HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-12-Meeting Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting Commission Chamber - 7/12/2022
ATTENDANCE:
PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Motion to accept the completed FY2022 RC Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and to
authorize the Mayor to execute the appropriate documents. The project was funded and awarded by
Hazard Mitigation Plan Grant from GEMA in 2019.
Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Approve
Motion to
approve.
Motion Passes
4-0.
Commissioner Brandon
Garrett
Commissioner Bobby
Williams Passes
2. Motion to approve (3rd) and final amendment of the Inmates' Food Services contract with Aramark
Correctional Services, LLC.
Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Approve
Motion to
approve.
Motion Passes
4-0.
Commissioner Brandon
Garrett
Commissioner Bobby
Williams Passes
3. Award RFP Item # 22-186 to Engineering Wireless Services, EWS, LLC.Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Approve
Motion to
approve.
Motion Passes
4-0.
Commissioner Brandon
Garrett
Commissioner Bobby
Williams Passes
4. Motion to approve the minutes of the Public Safety Committee held on June 14, 2022.Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Approve
Motion to
approve.
Motion Passes
4-0.
Commissioner Brandon
Garrett
Commissioner Bobby
Williams Passes
5. Ms. Monique Braswell regarding Gold Cross and 911 dispatch and service.Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Approve
Motion to approve receiving this
item as information.
Motion Passes 4-0.
Commissioner
Brandon Garrett
Commissioner Dennis
Williams Passes
www.augustaga.gov
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Attendance 7/12/22
Department:
Presenter:
Caption:
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
DRAFT
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of City of
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan i
2021
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................................1
Background........................................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................................................2
Scope....................................................................................................................................................................................2
Authority..............................................................................................................................................................................3
Summary of Plan Contents...........................................................................................................................................4
2 PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................................................................................................6
Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning ...............................................................................................................7
History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Augusta-Richmond County......................................................7
2.2.1 Updates and Revisions by Section.......................................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Summary of Key Updates........................................................................................................................................8
Preparing the Plan...........................................................................................................................................................9
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee..............................................................................................................12
2.4.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation and Special Considerations...............................................................14
Involving the Public......................................................................................................................................................15
2.5.1 Outreach Efforts........................................................................................................................................................16
Involving Stakeholders................................................................................................................................................17
Documentation of Plan Progress............................................................................................................................17
2.7.1 Mitigation Strategy Revisions.............................................................................................................................18
3 COMMUNITY PROFILE..........................................................................................................................................................20
Overview of the Community.....................................................................................................................................20
Geography and Climate..............................................................................................................................................22
Transportation................................................................................................................................................................26
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources.............................................................................................................27
3.4.1 Parks, Preserves, and Conservation..................................................................................................................31
3.4.2 Water Bodies and Floodplains............................................................................................................................31
Population........................................................................................................................................................................33
Economy...........................................................................................................................................................................36
3.6.1 Wages and Employment.......................................................................................................................................36
Housing.............................................................................................................................................................................37
Social Vulnerability.......................................................................................................................................................39
Land Use...........................................................................................................................................................................43
Growth and Development Trends..........................................................................................................................43
4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION...................................................................................................................................................44
Overview...........................................................................................................................................................................44
Full Range of Hazards Considered.........................................................................................................................45
Past Occurrences and Disaster Declarations......................................................................................................45
Hazard Evaluation.........................................................................................................................................................47
Hazard Identification Results....................................................................................................................................50
5 HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................51
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ii
2021
Overview...........................................................................................................................................................................52
Methodology..................................................................................................................................................................52
5.2.1 Priority Risk Index....................................................................................................................................................55
5.2.2 Explanation of Data Sources................................................................................................................................56
Asset Inventory..............................................................................................................................................................56
5.3.1 Building Exposure....................................................................................................................................................57
5.3.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Exposure...............................................................................................58
Dam/Levee Failure........................................................................................................................................................61
Drought.............................................................................................................................................................................78
Earthquake.......................................................................................................................................................................89
Extreme Heat ................................................................................................................................................................101
Flooding..........................................................................................................................................................................108
Hurricane & Tropical Storm....................................................................................................................................132
Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning)......................................................................................................................143
Severe Winter Weather.............................................................................................................................................152
Tornado...........................................................................................................................................................................158
Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................................166
Windstorm/Thunderstorm ......................................................................................................................................179
Chemical Hazard .........................................................................................................................................................189
Cyberterrorism.............................................................................................................................................................209
Infectious Disease.......................................................................................................................................................214
Nuclear Power Plant Incident.................................................................................................................................222
Conclusions on Hazard Risk....................................................................................................................................228
6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................................................230
Overview.........................................................................................................................................................................230
Capability Assessment Findings............................................................................................................................231
6.2.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability...............................................................................................................231
6.2.2 Administrative and Technical Capability.......................................................................................................237
6.2.3 Fiscal Capability......................................................................................................................................................238
6.2.4 Education and Outreach Capability................................................................................................................238
6.2.5 Political Capability .................................................................................................................................................239
Conclusions on Local Capability............................................................................................................................239
7 MITIGATION STRATEGY......................................................................................................................................................241
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................241
Mitigation Goals..........................................................................................................................................................242
7.2.1 Goal Setting..............................................................................................................................................................242
7.2.2 Resulting Goals & Objectives............................................................................................................................242
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Activities.......................................................................................243
7.3.1 Prioritization Process............................................................................................................................................244
Plan Update Requirement.......................................................................................................................................245
8 MITIGATION ACTION PLAN..............................................................................................................................................246
Overview.........................................................................................................................................................................246
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan iii
2021
Mitigation Action Plan..............................................................................................................................................246
9 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................................................................................................252
Adoption.........................................................................................................................................................................252
Implementation and Integration...........................................................................................................................252
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance........................................................................................................254
Continued Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................256
ANNEX A AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY................................................................................................................258
ANNEX B CITY OF BLYTHE.................................................................................................................................................281
ANNEX C CITY OF HEPHZIBAH........................................................................................................................................297
APPENDIX A PLAN ADOPTION...............................................................................................................................................A.1
APPENDIX B LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL...............................................................................................B.1
APPENDIX C PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION................................................................................................C.1
APPENDIX D MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................D.1
APPENDIX E REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................E.1
APPENDIX F RISK ASSESSMENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.........................................................................F.1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1
2021
1 Introduction
Section 1 provides a general introduction to hazard mitigation, a review of the purpose, authority, and scope
of the plan, and a summary of the plan contents. It comprises the following subsections:
•1.1 Background
•1.2 Purpose and Need
•1.3 Scope
•1.4 Authority
•1.5 Summary of Plan Contents
Table 1.1 – Section 1 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 1 – Introduction Section 1 – Introduction
1.1 Background 1.1 Background – Minor updates
1.2 Purpose 1.2 Purpose – This section was revised to include discussion of updated content
1.3 Scope 1.3 Scope – This section was revised to include the scope of the hazard
identification and risk assessment
1.4 Authority 1.4 Authority – This section was revised to note plan applicability for grant
programs
1.5 Summary of Plan Contents 1.5 Summary of Plan Contents – Minor updates
Background
Each year in the United States, natural and human-caused hazards take the lives of dozens if not hundreds
of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help
communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially
reflect the true cost of disasters because additional expenses incurred by insurance companies and non-
governmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars.
Natural and human-caused hazards are a part of our natural and built environment, and in many cases they
will inevitably continue to occur. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused
by these events can be reduced or even eliminated. There is much we can do to minimize the impacts of
hazards on our communities and prevent them from resulting in disasters.
As defined by FEMA, “hazard mitigation” means any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-
term risk to life and property from a hazard event. Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which
hazards are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies
selected, prioritized, and implemented.
Every community faces different hazards, has different resources available to combat problems, and has
different interests that influence the solutions to those problems. Because there are many ways to deal with
hazards and many agencies that can help, there is no one solution for managing or mitigating their effects.
Planning is one of the best ways to develop a customized program that will mitigate the impacts of hazards
while taking into account the unique character of a community.
Hazard mitigation includes both structural measures (such as strengthening or protecting buildings and
infrastructure from the destructive forces of potential hazards) and non-structural measures (such as the
adoption of land use policies and the creation of public awareness programs). It is widely accepted that the
most effective mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the
regulation and control of development are ultimately made.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2
2021
A key component of local mitigation planning is to develop, adopt, and update a local hazard mitigation
plan, which establishes the broad community vision and guiding principles for reducing hazard risk, and
further proposes specific mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce identified vulnerabilities. A
comprehensive mitigation strategy addresses both current and future hazard vulnerabilities, taking into
account how development and growth patterns may increase or decrease local vulnerability.
Augusta-Richmond County and the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah previously developed the 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County Hazard Mitigation Plan. This update draws from the previous plan to reevaluate local
hazard risks and vulnerabilities, review capabilities, and evaluate mitigation alternatives. Additionally, this
update documents the efforts of each jurisdiction to implement identified actions and integrate hazard
mitigation principles and practices into routine government activities and functions. The plan remains a
living document, with implementation and evaluation procedures established to help achieve meaningful
objectives and successful outcomes over time.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Augusta-Richmond County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify,
assess, and mitigate hazard risk to better protect the people and property within the County from the effects
of natural and human-caused hazards. This plan documents progress on existing hazard mitigation planning
efforts, updates the previous plan to reflect current conditions in the planning area including relevant
hazards and vulnerabilities, increases public education and awareness about the plan and planning process,
maintains grant eligibility for participating jurisdictions, maintains compliance with state and federal
requirements for local hazard mitigation plans, and identifies and outlines strategies the participating
jurisdictions will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency.
