provides fixed route bus service between Indianapolis and Greenwood. Access Johnson County provides flexible fixed-route and demand-response transit service throughout the county.
23 http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 25
Area airports include Indianapolis International Airport, approximately a 30-minute drive for the majority of county residents. County airports and air fields include Franklin Flying Field and Greenwood Municipal Airport. Franklin Flying Field has a 2,400-foot long runway. The runway at Greenwood Municipal Airport is 4,901 feet long.
The Indiana Rail Road line crosses Johnson County in a north-south direction and runs between Indianapolis and Morgantown, Beanblossom, and other south-central Indiana communities. The Louisville and Indiana Railway, a regional/short line system, runs north-south and passes through Greenwood, New Whiteland, Whiteland, Franklin and Edinburgh. 4.8 Major Waterways and Watersheds
Johnson County is located in two watersheds, Driftwood and Upper White, with the Patoka and White Rivers as the primary water sources for both watersheds. Table 4-8: Waterways of Johnson County lists the numerous creeks, ditches and waterways in Johnson County. On the next page, Figure 4-9: HUC 8 Watersheds of Johnson County lists the county’s two watersheds and their primary water body sources.
Table 4-8: Waterways of Johnson County
Alexander Ditch Fountain Creek Leatherwood Creek Rocklane Creek Amity Ditch Frances Creek Lick Creek Salem Brook Auburn Branch Franklin Creek Little Sugar Creek Shipp Ditch Banta Creek Gilmore Creek Lost Creek Short Run Barnes Creek Goose Creek Lowe Creek Smith Run Big Blue River Graham Ditch Mallow Run South Prong Bluff Creek Grassy Creek MC Colgin Creek South Prong Stotts Creek Brewer Ditch Grove Creek MC Cue Medsker Ditch Stotts Creek North Prong Buck Creek Grubbs Ditch Merry Branch Sugar Creek Buckhart Creek Grubbs Ditch Creek Messersmith Creek Tracy Ditch Campbell Ditch Hazelett Ditch Moores Creek Travis Creek Canary Ditch Heather Run Nineveh Creek Tucker Creek Center Brook Henderson Creek North Bluff Creek Turkey Pen Creek Crook Branch Honey Creek North Prong Stotts Creek Turkey Run Creek Crooked Creek Hurricane Creek Pleasant Creek Utterback Branch Cutsinger Ditch Indian Creek Pleasant Run Vandivier Ditch Driftwood River Jolly Branch Powell Ditch Waterloo Run East Grassy Creek Koots Fork Ransdell Ditch Wood Creek Fairview Fair Brook Lake Run Ransdell Run Youngs Creek Fisher Ditch Leather Run Ray Creek Flat Branch Creek Leather Run Creek Roberts Ditch
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 26
Table 4-9: HUC 8 Watersheds of Johnson County
Watershed HUC 8 Primary Water Body Sources Driftwood 05120204 Patoka, White River East Fork Upper White 05120201 Patoka, White River West Fork
The West Fork of the White River flows for just a few miles across the northwest corner of the county yet together with its tributaries drains approximately one-third of the county in the Upper White Watershed. The remaining two-thirds of the county is within the drainage basin of the East Fork of the White River and the Driftwood Watershed. The principal streams in this watershed are Sugar Creek, Blue River and Youngs Creek, which is entirely contained within the county.
Prince's Lakes is the name of an incorporated town and an area with 14 lakes in the southwestern region of the county. Each lake is privately owned and governed by the individual lake lot owner associations. East Lake, the largest, is approximately 67 acres.
The Atterbury Fish and Wildlife Area is a state property of approximately 5,000 acres in south-central Johnson County. The property consists of marshes, running creeks, 270 acres of available water and 10 impoundments, including 75-acre Pisgah Lake. 4.9 Land-Use and Development Trends
With its proximity to Indianapolis, the northern area of Johnson County including Greenwood, New Whiteland and Whiteland has experienced the most growth. Current land use in Johnson County is shown in Table 4-10 below.
Table 4-10*: Current Land Use in Johnson County24
Current Land Use Area (sq. ft) Area (acres) % of Total Categories Agriculture 5,024,302,878 115,342 56.45% Commercial 168,439,781 3,867 1.89% Industrial 100,163,815 2,299 1.13% Institutional 694,952,633 15,954 7.81% Natural Resources 1,022,494,867 23,473 11.49% Recreation 62,025,078 1,424 0.70% Residential 1,576,491,336 36,191 17.71% Transportation 252,109,892 5,788 2.83% Total 8,900,980,279 204,338
*Note: Area includes all land in Johnson County, both incorporated and unincorporated.
24 Plan the Land 2030, Johnson County Comprehensive Plan
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 27
According to Johnson County’s comprehensive plan, Plan the Land 2030, the northern area, the second largest city and county seat of Franklin, and the smaller towns of Edinburgh, Trafalgar and Bargersville are expected to experience business and industrial, as well as residential growth in the future.
Future land use as projected in the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan is shown on a map in the following illustration, Figure 4-10: Future Land Use in Johnson County from Plan the Land 2030.
Figure 4-10: Future Land Use in Johnson County from Plan the Land 2030
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 28
Although Johnson County is within a metropolitan area of nearly 2 million and its population grew by more than 20% from 2000 to 2010, the county still retains its rural character and identify. Nearly half of Johnson County’s land is still used in farming and agriculture-related operations. Future growth of agricultural land use is expected to remain strong as the average farm size and total farm acreage in the county are expected to increase. According to the US Census of Agriculture statistics in Plan the Land 2030, although the number of farms declined from 598 in 2002 to 585 five years later, in 2007, the total farm acreage in Johnson County increased. In 2002, farm acreage totaled 135,178 acres and increased to 142,181 acres in 2007. The average farm size also increased, from 226 acres in 2002 to 243 acres in 2007.
Residential land use in the county accounts for 18% of the total land area and the highest concentrations are in White River Township (Bargersville) and Pleasant Township (Greenwood, New Whiteland, Whiteland). These townships are expected to experience the majority of residential growth and development in the future. Residential land use In White River Township accounts for 28% of the land, and 15% in Pleasant Township.
Approximately 2% of the county’s total land area is in commercial use. The highest concentration is in Pleasant Township and Greenwood mostly along commercial corridors and notably in the area surrounding Greenwood Park Mall, the largest enclosed mall in metropolitan Indianapolis. Nearly 1,766 acres or 4% of the land in Pleasant Township has been developed for commercial use. As the population of Greenwood and Pleasant Township grow, corridor-driven commercial land use is expected to increase as well.
According to Plan the Land 2030, industrial development accounts for about 1% of the land area in the county. Most industrial land use is concentrated in two areas–the north and east sides of Franklin, along or near the railroad tracks, and in Greenwood along the I-65 corridor. Industrial land use accounts for 750 acres in Franklin Township and 600 acres in Pleasant Township. Other townships with industrial land use are: Blue River (350 acres), White River (300 acres), and Needham (nearly 200 acres).
Institutional land uses include federal, state, and local government-owned land, cemeteries, schools and similar facilities. The institutional uses in Johnson County account for 8% of the land use. At 30,000 acres, the largest institutional facility in Johnson County is Camp Atterbury, a training center for the Indiana National Guard near Edinburgh. It is also used for training by other US military agencies, IDHS, and state and local police.
4 County Profile Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 29
Section Risk Assessment 5
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 Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the current effective FEMA Flood Insurance Flood Maps (FIRMs). The 2008 MHMP identified the following principal hazards ranked from most severe to least:
1. Flooding/Dam Failure 2. Tornado 3. Hazardous Material Release 4. Thunderstorms/High winds/Hail 5. Drought/Extreme Heat 6. Earthquake 7. Ground failure 8. Severe Winter Storms 9. Explosion/Fire
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 30
In 2014, the planning team updated the county’s top hazards to:
1. Floods 2. Severe Thunderstorms 3. Tornadoes 4. Winter Storm 5. Drought 6. Earthquake 7. Hazardous materials release 8. Dam/Levee failure
5.1.2 Historical Hazards Records
To assist the planning team, historical storm-event data from the past six years was compiled from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The NCDC Storm Events database includes events related to 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 141 reported events in Johnson County between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2014. The breakdown by event type and year is illustrated in Figure 5-1. Each hazard sub-section within this risk assessment provides more details about the NCDC-reported events.
Figure 5-1: Johnson County NCDC-Reported Events (2008-2013)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Flood Hail Severe Storm Tornado Winter Storm
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 31
5.1.3 Hazard-Ranking Methodology
During Meeting #1, held on September 10, 2014, the planning team reviewed historical hazards information and participated in a risk analysis exercise to rank hazards by community and severity of risk. The team calculated the probability rating (Low, Medium, High) of each hazard, based on the number of events that have occurred in the county within the past six years. 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 affected. In such situations, the probability rating assigned to the county was applied to all jurisdictions within the county.
Team consensus also was important in determining the probability of hazards not recorded by NCDC, for example, dam and levee failure, earthquakes, and hazardous materials spills. The probabilities for these hazardous events were determined by the planning team’s estimation, derived from local experience and records, of the number of historical events that have occurred within the past 5 years.
After improving the NCDC data with additional local data, the team determined each hazard’s potential impact on the communities. The impact rating (Minimal, Moderate, or Significant) was based on the following guidelines.
Table 5-1: Guidelines for Determining Probability and Impact
PROBABILITY IMPACT >Incident results in only minor injuries and no fatalities >Damage contained to a single incident scene and immediate area
0-5 >Up to 5% of community facilities are damaged, destroyed, or inaccessible events in
Low >Community able to effectively respond to incident with community resources and 10 years Minimal personnel >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for up to 3 days; community operations may be cancelled or relocated temporarily >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 6-10 >Up to 25% of community facilities are damaged, destroyed, or inaccessible events in 10 years >Community is able to effectively respond to the incident with standard local mutual aid
Medium Moderate Moderate support >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for up to 1 week; some community operations must be cancelled or relocated temporarily >Incident results in numerous serious injuries and multiple fatalities >Damage to critical infrastructure and property over a large area of community
11+ >Up to 50% of community facilities are damaged, destroyed, or inaccessible events in
High >Community has reached the limit of their response capabilities. Significant local mutual aid 10 years support required.
Significant >Complete shutdown of community facilities and loss of services for up to 2 weeks; community operations must be cancelled or relocated for an extended period of time. The overall hazard risk was determined by multiplying probability and impact. It is important to consider both probability and impact when determining risk.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 32
PROBABILITY X IMPACT = RISK
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, a tornado has a high probability of occurring in a given year with a significant potential impact, while an earthquake has a medium-high probability of occurring but a fairly minimal potential impact.
Figure 5-2: Risk Grid Methodology
Figure 5-2 illustrates the risk grid methodology. In this example, a tornado has a high probability (y-axis) and a significant impact (x-axis). Indiana is at high risk for a tornado.
Johnson County listed flood and severe thunderstorm as the highest-risk disasters. Figure 5-3 illustrates the county’s risk for each hazard.
Figure 5-3: Johnson County Risk Matrix
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 33
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. For example, the 2008 flooding and excessive rainfall caused a breach in the Prince’s Lakes Dam. Although, this incident did not result in damage to property or persons, the impact of a dam/levee failure in this community would be much greater than other incorporated areas in a floodplain. The same example can be used for Hazardous materials spill. A chemical spill in Greenwood would have a higher impact to the surrounding community and people. The following diagrams illustrate each community’s risk to flooding, dam/levee failure and hazardous material spill incidents.
Figure 5-4: Community Risk to Localized Events
Flooding HazMat Dam/Levee
Franklin
Prince’s Lakes
Greenwood
New Whiteland
Bargersville
Whiteland
Trafalgar
Edinburgh
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 Johnson 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
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 34
accurate results are now available. Multi-hazard mitigation plan updates may document significant variances from the original MHMP.
The flood and earthquake assessments are based on a Level 2 Hazus 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 considers the depth of water in relation to the structure. Hazus-MH also considers 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 specific depth of flooding. Site-specific analysis is also based on 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 the major steps that were followed during the project. 5.2 Assessing Vulnerability
The Indiana Department of Homeland Security, through IndianaMap, provided parcel boundaries to The Polis Center, and the Indiana Department of Local Government and Finance provided the 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 were updated as follows:
The Hazus-MH defaults, critical facilities, and essential facilities were updated based on the most recent available data sources. Critical and essential point facilities have been reviewed, revised, and approved by local subject matter experts.
The essential facility updates (schools, medical care facilities, fire stations, police stations, and EOCs) were applied to the Hazus-MH model data. Hazus-MH reports of essential facility losses reflect updated data.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 35
5.2.1 Identify Facilities
This plan includes two types of facilities: critical facilities and essential facilities.
CRITICAL FACILITIES are buildings that are deemed economically or socially viable to the county. Johnson County has the following categories of critical facilities.
Transportation Systems – 11 airports, 3 railroads – necessary for transport of people and resources including airports, highways, railways, and waterways.
. Lifeline Utility Systems – 6 wastewater treatment plants, 2 potable water systems, 84 communications facilities – vital to public health and safety.
. High Potential Loss Facilities – 30 dams – failure or non-operation may have significant physical, social, and/or economic impact to neighboring communities’ populations and infrastructure.
. Hazardous Material Facilities – 64 hazardous materials facilities – involved in the production, storage, and/or transport of corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.
Johnson County’s critical facilities are listed 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.
Table 5-2 identifies the essential facilities that were added or updated for the analysis. Johnson County’s essential facilities are listed and mapped in Appendix C.
Table 5-2: Essential Facilities of Johnson County
Category Number of Facilities Care Facilities 59 Emergency Operations Centers 1 Fire Stations 21 Police Stations 9 Schools 47 Total 137
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 36
5.2.2 Facility Replacement Costs
Facility replacement costs and total building exposure, which reflect local data, are identified in Table 5-3 along with the estimated number of buildings within each occupancy class.
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.
Table 5-3: Building Exposure
General Occupancy Estimated Total Buildings Total Building Exposure Agricultural 1,987 $377,344,645 Commercial 1,408 $1,046,754,331 Education 40 $53,650,349 Government 56 $50,542,467 Industrial 346 $516,264,896 Religious/Non-Profit 338 $266,895,116 Residential 44,832 $8,036,324,342 Total 49,007 $10,347,776,146
5.3 Profiling Hazards
5.3.1 Tornadoes
Tornadoes can occur at any time during the day or night. 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 velocity 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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 37
Tornadoes are classified according to the Fujita tornado intensity scale25 as shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Rating
Estimated Fujita Number Path Width Path Length Description of Destruction Wind Speed Light damage, some damage to chimneys, EF0 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 56-175 frame houses, mobile homes demolished, EF2 Significant 111-135 mph 3.2-9.9 miles yards boxcars pushed over, large trees snapped or uprooted. Severe damage, walls torn from well- 176-566 constructed houses, trains overturned, most EF3 Severe 136-165 mph 10-31 miles yards trees in forests uprooted, heavy cars thrown about. Complete damage, well-constructed houses EF4 0.3-0.9 leveled, structures with weak foundations 166-200 mph 32-99 miles Devastating miles blown off for some distance, large missiles generated. Foundations swept clean, automobiles Over 200 1.0-3.1 become missiles and thrown for 100 yards or EF5 Incredible 100-315 miles mph miles more, steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.
Recent Occurrences of Tornadoes
The NCDC database reported seven tornado events in Johnson County since April of 1996 that have impacted multiple communities. The Johnson County NCDC-recorded tornadoes are identified in Table 5- 5.
Table 5-5: Johnson County NCDC-Reported Tornadoes (1996-2014)
Property Crop Location Date Type Death Injury Damage Damage GREENWOOD 9/20/2002 F3 Tornado 0 0 $25,000,000 $10,000 GREENWOOD 3/31/2006 F2 Tornado 0 0 $3,000,000 $0 PRINCE’S LAKES 6/3/2008 EF2 Tornado 0 3 $23,000,000 $0 SAMARIA 7/20/2010 EF0 Tornado 0 0 $20,000 $5,000 STONE’S CROSSING 7/22/2010 EF0 Tornado 0 0 $2,250 $500
25 NOAA Storm Prediction Center, http://www.srh.noaa.gov
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 38
Geographic Location for Tornadoes
The entire county has the same risk for tornadoes because they can occur at any location. The NCDC identified 13 tornado events since 1954, which are shown in Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-5: Historical Tornado Paths 1950-2013
Hazard Extent for Tornadoes
The historical tornadoes generally moved from southwest to northeast across the county. The extent of the hazard varies in terms of the extent of the path and the wind speed. Tornadoes can occur at any location within the county.
Risk Identification for Tornadoes
Based on historical information, the probability of a tornado is high, and the potential impact of a tornado is significant; therefore the overall risk of a tornado in Johnson County is high.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 39
Vulnerability Analysis for Tornadoes
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 Facilities
All essential facilities are vulnerable to tornadoes. An essential facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts will vary, based on the magnitude 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 impacts to buildings within the county can be expected. The impacts are similar to those discussed for critical facilities and 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 to seek shelter).
Infrastructure
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 any number of these structures could become damaged during a tornado. The impacts to these structures include broken, failed, or impassable roadways, broken or failed utility lines (e.g., loss of power or gas to the community), and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable, causing risk to traffic.
GIS Tornado Analysis
2008 Tornado Analysis For the 2008 MHMP, we modeled an F3 tornado along a historical F3 tornado path that ran for eighteen miles through Bargersville and Whiteland/New Whiteland area in 1986. The analysis estimated that 734 buildings would be damaged with losses totaling $27 million. There were three essential facilities located within the tornado path.
The following analysis completed for the 2015 update plan update utilizes an example scenario to gauge the anticipated impacts of tornadoes 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 F3 tornado. The analysis used a hypothetical tornado path that runs for 42.27 miles through Bargersville and New Whiteland communities. The selected widths were modeled after a recreation of the Fujita-Scale guidelines based
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 40
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 5-6 depicts tornado damage curves as well as path widths.
Table 5-6: Tornado Path Widths and Damage Curves
Fujita Scale Path Width (feet) Maximum Expected Damage F-5 3000 100% F-4 2400 100% F-3 1800 80% F-2 1200 50% F-1 600 10% F-0 300 0%
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 tornado path.
Figure 5-6 and Table 5-7 describe the zone analysis.
Figure 5-6: GIS Analysis Using Tornado Buffers
Once the hypothetical route is digitized on a map, several buffers are created to model the damage functions within each zone.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 41
An F3 tornado has three damage zones. Total devastation is likely to occur within 150 feet of the tornado path (the darker-colored Zone 1). The outer buffer is 600 feet from the tornado path (the lightest colored Zone 3), within buildings will be damaged by approximately 50%.
Table 5-7: Tornado Zones and Damage Curves
Fujita Scale Zone Buffer (feet) Damage Curve F3 3 300-600 50% F3 2 150-300 80% F3 1 0-150 100%
The hypothetical tornado path is depicted in Figure 16 and the damage curve buffers are in Figures 5-7 and 5-8.
Figure 5-7: Hypothetical F3 Tornado Path in Johnson County
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 42
Figure 5-8: Modeled F3 Tornado Damage Buffers in Johnson County
The GIS analysis estimates that 728 buildings will be damaged. The estimated building losses were $32.6 million. The building losses are an estimate of building replacement costs multiplied by the percentages of damage. The overlay was performed against parcels that were joined with Assessor records showing property replacement value.
The Assessor records often do not distinguish parcels by occupancy class if the parcels are not taxable. For purposes of analysis, the total number of buildings and the building replacement costs for government, religious/non-profit, and education may be underestimated.
The results of the analysis are depicted in Tables 5-8 and 5-9.
Table 5-8: Estimated Number of Buildings Damaged by Occupancy Type
Occupancy Damaged Buildings
Agricultural 26
Commercial 15
Industrial 6
Residential 681 Total 728
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 43
Table 5-9: Estimated Building Losses by Occupancy Type
Occupancy Building Losses
Agricultural $2,467,347
Commercial $988,381
Industrial $203,115
Residential $28,961,029 Total $32,619,872
Essential Facilities Damage
There are three essential facilities located within 600 feet of the hypothetical tornado path. The model predicts that two Fire Stations and one Police Station would experience damage. The affected facilities are identified in in Table 5-10, and their geographic locations are shown in Figure 5-9.
Table 5-10: Estimated Essential Facilities Affected
Name
New Whiteland Fire Department
New Whiteland Fire Station
Police Department
Figure 5-9: Modeled F3 Tornado Damage Buffers in Johnson County
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 44
Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Tornado Hazard
Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all buildings and infrastructure in Johnson 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 vulnerable to damages.
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 can be classified as one of two types: Flash floods or riverine floods. Both types of floods are common in Indiana.
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 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 safe 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.
Recent Occurrences of Flooding
The NCDC database reported 13 flood events in Johnson County since 2008. Most of the damage was caused by major flooding in June 2008. The following table (Table 5-11) lists the NCDC flood reports from 2008 to 2013, but these were preliminary damage estimates and do not account for the total property or crop damages incurred.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 45
Table 5-11: Johnson County NCDC-Reported Flood Events (2008-2013)
Property Crop Location Date Type Death Injury Damage Damage AMITY 1/8/2008 Flood 0 0 5000 0 EDINBURGH 1/9/2008 Flood 0 0 5000 0 AMITY 2/6/2008 Flood 0 0 5000 0 EDINBURGH 2/6/2008 Flood 0 0 5000 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 3/4/2008 Flood 0 0 0 0 ROCKLANE 3/18/2008 Flood 0 0 20,000 0 EDINBURGH 3/19/2008 Flood 0 0 5000 0 FRANKLIN 6/12/2010 Flood 0 0 500 0 JOHNSON CO. 6/20/2011 Flood 0 0 1000 1000 FRANKLIN 3/23/2012 Flood 0 0 750 0 FRANKLIN 3/30/2012 Flood 0 0 500 0 FRANKLIN 3/30/2012 Flood 0 0 500 0 JOHNSON CO. 9/19/2013 Flood 0 0 500 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.
Flash floods, brief heavy flows in small streams of normally dry creek beds, also occur within the county. Flash flooding is typically characterized by high-velocity water, often carrying large amounts of debris. Urban flooding involves the overflow of storm drain systems and is typically the result of inadequate drainage following heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt.
In Johnson County, the city of Franklin has the greatest overall risk for flooding with 45% of in the Special Flood Hazard Area, and 246 structures in the 1%-annual-chance flood risk area (AKA 100-year floodplain) including 205 residences.
The primary sources of river flooding in Johnson County are the White River, Blue River, Youngs Creek, and Sugar Creek. Honey Creek occasionally floods over its banks as well. Youngs Creek and Hurricane Creek run through Franklin and carry the potential of flooding over 381 buildings including over 300 residences and several commercial buildings.
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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 46
Risk Identification for Flooding
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 Johnson County is high.
Vulnerability Analysis
2008 Flood Analysis For the 2008 MHMP, we completed a Hazus-MH analysis of the 100-year flood. The analysis estimated that 1,503 buildings would be damaged with losses totaling $45 million. There were six essential facilities located within the 100-year flood boundary. Better data collected for the 2015 plan update resulted in a more accurate estimation of damage, which is described in the following section.
For the 2015 MHMP Update, we used Hazus-MH to generate the flood depth grid for a 100-year return period and make calculations by clipping the IGS 1/3 ArcSecond DEM to the DFIRM boundary. Next, Hazus- MH utilized a user-defined analysis of Johnson County with site-specific parcel data provided by the county through the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and downloaded from IndianaMap.
Hazus-MH estimates the 1%-annual-chance flood (AKA 100-year flood) would damage 540 buildings at a replacement cost of $15,853,480. The city of Franklin sustained the most damage with 246 buildings damaged at a replacement cost of $8,835,257. The total estimated numbers and cost of damaged buildings by community are given in Tables 5-12 and 5-13. Figure 5-10 depicts the Johnson County parcel points that fall within the 1%-annual-chance flood risk area (AKA 100-year floodplain). Figures 5-11 through 5-18 highlight damaged buildings within the floodplain areas in each flood-prone jurisdiction.
Table 5-12: Number of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy
Total Building Occupancy Class Community Buildings Damaged Agriculture Commercial Educ Govt Industrial Religious Residential Edinburgh 48 1 4 0 0 1 0 42 New 34 0 0 0 1 0 0 33 Whiteland Prince’s 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Lakes Whiteland 21 1 1 0 0 2 1 16 Franklin 246 1 31 1 0 7 1 205 Greenwood 186 0 9 0 0 1 3 172 Bargersville 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 540 3 45 1 1 11 5 473
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 47
Table 5-13: Cost of Buildings Damaged by Community and Occupancy
Building Occupancy Class Total Community Commerci Religiou Losses ($) Agriculture Educ Govt Industrial Residential al s Edinburgh 1,773,869 12,000 30,000 0 0 910,000 0 822,000 New 891,118 0 0 0 1,122 0 0 890,000 Whiteland Prince’s 163,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,000 Lakes Whiteland 912,000 39,000 23,000 0 0 269,000 52,000 530,399 Franklin 8,835,257 65,000 1,305,990 13,300 0 645,376 254,517 6,614,006
Greenwood 3,201,236 0 444,747 0 0 31,000 355,499 2,370,114
Bargersville 77,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 77,000
Total 15,853,480 116,000 1,803,737 13,300 1,122 1,855,376 662,016 11,466,519
Figure 5-10: Johnson County Buildings in Floodplain (1% Annual Chance)
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 48
Figure 5-11: Johnson County Unincorporated Flood Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
Figure 5-12: Johnson County Edinburgh Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 49
Figure 5-13: Johnson County New Whiteland Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
Figure 5-14: Johnson County Prince’s Lakes Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 50
Figure 5-15: Johnson County Whiteland Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
Figure 5-16: Johnson County Franklin Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 51
Figure 5-17: Johnson County Greenwood Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
Figure 5-18: Johnson County Bargersville Flood-Prone Areas (1% Annual Chance)
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 52
Hazus-MH Overlay Analysis of Essential Facilities
An essential 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 fire station will no longer be able to serve the community).
The results of the overlay analysis indicate that four essential facilities in Johnson County could sustain damage. Two Fire Stations, including one in Greenwood are within the 1% flood probability area. In addition, one School in Greenwood and one Care facility in Franklin are within the flood area.
Figure 5-19: Boundary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Overlaid with Franklin Essential Facilities
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 53
Hazus-MH 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).
The results of the overlay analysis, shown in Figures 5-20 through 5-23, indicate that 18 critical facilities and 152 highway bridges in Johnson County could sustain damage: four dams; three hazardous material sites; six communication facilities; two airports; two wastewater facilities (New Whiteland and Unincorporated area); and one of potable water facilities (Unincorporated).
Figure 5-20: Boundary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Overlaid with Prince’s Lakes Critical Facilities
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 54
Figure 5-21: Boundary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Overlaid with New Whiteland Critical Facilities
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 55
Figure 5-22: Boundary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Overlaid with Franklin Critical Facilities
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 56
Figure 5-23: Boundary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Overlaid within Johnson County Unincorporated area Critical Facilities
NFIP Analysis
FEMA provides annual funding through the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) to reduce the risk of 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), which 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.
Johnson County has 15 unmitigated repetitive loss properties (Table 5-14); 4 in the unincorporated area of the county, 3 in the City of Franklin, 3 in the City of Greenwood, and 4 in the Town of Edinburgh.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 57
Table 5-14 documents the Johnson County NFIP claims data as of December 31, 2013.
Table 5-14: NFIP Claims Data
Number % of Number Value of Repetitive Number Insurance Community Community of Insurance Losses in Repetitive Claims/ in SFHA Policies Claims/Pymts Dollars Losses Losses Johnson County 11.86% 340 $2,971,121 114 $284,627 5 (Unincorporated) Franklin 14.01% 180 $6,344,717 151 $108,548 3 Greenwood 7.50% 131 $814,992 49 $216,434 3 Edinburgh 20.99% 0 $1,183,432 44 $214,427 4 Whiteland 11.07% 17 $4,457 1 $0 0 Trafalgar 0.00% 0 $0 0 $0 0 Bargersville 0.00% 4 $0 0 $0 0 New Whiteland 4.62% 12 $5,316 2 $0 0 Prince’s Lakes 13.76% 8 $139,756 3 $0 0
Table 5-15 provides a comparison of number of buildings in the 1% flood probability boundary to the number of policies, and then provides a percent of insured structures represented by those policies. The last column in the table provides an estimate of the exposure that is insured.
Table 5-15: Comparison of Building Exposure to Insured Buildings
Approximate Buildings in Exposure of Number Percent of Insured Value Percent of Community 100-yr Buildings in of Exposure of Policies Buildings Floodplain Floodplain Policies Insured Insured Johnson County 806 $159,232,498 340 $73,963,500 42.18% 46.45% (Unincorporated) Franklin 381 $74,803,050 180 $28,681,500 47.24% 38.34% Greenwood 401 $89,189,103 131 $25,186,700 32.67% 28.24% Edinburgh 184 $23,846,406 0 $0 0.00% 0.00% Whiteland 37 $8,232,594 17 $4,065,600 45.95% 49.38% Trafalgar 0 $0 0 $0 0.00% 0.00% Bargersville 0 $1,300,640 4 $1,015,000 0.00% 78.04% New Whiteland 44 $5,827,839 12 $2,213,300 27.27% 37.98% Prince’s Lakes 3 $393,650 8 $1,357,000 100%¹ 100%² ¹Approximate percent of buildings insured is 2.6 times more than 100% ²Approximate percent of exposure insured is 3.4 times more than 100%
The county and incorporated areas do not participate in the NFIP’S Community Rating System (CRS). The 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, meeting the three goals
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 58
of the CRS: 1) reduce flood losses; 2) facilitate accurate insurance rating; and 3) promote the awareness of flood insurance.
Table 5-16 identifies each community and the date each participant joined the NFIP. The effective date is the official date of the latest map revision.
Table 5-16: Additional Information on Communities Participating in the NFIP
Participation Effective Community Date Date Johnson County 10/18/1974 8/2/2007 (Unincorporated) Franklin 12/21/1973 8/2/2007 Greenwood 1/9/1974 8/2/2007 Edinburgh 2/1/1974 8/3/2007 Whiteland 9/20/1974 8/4/2007 Bargersville 11/1/1974 8/6/2007 New Whiteland 1/16/1974 8/7/2007 Prince’s Lakes 5/3/1974 8/8/2007
Buyouts
Johnson County has a total of 138, and 87 of those are within the Franklin community. Figures 5-24 and 5-25, map the buyouts in Johnson County and the Franklin community.
Figure 5-24: Buyouts in Johnson County
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 59
Figure 5-25: Buyouts in Franklin
Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Flooding
The Johnson County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) outlines various mitigation strategies concerning future development in Johnson County. These strategies include establishment of ordinances and policies, which take into account areas which have the potential for flooding and annual repair work on the county’s dams and levees.
5.3.3 Earthquake Hazard
Hazard Definition for 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 crust collide, move away from, and slide past each other. This movement is extremely slow. However, when sections of the plates are locked together, stored energy is accumulated. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the portions of the plate break free, causing the earthquake.
Ninety-five percent of earthquakes occur at the plate boundaries; however, some earthquakes occur in 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 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
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 60
earthquakes in its geologic history, and there may be other currently unidentified faults that could produce strong earthquakes. Figure 5-26 depicts Indiana’s historical earthquake epicenters.
Ground shaking from strong earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and 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 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 5-26: Indiana Historical Earthquake Epicenters26
26 Indiana Geological Survey
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 61
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects that used in the United States to evaluate the intensity of earthquakes. Table 5-17 describes the 12 increasing levels of the scale. Table 5-18 shows how the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale compares to earthquake magnitude.