A well-prepared hazard mitigation plan will allow for all possible activities to be reviewed and implemented
so that the problem is addressed by the most appropriate and efficient solutions. It can also ensure that
activities are coordinated with each other and with other goals and activities, preventing conflicts and
reducing the costs of implementing each individual activity. This plan provides a framework for all interested
parties to work together toward mitigation. It establishes the vision and guiding principles for reducing
hazard risk and proposes specific mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce identified vulnerabilities.
Scope
Augusta-Richmond County previously developed a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2017 and
has remained committed to mitigation and the planning process, which enables regular review of the
changing exposure, vulnerability, and risk in the planning area.
The planning area of this Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update includes all of Augusta-
Richmond County and its incorporated municipalities, the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah. The City of
Augusta operates in conjunction with Richmond County as part of a consolidated government; therefore,
these communities are treated as a single entity and there are no unincorporated areas within the county.
The participating jurisdictions in this plan update are as follows:
•Augusta-Richmond County
•Blythe
•Hephzibah
The above participating jurisdictions will adopt this plan in accordance with standard local procedures.
Copies of adoption resolutions will be provided in Appendix A.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3
2021
The focus of this plan update is on those hazards deemed “high” or “moderate” priority hazards for the
planning area, as determined through the risk and vulnerability assessments. Lower priority hazards will
continue to be evaluated but may not be prioritized for mitigation in the action plan.
Augusta-Richmond County and its participating jurisdictions, following the planning process prescribed by
FEMA and under the guidance of the HMPC, led a risk assessment that identified hazards that pose a risk
to the planning area, profiled each hazard, assessed the planning area’s vulnerability to these hazards, and
examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The hazards profiled in this plan are as follows:
•Dam/Levee Failure
•Drought
•Earthquake
•Extreme Heat
•Flooding
•Hurricane & Tropical Storm
•Severe Weather (Hail, Lightning)
•Severe Winter Weather
•Tornado
•Wildfire
•Windstorm/Thunderstorm
•Chemical Hazard
•Cyberterrorism
•Infectious Disease
•Nuclear Power Plant Incident
Authority
In an effort to reduce the nation's mounting natural disaster losses, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to invoke new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning.
Section 322 of DMA 2000 emphasizes the need for state and local government entities to closely coordinate
on mitigation planning activities and makes the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility
requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funds. These funds include the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
program, which replaced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA) Program, all of which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under
the Department of Homeland Security. Communities with an adopted and federally approved hazard
mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before
and after the next disaster strikes.
This plan was prepared in coordination with FEMA Region IV and the Georgia Emergency Management
Agency (GEMA) to ensure that it meets all applicable federal and state planning requirements. This plan
has been prepared in compliance with Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, enacted under Section 104 of DMA 2000, Public Law
106-390 of October 30, 2000, as implemented at CFR 201.6 and 201.7 dated October 2007. A Local
Mitigation Plan Review Tool, found in Appendix B, provides a summary of FEMA and GEMA’s current
minimum standards of acceptability and notes the location within this plan where each planning
requirement is met. This plan will be monitored, maintained, and updated in compliance with the above
legislation.
This plan was developed in a joint and cooperative manner by members of a Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee (HMPC) which included representatives of local City departments, federal and state agencies,
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4
2021
citizens, and other stakeholders. This plan will ensure that Augusta-Richmond County and its incorporated
municipalities remain eligible for federal disaster assistance including FEMA’s HMGP, BRIC, and FMA
programs.
Summary of Plan Contents
The Augusta-Richmond County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized into the following
sections:
•Section 1: Introduction
•Section 2: Planning Process
•Section 3: Community Profile
•Section 4: Hazard Identification
•Section 5: Hazard Risk & Vulnerability Assessment
•Section 6: Capability Assessment
•Section 7: Mitigation Strategy
•Section 8: Mitigation Action Plan
•Section 9: Plan Implementation and Maintenance
•Annexes
•Appendix A: Plan Adoption
•Appendix B: Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
•Appendix C: Planning Process Documentation
•Appendix D: Mitigation Alternatives
•Appendix E: References
•Appendix F: Risk Assessment Supporting Documentation
Section 2: Planning Process provides a step-by-step review of the process used to prepare this plan. This
includes the identification of participants on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and a
description of how the public and other stakeholders were involved. It also includes a summary of meetings
held, an overview of updates and revisions to the plan, a discussion of the multi-jurisdictional planning
approach, and a summary of hazard risk and vulnerability as well as adoption, implementation, monitoring,
and maintenance.
Section 3: Community Profile provides a general overview of Augusta-Richmond County, including
prevalent geographic, demographic, and economic characteristics. Development and land use patterns are
also discussed. This baseline information provides a snapshot of the planning area and helps local officials
recognize those social, environmental, and economic factors that play a role in determining the county’s
vulnerability to hazards.
The Risk Assessment is presented in two sections: Section 4: Hazard Identification and Section 5: Hazard
Risk and Vulnerability Assessment. Together, these sections:
•identify and assess the hazards that pose a threat to the planning area;
•rank and prioritize these hazards based on conclusions regarding the frequency of occurrence,
spatial extent, and potential impact of each hazard; and
•evaluate the vulnerability of the planning area to each hazard.
Section 6: Capability Assessment provides a comprehensive examination of Augusta-Richmond County’s
capacity to implement meaningful mitigation strategies and identifies opportunities to increase and
enhance that capacity. Specific capabilities addressed in this section include planning and regulatory
capability, staff and organizational (administrative) capability, technical capability, fiscal capability, and
political capability. Information was obtained through a Data Collection Guide and an inventory and analysis
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5
2021
of existing plans, ordinances, and relevant documents. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any
existing gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts in programs or activities that may hinder mitigation efforts and to
identify those activities that should be built upon in establishing a successful and sustainable local hazard
mitigation program.
Section 7: Mitigation Strategy and Section 8: Mitigation Action Plan present the goals and objectives for
hazard mitigation in Augusta-Richmond County, the action evaluation and prioritization process for
considering mitigation alternatives, and the ultimate list of specific mitigation actions recommended for
implementation.
In addition to the identification and prioritization of possible mitigation projects, emphasis is placed on the
use of program and policy alternatives to help make Augusta-Richmond County less vulnerable to the
damaging forces of hazards while improving the economic, social, and environmental health of the
community. The concept of multi-objective planning was emphasized throughout the planning process,
particularly in identifying ways to link, where possible, hazard mitigation policies and programs with
complimentary community goals related to disaster recovery, housing, economic development, recreational
opportunities, transportation improvements, environmental quality, land development, and public health
and safety.
Section 9: Plan Implementation & Maintenance details the measures that the participating jurisdictions will
take to ensure the plan’s implementation as well as the procedures by which the Plan will be regularly
evaluated and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6
2021
2 Planning Process
Section 2 provides a review of the process followed for the development of the Augusta-Richmond County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan including a summary of the opportunities for public and
stakeholder involvement and incorporation of existing plans and information. This section contains the
following subsections:
•2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning
•2.2 History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Augusta-Richmond County
•2.3 Preparing the Plan
•2.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
•2.5 Involving the Public
•2.6 Involving Stakeholders
•2.7 Documentation of Plan Progress
Table 2.1 – Section 2 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 2 – Planning Process Section 2 – Planning Process
2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation
Planning
2.1 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning – Minor updates
2.2 History of Hazard Mitigation
Planning in Augusta-Richmond
County
2.2 History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Augusta-Richmond County –
This section was updated and revised to include a discussion of key updates
to the plan.
2.3 Preparing the 2017 Plan 2.3 Preparing the Plan – This section was revised to outline the DMA- and
CRS- planning processes that were integrated and followed for this plan
update.
2.4 The Augusta-Richmond County
Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
2.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee – Minor updates including a
discussion and summary of HMPC meetings.
2.5 Community Meetings and
Workshops
This section was deleted. HMPC meetings are discussed in Section 2.4 and
public and stakeholder meetings and workshops are discussed in Sections
2.5 and 2.6, respectively. Meeting details are included in Appendix C
Planning Process Documentation.
2.6 Involving the Public 2.5 Involving the Public – Minor updates to reflect new and additional
outreach, including public meetings.
2.7 Involving the Stakeholders 2.6 Involving Stakeholders – Minor updates
2.8 Documentation of Plan Progress 2.7 Documentation of Plan Progress – This section was revised to include a
summary of progress made toward implementation of the mitigation action
plans.
44 CFR §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
To develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning
process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities,
and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private
and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(1): The plan shall include the following:
1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was
involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7
2021
Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning
Local hazard mitigation planning is the process of organizing community resources, identifying and
assessing hazard risks, and determining how to best minimize or manage those risks. This process
culminates in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific mitigation actions, each designed to achieve
both short-term planning objectives and a long-term community vision.
To ensure the functionality of a hazard mitigation plan, responsibility is assigned for each proposed
mitigation action to a specific individual, department, or agency along with a schedule for implementation.
Plan maintenance procedures are established for the routine monitoring of implementation progress, as
well as the evaluation and enhancement of the mitigation plan itself. These plan maintenance procedures
ensure that the Plan remains a current, dynamic, and effective planning document over time that becomes
integrated into the routine local decision-making process.