Table 5-17: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Modified Mercalli Description Intensity I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.
II 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. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects V overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. VI Damage slight. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built 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. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with X 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 5-18: Earthquake Magnitude vs. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Earthquake Magnitude Typical Maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity 1.0 - 3.0 I 3.0 - 3.9 II - III 4.0 - 4.9 IV - V 5.0 - 5.9 VI - VII 6.0 - 6.9 VII - IX 7.0 and higher VIII or higher
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 62
Previous Occurrences for Earthquake Hazard
At least 43 earthquakes, M3.0 or greater, have occurred in Indiana since 1817. The last such event was a M3.1 centered just north of Vincennes on May 10, 2010. A 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 county wide. One of the most critical sources of information that is required for accurate assessment of earthquake risk is soils data. Soils along rivers and other bodies of water have 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 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
Based on historical information, the probability of an earthquake is minimal to moderate, and the potential impact of an earthquake is significant; therefore the overall risk of an earthquake in Johnson County is moderate.
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.
Facilities
All essential and critical facilities are vulnerable to earthquakes. These facilities 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 are in Appendix C.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 63
Building Inventory
Impacts similar to those discussed for critical facilities can be expected for the buildings within the county. 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).
Infrastructure
During an earthquake, the types of infrastructure that could be impacted include roadways, runways, utility lines/pipes, railroads, bridges, dams, and levees. 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 impassable roadways and runways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g., loss of power or gas to the community); and railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges also could fail or become impassable, causing traffic risks. 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
2008 Earthquake Analysis For the 2008 MHMP, we completed a Hazus-MH analysis of several earthquake scenarios including a 5.5 magnitude, 7.1 magnitude, as well as a 500-year return period event and annualized earthquake loss. Recent research revealed that the most realistic scenarios are a 7.1 and/or 6.8 magnitude in addition to the 500-year return period. Similar to the flood and tornado models, the 2015 analyses revealed more accurate building damages and losses because the quality and completion of data collected was significantly better than in 2008.
The Polis Center reviewed existing geological information and recommendations for earthquake scenarios and ran four modeling scenarios—two deterministic, one probabilistic, and an annualized loss.
The deterministic scenarios included a 7.7-magnitude epicenter along the New Madrid fault zone and a 6.8-magnitude epicenter in Mount Carmel, Illinois.
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 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil classification map exists for Indiana. NEHRP soil classifications portray the degree of shear-wave amplification that can occur during ground shaking. The Indiana State Geological Survey supplied the soils map used for the analysis. FEMA provided a map for liquefaction potential that was used by Hazus-MH.
An earthquake depth of 10.0 kilometers was selected based on input from the Indiana Geological Survey. 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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 64
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 strategies.
Results for 7.7 Magnitude- New Madrid, Kentucky Earthquake Scenario
Hazus estimates that the damages incurred from the 7.7 magnitude New Madrid earthquake scenario would be county-wide in scope.
Building Damages
Hazus estimates that 7 buildings in Johnson County would be at least moderately damaged. This is less than 1% of the buildings in the county. An estimated 0 buildings would be damaged beyond repair. Table 5-19 lists the numbers and occupancy types of buildings that would be damaged. Table 5-20 on the following page lists the direct economic losses due to building damage, which consist of income loss and capital stock loss. Figure 5-27 maps the building losses in thousands of dollars.
Table 5-19: New Madrid Scenario - Building Damage by Occupancy27
27 Hazus summary reports round all numbers to the nearest display digit; therefore, the total may not exactly match the sum of all numbers that make up the total.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 65
Table 5-20: New Madrid Scenario - Building Losses in Millions of Dollars
Figure 5-27: New Madrid Scenario - Building Losses in Thousands of Dollars
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 66
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the county had an estimated 3,300 medical care facility beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that 3,070 beds (93%) would be available for use by patients already in these facilities along with those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 97% of the beds would likely be back in service. By 30 days, 100% would likely be operational.
Table 5-21: New Madrid Scenario - Essential Facility Damage
Results for 6.8 Magnitude - Mt. Carmel, Illinois Earthquake Scenario
The extent of the damages from a 6.8 Magnitude at Mt. Carmel, Illinois epicenter would encompass all areas of Johnson County.
Building Damages
Hazus estimates that about 110 buildings in Johnson County would be at least moderately damaged. This is less than 0.002% of the total buildings in the county. An estimated 0 buildings would be damaged beyond repair. Table 5-22 on the following page lists the numbers and occupancy types of buildings that would be damaged, Table 5-23 lists the direct economic losses due to building damage, which consist of income loss, and capital stock loss, and Figure 5-28 maps the building losses in thousands of dollars.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 67
Table 5-22: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Building Damage by Occupancy
Table 5-23: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Building Losses in Millions of Dollars
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 68
Figure 5-28: Mt. Carmel Illinois Scenario - Building Losses in Thousands of Dollars
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the county would have an estimated 3,300 medical care facility beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that 2,599 beds (79%) would be available for use by patients already in these facilities along with those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 88% of the beds would likely be back in service. By 30 days, 97% would likely be operational.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 69
Table 5-24: Mt. Carmel Scenario - Essential Facility Damage
Results for Probabilistic 500-Year Earthquake Scenario
The results of the initial analysis, the probabilistic 500-year are depicted in Tables 5-25 and 5-26 and Figure 5-29. Hazus-MH estimates that approximately 36 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 0% of the total number of buildings in the region. It is estimated that 0 buildings will be damaged beyond repair.
The aggregate building related losses totaled $8.33 million; 10% 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 more than 68% of the total loss.
Table 5-25: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Damage Counts by Building Occupancy
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 70
Table 5-26: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses in Millions of Dollars
Figure 5-29: Probabilistic 500-Year Scenario-Building Losses in Thousands of Dollars
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 71
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 3,300 care facility beds available for uses. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that 2,841 care facility beds (86%) are available for use by patients already in medical care facilities and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 93% of the beds will be back in service. By day 30, 99% will be operational.
Table 5-27: Probabilistic 500-Year Essential Facility Damage
Annualized Loss Earthquake Scenario
The annualized loss earthquake scenario produced negligible losses.
Future Development Trends and Vulnerability to Future Assets/Infrastructure for Earthquake Hazard
Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all buildings and infrastructure in Johnson 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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 72
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, 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.
Lightning
Lightning is a discharge of atmospheric electricity from a thunderstorm. It can travel at speed up to 140,000 mph and reach temperatures approaching 54,000 degrees. Lightning often is perceived as a minor hazard; in reality, lightning causes damage to many structures and kills, or severely injures, numerous people in the United States. It is estimated that there are 16 million lightning storms worldwide every year.
Severe Winds (Straight-Line Winds)
Straight-line winds from thunderstorms are a fairly common occurrence across Indiana. Straight-line winds can cause damage to homes, businesses, power lines, and agricultural areas, and may require temporary sheltering of individuals who are without power for extended periods of time.
Recent Occurrences of Thunderstorms
The NCDC database reported 20 hailstorms and 97 severe storms since 2008, as shown in Table 5-27. One of the most significant storm events occurred on June 26, 2008 causing three deaths and 2 injuries when a severe thunderstorm hit Greenwood. There have been several other key storm events in the past five years that have been described in the NCDC data and in local news media reports.
Table 5-28: Johnson County Thunderstorm Events Reported to NCDC (2008-2013)
Property Crop Date Type Magnitude Death Injury Location Damage Damage
FRANCES 5/30/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 50 0 0 2000 0
FRANKLIN 6/6/2008 Heavy Rain 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 6/6/2008 Heavy Rain 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 6/6/2008 Heavy Rain 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 6/6/2008 Heavy Rain 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 6/6/2008 Hail 1 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 6/6/2008 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
WHITELAND 6/7/2008 Lightning 0 0 10000 0
GREENWOOD 6/13/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 60 0 0 4000 0
GREENWOOD 6/26/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 52 3 2 10000 0
FRANKLIN 6/26/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 50 0 0 1000 0
BARGERSVILLE 7/20/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 65 0 0 6000 0 GREENWOOD
SKYWAY ARP 7/20/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 60 0 0 0 0
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 73
Property Crop Date Type Magnitude Death Injury Location Damage Damage
FRANKLIN 7/20/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 60 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 7/20/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 2000 0
FRANKLIN 7/20/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 55 0 0 2000 0
FRANKLIN 7/22/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 55 0 0 13000 0
BARGERSVILLE 7/22/2008 Thunderstorm Wind 50 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON
(ZONE) 9/14/2008 High Wind 55 0 0 0 0
TRAFALGAR 9/20/2008 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 4/13/2009 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
WHITELAND 5/13/2009 Lightning 0 0 40000 0
GREENWOOD 7/25/2009 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 7000 0 EDINBURGH 4/5/2010 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 4/5/2010 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 4/5/2010 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 4/5/2010 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 5/27/2010 Heavy Rain 0 0 0 0
MT PLEASANT 6/12/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 1000 0
FRANKLIN 6/15/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 1000 0
NINEVEH 6/15/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 1000 0
FRANKLIN 6/15/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 1000 0
WHITELAND 6/15/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 1000 0 EDINBURGH 6/15/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 6/18/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 500 0
GREENWOOD 10/13/2010 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
WHITELAND 10/26/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 65 0 0 12000 0
GREENWOOD 10/26/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 1000 0
BARGERSVILLE 10/26/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 1000 0
BARGERSVILLE 10/26/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 1000 0 GREENWOOD
SKYWAY ARP 10/26/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 1000 0 EDINBURGH 4/28/2011 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 5/22/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 5/23/2011 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 3000 0
FRANCES 5/25/2011 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 5000 0 EDINBURGH 5/25/2011 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 0 0 NEW
WHITELAND 5/25/2011 Hail 2.75 0 0 0 0 GREENWOOD
SKYWAY ARP 5/25/2011 Hail 2 0 0 0 0 GREENWOOD
SKYWAY ARP 5/25/2011 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 5/25/2011 Hail 1.5 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 5/25/2011 Hail 1.25 0 0 0 0
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 74
Property Crop Date Type Magnitude Death Injury Location Damage Damage NEW
WHITELAND 5/25/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 5/25/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
BARGERSVILLE 5/25/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 5/25/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0 NEW
WHITELAND 5/25/2011 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0 NEW
WHITELAND 5/25/2011 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/10/2011 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/10/2011 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/20/2011 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/20/2011 Hail 1.5 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/20/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
JOHNSON CO. 6/20/2011 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
SMITH VALLEY 1/17/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 4000 0
FRANKLIN 3/2/2012 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 3/30/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 43 0 0 100 0
GREENWOOD 3/30/2012 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 3/30/2012 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
SMITH VALLEY 5/1/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 51 0 0 0 0
SMITH VALLEY 7/1/2012 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0
WHITELAND 7/7/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 25000 0 EDINBURGH 7/31/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 10000 0
AMITY 7/31/2012 Hail 1 0 0 0 0 EDINBURGH 7/31/2012 Hail 1 0 0 0 0 PRINCE’S
LAKES 7/31/2012 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 8/8/2012 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 8/8/2012 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 8/8/2012 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
GREENWOOD 8/8/2012 Hail 0.88 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON
(ZONE) 12/20/2012 High Wind 52 0 0 0 0
SMITH VALLEY 1/13/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 4000 0
GREENWOOD 1/13/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 750 0
AMITY 1/30/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 10000 0
FRANKLIN 4/17/2013 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 4/17/2013 Hail 1.75 0 0 0 0
SAMARIA 4/17/2013 Hail 1.5 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 4/17/2013 Hail 1.5 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 4/17/2013 Hail 1 0 0 0 0
FRANKLIN 4/17/2013 Hail 0.75 0 0 0 0
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 75
Property Crop Date Type Magnitude Death Injury Location Damage Damage
GREENWOOD 7/20/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 4000 0
FRANKLIN 10/31/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 56 0 0 10000 0
FRANKLIN 10/31/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 500 0 EDINBURGH 10/31/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 3500 0
FRANKLIN 2/20/2014 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 1000 0 EDINBURGH 5/13/2014 Thunderstorm Wind 65 0 0 75000 0 GREENWOOD
SKYWAY ARP 5/21/2014 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 7000 0
ROCKLANE 5/21/2014 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 1000 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by 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 a given weather event.
Geographic Location for Thunderstorm Hazard
The entire county has the same risk for occurrence of thunderstorms. They can occur at any location within the county.
Hazard Extent for Thunderstorm Hazard
The extent of the historical thunderstorms varies in terms of the extent of the storm, the wind speed, and the size of hail stones. Thunderstorms can occur at any location within the county.
Risk Identification for Thunderstorm Hazard
Based on historical information, the probability of severe thunderstorm is high, and the potential impact is significant; therefore the overall risk of a severe thunderstorm in Johnson County is high.
Vulnerability Analysis for Thunderstorm Hazard
Severe thunderstorms are an equally distributed threat across the entire jurisdiction; therefore the entire county’s population and all buildings are vulnerable to a severe thunderstorm, and the same impacts can be expected within the affected area. This plan will therefore consider all buildings within the county as vulnerable.
Facilities
All facilities are vulnerable to severe thunderstorms. An essential or critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, fires caused by lightning, and loss of building functionality (e.g., a damaged police station will no longer be able to serve the community). Names and locations of critical and essential facilities are in Appendix C.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 76
Building Inventory
Impacts similar to those discussed for critical facilities can be expected for the buildings within the county. These impacts include structural failure, damaging debris (trees or limbs), roofs blown off or windows broken by hail or high winds, fires caused by lightning, and loss of building functionality (e.g., a damaged home will no longer be habitable, causing residents to seek shelter).
Infrastructure
During a severe thunderstorm, 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 any number of these structures could become damaged during a severe thunderstorm. The impacts to these structures include broken, failed, or impassable roadways; broken or failed utility lines (e.g., loss of power or gas to the community); or railway failure from broken or impassable railways. Bridges could fail or become impassable, causing risk to traffic. Additionally, aerial navigations aids in Johnson 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 Thunderstorm Hazard
Due to the unpredictability of this hazard, all new buildings and infrastructure in Johnson County are at risk of damage including temporary or permanent loss of function. For hailstorms, thunderstorms, and windstorms, it is not possible to isolate specific essential or non-essential facilities that would be more or less vulnerable to damages. However, based on the information obtained from the assessment in the 2008 plan regarding previous events of this nature, future storms are likely to cause monetary damages to structures. NCDC data for the past ten years reports property damage in excess of $1.3 million, or an average of $130,000 property damage per year. It should also be noted that property owners often do not report damages caused by the events recorded by the NCDC. Therefore, damages to property should be expected to be significantly higher than the stated range.
5.3.5 Winter Storm Hazard
Severe winter weather consists of various forms of precipitation and strong weather conditions. This may include one or more of the following: freezing rain, sleet, heavy snow, blizzards, icy roadways, extreme low temperatures, and strong winds. These conditions can cause human-health risks such as frostbite, hypothermia, and death.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 77
Ice (Glazing) and Sleet Storms
Ice or sleet, even in the smallest quantities, can result in hazardous driving conditions and can be a significant cause of property damage. Sleet can be easily identified as frozen raindrops. Sleet does not stick to trees and wires. The most damaging winter storms in Indiana have been ice storms. Ice storms are the result of cold rain that freezes on contact with objects having a temperature below freezing. Ice storms occur when moisture-laden gulf air converges with the northern jet stream, causing strong winds and heavy precipitation. This precipitation takes the form of freezing rain, coating power lines, communication lines, and trees with heavy ice. The winds then will cause the overburdened limbs and cables to snap, leaving large sectors of the population without power, heat, or communication. Falling trees and limbs also can cause building damage during an ice storm. In the past few decades, numerous ice-storm events have occurred in Indiana.
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 cannot only cause power outages and loss of communication but 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.
Recent Occurrences of Winter Storms
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 5-28 lists the winter storm events reported to NCDC between 2008 and early 2014.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 78
Table 5-29: Johnson County Winter Storm Events Reported to NCDC (2008-2014)
Property Crop Location Date Type Death Injury Damage Damage JOHNSON (ZONE) 1/26/2009 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 1/26/2009 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 1/26/2009 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 2/5/2010 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 2/15/2010 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 2/1/2011 Ice Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 2/1/2011 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 12/26/2012 Blizzard 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 12/5/2013 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 1/5/2014 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 JOHNSON (ZONE) 2/4/2014 Winter Storm 0 0 0 0 * NCDC records are estimates of damage compiled by 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 a given weather event.
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.
Risk Identification for Winter-Storm Hazard
Based on historical information, the probability of a winter storm is medium to high, and the potential impact may be moderate; therefore the overall risk of a winter storm in Johnson County is fairly 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. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as other buildings within the jurisdiction. These impacts include loss of gas or electricity from broken or
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 79
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 are in Appendix C.
Building Inventory
The impacts to the general buildings within the county are similar to the damages expected to the critical 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 impassable roads, runways and railways, and broken water pipes. Additionally, aerial navigations aids in Johnson 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 the 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. Power loss can be mitigated to an extent by developing local ordinances that require utility companies to install all distribution lines below ground.
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. Finally, 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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 80
Previous Occurrences of Hazardous Materials Release
Johnson County has experienced two large hazardous materials events in the last ten years. Nearly 5000 gallons of flammable liquids was spilled from a Speedway tanker delivery truck on County line road and Madison Avenue. The second incident was in 2003 at the Franklin Company, Electro-Spec Inc., which had a major fire with hazardous materials run off from the water during firefighting activities.
Geographic Location for Hazardous Materials Release
Johnson County has a high volume of traffic on interstate 65 running through Greenwood and Franklin. The Louisville-Indiana Railroad runs through Greenwood, Whiteland, New Whiteland, Franklin, and Edinburgh. The Indiana Railroad runs through the Town of Bargersville. According to the Commodity Flow Study, the majority of hazardous materials traveling through the county are on Interstate 65. However, other roadways with hazardous materials are mainly used for local consumption. The average hazardous materials truck count was 2% of total truck county and 80% of flammable liquids. The table below shows the hazardous materials movement within the county.
Table 5-30: Hazardous Materials Movements
IN-DOT Truck Count Johnson National National Avg. Johnson County Avg. Roadway Daily Count Avg. Total Flammable County Flammable (8%) Liquids (80%) Avg. (2%) Liquids (80%) I-65 2,858 228.64 182.912 57.16 45.728 US 31 1,570 125.6 100.48 31.4 25.12 SR 37 4,673 373.84 299.072 93.46 74.768 SR 44 335 26.8 21.44 6.7 5.36 SR 135 2,294 183.52 146.816 45.88 36.704 SR 144 203 16.24 12.992 4.06 3.248 SR 252 251 20.08 16.064 5.02 4.016
The amount of truck traffic on US-37 is higher than that of I-65 and SR-135. This is due to the location of three refinery tank farms and distribution centers in the southwestern part of the state. There are ten fueling stations located on SR-135 throughout the county, and in Johnson County as a whole, there are fifty-four fueling stations. The other commodity which accounts to 5% of hazardous materials being transported in Johnson County is Cryo-gas, also known as Carbon Dioxide.
There is no record of hazardous materials being transported by railways through Johnson County.
Hazard Extent for Hazardous Materials Release
The extent of the hazardous material (referred to as hazmat) release hazard varies in terms of the quantity of material being transported as well as the specific content of the container.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 81
Risk Identification for Hazardous Materials Release
Based on historical information, the probability of a hazmat release is medium to high, and the potential impact is significant; therefore the overall risk of a hazmat release in Johnson County is high.
Vulnerability Analysis for Hazardous Materials Release
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 and communities within the county are at risk. A critical facility will encounter many of the same impacts as any other building within the jurisdiction. These impacts include 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 are in Appendix C.
Building Inventory
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.
GIS Hazardous Materials Release Analysis
The U.S. EPA’s ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) model was utilized to assess the area of impact for an ammonia release on I-65 in Whiteland.
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.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 82
ALOHA is a computer program designed especially for use by people responding to chemical accidents, as 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 west 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 5-30.
Figure 5-30: Location of Chemical Release
The ALOHA atmospheric modeling parameters, depicted in Figure 5-31, were based upon a southwest wind speed of 11 MPH. The temperature was 80°F with 70% humidity and partly cloudy skies.
The source of the chemical spill is a cylindrical-shaped tank. The diameter of the tank was set to 8 feet and the length set to 33 feet (12,408 gallons). At the time of its release, it was estimated that the tank was 100% full. The Chlorine in this tank is in its liquid state. This release was based on a leak from a 2.5 foot diameter hole, 12 inches above the bottom of the tank.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 83
Figure 5-31: ALOHA Plume Modeling Parameters
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 84
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) are intended to describe the health effects on humans as a result of once-in-a-lifetime or rare exposure to airborne chemicals. The National Advisory Committee for AEGLs is developing these guidelines to help national and local authorities, as well as private companies, deal with emergencies involving spills or other catastrophic exposures. 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). The image in Figure 5-32 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA in ArcGIS.
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. The red buffer (>= 20 ppm) extends no more than 4.8 miles from the point of release after one hour. 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. The orange buffer (>= 2 ppm) extends no more than six miles from the point of release after one hour. 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. The yellow buffer (>= 0.5 ppm) extends more than six miles from the point of release after one hour.
According to the ALOHA parameters, approximately 145,225 pounds of material would be released per minute.
Figure 5-32: Plume Footprint Generated by ALOHA
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 85
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 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 (>=20 ppm) extends no more than 4.8 miles from the point of release after one hour.
Zone 2 (AEGL-2): The orange buffer (>=2 ppm) extends no more than six miles from the point of release after one hour.
Zone 3 (AEGL-1): The yellow buffer (>=0.5 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 will be contained. The ALOHA model is 95% confident that the release will stay within this boundary.
The image in Figure 5-33 depicts the plume footprint generated by ALOHA.
Figure 5-33: ALOHA Plume Footprint Overlaid in ArcGIS
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 86
The Johnson County Building Inventory was added to ArcMap and overlaid with the plume footprint. The Building Inventory was then intersected with each of the four footprint areas to classify each point based upon the plume footprint in which it is located. Figure 5-34 depicts the Johnson County Building Inventory after the intersect process.
Figure 5-34: Johnson County Building Inventory Classified By Plume Footprint
Results
By summing the building inventory within all AEGL zones (Zone 1: 0.5 ppm, Zone 2: 2 ppm, and Zone 3: 20 ppm); the GIS overlay analysis predicts that as many as 2,692 buildings and 5,655 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 the following tables. Table 5-30 summarizes the results of the chemical spill by combining all AEGL zones.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 87
Table 5-31: Estimated Exposure for all Zones including Confidence Area (all ppm)
Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 430 128 22,686,590 Commercial NA 1 99,020 Industrial NA 0 0 Agriculture NA 40 8,596,926 Religious NA 3 1,759,100 Government NA 0 0 Education NA 0 0 Total 430 172 33,141,636
Tables 5-31 through 5-33 summarize the results of the chemical spill for each zone separately. Values represent only those portions of each zone that are not occupied by other zones.
Table 5-32: Estimated Exposure for Zone 3 (1100 ppm)
Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 20 5 849,282 Commercial NA 0 0 Industrial NA 0 0 Agriculture NA 3 213,780 Religious NA 0 0 Government NA 0 0 Education NA 0 0 Total 20 8 1,063,062
Table 5-33: Estimated Exposure for Zone 2 (160 ppm)
Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 83 24 2,435,098 Commercial NA 0 0 Industrial NA 0 0 Agriculture NA 9 2,435,098 Religious NA 0 0 Government NA 0 0 Education NA 0 0 Total 83 33 7,588,717
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 88
Table 5-34: Estimated Exposure for Zone 1 (30 ppm)
Occupancy Population Building Counts Building Exposure Residential 328 99 16,683,689 Commercial NA 1 99,020 Industrial NA 0 0 Agriculture NA 28 5,948,048 Religious NA 3 1,759,100 Government NA 0 0 Education NA 0 0 Total 328 131 24,489,857
Essential Facilities Exposure
There are no essential facilities within the limits of the chemical spill plume.
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 Johnson County are at risk of damage including temporary or permanent loss of function.
5.3. 7 Dam/Levee Failure Hazard
Dams are structures that retain or detain water behind a large barrier. When full, or partially full, the 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 land-ward 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, 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 in the land previously protected by that levee.
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
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 89
maintenance to assure their integrity. Many structures across the U.S. 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.
Previous Occurrences for Dam and Levee Failure
The 2008 flooding and excessive rainfall caused a breach in the Princes Lake Dam. In addition, heavy rainfall in 2001 resulted in the Center Grove Lake Dam leak, which made it necessary to lower the water level to a point that stabilized the structure.
Geographic Location for Dam and Levee Failure
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the Johnson County planning team identified 45 dams in Johnson County. Table 5-34 summarizes the dam information.
Table 5-35: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Dam Inventory
Dam Name Hazard Level EAP ROGER YOUNG LAKE DAM HIGH NO LOWER PEOGA LAKE DAM HIGH NO UPPER PEOGA LAKE DAM HIGH NO HOOD LAKE DAM HIGH NO PRINCE'S EAST LAKE DAM HIGH NO LAMB LAKE DAM HIGH NO PRINCE'S NORTH LAKE DAM HIGH NO WHITE LAKE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT DAM HIGH NO LAMB LAKE ESTATES DAM HIGH YES WATER'S EDGE LAKE DAM HIGH NO PRINCE'S NORTHWEST LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO EARLHAM LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO HANTS LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO JEFF LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO PRINCE'S NORTHEAST LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO BELL LAKE DAM SIGNIFICANT NO FROG POND DAM LOW NO LIGHT LAKE DAM LOW NO FOREST GLEN LAKE DAM LOW NO THOMPSON MILL DAM (IN-CHANNEL) LOW NO FOWLER LAKE DAM WEST LOW NO FOWLER LAKE DAM NORTH LOW NO CAMERON LAKE DAM LOW NO
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 90
Dam Name Hazard Level EAP STONE ARCH LAKE LOW NO LACY & CARESS LAKE DAM EAST LOW NO F.F.A. YOUTH CENTER DAM #1 LOW NO LACY & CARESS LAKE DAM WEST LOW NO MYSTIC LAKE DAM LOW NO PISGAH LAKE DAM LOW NO JOE DEHART LAKE DAM LOW NO NAY LAKE DAM LOW NO TEETERS DAM LOW NO ALLENDALE LAKE DAM LOW NO SAUNDERS LAKE DAM LOW NO WILLOUGHBY DAM NO. 1 (SOUTH) LOW NO PEACE LAKE DAM LOW NO WILLOUGHBY DAM NO. 2 (NORTH) LOW NO MURRAY LAKE DAM LOW NO PROVINCE DAM (Breached) LOW NO KERRINGTON PROPER DAM LOW NO VALLE VISTA (IN-CHANNEL) DAM LOW NO PRINCE'S SOUTH LAKE DAM (NOT BUILT) NO SUGAR CREEK MILL DAM (FURNAS MILL) NO BOTTOM LAKE DAM NO MILLER POND DAM NO
A review of the Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and Indiana Department of Natural Resources’ files identified no certified levees in Johnson County.
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 to cause loss of human life and significant damage to buildings and infrastructure.
According to the IDNR and the National Inventory of Dams, there are ten dams in Johnson County which are classified as high hazard. There is an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) on file for Lamb Lake Estates dam. An EAP is not required by the State of Indiana but is strongly recommended in the 2003 Indiana Dam
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 91
Safety & Inspection Manual. Owners of high-hazard dams are required to have independent inspection by a qualified professional every two years. County coordination with these professionals may help local officials and first responders to better understand the risks to downstream populations.
Accurate mapping of the risks of flooding behind levees depends on knowing the condition and level of protection the levees actually provide. FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working together to make sure that flood hazard maps clearly reflect the flood protection capabilities of levees, and that the maps accurately represent the flood risks posed to areas situated behind them. Levee owners— usually states, communities, or in some cases private individuals or organizations—are responsible for ensuring that the levees they own are maintained according to their design. 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.
Risk Identification for Dam/Levee Failure
Based on historical information, the probability of a dam failure is moderate. The planning team determined that the potential impact of a dam failure is moderate; therefore, the overall risk of a flood hazard for Johnson County is moderate.
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. None of the levees in Johnson County currently meet these standards.
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. The Johnson County Planning Commission reviews new development for compliance with the local zoning ordinance.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 92
5.3.8 Drought Hazard
Hazard Definition for Drought Hazard
Hazard Droughts are climatic phenomena that occur in the state of Indiana and Johnson 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. They differ from normal arid conditions found in low rainfall areas because they are the consequence of a reduction in the amount of precipitation over an undetermined length of time (usually a growing season or more). 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.
Droughts bring several different problems that must be addressed. The quality and quantity of crops, livestock, and other agricultural assets will be affected during a drought. Droughts can adversely impact forested areas leading to an increased potential for extremely destructive forest and woodland fires that could threaten residential, commercial, and recreational structures.
Previous Occurrences of Drought Hazard
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database reported three drought/ heat wave events in Johnson County since 1950; the Johnson County CEMP noted a few other events not recorded by the NCDC. For example, significant lack of rain and prolonged high temperatures in recent years brought about drought conditions in 1988, 1998, and 1999. Johnson County faced crop and agriculture damage as well as outbreaks of wildfires. During the 1999 event, a resident of Johnson County lost his life trying to fight a wildfire by himself prior to the arrival of the fire departments28. NCDC records of droughts are identified from 2010 to 2012 in Table 5-35.
Table 5-36: Johnson County Drought Events
Property Crop Location Date Type Magnitude Deaths Injuries Damage Damage
Johnson 10/1/2010 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 11/1/2010 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 8/30/2011 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 9/1/2011 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 6/12/2012 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 7/1/2012 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 8/1/2012 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 9/1/2012 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 Johnson 10/1/2012 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0
28 Johnson County CEMP
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 93
Geographic Location for Drought
Droughts, as shown in the above table, are regional in nature. Most of the NCDC data is calculated regionally or in some cases statewide.
Hazard Extent of Drought Hazard
Droughts can be widespread or localized events. The extent of the droughts varies both in terms of the extent of the heat and the range of precipitation.
Risk Identification for Drought Hazard
Based on historical information, future droughts in Johnson County are possible. Droughts of varying magnitudes are expected to happen. According to the CPRI, droughts ranked as the number six hazard.
Vulnerability Analysis for Drought Hazard
Drought impacts are an equally-distributed threat across all jurisdictions; therefore, the entire county is vulnerable to a drought and can expect the same impacts within the affected area. Droughts affect 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 drought.
5 Risk Assessment Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 94
Section Mitigation Strategies 6
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. Mitigation actions and projects should be based on a well-constructed risk assessment, provided in Section 5 of this plan. Mitigation should be an ongoing process, adapting over time to accommodate a 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, slightly more than half (325) have been deployed, which means that Risk MAP activities have occurred or are in the process of occurring. Currently, Edinburgh is the only Johnson County community which has deployed the Risk MAP program.
Table 6-1 lists the Indiana communities with the highest CAPI scores (highest possible score is 131). The higher the score, the higher the potential risk the community faces in the event of a disaster. But also, a high score 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 local mitigation plans will be assigned a higher CAPI score.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 95
Table 6-1: Indiana Communities with Highest CAPI Scores
County Name Community Deployed? CAPI Score Marion City of Indianapolis Yes 92.24 Vanderburgh Vanderburgh County No 85.14 Allen City of Fort Wayne No 83.62 Bartholomew City of Columbus Yes 83.20 Hamilton City of Noblesville Yes 79.43
Table 6-2 lists Johnson 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 in Figure 6-2, Johnson County (unincorporated) has the highest CAPI score.