Communities that participate in hazard mitigation planning have the potential to accomplish many benefits,
including:
•Saving lives and property
•Saving money
•Speeding recovery following disasters
•Reducing future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and
reconstruction
•Expediting the receipt of pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding
•Demonstrating a firm commitment to improving community health and safety
Mitigation planning has the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by breaking the
repetitive cycle of disaster loss. The goal of hazard mitigation is that the investments made before a hazard
event will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency
response, repair, recovery, and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices will enable local residents,
businesses, and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community and
the local economy back on track with less interruption.
Mitigation planning can also achieve multiple objectives in the community beyond risk reduction. For
example, the acquisition of land in known hazard areas can preserve open space, maintain environmental
health, and enhance recreational opportunities. Thus, it is essential that any local mitigation planning
process be integrated with other concurrent local planning efforts and that the identification of mitigation
strategies consider other community goals or initiatives that will complement or hinder implementation.
History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Augusta-Richmond County
This plan is an update to the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County Hazard Mitigation Plan, which included
participation from and was adopted by all three jurisdictions involved in this plan update. The previous plan
was approved by FEMA in October 2017.
2.2.1 Updates and Revisions by Section
For this update, the 2017 plan was used as a base for incorporation of new data and an updated planning
process. The format of the plan document was largely maintained, apart from changes to the hazard risk
and vulnerabilities assessments, which were combined from Section 5 and Section 6 in the 2017 plan into
Section 5 in this plan update. This change allowed for all relevant data on risk and vulnerability for each
hazard to be presented together. Other minor changes were incorporated throughout the document.
A table at the beginning of each section of this plan provides a more detailed description of the updates
and revisions that were made.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8
2021
2.2.2 Summary of Key Updates
This hazard mitigation plan update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the
existing plan and an assessment of the success of the County and participating municipalities in evaluating,
monitoring and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in their existing plans. Only the information
and data still valid from the existing plan was carried forward as applicable into this update. The following
requirements were addressed during the development of this plan update:
• Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation;
• Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective;
• Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective;
• Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked;
•Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks;
•Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities;
•Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories; and
• Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
Table 2.2 provides a comparison of the hazards addressed in the 2019 Georgia Mitigation Strategy and the
2017 Augusta-Richmond County plan and provides the final decision made by the HMPC as to which
hazards should be included in the updated 2022 Augusta-Richmond County Multi-Jurisdictional Plan.
Table 2.2 – Hazard Identification Summary
Hazard Included in 2019
State HMP?
Included in 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP?
Included in 2022 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP?
Coastal Hazards (Storm Surge,
Coastal Flooding) Yes No No
Dam Failure Yes Yes (and Levee Failure) Yes (Dam/Levee Failure)
Drought Yes Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes Yes
Extreme Heat Yes Yes Yes
Flooding Yes Yes Yes
Geologic Hazards (Sinkhole,
Landslide) Yes No No
Hurricane Wind Yes
Yes (Hurricane/Tropical
Storm)
Yes (Hurricane & Tropical
Storm)
Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning) Yes Yes (profiled separately) Yes
Severe Winter Weather Yes Yes Yes
Tornado Yes Yes Yes
Wildfire Yes Yes Yes
Wind Yes Yes
(Windstorm/Thunderstorm)Yes
Chemical Hazard No Yes Yes
Cyberterrorism No Yes Yes
Infectious Disease No Yes Yes
Nuclear Power Plant Incident No Yes Yes
Solar Flare/EMP No Yes No
Terrorism No Yes No
Utility Failure No Yes No
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9
2021
In addition to the specific changes in hazard analyses in Section 5, the following items were also addressed
in this plan update:
•GIS was used, to the extent data allowed, to analyze the priority hazards as part of the
vulnerability assessment.
•Assets at risk to identified hazards were identified by property type and values of properties
based on parcel data and a critical facilities inventory provided by Augusta.
•A discussion on climate change and its projected effect on specific hazards was included in each
hazard profile in the risk assessment.
•The discussion on growth and development trends was enhanced utilizing 2019 American
Community Survey data.
•Enhanced public outreach and agency coordination efforts were conducted throughout the plan
update process in order to meet the more rigorous requirements of the 2017 CRS Coordinator’s
Manual, in addition to DMA requirements.
Preparing the Plan
The planning process for preparing the Augusta-Richmond County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan was based on DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is
structured around a four-phase process:
1) Planning Process;
2) Risk Assessment;
3) Mitigation Strategy; and
4) Plan Maintenance.
Into this process, the planning consultant integrated a more detailed 10-step planning process used for
FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan
meets the requirements of six major programs: FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program; CRS Program; Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
Program; Severe Repetitive Loss Program; and new flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
Table 2.3 shows how the 10-step CRS planning process aligns with the four phases of hazard mitigation
planning pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Table 2.3 – Mitigation Planning and CRS 10-Step Process Reference Table
DMA Process CRS Process
Phase I – Planning Process
§201.6(c)(1) Step 1. Organize to Prepare the Plan
§201.6(b)(1) Step 2. Involve the Public
§201.6(b)(2) & (3) Step 3. Coordinate
Phase II – Risk Assessment
§201.6(c)(2)(i) Step 4. Assess the Hazard
§201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii) Step 5. Assess the Problem
Phase III – Mitigation Strategy
§201.6(c)(3)(i) Step 6. Set Goals
§201.6(c)(3)(ii) Step 7. Review Possible Activities
§201.6(c)(3)(iii) Step 8. Draft an Action Plan
Phase IV – Plan Maintenance
§201.6(c)(5)Step 9. Adopt the Plan
§201.6(c)(4) Step 10. Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10
2021
The process followed for the preparation of this plan, as outlined in Table 2.3 above, is as follows:
2.3.1.1 Phase I – Planning Process
Planning Step 1: Organize to Prepare the Plan
With Augusta-Richmond County’s commitment to participate in the DMA planning process, community
officials worked to establish the framework and organization for development of the plan. An initial meeting
was held with key community representatives to discuss the organizational aspects of the plan development
process. The Augusta-Richmond County Deputy Emergency Management Agency Director led the County’s
effort to reorganize and coordinate for the plan update. Consultants from Wood Environment and
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. assisted the County through the planning process and preparation of the plan
document.
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
Public involvement in the development of the plan was sought through open public meetings and
workshops, a plan website, a survey, and other various methods, as detailed in Section 2.5.
Planning Step 3: Coordinate
The HMPC formed for development of the 2017 Plan was reconvened for this plan update. More details on
the HMPC are provided in Section 2.4. Stakeholder coordination was incorporated into the formation of the
HMPC and was sought through additional outreach methods, detailed in Section 2.6.
Coordination with Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities
In addition to stakeholder involvement, coordination with other community planning efforts was also seen
as paramount to the success of this plan. Mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools,
and actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. Augusta-Richmond County and
its participating jurisdictions use a variety of planning mechanisms, such as land use plans, subdivision
regulations, building codes, and ordinances to guide growth and development. Integrating existing
planning efforts, mitigation policies, and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and
comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. As detailed in Table 2.4, the
development of this plan incorporated information from existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives as
well as other relevant data from neighboring communities and other jurisdictions.
These and other documents were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to
support the planning process and plan development, including the hazard identification, vulnerability
assessment, and capability assessment.
Table 2.4 – Summary of Existing Planning Mechanisms Reviewed
Resource Referenced Use in this Plan
Comprehensive Plans The 2018 comprehensive plans for each community were referenced in Section 3
Community Profile and in the jurisdictional annexes. Data from comprehensive
plans was referenced in the Capability Assessment in Section 6 and considered
when evaluating risk to future development in Section 5.
Richmond County and
Incorporated Areas Flood
Insurance Study (FIS)
The FIS report, revised 11/15/2019, was referenced in the preparation of flood
hazard profile in Section 5.8.
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan Augusta-Richmond County does not have a CWPP.
Augusta-Richmond County
Emergency Operations Plan
The EOP was referenced for the development of the Capability Assessment in
Section 6.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11
2021
Resource Referenced Use in this Plan
Georgia Hazard Mitigation
Strategy, 2019
The State Hazard Mitigation Strategy was referenced for the hazard identification
in Section 4 and in the development of hazard profiles in Section 5.
Augusta-Richmond County
Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2017
The previous hazard mitigation plan was referenced throughout this entire plan
update, including in identifying and evaluating hazards in Section 4 and Section 5,
reporting on implementation of existing actions in Section 2, developing the
Mitigation Action Plans in Section 8, and developing the Capability Assessment in
Section 6.
Stormwater Management
and Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinances
Local ordinances were referenced in the Capability Assessment in Section 6 and
where applicable for updates in Mitigation Action Plans in Section 8.
Building and Zoning Codes
and Ordinances
Local ordinances were referenced in the Capability Assessment in Section 6 and
where applicable for updates in Mitigation Action Plans in Section 8.
Mutual Aid Agreements Mutual aid was evaluated as part of the Capability Assessment in Section 6.
Land Use Maps Land use maps were consulted to understand growth and development trends,
discussed in Section 3 and the jurisdictional annexes, and to evaluate the potential
impact of these trends on hazard risk in Section 5.
Critical Facilities Maps Critical facilities maps were prepared for this plan update using data from Augusta-
Richmond County, which was also uploaded to GMIS. These maps were
incorporated into the risk assessment in Section 5 and the jurisdictional annexes.
2.3.1.2 Phase II – Risk Assessment
Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify/Assess the Hazard and Assess the Problem
The HMPC completed a comprehensive effort to identify, document, and profile all hazards that have, or
could have, an impact on the planning area. Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to display,
analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. A draft of the risk and vulnerability assessment was made
available on the plan website for the HMPC, stakeholders, and the public to review and comment. A more
detailed description of the risk assessment process and the results are provided in Section 4 Hazard
Identification and Section 5 Hazard Risk & Vulnerability Assessment.
The HMPC also conducted a capability assessment to review and document the planning area’s current
capabilities to mitigate risk from and vulnerability to hazards. By collecting information about existing
government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC could assess
those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and
vulnerabilities identified. This information can be found in Section 6 Capability Assessment.
2.3.1.3 Phase III – Mitigation Strategy
Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities
Wood facilitated brainstorming and discussion sessions with the HMPC that described the purpose and
process of setting broad planning goals, a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method
of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. This
information is included in Section 7 Mitigation Strategy.
Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
A complete first draft of the plan was prepared based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk
assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7. This draft was shared for
HMPC, stakeholder, and public review and comment via the plan website. Comments were received from
the HMPC and were integrated into the final draft, which was submitted to the Georgia Emergency
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12
2021
Management Agency (GEMA) and FEMA Region IV to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption
by all participating jurisdictions.
2.3.1.4 Phase IV – Plan Maintenance
Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
To secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan will be reviewed and adopted by all participating
jurisdictions. Adoption is discussed in Section 9, and resolutions will be provided in Appendix A.
Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning.
Each jurisdiction participating in this plan (Augusta-Richmond County, Blythe, and Hephzibah) is responsible
for plan implementation within their jurisdiction. Elected officials, officials appointed to head County and
City departments, and community staff are charged with leading implementation of various activities in the
plan. Each participating jurisdiction will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first based on the
priority assigned to the actions in the planning process and the availability of funding and administrative
support. Regular monitoring and maintenance, led by Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Management
Agency and conducted by the HMPC, will ensure continued progress toward implementation.
Section 9 Plan Implementation and Maintenance provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan
implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and
evaluating the plan. Section 9 also discusses incorporating the plan into existing planning mechanisms and
how to address continued public involvement.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
As with the previous plan, this Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed under the guidance of a Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC). The HMPC represents a community-based planning team made
up of representatives from various municipal departments and other key stakeholders identified to serve as
critical partners in the planning process. To reconvene the committee, a letter was sent to all contacts from
the previous planning effort. Where there were vacancies on the committee, new members were invited to
participate.
For the Augusta-Richmond County HMPC, “participation” meant the following:
•Providing facilities for meetings;
•Attending and participating in the HMPC meetings;
•Collecting and providing requested data (as available);
•Providing information on local capabilities;
•Providing an update on previously adopted mitigation actions;
•Managing administrative details;
•Making decisions on plan process and content;
•Identifying mitigation actions for the plan;
•Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts;
•Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process and
providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan;
•Coordinating and participating in the public input process; and
•Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by local governing bodies.
During the planning process, the HMPC members communicated through video conference meetings,
email, and telephone conversations. This continued communication ensured that coordination was ongoing
throughout the entire planning process despite the fact that not all HMPC members could be present at
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 13
2021
every committee meeting. Additionally, draft documents were distributed via a plan update website so that
the HMPC members could easily access and review them and provide comments.
Members of the HMPC are listed in Table 2.5 by jurisdiction and agency. Stakeholder representatives, who
provided input to support all jurisdictions in the planning process, included state government, hospitals,
businesses, and other public organizations.
Table 2.5 – HMPC Members
Jurisdiction Representative Role, Agency Stakeholder
Augusta-Richmond County Mie Lucas Deputy Director, Emergency Management Agency
Augusta-Richmond County Odie Donald Administrator, Administrator's Office
Augusta-Richmond County Michele Pearman GIS Manager, GIS Department
Augusta-Richmond County Shaw Williams
Deputy Chief of Technical Services, Fire
Administration
Augusta-Richmond County Hameed Malik Director of Engineering, Engineering Department
Augusta-Richmond County Terri Turner Development Services Administrator, Planning,
Zoning, and Development
Augusta-Richmond County Calvin Chew Colonel, Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Augusta-Richmond County Scott Peebles Captain, Richmond County Marshal's Office
Augusta-Richmond County Sharon Dottery Director, Public Transit
Augusta-Richmond County Wes Byne Director, Water Utilities
Augusta-Richmond County Chad Hendrix Engineering Manager, Augusta Canal
Augusta-Richmond County Mark Mehall Director, Environmental Services
Augusta-Richmond County Takiyah Douse Director, Central Services
Augusta-Richmond County John Clarke Chair/ Commissioner, Public Safety
Augusta-Richmond County Dennis Williams Vice-Chair/ Commissioner, Public Safety
Blythe Loriann Chancey City Clerk, City of Blythe
Hephzibah Amanda Brookins City Clerk, City of Hephzibah
State Government Collin Hopf Field Coordinator, GEMA
Hospital Acy Miller Emergency Manager, Doctors Hospital
Hospital Joe Webber
Emergency Management Director, Augusta
University Medical Center
Hospital Brandon Landis Charlie Norwood VA
Hospital Charles Smith Eisenhower
Hospital Wendy Barrow
Director of EOC, Emergency Management, and
Security, University Hospital
Volunteer Jeff Pigg Emergency Management Professional
Volunteer Kris Nicholas EMA CERT Volunteer
Volunteer Ruiz Domingo EMA CERT Volunteer
Business Community James Demons Safety, Health, and Environmental Manager,
Starbucks
Business Community Randall Eason Safety and Security Supervisor, Nutrien
Business Community Dian Mead EHS Manager, Prayon Inc.
Military Bill Hegedusich Installation Emergency Manager, Fort Gordon
Public Organization Jeff Tilley Lieutenant, Richmond County School System
Public Organization Susan Beckham Emergency Preparedness and Response Director,
East Central Health District
Public Organization Catherine Barnes Director of Operations, Phinizy Center for Water
Sciences
Public Organization Tonya Bonitatibus Riverkeeper and Executive Director, Savannah
Riverkeeper
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 14
2021
The formal HMPC meetings followed the 10 CRS Planning Steps. These meetings were essential for
facilitating discussion, gaining consensus, and initiating data collection efforts with local government staff,
community officials, and other identified stakeholders. More importantly, the meetings and workshops
prompted continuous input and feedback from relevant participants throughout the drafting stages of the
Plan. The meeting dates, locations, and topics discussed are summarized in Table 2.6. More details on each
meeting, including agendas, minutes, and sign-in sheets for the HMPC meetings are included in Appendix
C. All HMPC meetings were open to the public; however, separate public meetings were also held and are
summarized in Table 2.7.
In many cases, routine discussions and additional meetings were held by local staff to accomplish planning
tasks specific to their department or agency. For example, completing the capability assessment, reporting
on the status of existing actions, or seeking approval of specific mitigation actions for their department or
agency to undertake and include in their Mitigation Action Plan. These meetings were informal and are not
documented here.
Table 2.6 – Summary of HMPC Meetings
Meeting Title Meeting Topic Meeting Date Meeting Location
HMPC Mtg. #1
– Project
Kickoff
1) Introduction to DMA and CRS requirements and
the planning process
2) Trends in disasters and justification for planning
3) Review of HMPC responsibilities and the project
schedule.
4) Preliminary risk assessment discussion
March 29, 2021
11:00 a.m.
Zoom Video
Conference Call
HMPC Mtg. #2
1) Review Draft Hazard Identification & Risk
Assessment (HIRA)
2) Discuss goals & objectives
3) Discuss mitigation action plan requirements
June 7, 2021
10:30 a.m.
Zoom Video
Conference Call
HMPC Mtg. #3
1) Review and update plan goals and objectives
2) Discuss local capability
3) Discuss new mitigation action alternatives
September 9, 2021
11:00 a.m.
Microsoft Teams
Meeting
HMPC Mtg. #4 1) Review the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan
2) Solicit comments and feedback
January 6, 2022
3:00 p.m.
Microsoft Teams
Meeting
2.4.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation and Special Considerations
This plan update includes Augusta-Richmond County’s incorporated municipalities, the Cities of Blythe and
Hephzibah. The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that to satisfy multi-jurisdictional
participation requirements, each local government seeking FEMA approval of their mitigation plan must
participate in the planning effort in the following ways:
• Participate in the process as part of the HMPC;
• Detail where within the planning area the risk differs from that facing the entire area;
• Identify potential mitigation actions; and
• Formally adopt the plan.
To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each participating jurisdiction was required to
perform the following tasks:
• Designate representatives for the HMPC to participate in mitigation planning meetings;
• Report on the status of existing mitigation projects; and
• Update their local Mitigation Action Plan.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 15
2021
In developing the Augusta-Richmond County Mitigation Action Plan, stakeholder groups and outside
agencies were also involved in the planning effort and participated on the HMPC. These stakeholders were
encouraged to support targeted mitigation efforts within their expertise that benefit all jurisdictions, such
as protection and back-up power generation for non- City-owned or County-owned critical facilities.
To support each jurisdiction’s evaluation of mitigation alternatives, Appendix D reviews a selection of
actions considered within each mitigation category.
As a basis for each jurisdiction identifying their own mitigation strategies, jurisdiction-specific information
was developed on current conditions, assets and exposure, risk and vulnerability, and capability. Current
conditions information is provided in Section 3 Community Profile, which has a countywide summary of
geographic and demographic data. More specific data is presented in each jurisdictional annex. Asset and
exposure data is detailed by jurisdiction in Section 5.3, with more details provided in the jurisdictional
annexes. The risk assessment also provides jurisdictional specific vulnerability data, such as repetitive loss
counts for flood. At the end of each hazard profile for natural hazards, a hazard summary table provides a
discussion of jurisdictional differences and a Priority Risk Index (PRI) rating by jurisdiction to note any
variations in risk across the planning area. Where applicable, annexes also include more detailed hazard
mapping and data. Jurisdictional-level capability information is summarized in Section 6 and in the
jurisdictional annexes.