Table 6-2: Johnson County Communities’ CAPI Scores
% Total Individual Community Community Insurance Insurance Repetitive loss Repetitive CAPI Assistance Name within claims $ claims # $ loss # Score $ per Capita SFHA
Johnson 63.82 11.86% $2,971,121 114 $284,626.54 5 $0.00 County ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▼
Franklin ▲ 57.03 ▲ 14.01% ▲ $6,344,717 ▲ 151 ▲ $108,547.92 ▲ 3 ▲ $124.92
Greenwood ▲ 53.60 ▲ 7.50% ▲ $814,992 ▲ 49 ▲ $216,434.33 ▲ 3 ▼ $43.64
Edinburgh ▲ 51.45 ▲ 20.99% ▲ $1,183,432 ▲ 44 ▲ 214,426.59 ▲ 4 ▲ $239.45
Prince’s 34.07 13.76% $139,756 3 $0.00 0 $665.74 Lakes ▲ ▲ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Whiteland ▼ 22.99 ▲ 11.07% ▼ $4,457 ▼ 1 ▼ $0.00 ▼ 0 ▼ $49.11
New 15.14 4.62% $5,316 2 $0.00 0 $6.95 Whiteland ▼ ▲ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Bargersville ▼ 14.25 ▼ 0.00% ▼ $0.00 ▼ 0 ▼ $0.00 ▼ 0 ▼ $45.39
Trafalgar ▼ 13.15 ▼ 0.00% ▼ $0.00 ▼ 0 ▼ $0.00 ▼ 0 ▲ $215.32
KEY:
Better than State Average ●
Worse than State Average ●
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 96
Figure 6-1: CAPI Scores for Johnson County and Jurisdictions
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 97
6.2 Plans and Ordinances
Johnson County and its communities have several ordinances, reports and planning documents, listed in Table 6-3, that are relevant to emergency management and disaster planning.
Table 6-3: Johnson County Plans and Ordinances
Community Ordinance/Plan/Report Year
Johnson County Code of Ordinances, 2014
Johnson County Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, 2011
Franklin Comprehensive Plan, 2013
Franklin Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map 2014
Franklin Storm water Ordinance, 2014
Franklin Youngs Creek Flood Investigation Report, 2014
Greenwood Code of Ordinances, 2014 Storm water and Drainage Sediment Control Greenwood Ordinance, 2014
Bargersville Comprehensive Plan, 2013
Edinburgh Comprehensive Plan, 2011
Edinburgh Storm water Ordinance, 2013
New Whiteland Comprehensive Plan, 1989
New Whiteland Zoning Ordinance, 1989
Prince’s Lakes Code of Ordinances, 2013
Whiteland Code of Ordinances, 2014
Whiteland Flood Prevention and Land Use Ordinances, 2014
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 98
6.3 Mitigation Goals
The MHMP planning team members understand that although hazards cannot be eliminated altogether, Johnson 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 that will withstand natural disasters and offer weather-proofing.
Objective 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.
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.
Objective 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.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 99
Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water 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 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.
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?
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 100
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?
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?
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. The planning team was presented with the task of evaluating the 2008 mitigation strategies and documenting the status of each activity for their jurisdiction. Priorities were also reviewed using the same criteria as the 2008 plan.
Then the team brainstormed a new list of strategies, which in some cases, reiterated 2008 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.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 101
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 6-4. The factors were the STAPLE+E (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental) criteria listed in Table 6-5.
Table 6-4: 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.
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 eight incorporated communities, within and including Johnson 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.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 102
This section includes a comprehensive list of all mitigation strategies from the 2008 plan, as well as new strategies developed for the 2015 update. The progress of each strategy is categorized according to the following symbols and guidelines.
Mitigation action is new, has been identified and prioritized. Funding has not yet been secured.
Mitigation action is pending and in the early phase of implementation. Community has identified source of funding and submitted project proposal. Implementation will begin once funding is secured. Mitigation project is in progress or ongoing. Funding and/or resources are available to complete it.
Mitigation project has been completed.
Table 6-5 on the following pages lists completed strategies followed by mitigation actions which are in progress, pending and new, all 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 years, and low priorities will be implemented within five years.
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) will be the local champion for the mitigation actions. The County Commissioners and the city and town councils will be an integral part of the implementation process. Federal and state assistance will be necessary for a number of the identified actions.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 103 Table 6-5: Mitigation Actions for Johnson County
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) COMPLETED ☒ Tornado Establish a county ☒ Flood County EMA emergency operations ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland team utilizing resources ☒ Earthquake County law ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Local resources from the Franklin Armory ☒ Thunderstorm enforcement High ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar and Camp Atterbury. ☒ Winter Storm With support from local ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland LEPC resources, the team was ☒ Hazmat *Action developed in 2008 activated and utilized ☒ Johnson Co ☒ Drought MHMP during a winter storm event in January 2014. ☒ Dam/Levee Work with IDNR and ☐ Tornado county resources to COMPLETED ☒ remove log jams and Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA Local resources mitigate flood events on ☐ Earthquake ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County law Youngs Creek, a principal ☒ Thunderstorm IDNR High ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar enforcement stream of the Driftwood ☐ Winter Storm Youngs Creek was ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland Watershed. ☐ FEMA cleared of log jams with Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co *Action developed in 2008 assistance from IDNR and ☐ Drought MHMP local resources. ☐ Dam/Levee
COMPLETED Repair and reinforce the ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood Prince’s East Lake Dam ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland County EMA to mitigate the risk of flood ☐ Earthquake Local resources ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County law and dam/levee failure ☐ Thunderstorm IDNR High ☐ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar enforcement events. With funding and ☐ Winter Storm ☐ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland FEMA implementation ☐ Hazmat *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Johnson Co assistance from IDNR, the ☐ Drought MHMP dam was repaired and ☒ Dam/Levee strengthened.
7 Plan Maintenance Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 104
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) In coordination with the ☒ Tornado County EMA, centralize COMPLETED ☒ Flood Local resources and consolidate control of ☐ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County ☒ Earthquake emergency and hazard ☒ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes Commission IDHS communication systems, ☒ Thunderstorm High ☒ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar County EMA ☐ Winter Storm FEMA including 911 and warning ☒ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland sirens. The county’s bond issue ☒ Hazmat ☒ County Council for consolidation of 911 Johnson Co *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Drought services is complete. MHMP ☒ Dam/Levee
☐ Tornado County EMA Improve railroad crossing COMPLETED ☐ Flood County law signals on Earlywood ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake enforcement Drive in Franklin for ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes ☐ Thunderstorm Medium transporting hazardous ☒ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar County Highway Railroad Owner ☐ Winter Storm Department materials by rail. ☐ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland ☒ Hazmat *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Johnson Co INDOT MHMP The railroad is ☐ Drought responsible for signals. ☐ Dam/Levee Conduct a commodity flow study of rail and road COMPLETED ☐ Tornado Local resources County transportation systems in ☐ Flood Commission ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland IDHS the county to determine ☐ Earthquake the specific hazardous ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes County EMA ☐ Thunderstorm Regional Medium materials being ☒ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar ☐ Winter Storm County Highway transportation transported and peak Funding from IDHS and ☐ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland regional transportation Department funds transportation periods. ☒ Hazmat ☒ grants supported the Johnson Co ☐ Drought Hazardous Material INDOT *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Dam/Levee MHMP Commodity Flow Study.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 105
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) COMPLETED ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes Replace drainage pipes in ☐ Thunderstorm County Highway Medium ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar Local resources areas of past flooding. ☐ Department The Town of Whiteland Winter Storm ☐ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ☐ replaced drainage pipes Hazmat ☐ Johnson Co in 2014 and reconstructed ☐ Drought drainage pond in 2013. ☐ Dam/Levee ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood COMPLETED ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake Repair and reinforce dam ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes FEMA ☐ Thunderstorm High and spillway in Spring ☐ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Lakes subdivision. ☐ Winter Storm ☐ ☐ Local resources Greenwood Whiteland ☐ Hazmat This strategy is complete. ☐ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee ☒ Tornado ☐ Flood COMPLETED ☐ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes Install new storm sirens in ☒ Thunderstorm Local resources High New Whiteland. ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar ☐ Winter Storm ☐ ☐ Greenwood Whiteland ☐ Hazmat This strategy is complete. ☐ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 106
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) Continue to add sirens IN PROGRESS throughout the county and ☒ Tornado create a coordinated ☒ Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA county-wide emergency ☒ Earthquake and hazard warning ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes IDHS ☒ Thunderstorm County law High system which can target The county received a ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar enforcement ☐ Winter Storm FEMA warnings to specific grant from IDHS for 14 ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ☐ communities and areas. new sirens and Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co emergency ☐ Drought communications *Action developed in 2008 ☒ Dam/Levee MHMP equipment.
Develop family IN PROGRESS emergency preparedness ☒ Tornado plans and educate the ☒ Flood public about hazard and ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☒ Earthquake County EMA disaster preparedness ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Local resources The updated CEMP was ☒ Thunderstorm High and how to reduce the ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar County law distributed to county ☒ Winter Storm IDHS potential for loss from ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland enforcement organizations, local public ☒ Hazmat various hazards. safety agencies and ☒ Johnson Co made available to the ☒ Drought *Action developed in 2008 public on the county ☒ Dam/Levee MHMP government web site.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 107
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) Conduct a public awareness and information campaign on earthquake safety and IN PROGRESS ☐ Tornado preparedness. Provide ☐ Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA information on securing ☒ Earthquake water heaters, ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Local resources ☐ Thunderstorm County law High bookshelves and other ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar enforcement ☐ Winter Storm FEMA fixtures, as well as The County EMA has ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland developed earthquake enforcing tie-downs for ☐ Hazmat ☒ preparedness materials Johnson Co ☐ Drought residences and and is in the process of government buildings. distributing them. ☐ Dam/Levee *Action developed in 2008 MHMP
Compile a countywide list PENDING of emergency alert ☒ Tornado resources, including Nixle ☒ Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA to ensure coordinated and ☐ Earthquake timely dispatch of ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Local resources ☒ Thunderstorm County law High warnings during tornado, ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Eight communities ☒ Winter Storm enforcement IDHS thunderstorm, winter currently use a Nixle ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ☐ Hazmat storm and other events. system for public safety ☒ Johnson Co and emergency alerts. ☐ Drought *Action developed in 2008 Funding sources are ☐ Dam/Levee MHMP being identified.
Increase public ☐ Tornado awareness of drought PENDING ☐ Flood events. Educate the public ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland Local resources about water and soil ☐ Earthquake County EMA ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes OCRA conservation, and ☐ Thunderstorm High ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar County law mitigation of fire events ☐ Winter Storm enforcement and IDNR ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland during drought conditions. ☐ fire departments Funding is being identified Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co ISDA, USDA and sources are pending. *Action developed in 2008 ☒ Drought MHMP ☐ Dam/Levee
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 108
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) Re-channel Youngs Creek ☒ Tornado PENDING Local resources to mitigate the risk and ☐ Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland impact of flood and ☐ Earthquake IDNR drought events and ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County EMA ☒ Thunderstorm High conserve water, soil and ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar OCRA ☐ Winter Storm IDNR other natural resources. The re-channeling project ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ☐ ISDA, USDA is in the design phase Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co *Action developed in 2008 with funding assistance ☐ Drought FEMA MHMP from IDNR. ☐ Dam/Levee
Consult with local Local resources governments and OCRA community planners on promoting low-impact land FEMA and building development ☐ Tornado County EMA strategies that reduce the LEED PENDING ☒ Flood Local Planning impact of storm water and ☒ ☒ certification Bargersville New Whiteland and Zoning mitigate the risk of flood ☐ Earthquake projects: US ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes agencies events. Additionally, ☒ Thunderstorm Green Building High ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar promote LEED and other ☐ Winter Storm County Plan Council ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland (USGBC) strategies that reduce ☐ Commission Funding sources are Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co through environmental impact and being identified. ☐ Drought Township American incorporate sustainable ☐ Dam/Levee School Boards Recovery and construction of schools Reinvestment and government buildings. Act (ARRA) funds. *Action developed in 2008 MHMP
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 109
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) Conduct a feasibility study on proposed improvements to the PENDING ☐ Tornado Whiteland Bridge on ☒ Flood Brewer Ditch. ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland Local resources Improvements include ☐ Earthquake ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County EMA INDOT structural enhancements ☒ Thunderstorm High The County Surveyor is ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar and elevating the span to ☐ Winter Storm INDOT FEMA working with INDOT on a ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland mitigate the impact of ☐ bridge improvements Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co flood and thunderstorm study and identifying ☐ Drought events. sources of funding for ☐ Dam/Levee construction. *Action developed in 2008 MHMP
PENDING ☐ Tornado Local Resources ☒ Flood Develop an Emergency ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake County EMA IDHS Action Plan (EAP) to ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes ☒ Thunderstorm High mitigate the failure of Funding sources have ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar IDNR IDNR primary dams and levees been identified and ☐ Winter Storm ☒ ☒ Greenwood Whiteland IDHS FEMA in the county. obtained. Plan to be ☐ Hazmat complete by summer ☒ Johnson Co ☐ 2015 for Princes Lakes Drought Dams and Levees by Civil ☒ Dam/Levee Engineering company. ☒ Tornado Educate the public about NEW ☒ Flood the availability of Nixle ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☒ Earthquake and other emergency alert ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County EMA Local resources services and develop ☒ Thunderstorm High ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar ☒ Winter Storm County GIS IDHS strategies to increase Funding sources for a ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland usage of the alert system ☐ public awareness and Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co by the public. engagement campaign ☒ Drought are being identified. ☐ Dam/Levee
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 110
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) IN PROGRESS
County EMA ☐ Improve Graham Road Graham Road Tornado ☐ (Greenwood) and reroute improvements which will Flood ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland County law accommodate hazardous ☐ Earthquake enforcement Local resources truck traffic in Whiteland ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes to mitigate Hazmat materials traffic are in ☐ Thunderstorm ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar County Highway Regional Medium events. progress. A roundabout ☐ Winter Storm Department transportation on Graham Road is ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland grants *Action developed in 2008 ☒ Hazmat pending and truck traffic ☒ Johnson Co INDOT MHMP in Whiteland has been re- ☐ Drought routed. A new ☐ Dam/Levee I-65 interchange at Worthsville Road is under construction. Regional transportation funds are supporting the projects. IN PROGRESS
Local resources The county storm water ☐ Tornado master plan is in progress ☒ Flood including capital Study, plan and upgrade ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA improvement and scheduled for ☐ Earthquake storm water systems completion in early 2015. ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes funds. throughout the county. ☒ Thunderstorm County law Medium Franklin uses an ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar underground collection ☐ Winter Storm enforcement OCRA *Action developed in 2008 tank. Greenwood GIS ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ☐ Hazmat MHMP department is mapping ☒ Johnson Co CDBG storm water and sewer ☐ Drought systems and expects to ☐ Dam/Levee FEMA complete mapping and a plan by the end of 2015. The Franklin sewer master plan will upgrade outdated systems.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 111
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood NEW ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes County EMA Construct a large flood ☐ Thunderstorm Local resources Medium control retention area. ☒ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar City and Town ☐ Winter Storm ☐ ☒ Greenwood Whiteland officials ☐ Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood NEW ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland Install storm sewers, ☐ Earthquake ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes County EMA OCRA clean ditches, and install ☐ Thunderstorm Medium culvert pipes or ☐ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar ☐ Winter Storm ☐ ☐ Town officials Local resources replacements in Trafalgar. Greenwood Whiteland ☐ Hazmat ☐ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood ☐ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland PENDING ☐ Earthquake ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes County EMA ☒ Thunderstorm Medium Upgrade storm drains. ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar Local resources ☐ Town officials Winter Storm ☐ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland ☐ Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee ☐ Tornado ☒ Flood ☐ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland PENDING ☐ Earthquake Replace culvert at ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes New Whiteland wastewater treatment plan ☐ Thunderstorm Medium ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar County Highway Local resources ☐ Winter Storm in New Whiteland. ☐ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland Department ☐ Hazmat ☐ Johnson Co ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 112
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) PENDING
Purchase new trailers for dedicated usage as ☒ Tornado emergency preparedness The county is currently ☒ Flood County EMA ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland trailers by emergency converting existing ☒ Earthquake Local resources response teams. Also weather/fire safety trailers ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County Health ☒ Thunderstorm Medium trailers will be used for for use as emergency ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Department IDHS preparedness trailers. ☒ Winter Storm ☒ ☒ public information and Greenwood Whiteland County Law FEMA The county needs more ☒ Hazmat training programs. dedicated trailers and is ☒ Johnson Co Enforcement exploring funding. ☒ Drought *Action developed in 2008 Currently the county ☒ Dam/Levee MHMP borrows the state’s trailer. Several communities and the county health department share trailers. ☒ Tornado PENDING Establish an ordinance ☐ Flood requiring certain mobile ☒ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake County EMA home parks to install siren ☒ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes Local Resources ☒ Thunderstorm Medium systems. ☒ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar County law ☐ Winter Storm IDHS IDHS oversees mobile ☒ Greenwood ☐ Whiteland enforcement *Action developed in 2008 ☐ home park warning Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co MHMP systems and is managing ☐ Drought the project. ☐ Dam/Levee
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 113
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) Conduct a HazMat PENDING vulnerability analysis with ☐ Tornado recommendations for road Local resources ☐ Flood and rail improvements to ☐ Bargersville ☐ New Whiteland accommodate a steady ☐ Earthquake IDHS ☐ Edinburgh ☐ Prince’s Lakes County EMA increase in hazardous The county is exploring ☐ Thunderstorm Medium funding assistance from ☐ Franklin ☐ Trafalgar INDOT materials traffic ☐ Winter Storm ☒ ☐ INDOT IDHS and INDOT for Greenwood Whiteland FEMA throughout the county, ☒ analysis and planning of Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co particularly in Greenwood. road and rail ☐ Drought improvements. The traffic ☐ Dam/Levee *Action developed in 2008 around Graham Road is MHMP of particular concern.