Involving the Public
An important component of any mitigation planning process is public participation. Individual citizen and
community-based input provides the entire planning team with a greater understanding of local concerns
and increases the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation actions by developing community
“buy-in” from those directly affected by the decisions of public officials. As residents become more involved
in decisions that affect their safety, they are more likely to gain a greater appreciation of the hazards present
in their community and take the steps necessary to reduce their impact. Public awareness is a key
component of any community’s overall mitigation strategy aimed at making a home, neighborhood, school,
business, or entire planning area safer from the potential effects of hazards.
Public involvement in the development of the plan was sought using various methods including open public
meetings, an interactive plan website, a public participation survey, and by making copies of draft plan
documents available for public review online. Additionally, HMPC meetings were open to the public.
All public meetings were advertised on the plan website, which was shared on local community websites.
Copies of meeting announcements are provided in Appendix C. The public meetings held during the
planning process are summarized in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7 – Summary of Public Meetings
Meeting Title Meeting Topic Meeting Date Meeting Location
Public Meeting
#1
1) Introduction to DMA and CRS planning process
and justification for planning
2) Review of preliminary risk assessment information
3) Plan website and public survey overview
March 29, 2021
5:00 p.m.
Zoom Video
Conference Call
Public Meeting
#2
1) Review Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan
2) Solicit comments and feedback
January 13, 2022
5:00 p.m.
Microsoft Teams
Meeting
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 16
2021
2.5.1 Outreach Efforts
The HMPC agreed to employ a variety of public outreach methods including established public information
mechanisms and resources within the community. Table 2.8 details public outreach efforts employed during
the preparation of this plan.
Table 2.8 – Public Outreach Efforts
Location Date Event/Message
Plan website Ongoing Meeting announcements, meeting materials, and description of
hazards; contact information provided to request additional
information and/or provide comments
Outreach Flyer Ongoing Flyer on planning process and involvement opportunities made
available at the first public meeting and on the plan website
Augusta Website Press
Release
March 23, 2021 Meeting announcement and request for questions, input, or data
submissions for consideration in planning process.
Local news story March 24, 2021 Information on how to participate in the plan update process
shared, including public meeting notice and request for input.
Augusta social media March 2021 &
December 2021
Link to plan website and survey; meeting announcements
Public survey March 2021 –
October 2021
Survey hosted online on plan website and made available via
shareable link
Plan website - HIRA draft June 2021 Draft HIRA made available for review and comment online
Plan website - Draft Plan December 2021 Full draft plan made available for review and comment online
A public outreach survey was made available in March 2020 and remained open for response throughout
the planning process. The public survey requested public input into the Hazard Mitigation Plan planning
process, including the prioritization of hazards and the identification of mitigation activities to lessen the
risk and impact of future hazard events. The survey is shown in Appendix C along with detailed response
data. The survey was available on the plan website and publicized through local government and
stakeholder websites and social media. In total, 36 survey responses were received.
The following is a list of high-level summary results and analysis derived from survey responses:
• 83% of responses were from Augusta-Richmond County, one response each came from the Cities
of Blythe and Hephzibah, and four responses came from individuals who live in neighboring
jurisdictions.
• The majority of respondents say they feel very (22%) or somewhat (42%) prepared for a hazard
event; while 31% feel somewhat unprepared, and 6% feel not at all prepared.
• 44% of respondents do not have an evacuation or shelter plan in case of an emergency.
• Many respondents that reported having taken steps to mitigate risk at home reported emergency
preparedness actions including emergency kits, evacuation preparedness, and insurance. A few
respondents noted implementing property protection actions that could lessen the impacts of a
hazard event, including a new roof, drainage improvements, and tree and hedge maintenance.
• 33% of respondents do not know where to get more information on hazard risk and
preparedness.
• Text message, email, and TV news and ads are the top three preferred methods for receiving
information about hazard events and information on how to reduce local risk.
• Infectious Disease was rated the most significant hazard, followed by Extreme Heat, Severe
Weather, Flooding, Tornado, and Cyberterrorism. Earthquake was rated the least significant
hazard followed by Solar Flare, Wildfire, and Severe Winter Weather.
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 17
2021
•Many respondents mentioned being impacted by severe winter weather and severe weather; with
lack of preparedness and long power outages as major concerns. Others were impacted by
extreme heat and flooding.
•Several respondents noted the vulnerability of individuals with disabilities and the need for the
HMPC to consider ways to prepare and plan for these individuals before and during hazard
events.
•Respondents favored emergency services, preventive activities, and structural projects for
mitigation.
Detailed survey results are provided in Appendix C.
Involving Stakeholders
In addition to representatives of each participating jurisdiction, the HMPC included a variety of stakeholders.
Stakeholders on the HMPC included representatives from Richmond County School System; East Central
Health District; Fort Gordon; area hospitals including Doctors Hospital, Augusta University Medical Center,
University Hospital, Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center, Eisenhower Army Medical Center; the business
community including Starbucks, Nutrien, and Prayon; public organizations including Phinizy Center for
Water Sciences and Savannah Riverkeeper; and representatives from Georgia Emergency Management
Agency (GEMA). Input from additional stakeholders, including neighboring communities, was solicited
through invitations to the open public meetings and distribution of the public survey and plan website.
However, if any additional stakeholders representing other agencies and organizations participated through
the public survey, that information is unknown due to the anonymous nature of the survey. A list of
stakeholders invited to participate in the planning process is provided in Appendix C.
Documentation of Plan Progress
The hazards addressed in this plan were chosen by the HMPC based on the previous plan, the 2019 Georgia
State Mitigation Strategy, and consideration of hazard frequency and potential severity of damage.
Wherever possible, probability of future occurrences was based on historical occurrence data.
The conclusions drawn from each individual hazard profile and vulnerability assessment were used to
prioritize all potential hazards to Augusta-Richmond County using the Priority Risk Index (PRI). This method
provides a standardized numeric value to each hazard for comparability. A higher PRI value indicates a
hazard poses a higher risk to the community. The PRI is a weighted sum of values assigned across five
categories: probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time, and duration. Each hazard is assigned a value
between 1 and 4 for each category based on a defined set of criteria. Details on these values can be found
in Section 5.2.1. Table 2.9 below summarizes the PRI results for the hazards addressed in this plan.
Table 2.9 – Summary of PRI Results
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Natural Hazards
Dam/Levee Failure Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.6
Drought Highly Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 3.1
Earthquake Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.0
Extreme Heat Highly Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 3.3
Flood Highly Likely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours Less than 1 week 3.3
Hurricane Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Severe Weather (Hail)1 Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.4
SECTION 2: PLANNING PROCESS
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 18
2021
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Severe Weather (Lightning)1 Highly Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.2
Severe Winter Weather Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.7
Tornado Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Wildfire Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 2.8
Windstorm/Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Technological & Human-Caused Hazards
Chemical Hazard Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 3.1
Cyberterrorism Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.4
Infectious Disease Possible Critical Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 2.8
Nuclear Power Plant Incident Unlikely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours More than 1 week 2.6
2.7.1 Mitigation Strategy Revisions
Progress on the mitigation strategy developed in the previous plan is also documented in this plan update.
Table 2.10 details the status of mitigation actions from the previous plan. Table 2.11 on the following pages
details all completed and deleted actions from the 2017 plan. Detail on the actions being carried forward is
provided in Section 8: Mitigation Action Plan.
Table 2.10 – Status of Previous Mitigation Actions
Jurisdiction Completed Deleted Carried Forward
Augusta-Richmond County 1 3 22
City of Blythe 0 2 7
City of Hephzibah 0 0 9
SE
C
T
I
O
N
2
:
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
19
20
2
1
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
1
1
–
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
n
d
D
e
l
e
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
2
0
1
7
P
l
a
n
Ha
z
a
r
d
Ac
t
i
o
n
#
Ac
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
20
2
1
S
t
a
t
u
s
20
2
1
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Fl
o
o
d
P-2
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
da
t
a
b
a
s
e
f
o
r
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
r
e
c
o
r
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
(
b
u
i
l
d
on
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
)
.
T
r
a
i
n
s
t
a
f
f
o
f
a
l
l
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
ci
t
i
z
e
n
c
a
l
l
s
t
o
u
s
e
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
t
o
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
to
e
n
s
u
r
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
a
t
a
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
t
h
o
d
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
co
n
t
e
n
t
s
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
o
o
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
F
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
of
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
n
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
Au
g
u
s
t
a
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
Th
i
s
i
s
a
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
in
v
o
l
v
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
s
t
a
f
f
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
ow
n
e
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
t
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
.
Fl
o
o
d
P-9
Fl
o
o
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
.
S
e
e
k
n
e
w
s
t
a
f
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
.
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
g
r
a
n
t
s
;
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
R
S
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Au
g
u
s
t
a
De
l
e
t
e
Th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
fo
r
E
M
A
.
Ex
t
r
e
m
e
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
ES
-5
As
s
i
s
t
V
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
a
n
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
p
l
a
n
t
o
vu
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
c
o
o
l
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
C
r
e
a
t
e
a
da
t
a
b
a
s
e
t
o
t
r
a
c
k
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
t
h
i
g
h
r
i
s
k
o
f
d
e
a
t
h
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
el
d
e
r
l
y
,
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
e
t
c
.