In cooperation with Shelby Local resources ☐ Tornado County, conduct a IDNR PENDING ☒ Flood watershed protection and ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA ☐ Earthquake EPA hydrology study of the ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Driftwood Watershed to ☐ Thunderstorm County Plan Medium ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar ISDA, USDA assess the impact of Commission ☐ Winter Storm ☒ ☒ Greenwood Whiteland NSF development on flood risk. ☐ Funding sources are Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co IDNR being identified. *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Drought FEMA ☐ MHMP Dam/Levee
PENDING Evaluate a watershed tax ☐ Tornado Local resources (legal drain tax) and ☒ Flood ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland County EMA current conditions of ☐ Earthquake IDNR Youngs Creek, a principal ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes ☐ Thunderstorm IDNR Medium stream of the Driftwood The county surveyor and ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar OCRA ☐ Winter Storm County Watershed. IDNR are evaluating ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland ISDA, USDA ☐ Youngs Creek and Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co Commissioners *Action developed in 2008 developing a plan for ☐ Drought FEMA MHMP implementing a legal ☐ Dam/Levee drain tax.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 114
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) PENDING Install fire hydrants at ☐ Tornado water retention ponds in ☐ Flood County EMA residential developments ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland throughout the county. ☐ Earthquake ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County Local resources Hydrants will be used to Bargersville and White ☐ Thunderstorm Low River Township ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Commissioners mitigate fire events during ☐ Winter Storm FEMA developments have ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland Local Fire droughts. ☐ Hazmat installed fire hydrants. ☒ Johnson Co Departments The southern and far *Action developed in 2008 ☒ Drought eastern areas of the MHMP ☐ Dam/Levee county are in greatest need of fire hydrants. ☐ Tornado Install additional flood NEW ☒ Flood warning signage and ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☐ Earthquake County EMA gates or barriers for road ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes Local resources ☒ Thunderstorm Low closures during flood ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar County law ☐ Winter Storm IDHS events. ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland enforcement ☐ Funding sources are Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co being identified. ☐ Drought ☐ Dam/Levee IN PROGRESS
Conduct an inventory of buildings that require ☒ Tornado
hardening in the county. ☒ County EMA New hardened fire Flood Local resources Implement a plan to ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland stations were built in ☒ Earthquake County harden buildings, ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes OCRA Franklin, Amity, ☐ Thunderstorm Commission Low including new construction Bargersville, and ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar ☐ Winter Storm CDBG for tornado, flood and Trafalgar. New Whiteland ☒ Greenwood ☒ Whiteland County law ☐ earthquake events. purchased a new building Hazmat ☒ Johnson Co enforcement and FEMA for Town Hall. The county ☐ Drought fire departments EMA is conducting an *Action developed in 2008 ☐ Dam/Levee MHMP inventory of buildings that require hardening and identifying funding sources.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 115
Priority Mitigation Action Status Hazard Community Collaborator(s) Funder(s) ☒ Tornado NEW Install electric power ☒ Flood County EMA generators and systems ☒ Earthquake ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland Local resources for alternate sources of ☒ Thunderstorm ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County Low energy at emergency ☒ Winter Storm ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Commission IDHS shelters, healthcare Franklin has installed ☒ ☒ ☒ Hazmat Greenwood Whiteland Local Law FEMA facilities and the county power generators. Other communities need backup ☐ Drought ☒ Johnson Co Enforcement animal shelter. power and energy ☐ Subsidence sources. ☒ Dam/Levee NEW ☒ Tornado Acquire a large vehicle to ☒ Flood County EMA Local resources transport animals to the ☒ Bargersville ☒ New Whiteland ☒ Earthquake IDHS county animal shelter, ☒ Edinburgh ☒ Prince’s Lakes County Animal ☒ Thunderstorm Low corral and barn facilities ☒ Franklin ☒ Trafalgar Control FEMA In conjunction with the ☒ during emergencies. Winter Storm ☒ ☒ county animal control Greenwood Whiteland County Health ☐ Hazmat Home Depot department, scout groups ☒ Johnson Co Department are currently constructing ☐ Drought Foundation corrals and other shelters ☒ Dam/Levee for animals.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 116 The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency will be the local champions for the mitigation actions. The Johnson County Commissioners and the city and town councils will be an integral part of the implementation process. Federal, state, and local assistance will be necessary for a number of the identified actions. 6.6 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy
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 nine incorporated communities within and including Johnson 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 and counties. All potential strategies and goals that arose through this process are included in this plan. The county planning team used FEMA’s evaluation criteria to gauge the priority of all items. A final draft of the disaster mitigation plan was presented to all members to allow for final edits and approval of the priorities and strategies.
As a result of the planning process, the data, information, maps, and tables 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.
6 Mitigation Strategies Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 117 Section Plan Maintenance
7
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 past five-year planning cycle, Johnson County Emergency Management Agency and the MHMP planning committee have monitored, evaluated, and updated the plan on an annual basis.
Additionally, a meeting will be held during June of 2018 to begin planning for the next five-year 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.
7 Plan Maintenance Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 118
7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs
The results of this plan will be incorporated into ongoing planning efforts since many of the mitigation projects identified as part of this planning process are ongoing. Johnson County and its incorporated jurisdictions will update the zoning plans and ordinances as necessary and as part of regularly scheduled updates. Each community will be responsible for updating its own plans and ordinances. 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 Johnson County EMA director and forwarded to the MHMP planning committee for discussion. Education efforts for hazard mitigation will be ongoing through the Johnson 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 Johnson County website, in each jurisdiction, and in the Johnson County EMA Office.
7 Plan Maintenance Johnson County MHMP Update 2015 119
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes
Appendix B: Local Media News, Stories Coverage
Appendix C: Critical and Essential Facilities
Appendix D: Adopting Resolutions
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 120
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 121
Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update Project
Meeting 1 September 10, 2014
Meeting Location: Johnson County Emergency Management Agency 1111 Hospital Road Franklin, IN 46131
Attendees: The meeting was attended by The Polis Center and the Planning Team for the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update project.
Attendance Roster
Name Title Organization Email Stephanie Sichting Director Johnson Co. EMA ssichting.co.johnson.in.us Luke Mastin Director Johnson Co. Highway Dept. [email protected] Scott Tibbetts Program Mgr. D5 Indianapolis Red Cross [email protected] John Bonsett Director Johnson Co. Health Dept. [email protected] Johnson Co. Planning & [email protected] Dave Hittle Director Zoning Dept. Michael Delp Director Johnson Co. Animal Control [email protected] Barb Davis Coordinator Johnson County Government [email protected] Johnson County [email protected] Brian Baird Chairman Commissioners Joe McGuinness Mayor City of Franklin [email protected] Mike Watkins 911 Director Johnson County 911 [email protected] Carey Slauter Planning Chief White River Twp. Fire Dept. [email protected] Dave Coats Associate Director The Polis Center [email protected] Kavya Urs Beerval [email protected] GIS Analyst The Polis Center Ravichandra Peggy Sailors Writer/Coordinator The Polis Center [email protected]
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 122
Dave Coats, Associate Director, The Polis Center called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.
1. Introductions/Overview The meeting and presentation began with introductions. In addition to Dave Coats, The Polis Center team was represented by Kavya Urs Beerval Ravichandra, GIS Analyst and Peggy Sailors, writer and production coordinator for the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update.
Members of Planning Team for the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update were also introduced. The Johnson County team reflects a cross section of the county with representatives from individual jurisdictions in the county, various county agencies and departments, as well as other organizations in Johnson County and surrounding counties.
The Polis Center, a research center at IUPUI has extensive experience in local government hazard mitigation planning and producing federally-compliant Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans (MHMP). In addition, The Polis Center has substantial expertise utilizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) geographic information system (GIS)-based disaster risk assessment tool HAZUS-MH (hazards USA Multi- Hazard).
In collaboration with the Johnson County Emergency Management Agency, The Polis Center produced the 2008 Johnson County MHMP. Local governments must adopt a MHMP to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs, including FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). To maintain federal disaster assistance eligibility, a local government must update its MHMP every five years. The State of Indiana has engaged The Polis Center to update and produce the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update.
2. Review the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update Process and Project Schedule The MHMP 2015 Update project is scheduled for completion by March 2015. With FEMA’s emphasis on community-level participation in county hazard mitigation planning, each jurisdiction in Johnson County should be represented on the MHMP 2015 Update Planning Team.
The MHMP 2015 Update process includes two meetings with The Polis Center and the Planning Team. Meeting 2 will also serve as a public input meeting. Meeting 3 will involve the Planning Team.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 123
Tentative Schedule-- Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update
July – September 2014 --Project kickoff, planning and collect data.
September 2014 --Model hazards and review existing strategies. --Meeting 1 (The Polis Center and Planning Team) -- Review critical facilities data, review historical hazards (2009 to 2014), and profile and prioritize hazards.
November 2014: --Document new strategies. --Meeting 2 (The Polis center, Planning Team and public) – Review risk assessment results, brainstorm mitigation strategies and solicit public input.
February 2015: --Distribute a draft of the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update to the Planning Team and others. --Meeting 3 (Planning Team) – The Planning Team conducts a final review of the draft Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update.
3. Prioritize Hazards and Risk Assessment The next portion of the meeting and presentation was devoted to reviewing hazard events from 2009 to 2014, updating and prioritizing hazards, and reviewing risk assessment. Dave Coats presented a National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) chart with Johnson County weather-related events data for 2009 to 2014. The events included drought, flood, hail, lightning, high wind, tornado, and winter storm. Hail and high wind events accounted for 75 of the 109 total events reported. The NCDC reports a total of 308 events for Johnson County since 1950.
In evaluating and prioritizing hazards for the mitigation planning process, risk is a critical factor. For federal disaster aid and insurance purposes, risk is defined as: Risk = Probability x Impact. In prioritizing hazards, Dave Coats noted that it is important to consider two factors. What is the likelihood or probability of the event occurring? Secondly, if the event occurs, what is the likely significance of the hazard’s impact? (FEMA defines hazard mitigation as any sustained action to eliminate or reduce long- term risk of hazards to human life or property.)
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 124
The group then reviewed the method for determining the Risk of each hazard by plotting events according to Probability (y-axis) and Impact (x-axis) factors:
A blank Risk Grid (Probability/Impact) was presented for Johnson County and each jurisdiction (Franklin, Prince’s Lakes, Greenwood, Whiteland, New Whiteland, Bargersville, Trafalgar, and Edinburgh). Through group discussion and input, hazards were plotted on the Risk Grid for the county and then separately for each jurisdiction.
The roles of population growth patterns and land development in hazard mitigation planning were also discussed. Since 2009, areas with the highest increase in land development and population growth include areas north and south of Greenwood and in the communities of Bargersville, Whiteland and New Whiteland. Also, members of the Planning Team noted that several new senior citizen communities and assisted living/long-term care facilities have been constructed in Johnson County since 2009. The age 65 and over population group is among the special needs population groups covered in greater detail in the 2015 Update.
4. Review Critical Facilities Map A map of Johnson County’s critical facilities was presented to the group for review and comment. The group determined that The Polis Center should model a flood in the county and an F3 tornado in the north-central and northeast areas of the county. The group is also interested in a model for a hazardous material (HazMat) event between Franklin and Greenwood where industrial and business facilities are concentrated. The City of Franklin Planning Team member representative noted a significant increase in railroad traffic in downtown Franklin. Dave Coats encouraged the group to consider the risk associated with events in areas which have a high concentration of health-care facilities, hospitals, and long-term care and senior citizen residential facilities.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 125
5. Discuss Planning Team Tasks and Meeting 2 Agenda Dave Coats distributed a chart of mitigation strategies from the 2008 Johnson County MHMP. The group was instructed to review the 2008 strategies and projects and in the space provided on the chart, update the status of each strategy and provide comments. The Planning Team will share the status of 2008 strategies and comments at Meeting 2 in November. Dave Coats noted that the primary objective of Meeting 2 is updating hazard mitigation strategies for Johnson County and the individual jurisdictions.
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency was tasked with securing participation on the MHMP 2015 Update Team from every jurisdiction in Johnson County. Each jurisdiction in Johnson County must adopt the updated MHMP before it is submitted to FEMA.
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency will also gather reports, news clippings, photos and other materials relating to hazard events and hazard mitigation planning activities which have taken place in Johnson County since 2009.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 am.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 126
Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update Project Meeting 2 November 12, 2014
Meeting Location: Johnson County Emergency Management Agency 1111 Hospital Road Franklin, IN 46131
Attendees: The meeting was attended by The Polis Center and the Planning Team for the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update project.
Attendance Roster
Name Title Organization Email Stephanie Sichting Director Johnson Co. EMA ssichting.co.johnson.in.us Johnson Co. Planning & [email protected] Dave Hittle Director Zoning Dept. Tom Maggard Director Greenwood GIS Dept. [email protected] Aaron Shaw Director Johnson Co. GIS/EMA [email protected] Josh Rooks Resident Prince’s Lakes Anthony Haywood Resident Prince’s Lakes Betsey Sweninger Associate Johnson Co. Health Dept. Michael Delp Director Johnson Co. Animal Control [email protected] Barb Davis Coordinator Johnson County Government [email protected] Doug Cox Sheriff Johnson Co. Sheriff’s Office [email protected] Johnson County [email protected] Brian Baird Chairman Commissioners Joe McGuinness Mayor City of Franklin [email protected] Mike Watkins 911 Director Johnson County 911 [email protected] Carey Slauter Planning Chief White River Twp. Fire Dept. [email protected] Dave Coats Associate Director The Polis Center [email protected] Kavya Urs Beerval [email protected] GIS Analyst The Polis Center Ravichandra Peggy Sailors Writer/Coordinator The Polis Center [email protected]
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 127
Dave Coats, Associate Director, The Polis Center called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.
1. Introductions/Overview The meeting and presentation began with introductions. In addition to Dave Coats, The Polis Center team was represented by Debra Hollon, GIS Analyst, Christine Schmitz, MHMP Coordinator/Writer and Peggy Sailors, MHMP writer.
Members of Planning Team for the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update were also introduced. The Johnson County team reflects a cross section of the county with representatives from individual jurisdictions in the county, various county agencies and departments, as well as other organizations in Johnson County and surrounding counties.
In collaboration with the Johnson County Emergency Management Agency, the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team and The Polis Center produced the 2008 Johnson County MHMP and is currently producing the county’s MHMP 2015 Update. Dave Coats reminded the Planning Team that local jurisdictions, as well as Johnson County must adopt the 2015 Update to the county’s MHMP to remain eligible to apply for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs, including FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency has been tasked with securing participation on the MHMP 2015 Update Team from every jurisdiction in Johnson County. Each jurisdiction in Johnson County must adopt the updated MHMP before it is submitted to FEMA. To maintain federal disaster assistance eligibility, a local government must update its MHMP every five years. The State of Indiana has engaged The Polis Center to update and produce the Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update.
2. Review Highlights of Sections 1—5, Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update including Risk Assessment Results
In reviewing the process for updating the 2008 MHMP and developing hazard mitigation strategies, Dave Coats noted that FEMA requires a five-year update to the county hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible to apply for FEMA and other federal disaster assistance funds. Johnson County’s 5-year update MHMP is scheduled for completion by March 2015. With FEMA’s emphasis on community-level and county-wide participation in county hazard mitigation planning, each jurisdiction in Johnson County will be represented on the MHMP 2015 Update Planning Team.
Dave Coats distributed a draft of sections 1 through 5 of the MHMP 2015 Update and reviewed the following highlights from the five-year update plan:
Planning process and planning team with county-wide representation by jurisdictions in the county. Public input, neighboring county and community participation in the planning process.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 128
Population growth and growth of minority populations, specifically the Asian and Burmese groups. Special needs populations and mitigation planning to accommodate special needs of these groups. Significant improvements in section 5, Risk Assessment for in-depth analysis of hazards. New data, maps and tables for detailed and dynamic analysis of risk for hazards such as flood according to building inventory, flood insurance and concentrations of special needs populations. Other hazards highlighted were tornado, earthquake, and hazardous material.
3. Distribute and Review 2008 Mitigation Strategies, Solicit Planning Team and Public Input for 2015 Mitigation Strategies
The remaining portion of the meeting was devoted to reviewing hazard events from 2008 to 2014, updating and prioritizing hazards, and assessing risk for each hazard. Dave Coats distributed a table showing the 2008 hazard mitigation strategies. With Dave Coasts facilitating, the Planning Team and with public input the group reviewed and discussed the status of 2008 strategies and then developed mitigation objectives and strategies for the 2015 Update. Each strategy was assigned a priority level and funding assistance was also noted. The Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Strategies Table is included in Appendix XX.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 am.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 129
Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update Project Meeting 3 March 10, 2015
Meeting Location: Johnson County Emergency Management Agency 1111 Hospital Road Franklin, IN 46131
Attendees: The meeting was attended by the Planning Team for the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) 2015 Update project.
Attendance Roster
Name Title Organization Email Aaron Shaw Director Johnson Co. GIS/EMA [email protected] Kevin McGinnis Town Manager Town of Bargersville Street Utility Lee Rogers Town of Trafalgar Superintendent Ryan Rather Johnson Co. Sheriff’s Office Doug Cox Sheriff Johnson Co. Sheriff’s Office [email protected] Johnson Co. Planning & [email protected] Dave Hittle Director Zoning Dept. John Bonsett Tom Maggard Director Greenwood GIS Dept. [email protected] Norm Gabehart Town Manager Town of Whiteland John Drybread Town Manager Town of Edinburgh Carey Slauter Planning Chief White River Twp. Fire Dept. [email protected] Street Department Anthony Haywood Town of Princes Lakes Employee Street Josh Rooks Town of Princes Lakes Superintendent Michael Delp Director Johnson Co. Animal Control [email protected] Barb Davis Coordinator Johnson County Government [email protected] Maribeth Alspach Clerk-Treasurer Town of New Whiteland Terry Spencer Town Manager Town of New Whiteland Stephanie Sichting Director Johnson Co. EMA ssichting.co.johnson.in.us
In Meeting 3, the planning team walked through the first draft of the MHMP and made corrections. Stephanie Sichting will forward all revisions to The Polis Center to incorporate in the second draft. The planning team will review the second draft and make any final revisions, and then Polis will submit to FEMA for preliminary approval.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 130
The following invitation for participation was delivered to the Johnson County REMC and Indiana-American Water Co (both local utility companies) to invite participation in the planning process.
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 131
Appendix B: Local Media News, Stories Coverage
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 132
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 133
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 134
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 135
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 136
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 137
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 138
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 139
Appendix C: Critical and Essential Facilities
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 140
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES Facility Name Type of Facility Location Johnson County WIC Program Care Facility FRANKLIN HOMEVIEW CENTER OF FRANKLIN Care Facility FRANKLIN INDIANA MASONIC HOME INC Care Facility FRANKLIN FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE FRANKLIN Care Facility FRANKLIN JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOME CARE SERVICES Care Facility FRANKLIN AMERICARE PLUS INC Care Facility FRANKLIN AMERICARE HOSPICE Care Facility FRANKLIN HICKORY CREEK AT FRANKLIN Care Facility FRANKLIN MAIN STREET MARKET 36 Care Facility FRANKLIN ESSENCE OF TIME LLC Care Facility FRANKLIN KROGER J956 Care Facility FRANKLIN HUMMINGBIRD HOME CARE Care Facility FRANKLIN WAL MART 0995 Care Facility FRANKLIN OCCAZIO INC Care Facility TRAFALGAR OCCAZIO INC Care Facility TRAFALGAR MORNING POINTE OF FRANKLIN Care Facility FRANKLIN Johnson Memorial Hospital Care Facility FRANKLIN OCCAZIO INC Care Facility FRANKLIN FRANKLIN UNITED METHODIST COMMUNITY RES Care Facility FRANKLIN CARETENDERS Care Facility FRANKLIN SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY Care Facility FRANKLIN FRANKLIN DIALYSIS Care Facility FRANKLIN FRANKLIN MEADOWS Care Facility FRANKLIN SOUTH CENTRAL SURGERY CENTER LLC Care Facility FRANKLIN OCCAZIO INC Care Facility FRANKLIN AMERICARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES Care Facility FRANKLIN BROCK & BROCKS GENERAL STORE Care Facility TRAFALGAR JAMES D KOZAREK MD Care Facility EDINBURGH OCCAZIO INC Care Facility BARGERSVILLE CHRISTINA HOUSE Care Facility FRANKLIN VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION MIDWEST Care Facility GREENWOOD P & P HOME SERVICES LLC Care Facility GREENWOOD OCCAZIO INC Care Facility GREENWOOD AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER AT THE INDIANA Care Facility GREENWOOD VISITING ANGELS Care Facility GREENWOOD DSI GREENWOOD RENAL CENTER Care Facility GREENWOOD COUNTRY CHARM Care Facility GREENWOOD KINDRED TRANSITIONAL CARE AND REHAB-GREE Care Facility GREENWOOD MEDTECH COLLEGE-GREENWOOD CAMPUS Care Facility GREENWOOD HOME INSTEAD SENIOR CARE Care Facility GREENWOOD Kindred Hospital - Indianapolis South Care Facility GREENWOOD
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 141
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES Facility Name Type of Facility Location INDY SOUTH DIALYSIS Care Facility GREENWOOD ANGELS OF MERCY HOMECARE Care Facility GREENWOOD GREENWOOD MEADOWS Care Facility GREENWOOD TODD'S COMPANION PLUS OF INDIANA LLC Care Facility GREENWOOD WAL MART 3435 Care Facility GREENWOOD INDIANA SKIN CANCER AMBULATORY SURGICAL Care Facility GREENWOOD MARSH 44 Care Facility GREENWOOD HEARTH AT STONES CROSSING LLC THE Care Facility GREENWOOD KROGER J864 Care Facility GREENWOOD CENTRAL NINE CAREER CENTER Care Facility GREENWOOD GOLDEN AGE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC Care Facility GREENWOOD BICKFORD OF GREENWOOD Care Facility GREENWOOD GREENWOOD VILLAGE SOUTH Care Facility GREENWOOD SENIOR HELPERS Care Facility GREENWOOD ADELPHA PERSONAL SERVICES INC Care Facility GREENWOOD MEIJER 132 Care Facility GREENWOOD BHC Valle Vista Hospital Care Facility GREENWOOD KROGER J909 Care Facility GREENWOOD ST FRANCIS HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE Care Facility GREENWOOD ST FRANCIS HOSPICE Care Facility GREENWOOD GREENWOOD HEALTH AND LIVING COMMUNITY Care Facility GREENWOOD PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES Care Facility Greenwood Johnson County Emergency Management Emergency Operations Center Franklin Edinburgh Fire Station 1 Fire Station Edinburgh Greenwood Fire Station 91 Fire Station Greenwood Franklin Fire Station 21 Fire Station Franklin Needham Fire Station 82 Fire Station Greenwood New Whiteland Fire Station Fire Station New Whiteland Nineveh Fire Dept Fire Station Nineveh Franklin Fire Station 22 Fire Station Franklin Trafalgar Fire Dept Station 61 Fire Station Trafalgar Amity Fire Station Fire Station Franklin Edinburgh Fire Station 2 Fire Station Edinburgh Bargersville Fire Station 202 Fire Station Greenwood White River Fire Dept Station 53 Fire Station Greenwood Whiteland Fire Station Fire Station Whiteland White River Fire Dept Station 51 Fire Station Greenwood Greenwood Fire Station 93 Fire Station Greenwood White River Fire Dept Station 52 Fire Station Greenwood Greenwood Fire Station 92 Fire Station Greenwood Greenwood Fire Station 94 Fire Station Greenwood
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 142
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES Facility Name Type of Facility Location Needham Fire Station 81 Fire Station Franklin Franklin Fire Dept Station 23 Fire Station Franklin Bargersville Fire Station 201 Fire Station Bargersville Franklin Police Dept Police Station ,Franklin" Johnson County Sheriff's Dept Police Station Franklin Edinburgh Police Dept Police Station Edinburgh Bargersvill Police Dept Police Station Bargersville Greenwood Police Dept Police Station Greenwood New Whiteland Police Dept Police Station Whiteland Whiteland Police Dept Police Station Whiteland Trafalgar Police Dept Police Station Trafalgar Prince's Lakes Marshal's Office Police Station Nineveh Clark Pleasant Middle Sch School Greenwood Break-O-Day Elementary School School New Whiteland Sugar Grove Elementary Sch School Greenwood Center Grove Elem School School Greenwood Center Grove High School School Greenwood Maple Grove Elementary School School Bargersville North Grove Elementary School School Greenwood Our Lady of the Greenwood School School Greenwood Risen Lord Montessori School School Bargersville Northwood Elementary School School Franklin Webb Elementary School School Franklin Greenwood Community High Sch School Greenwood Greenwood Middle School School Greenwood Greenwood Northeast Elementary School School Greenwood V O Isom Central Elem School School Greenwood Center Grove Middle School North School Greenwood Pleasant Grove Elem Sch School Greenwood Edinburgh Community High School School Edinburgh Edinburgh Comm Middle School School Edinburgh East Side Elementary School School Edinburgh Needham Elementary School School Franklin Union Elementary School School Bargersville Franklin Community High Sch School Franklin Southwest Elem Sch School Greenwood Indian Creek Elementary Sch School Trafalgar Clark Elementary School School Franklin Greenwood Bible Baptist School School Greenwood Clark Pleasant Intermediate School School Greenwood Pleasant Crossing Elementary School School Whiteland
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 143
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES Facility Name Type of Facility Location Whiteland Community High Sch School Whiteland Sawmill Woods Elementary School School New Whiteland Whiteland Elementary School School Whiteland Center Grove Middle School Central School Greenwood Creekside Elementary Sch School Franklin Indian Creek Intermediate Sch School Trafalgar Greenwood Christian Academy School Greenwood Indian Creek Middle School School Trafalgar Indian Creek Sr High Sch School Trafalgar Westwood Elementary Sch School Greenwood St Rose of Lima School School Franklin SS Francis & Clare Catholic School School Greenwood Franklin Community Middle School School Franklin Custer Baker intermediate School School Franklin Greenwood Christian School School Greenwood CENTRAL 9 CAREER CENTER School GREENWOOD FRANKLIN COLLEGE School FRANKLIN EARLYWOOD SPECIAL SERVICES School FRANKLIN
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 144
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location THORN FIELD Airport Facility BARGERSVILLE BECK Airport Facility BARGERSVILLE BRONSON Airport Facility BARGERSVILLE FRANKLIN FLYING FIELD Airport Facility FRANKLIN CANARY'S Airport Facility FRANKLIN JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Airport Facility FRANKLIN WOODS FIELD Airport Facility FRANKLIN GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Airport Facility INDIANAPOLIS MILES FIELD Airport Facility NEW WHITELAND PORTER FIELD Airport Facility NEW WHITELAND BRUNNEMER Airport Facility NEW WHITELAND BERRY FIELD Airport Facility NEW WHITELAND Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility WHITELAND Unnamed Communication Facility GREENWOOD Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility GREENWOOD Unnamed Communication Facility WHITELAND Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility MORGANTOWN Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility FRANKLIN Unnamed Communication Facility WHITELAND Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR Unnamed Communication Facility TRAFALGAR PROSSER PARK SIREN EDINBURGH E CENTER CROSS ST & HARRELL ST SIREN EDINBURGH TRAFALGAR TOWN HALL SIREN TRAFALGAR
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 145
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location US 31 & S MAIN ST SIREN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN COLLEGE SIREN FRANKLIN PARIS DR & ST ANDREWS DR SIREN FRANKLIN HURRICANE RD & HERITAGE SUBDIVISION SIREN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN COMMUNITY HIGH (FUTURE) SIREN FRANKLIN US 31 & SLOAN DR SIREN FRANKLIN WHITELAND TREATMENT PLANT SIREN WHITELAND WHITELAND FIRE STATION SIREN WHITELAND NEW WHITELAND TOWN HALL SIREN NEW WHITELAND NEW WHITELAND POLICE STATION SIREN NEW WHITELAND BARGERSVILLE FIRE STATION 201 SIREN BARGERSVILLE GREENWOOD FIRE STATION 94 SIREN GREENWOOD CLARK PLEASANT INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL SIREN GREENWOOD VALLE VISTA GOLF COURSE SIREN GREENWOOD GREENWOOD FIRE STATION 93 SIREN GREENWOOD CAMBY ST & MADISON AVE SIREN GREENWOOD WESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SIREN GREENWOOD GREENWOOD FIRE STATION 92 SIREN GREENWOOD MAPLE GROVE ELEMENTARY SIREN GREENWOOD WHITE RIVER FIRE STATION 51 SIREN GREENWOOD SUGAR GROVE ELEMENTARY SIREN GREENWOOD SR 135 & MERIDIAN PARKE RD SIREN GREENWOOD PLEASANT GROVE ELEMENTARY SIREN GREENWOOD Unnamed CELL TOWER EDINBURGH W JOHNSON CELL TOWER W JOHNSON FRANKLIN CELL TOWER FRANKLIN FRANKLIN CELL TOWER FRANKLIN SR 135 CELL TOWER SR 135 GREENWOOD CELL TOWER GREENWOOD FRY RD 224 CELL TOWER FRY RD 224 Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER GREENWOOD Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER WHITELAND Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 146
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER Unnamed CELL TOWER WHITELAND Unnamed CELL TOWER GREENWOOD Unnamed CELL TOWER EDINBURGH BARGERSVILLE CELL TOWER FRANKLIN FRANKLIN-FORSYTHE CELL TOWER FRANKLIN FRANKLIN HURRICANE #1 & #2 CELL TOWER FRANKLIN FRANKLIN HURRICANE #1 & #2 CELL TOWER FRANKLIN GREENWOOD CELL TOWER GREENWOOD FRY ROAD CELL TOWER FRY ROAD IN03XC401-A CELL TOWER IN03XC401-A I-65 & 500 N CELL TOWER I-65 & 500 N 550 N & 144 CELL TOWER 550 N & 144 1759 EAST MAIN CELL TOWER 1759 EAST MAIN CLASSIC CARS CELL TOWER CLASSIC CARS TRACTOR SUPPLY CELL TOWER TRACTOR SUPPLY INDIANAPOLIS IN CELL TOWER TRAFALGAR GREENWOOD IN 6 CELL TOWER GREENWOOD IN 6 84 LUMBER - GREENWOOD CELL TOWER 84 LUMBER - GREENWOOD GREENWOOD PARK MALL IN 1 CELL TOWER GREENWOOD PARK MALL IN 1 GREENWOOD PLUS CELL TOWER GREENWOOD PLUS CORPORATE SQUARE SOUTH CELL TOWER CORPORATE SQUARE SOUTH GREENWOOD PARK MALL IN 2 CELL TOWER GREENWOOD PARK MALL IN 2 BLUE RIVER CELL TOWER BLUE RIVER 407 W SMITH VALLEY RD CELL TOWER 407 W SMITH VALLEY RD 510 MAIN ST CELL TOWER 510 MAIN ST 1265 N MAIN ST CELL TOWER 1265 N MAIN ST INDIANAPOLIS/FRANKLIN CELL TOWER INDIANAPOLIS/FRANKLIN INDIANAPOLIS-FRANKLIN CELL TOWER INDIANAPOLIS-FRANKLIN INDIANAPOLIS-FRANKLIN CELL TOWER INDIANAPOLIS-FRANKLIN MEADOWOOD (FRA) CELL TOWER MEADOWOOD (FRA) CLEARVIEW I CELL TOWER CLEARVIEW I CLEARVIEW II CELL TOWER CLEARVIEW II WATERBURY (IN) CELL TOWER WATERBURY (IN) FRANKLIN/JOHNSON COUNTY HWY FRANKLIN/JOHNSON COUNTY HWY PROPERTY CELL TOWER PROPERTY JOHNSON COUNTY PARK CELL TOWER JOHNSON COUNTY PARK 7700 BLOCK OF EAST SR 252 CELL TOWER 7700 BLOCK OF EAST SR 252 Unnamed CELL TOWER ATTERBURY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Community Asset EDINBURGH