Au
g
u
s
t
a
De
l
e
t
e
Th
e
C
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
me
d
i
c
a
l
ne
e
d
s
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
y
.
Se
v
e
r
e
W
i
n
t
e
r
We
a
t
h
e
r
ES
-6
As
s
i
s
t
V
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
-ri
s
k
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
o
f
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
po
w
e
r
o
u
t
a
g
e
s
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
h
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
th
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Au
g
u
s
t
a
De
l
e
t
e
Th
e
C
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
ne
e
d
s
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
y
.
Da
m
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
P-3
Da
m
S
a
f
e
t
y
.
F
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
-de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
d
a
m
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
r
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
d
r
a
i
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
r
i
s
k
s
a
r
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
i
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
li
m
i
t
e
d
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Bl
y
t
h
e
De
l
e
t
e
Da
m
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
i
s
n
o
t
a
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
B
l
y
t
h
e
.
Fl
o
o
d
P-2
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
F
l
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
a
n
d
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
mo
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
f
l
o
o
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
U
t
i
l
i
z
e
n
e
w
l
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
FE
M
A
D
F
I
R
M
s
a
n
d
n
e
w
t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
t
o
a
s
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
of
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
t
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
a
n
d
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
c
o
s
t
-
b
e
n
e
f
i
c
i
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
M
a
p
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
G
I
S
p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
.
Bl
y
t
h
e
De
l
e
t
e
On
l
y
0
.
1
%
o
f
B
l
y
t
h
e
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
SF
H
A
.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 20
2021
3 Community Profile
Section 3 provides an overview of the current conditions in Augusta-Richmond County and its
municipalities.
Table 3.1 – Section 3 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 3 – Planning Process Section 3 – Community Profile
3.1 Geography and the
Environment
3.1 Overview of the Community – This section provides a brief overview of the
County and its jurisdictions, orienting the places withing Georgia.
3.2 Geography and Climate – This section expands on the information presented
in the previous plan and provides historical and current trends for precipitation
and temperature
See 3.3 below 3.3. Transportation – This section outlines the existing transportation
infrastructure and highlights upcoming projects
3.4 Culture, Historic and Natural Resources – This section notes cultural features,
lists historic properties, and briefly examines waterbodies in the county
3.2 Population and
Demographics
3.5 Population – This section expands on population changes and trends, and
notes important demographic information
3.4 Employment and Industry 3.6 Economy –This section expands on employment and industry and includes
information on unemployment, income, major employers, and poverty level
3.3 Housing, Infrastructure,
and Land Use
3.7 Housing – This section expands on housing statistics and includes information
on occupancy rates, home ownership, types of units, and housing age estimates
3.8 Social Vulnerability – This is a new section that discusses social vulnerability,
who is more vulnerable, and why.
See 3.3 above 3.9 Land Use – This section refers to the comprehensive plans for each jurisdiction
and will allocate detailed information to the annexes.
3.10 Growth and Development Trends – This is a new section that briefly describes
population growth trends for the county.
Overview of the Community
Augusta-Richmond County is located in the east central section of Georgia, along the border of Georgia
and South Carolina, approximately 150 miles east of Atlanta on Interstate 20. In 1996, the City of Augusta
consolidated with Richmond County to form Augusta-Richmond County. Nestled along the banks of the
Savannah River, Augusta is the second largest and oldest city in Georgia. The cities of Blythe and Hephzibah
are separate municipalities chartered by the State of Georgia which are also included in this Plan.
Additionally, Fort Gordon occupies a large section of the western part of the county and, although it is not
an incorporated municipality, it is treated as a separate entity for the purposes of this Plan. An orientation
map is provided as Figure 3.1 and reflects the boundaries of the County as well as the jurisdictions within
the County and the location of Fort Gordon.
The county seat is the City of Augusta, which is the largest city in the county. Augusta-Richmond County is
bordered by Columbia County to the northwest, Burke County to the south, Jefferson, and McDuffie
counties to the west, and South Carolina to the northeast. Augusta-Richmond County has a total area of
324.2 square miles. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2019 5-Year
Estimates (which was the most current data available at the time this plan was developed), the estimated
total population of Augusta-Richmond County was 201,852 in 2019. Therefore, the County’s average
population density is approximately 623 people per square mile, which reflects the moderately urban
character of the county.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
:
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
21
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
–
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 22
2021
Services in Augusta County are provided by the following entities:
•Education (local public schools): Richmond County School System
•Higher Education: Augusta University, Paine College, Augusta Technical College
•Public Water & Sewer Utilities: Augusta Utilities Department is responsible for water and
sewerage systems in Augusta-Richmond County. Individual jurisdictions, Blythe and Hephzibah
provide their own water and sewer services
•Power Utilities: Georgia Power Company and Jefferson Energy Cooperative
•Transportation Services: Augusta Regional Airport, Daniel Field Airport, Norfolk Southern and
CSX Transportation, Inc (railroad freight service), Augusta Public Transit
Geography and Climate
According to the Köppen climate classification system, Augusta-Richmond County is classified as subtype
Cfa (Humid Subtropical Climate) characterized by relatively high temperatures and evenly distributed
precipitation throughout the year.
The following charts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show the annual
average temperature, average precipitation, average maximum temperature, and average minimum
temperature for Augusta-Richmond County from 1980 to 2020.
Figure 3.2 – Average Temperature Trends for Augusta-Richmond County, 1980-2020
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, published May 2021, retrieved
on June 4, 2021 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 23
2021
Figure 3.3 – Maximum Temperature Trends for Augusta-Richmond County, 1980-2020
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, published May 2021, retrieved
on June 4, 2021 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Figure 3.4 – Minimum Temperature Trends for Augusta-Richmond County, 1980-2020
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, published May 2021, retrieved
on June 4, 2021 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 24
2021
Figure 3.5 – Precipitation Trends for Richmond County, 1980-2020
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, published May 2021, retrieved
on June 4, 2021 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Augusta-Richmond County is located within four river basins. The majority of the county falls within the
Augusta Canal-Savannah River Basin and the Spirit Creek River Basin, while the remaining southwest and
southern most portion of the county fall within the Brushy Creek-Brier Creek River Basin and the Middle
Brier Creek River Basin. Figure 3.6 illustrates these HUC-10 drainage basins and drainage features in and
around Augusta-Richmond County.
Augusta-Richmond County is situated in three major land resource areas: the Southern Piedmont, the
Carolina and Georgia Sand Hills, and the Southern Coastal Plain. The Southern Piedmont covers the northern
part of the county and consists of broad to narrow ridgetops and long irregular hillsides bisected by
numerous small winding drainageways. The Carolina and Georgia Sand Hills are located in the northern and
western parts of the county and separate the Southern Piedmont from the Southern Coastal Plain.
The Southern Coastal Plain covers the southern and southeastern parts of the county and is characterized
by broad ridgetops and hillsides extending to drainageways. Nearly level floodplains of the Savannah River
are located in the eastern and northern parts of the county and on the narrower basins of its tributaries.
Elevations range between 100 and 140 feet along the Savannah River and 500 feet or more on high ridges
on Fort Gordon. More than half of the total land area has a slope of less than 5 percent, and more than 85
percent of the land has less than 10 percent slope. Less than 2 percent of the land area has slope greater
than 15 percent. The steepest slopes are found along Butler, Spirit, and Little Spirit Creeks. The majority of
areas with steep slopes are either within floodplains, which are regulated by local ordinance, or are located
on Fort Gordon.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
:
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
25
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
6
–
H
U
C
-
1
0
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
B
a
s
i
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
N
H
D
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 26
2021
Transportation
Major Highways
Primary highway corridors in the County include:
•I-20
•I-520
•U.S. 1
•U.S. 25
•U.S. 78
•U.S. 278
Additional highway routes in the County include:
•SR 28
•SR 56
•SR 58
•SR 88
•SR 104
•SR 383
•SR 2169
Augusta-Richmond County has a road network that includes a mix of interstate highways, federal highways,
state routes and several local roads. Interstate 20 runs east to west across the northwestern corner of the
county and links Atlanta, Georgia and Columbia, South Carolina. Interstate 520 is an auxiliary circumferential
interstate that begins in the northern part of the County, encircles Augusta, and converges with Interstate
20 in North Augusta, South Carolina. U.S. 1 runs north to south through Georgia, connecting the county to
the southern part of the state and South Carolina.
None of these routes are registered on the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry.
Rail Lines
Passenger rail service is not available in Augusta-Richmond County. However, freight service is provided by
two railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, Inc. Both run across the county, CSX further north
and Norfolk Southern in the southern half of the county, parallel to both route 56 and 25.
Public Transit
Augusta-Richmond County provides public transportation services through Augusta Public Transit. These
include the fixed route bus service that operates nine fixed routes, access to ADA (Para transit) service, and
the Richmond Rural Transit service.
Airports
The Augusta Regional Airport (ARA) at Bush Field serves Augusta-Richmond County. The airport is a city-
owned and operated, public use airport. Currently, two primary commercial airlines operate daily services
to Atlanta, Georgia; Charlotte, North Carolina; Washington, DC; and Dallas, Texas. A second smaller airport,
Daniel Field, also operates in Augusta-Richmond County and is located about a mile west of the City of
Augusta. This airport is publicly-owned and operated by the General Aviation Commission and it is primarily
used by corporate and private clients for business and recreational purposes.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 27
2021
Future Transportation Systems and County Transportation Priorities
Local and regional plans recommend a variety of short- and long-range transportation planning initiatives
and projects that are in various stages of implementation.