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 147
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location EDINBURGH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Community Asset EDINBURGH JOHNSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Community Asset FRANKLIN BHC VALLE VISTA HOSPITAL Community Asset GREENWOOD GREENWOOD CITY HALL Community Asset GREENWOOD GREENWOOD PARK MALL Community Asset GREENWOOD GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER Community Asset GREENWOOD GREENWOOD LIBRARY Community Asset GREENWOOD GREENWOOD POST OFFICE Community Asset GREENWOOD JOHNSON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY-WR Community Asset GREENWOOD Unnamed Community Asset NEW WHITELAND WHITELAND POST OFFICE Community Asset WHITELAND WHITELAND TOWN HALL Community Asset WHITELAND JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE Community Asset FRANKLIN FRANKLIN CITY HALL Community Asset FRANKLIN FRANKLIN POST OFFICE Community Asset FRANKLIN JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL Community Asset FRANKLIN EDINBURGH TOWN HALL Community Asset EDINBURGH PRINCES LAKES TOWN HALL Community Asset NINEVEH PLEASANT TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE'S OFFICE Community Asset WHITELAND NEW WHITELAND TOWN HALL Community Asset NEW WHITELAND BARGERSVILLE TOWN HALL Community Asset BARGERSVILLE WHITE RIVER TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER Community Asset GREENWOOD TRAFALAGR TOWN HALL Community Asset TRAFALAGR JOHNSON COUNTY LIBRARY-FRANKLIN BRANCH Community Asset FRANKLIN CULTURAL ARTS & RECREATION CENTER Community Asset FRANKLIN JOHNSON COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER Community Asset FRANKLIN WRIGHT HAGEMAN PUBLIC LIBRARY Community Asset EDINBURGH BARGERSVILLE POST OFFICE Community Asset BARGERSVILLE MASONIC HOSPITAL Community Asset FRANKLIN GREENWOOD PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Community Asset GREENWOOD OREN WRIGHT BUILDING Community Asset FRANKLIN JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER Community Asset EDINBURGH JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Community Asset FRANKLIN JOHNSON COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Community Asset FRANKLIN PEASE LAKE DAM Dam DR. JAMES AND PAT B. PEAS SAUNDERS LAKE DAM Dam PAMELA K. LINK PRINCE'S NORTHWEST LAKE DAM Dam NORTHWEST LAKE LOT OWNERS ELMER C. SUMMIT LAKE DAM Dam CUTTER WOODWORKING
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 148
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location ROGER YOUNG LAKE DAM Dam ROGER YOUNG MURRAY LAKE DAM Dam VIRGINIA T. MURRAY PISGAH LAKE DAM Dam IDNR--FISH AND WILDLIFE STONE ARCH LAKE Dam IDNR--FISH AND WILDLIFE ALLENDALE LAKE DAM Dam CAMP ALLENDALE JOE DEHART LAKE DAM Dam INDIAN CREEK LAKE LOT OWN PRINCE'S NORTHEAST LAKE DAM Dam ROBERT L. CRAIG F.F.A. YOUTH CENTER DAM #1 Dam INDIANA F.F.A. FOUNDATION LAMB LAKE ESTATES DAM Dam LAMB LAKE LOT OWNERS ASSO WILLOUGHBY DAM NO. 2 (NORTH) Dam RAYMOND C. WILLOUGHBY TEETERS DAM Dam RON WITT LOWER PEOGA LAKE DAM Dam PEOGA LAKE ASSOCIATION PRINCE'S HANTS LAKE DAM Dam HANTS LAKE LOT OWNER ASSO BELL LAKE DAM Dam BELL LAKE CONSERVATION CL PRINCE'S NORTH LAKE DAM Dam NORTH LAKE LOT OWNERS ASS PRINCE'S WHITE LAKE DAM Dam WHITE LAKE CONSERVANCY DI WILLOUGHBY DAM NO. 1 (SOUTH) Dam RAYMOND C. WILLOUGHBY EARLHAM LAKE DAM Dam EARLHAM LAKE ESTATES, INC LAMB LAKE DAM Dam THOMAS K. JOHNSON UPPER PEOGA LAKE DAM Dam PEOGA LAKE ASSOCIATION DOTY RUN LAKE DAM Dam CENTER GROVE RESORT WEDDLE DAM EAST Dam JOSEPH WEDDLE WEDDLE DAM Dam JOSEPH WEDDLE JEFF LAKE DAM Dam JEFFERSON LAKE CORP. PRINCE'S EAST LAKE DAM Dam EAST LAKE LOT OWNERS ASSO HOOD LAKE DAM Dam FOX JOSEPH & MICHELE ALPINE ELECTRONICS MFG. OF AMERICA INC. Hazmat GREENWOOD SAFETY-KLEEN SYS. (407602) Hazmat GREENWOOD IMI-AGGREGRATE Hazmat Greenwood LEVEL 3 GNWDIN1W Hazmat Greenwood LEVEL 3 GNWDIN1W Hazmat Greenwood MCI GRWWIN Hazmat Greenwood SPEEDWAY Hazmat Greenwood IMI-AGGREGRATE Hazmat GREENWOOD HOME DEPOT #2019 Hazmat Greenwood INDIANA-AMERICAN WATER CO Hazmat Greenwood MEIJER #132 GAS STATION Hazmat Greenwood SPEEDWAY Hazmat Greenwood A T & T Hazmat Greenwood ALDI INC. WAREHOUSE Hazmat Greenwood
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 149
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location ATTERBURY RESERVE FORCES TRAINING Hazmat Greenwood CELLOFOAM NORTH AMERICA, INC Hazmat Whiteland COMCAST CABLE Hazmat Greenwood CTP GREENWOOD Hazmat Greenwood PRAIRIE MATERIAL SALES,INC Hazmat Greenwood SAM'S CLUB Hazmat Greenwood SCHWAN FOOD COMPANY Hazmat Greenwood SPEEDWAY Hazmat Greenwood SPEEDWAY Hazmat Greenwood UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC Hazmat Greenwood USF HOLLAND, INC Hazmat Greenwood EMBARQ INC Hazmat Bargersville ROY UMBARGER & SONS, INC Hazmat Bargersville ROY UMBARGER & SONS, INC Hazmat Bargersville NSK CORPORATION Hazmat Franklin PREMIER AG CO-OP INC Hazmat Franklin FERRELLGAS Hazmat Edinburgh SONOCO FLEXIBLE PACKAGING Hazmat Edinburgh SONOCO FLEXIBLE PACKAGING Hazmat EDINBURGH SONOCO FLEXIBLE PACKAGING Hazmat EDINBURGH SONOCO FLEXIBLE PACKAGING Hazmat EDINBURGH FCI ELECTRONICS INC. Hazmat FRANKLIN CASTING TECH. CO. Hazmat FRANKLIN ELECTRO-SPEC INC. Hazmat FRANKLIN ELECTRO-SPEC INC. Hazmat FRANKLIN ELECTRO-SPEC INC. Hazmat FRANKLIN NONFERROUS PRODUCTS, INC. Hazmat FRANKLIN SCOTTS LAWN SERVICE Hazmat GREENWOOD A T & T Hazmat Franklin BLUE BEACON TRUCK WASH OF WHITELAN Hazmat Whiteland, CATERPILLAR Hazmat Franklin DOUGHERTY FERTILIZER Hazmat Franklin DUKE ENERGY INDIANA Hazmat Franklin EMBARQ INC Hazmat Franklin FRANKLIN CROPS NORTH SATELLITE Hazmat Franklin INDIANA-AMERICAN WATER CO Hazmat Franklin INDIANA HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT CORP Hazmat Franklin INERGY PROPANE dba HOOSIER PROPANE Hazmat Franklin INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING Hazmat Franklin JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Hazmat Franklin KYB Hazmat Franklin
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 150
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location LOWE'S OF FRANKLIN Hazmat Franklin MITSUBISHI HEAVY IND CLIMATE CONTROL Hazmat Franklin PILOT TRUCK CARE CENTER Hazmat Whiteland REXAM CLOSURE SYSTEMS INC Hazmat Franklin SPEEDCO Hazmat Whiteland SPEEDWAY Hazmat Franklin SPEEDWAY Hazmat Whiteland SWIFTY STATION # 173 Hazmat Whiteland SWIFTY STATION # 183 Hazmat Franklin WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE #406 Hazmat Whiteland EMBARQ INC Hazmat WHITELAND CROP PRODUCTIONS SERVICES Hazmat Franklin PREMIER AG CO-OP INC Hazmat Franklin SHELBY MATERIALS Hazmat FRANKLIN A T & T Hazmat Edinburgh, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENT Hazmat Edinburgh, BLUFF CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BLUFF CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BIG BLUE RIVER Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BIG BLUE RIVER Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency CANARY DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HIGH BRIDGE CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency KOOTS FORK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency S PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK OVERFLOW Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BARNES CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 151
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location MOORES CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge Other State Agencies SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge Other State Agencies NINEVEH CREEK Highway Bridge Other State Agencies NINEVAH CREEK Highway Bridge Other State Agencies YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BIG BLUE RIVER Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency DRAINAGE DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SR 44 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency SR 44 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency I-65 Highway Bridge State Highway Agency GREENWOOD RD / 950 N Highway Bridge State Highway Agency GREENWOOD RD / 950 N Highway Bridge State Highway Agency DRAINAGE DITCH Highway Bridge State Highway Agency BARNES CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GOOSE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BARNES CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BARNES CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SOUTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GOOSE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BUCKHART CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GOOSE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GOOSE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency INDIAN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency INDIAN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency INDIAN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 152
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location BUCKHART CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BUCKHART CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency NINEVEH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BUCKHART CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HERRIOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HERRIOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BUCKHART CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency MOORES CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BREWER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HENDERSON CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency ROBERTS DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency NORTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HENDERSON CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HENDERSON CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency KOOTS FORK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SOUTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SOUTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency NORTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency KOOTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BR NORTH PRONG STOTTS CR Highway Bridge County Highway Agency NORTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TURKEY PEN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CROOKED CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CROOKED CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 153
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TURKEY PEN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TRAVIS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CANARY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency FISHER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LITTLE SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency FISHER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LITTLE SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency INDIAN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency FLAT BRANCH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency FLAT BRANCH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CAMPBELL DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BREWER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH MUD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency EAST GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BUFFALO CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 154
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency YOUNGS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CONRAIL RAILROAD Highway Bridge County Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CUTSINGER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency SOUTH PRONG STOTTS CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency VANDIVER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CANARY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BLUFF CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency WATERLOO RUN Highway Bridge County Highway Agency DRAINAGE DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency EAST GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HONEY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CANARY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CANARY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency HURRICANE CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TURKEY PEN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF SUGAR CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GUTSINGER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BREWER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency MESSERSMITH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BREWER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF NINEVEH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency MESSERSMITH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BREWER DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TURKEY PEN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency NINEVEH CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency TURKEY PEN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency AUBURN BRANCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency AMITY DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 155
CRITICAL FACILITIES Facility Name Facility Type Location LITTLE GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency RA ARMSTRONG DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRANCH OF RAY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CROOKED CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LEE PARK DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency LITTLE GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency PLEASANT RUN CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BANTA CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CROOKED CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BELLE UNION BRANCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency WAKEFIELD RD Highway Bridge County Highway Agency EMERSON AVE & PLEASANT CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BROADWAY ST & LEE PARK DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CR 375 & LEATHERWOOD CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency BRIDGECREEK CROSS & LITTLE GRASSY CREEK Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CR 700 N & DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CR 200N & POWEL DITCH Highway Bridge County Highway Agency COMMERCE DR & CANARY DR Highway Bridge County Highway Agency CR 800 E & BIG BLUE RIVER Highway Bridge County Highway Agency INDIANA NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY Military Facility FRANKLIN Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Military Facility Edinburgh Indiana-American Water Co. Potable Water Facility FRANKLIN Bargersville Water Utilities Potable Water Facility GREENWOOD Trafalgar Municipal WWTP Wastewater Facility TRAFALGAR New Whiteland Municipal WWTP Wastewater Facility NEW WHITELAND Franklin Wastewater Tr. Plant Wastewater Facility FRANKLIN Whiteland Municipal WWTP Wastewater Facility WHITELAND BARGERSVILLE WASTEWATER PLANT Wastewater Facility BARGERSVILLE BARGERSVILLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Facility BARGERSVILLE
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 156
Appendix D: Adopting Resolutions
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 157
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, Johnson 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, Johnson 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 Johnson County Commissioners hereby adopt the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
______
County Commissioner
______
Attested by: County Clerk
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 158
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Franklin 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, City of Franklin 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 Franklin hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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.
______
City Mayor
______
City Council Member
______
City Council Member
______
City Council Member
______
Attested by: City Clerk
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 159
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Greenwood 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, City of Greenwood 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 Greenwood hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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.
______
City Mayor
______
City Council Member
______
City Council Member
______
City Council Member
______
Attested by: City Clerk
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 160
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Bargersville 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 Bargersville 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 Bargersville hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 161
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Edinburgh 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 Edinburgh 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 Edinburgh hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 162
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of New Whiteland 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 New Whiteland 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 New Whiteland hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 163
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Prince’s Lakes 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 Prince’s Lakes 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 Prince’s Lakes hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 164
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Trafalgar 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 Trafalgar 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 Trafalgar hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 165
Resolution #______
ADOPTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Whiteland 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 Whiteland 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 Whiteland hereby adopts the Johnson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Johnson 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
Appendices Johnson County MHMP 2015 Update 166