Augusta-Richmond’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a list of goals and objectives for
the Future Mobility 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. There are a total of nine goals outlined in the
plan some of which include, Reduce Traffic Congestion and Delay; Improve Mobility, Accessibility, and
Connectivity; Enhance the economic vitality of the region and promote job opportunities; and Enhance the
social and environmental fabric of the region. In the most recent TIP (FY 2021-2024), Augusta-Richmond
County has 10 projects. Projects include intersection improvements, sidewalk replacements and widening,
bridge replacements, and revamping the public right of way.
Cultural, Historic and Natural Resources
Augusta-Richmond County is rich in historic, cultural, and natural resources. Notable landmarks include the
Augusta National Golf Course, home of the annual Masters Tournament, and Fort Gordon Military base. The
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) has 50 listings in Augusta-Richmond County, including 12
historic districts. Two of these listings are in Hephzibah, one is in Blythe, and the remaining sites are in
Augusta. These properties and districts are provided in Table 3.2 below. All historic districts are shown in
Figure 3.7. Note that the mapped Downtown Historic District includes the listed Broad Street Historic District
and Green Street Historic District.
The Springfield Historic District is of particular importance as it underwent mitigation efforts in order to
protect the historically black neighborhood from past road improvements. Established in the late 1700's
Springfield has long been an important location for African-American culture and history in Augusta. The
Federal Highway Administration, National Historic Preservation Office, State Historic Preservation Office and
GDOT deemed this site to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation of
the archaeological site has been completed and the findings of the artifacts and other historical information
have been documented on the City of Augusta website.
Table 3.2 – Historic Property Listings in Augusta-Richmond County
Name on the Register Date Listed Location City
1 Academy of Richmond County 4/11/1973 540 Telfair St. Augusta
2 Academy of Richmond County-
1926 Campus
1/28/2004 910 Russell St. Augusta
3 Augusta Canal Industrial
District
5/27/1971 Along the west bank of the Savannah River
from the Richmond-Columbia county line to
10th and Fenwick Sts.
Augusta
4 Augusta Cotton Exchange
Building
7/20/1978 Reynolds St. Augusta
5 Augusta Downtown Historic
District
6/11/2004 Roughly bounded by 13th St., Gordon Hwy,
Walton Way and the Savannah R.
Augusta
6 Augusta National Golf
Club/Fruitlands
5/25/1979 2604 Washington Rd. Augusta
7 Bath Presbyterian Church and
Cemetery
10/27/2004 Edie Bath Rd., 0.5 mi. W of US 1 Blythe
8 Benet, Stephen Vincent, House 11/11/1971 2500 Walton Way Augusta
9 Bethlehem Historic District 12/1/1997 Roughly bounded by Wrightsboro Rd., MLK Jr.
Blvd., Railroad , Poplar, and Clay Sts.
Augusta
10 Brahe House 4/11/1973 456 Telfair St. Augusta
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 28
2021
Name on the Register Date Listed Location City
11 Broad Street Historic District 4/28/1980 Broad St. between 5th and 13th Sts. Augusta
12 Cauley-Wheeler Memorial
Building
6/4/2008 1339 Laney-Walker Blvd. Augusta
13 Church of the Most Holy Trinity 3/21/1997 720 Telfair St. Augusta
14 College Hill 11/11/1971 2116 Wrightsboro Rd. Augusta
15 Darling, Joseph, House 4/18/1991 3066 Dennis Rd. Martinez
16 Engine Company Number One 5/25/1988 452 Ellis St. Augusta
17 First Baptist Church of Augusta 3/23/1972 Greene and 8th Sts. Augusta
18 First Presbyterian Church of
Augusta
2/21/1997 642 Telfair St. Augusta
19 FitzSimons-Hampton House 10/29/1976 GA 28 Augusta
20 Gertrude Herbert Art Institute 3/20/1973 506 Telfair St. Augusta
21 Gould-Weed House 7/16/1979 828 Milledge Rd. Augusta
22 Greene Street Historic District 12/3/1980 Greene St. Augusta
23 Harrisburg--West End Historic
District
6/7/1990 Roughly bounded by 15th St., Walton Way,
Heard Ave., Milledge Rd., and the Augusta
Canal
Augusta
24 Harris-Pearson-Walker House 10/28/1969 1822 Broad St. Augusta
25 Hull, Dr. Asbury and Martha,
House
9/18/2018 2749 Hillcrest Ave. Augusta
26 Lamar Building 4/24/1979 753 Broad St. Augusta
27 Lamar, Joseph Rucker, Boyhood
Home
6/13/1996 415 7th St. Augusta
28 Laney-Walker North Historic
District
9/5/1985 Bounded by D'Antignac, 7th, Twiggs, Phillips
and Harrison Sts., Walton Way and Laney-
Walker Blvd.
Augusta
29 Liberty Methodist Church 11/7/1997 2040 Liberty Church Rd. Hephzibah
30 Meadow Garden 7/19/1976 1230 Nelson St. Augusta
31 Neuropsychiatric Infirmary –
Building 76
12/7/2020 1798 Maryland Ave, Charlie Norwood VA
Medical Center
Augusta
32 Neuropsychiatric Tuberculosis
Ward-Building 7
12/7/2020 1900 Maryland Ave., Charlie Norwood VA
Medical Center
Augusta
33 Old Medical College Building 3/16/1972 Telfair and 6th Sts. Augusta
34 Old Richmond County
Courthouse
12/22/1978 432 Telfair St. Augusta
35 Paine College Historic District 12/26/2012 1235 15th St. Augusta
36 Pinched Gut Historic District 3/6/1980 Roughly bounded by Gordon Hwy., E.
Boundary, Reynolds and Gwinnett Sts.
Augusta
37 Reid-Jones-Carpenter House 11/13/1979 2249 Walton Way Augusta
38 Sacred Heart Catholic Church 3/16/1972 Greene and 13th Sts. Augusta
39 Sands Hill Historic District 7/9/1997 Roughly bounded by Monte Sano and North
View Aves., Mount Auburn St., Johns Rd., and
Augusta Country Club.
Augusta
40 Seclusaval and Windsor Spring 10/11/1988 Jct. of Windsor Spring and Tobacco Rds. Hepzibah
41 Shiloh Orphanage 12/30/1996 1635 15th St. Augusta
42 Springfield Baptist Church 6/17/1982 112 12th St. Augusta
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 29
2021
Name on the Register Date Listed Location City
43 Springfield Baptist Church
(Boundary Increase)
7/5/1990 114 Twelfth St. Augusta
44 St. Paul's Episcopal Church 4/11/1973 6th and Reynolds Sts. Augusta
45 Summerville Historic District 5/22/1980 Roughly bounded by Milledge Lane,
Wrightsboro Rd., Highland and Heard Aves.,
Cumming and Henry Sts.
Augusta
46 Tubman High School 3/7/1994 1740 Walton Way Augusta
47 United States Post Office and
Courthouse
1/21/2000 500 E. Ford St. Augusta
48 Weiss-Steinburg-Bush House 7/2/2019 1300 Buena Vista Rd. Augusta
49 Wilson, Woodrow, Boyhood
Home
2/28/1979 419 7th St. Augusta
50 Woodlawn Historic District 7/2/2019 Roughly bounded by Walton Way, Emmett St.,
Wrightsboro Rd., and Heard Ave.
Augusta
Source: National Register of Historic Places Database
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
:
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
30
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
7
–
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 31
2021
3.4.1 Parks, Preserves, and Conservation
The Augusta-Richmond County Parks and Recreation Department maintains 70 parks and recreation
facilities throughout the county, providing citizens a variety of recreation opportunities. Of note are
Pendleton King Park and the Augusta Riverwalk. More information about these parks can be found below.
Augusta Riverwalk spans between 6th & 10th Streets in Downtown Augusta along the Savannah River and
is managed by the City of Augusta. The Riverwalk park is alongside and on top of Augusta’s Levee and
consists of two bricked levels that have several accessibility points. In the late 1800s and early 1900s
repetitive flooding would damage Augusta’s downtown business district and nearby homes. In 1908 the
City built a levee to protect itself from flooding, and after the 1936 Flood Control Act, the levee was built to
the height it is today. To catalyze development downtown, the organization Augusta Tomorrow created and
implemented a phased plan to transform Augusta's Riverfront into a thriving business and tourist center. In
1985, the plan began to be implemented with the first phase of construction which included a breach of
the levee to gain access along the shores of the Savannah.
Today, visitors can access the Riverwalk Marina, multiple plazas with year-round entertainment and events,
and the Japanese Gardens can be accessed on the lower level of the Riverwalk. The city park also passes the
Jessye Norman Amphitheater and a Navy memorial. There are several smaller venues along the walkway
that host weddings, concerts, picnics, and more.
Pendleton King Park Pendleton King Park is a 64-acre bird sanctuary of great topographic diversity with pine
forests, sand ridges and marshes. The park was donated by the King Family and is managed by the Augusta-
Richmond County Recreation and Parks Department. It is located in the heart of Augusta and houses a
variety of gardens and natural resources. Pendleton King Park offers many opportunities for recreational
activities including playgrounds, an 18-hole disc golf course, nature trails for walking and cycling, cross
country trails, the historic Bugg family cemetery, an educational tree trail, an off-leash dog park and open
spaces for picnicking and play.
3.4.2 Water Bodies and Floodplains
Natural floodplains in the county include wetland areas and low-lying land along the major rivers and
coastal areas around the county. Natural floodplains reduce damage by allowing flood waters to spread out
over large areas, aiding infiltration into the ground, reducing flow rates and acting as a flood storage area
to reduce downstream peaks.
The Savannah River is the primary water body in Augusta-Richmond County. Smaller creeks traverse the
county, including Butler, Spirit, and Little Spirit Creek. There are also several streams, lakes, and freshwater
ponds located throughout the county. Additional detail on the wetland systems associated with these
waterbodies is provided in the subsections below.
Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions
Floodplains in riverine areas perform natural functions that cannot be replicated elsewhere. When kept
open and free of development, floodplains provide the necessary flood water conveyance and flood water
storage needed by a stream or river. When the floodplain is able to perform its natural function, flood
velocities and peak flows are reduced downstream. Natural floodplains reduce wind and wave impacts and
their vegetation stabilizes soils during flooding.
Floodplains in their natural state provide many beneficial functions beyond flood reduction. Water quality
is improved in areas where natural cover acts as a filter for runoff and overbank flows; sediment loads and
impurities are also minimized. Natural floodplains moderate water temperature, reducing the possibility of
adverse impacts on aquatic plants and animals. Floodplains can act as recharge areas for groundwater and
reduce the frequency and duration of low flows of surface water. They provide habitat for diverse species
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 32
2021
of flora and fauna, some of which cannot live anywhere else. They are particularly important as breeding
and feeding areas.
Wetlands
Wetlands benefit the ecosystem by storing, changing, and transmitting surface water and groundwater.
Through these processes, pollution is removed, nutrients are recycled, groundwater is recharged, and
biodiversity is enhanced. Wetland composition varies extensively, with five distinct categories for
classification: Riverine, Lacustrine, Palustrine, Estuarine, and Marine systems. Only riverine, lacustrine, and
palustrine wetland systems are present in Augusta-Richmond County as there is no ocean-based coast in
the county.
The Riverine System
The Riverine system includes all wetlands and deep-water habitats contained within a channel with two
exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergent vegetation, emergent mosses, or lichens,
and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5%. The Riverine system is bounded
on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergent vegetation, emergent mosses, or lichens. In braided
streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the
braiding occurs.
Riverine systems in Augusta-Richmond County are located along the Savannah River, located between the
eastern county boundary and the South Carolina border. This system of wetlands often connects to different
types of surrounding wetland areas in the county.
The Lacustrine System
Lacustrine wetlands are large, open, water-dominated systems (e.g., lakes). This definition also applies to
modified systems which possess characteristics similar to lacustrine systems (e.g., deep standing or slow-
moving waters).
There are several Lacustrine wetlands in Augusta-Richmond County. They are present around larger bodies
of water, primarily located in the eastern part of the county, however there are also a few lacustrine wetlands
in central and northern parts of the county.
The Palustrine System
The Palustrine (freshwater) system includes all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent
emergent plants, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in areas where salinity due
to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5%. The Palustrine system is bounded by upland.
Within the County, this system includes freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands,
and freshwater ponds. Palustrine wetlands are the most common occurring classification of wetland in
Augusta-Richmond County. They are mostly found along freshwater river and creek corridors. Many of the
palustrine wetlands in the county can be found along the Butler, Spirit, and Rocky creeks, as well as some
of the smaller streams located throughout the county. The most concentrated section of palustrine wetlands
is in the eastern portion of the county near the Savannah River.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a regular listing of threatened species, endangered species,
species of concern, and candidate species for counties across the United States. Augusta-Richmond County
has 21 species that are listed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Table 3.3 below shows the species
identified as threatened, endangered, or other classification for Augusta-Richmond County.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 33
2021
Table 3.3 – Threatened and Endangered Species
Group Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Insects monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Flowering Plants Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea Under Review
Reptiles Florida pinesnake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Under Review
Mammals Rafinesque's big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquii Species of Concern
Reptiles Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate
Birds Cardinal honey-eater Myzomela cardinalis saffordi Resolved Taxon
Flowering Plants Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Resolved Taxon
Flowering Plants Ocmulgee skullcap Scutellaria ocmulgee Under Review
Flowering Plants Carolina birds-in-a-nest Macbridea caroliniana Under Review
Clams Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus Status Undefined
Flowering Plants Relict trillium Trillium reliquum Endangered
Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Mammals Tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus Under Review
Reptiles Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus Resolved Taxon
Reptiles Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata Under Review
Clams Brother spike Elliptio fraterna Status Undefined
Amphibians Gopher Frog Lithobates capito Under Review
Clams Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Proposed Threatened
Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened
Fishes Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum Under Review
Insects Frosted Elfin Callophrys irus irus, C. i. hadros, C. i. arsace Status Undefined
Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=13245
Population
Augusta-Richmond County and its municipalities have had minimal population growth over the past two
decades. Both Blythe and Hephzibah have experienced an overall decrease in population. Augusta-
Richmond County had 200,549 residents at the time of the 2010 Decennial Census and an estimated
population of 201,852 in 2019. Overall population density in the County increased from 618.6 persons per
square mile in 2010 to 622.6 persons per square mile in 2019. Trends suggest that this number is likely to
continue growing over the next decade. Figure 3.8 shows population density across the county in persons
per square mile. The City of Augusta experienced growth between 2010 and 2019, which slightly increased
the county’s overall population. Both Blythe and Hephzibah experienced slight decreases in their
populations from 2010-2019. Table 3.4 provides population counts from 2000, 2010, and estimate for 2019
for each of the participating jurisdictions.
Table 3.4 – Augusta-Richmond County Population Counts
Jurisdiction
2000
Census
Population
2010 Census
Population
2019 ACS
Population
Estimate
Total
Change
2010-2019
% Change
2010-2019
Augusta-Richmond County 199,775 200,549 201,852 1,303 0.65%
Augusta 187,428 195,844 197,191 1,347 0.69%
Blythe 718 721 688 -33 -4.60%
Hephzibah 3,880 4,011 3,977 -34 -0.85%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Demographic characteristics of the county are summarized in Table 3.5. According to 2019 American
Community Survey, the median age in Augusta-Richmond County is estimated to be 34.1. Of the population
aged 25 years and over, 84.2 percent have a high school degree or higher and 21.4 percent have a bachelor’s
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 34
2021
degree or higher. While most of Augusta-Richmond County residents speak only English at home,
approximately 6.4 percent of the residents speak a language other than English at home with 1.9 percent
speaking English “less than very well.” The racial characteristics of the participating jurisdictions are
presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.5 – Demographic and Social Characteristics Compared to the State and Nation
Demographic & Social Characteristics
Augusta-
Richmond
County
Georgia United
States
Median Age 34.1 36.7 38.1
% of Population Under 5 years old 6.8%6.3% 6.1%
% of Population Over 65 years old 13.5%13.5% 15.6%
% of Population over 25 with high school diploma or higher 84.2%87.2% 88.0%
% of Population over 25 with bachelor’s degree or higher 21.4%31.4% 32.1%
% with Disability 17.0%12.4% 12.6%
% Speak English less than "very well" 1.9%5.5% 8.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Table 3.6 – Demographics by Race and Sex
Augusta-Richmond County Population %
Total Population 201,852
Sex
Male 97,611 48.4%
Female 104,241 51.6%
Race and Ethnicity
White alone 69,706 34.5%
Hispanic or Latino 9,937 4.9%
Black or African American alone 112,183 55.6%
Asian alone 3,602 1.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 485 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 426 0.2%
Some other race alone 1,171 0.6%
Two or more races 4,342 2.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
:
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
35
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
8
–
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
2
0
1
9
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
B
u
r
e
a
u
,
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
2
0
1
5
-
2
0
1
9
5
-
Y
e
a
r
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 36
2021
Economy
Notable economic drivers for Augusta-Richmond County include the Fort Gordon Military Base and the
diverse presence of natural, cultural, and historic resources that drive tourism in the county and surrounding
areas. Employment is highest in the educational services, and healthcare and social assistance sectors. Major
employers in these sectors include a range of hospitals, VA medical centers, Augusta University, and the
Richmond County School System. The second largest employment industry is retail trade. Several retail
trade establishments are in downtown Augusta, in shopping centers on major roads, and on individual sites
and provide for the daily needs of area residents. Large facilities such as Augusta Mall and Augusta Exchange
draw customers from throughout the region.
3.6.1 Wages and Employment
The 2019 American Community Survey indicates that the median household income for Augusta-Richmond
County is $42,728 which is notably lower than that of the state, which is $58,700. At $56,786, the Town of
Blythe has a higher median household income than the other jurisdictions, while the City of Augusta has
the lowest at $42,592. On the other hand, per capita income statistics reflect a slightly different pattern,
with the state having the highest per capita income ($31,067), followed by that of Hephzibah ($26,966).
Augusta-Richmond County and the City of Augusta have comparable per capita incomes just over $22,700,
while Blythe has the lowest per capita income ($20,955). Compared to the state (13.3%), a larger proportion
of the population is living below the poverty level in the county (23%), the City of Augusta (23.1), and
Hephzibah (23.9). The Town of Blythe has a lower proportion with about 9% living below the poverty level.
The percentage of the population that lacks health insurance across the county is about the same as that
of the state, while Blythe and Hephzibah have slightly higher percentages. These patterns start to highlight
some areas of social vulnerability of the county’s population.
Table 3.7 shows economic statistics for each jurisdiction compared to the state average and Table 3.8 shows
employment statistics for the county compared to the state average. Employment by industry statistics by
participating jurisdictions can be found in each jurisdiction’s annex.
Table 3.7 – Augusta-Richmond County Economic Statistics, 2019
Jurisdiction
Median
Household
Income
Per Capita
Income
Unemployment
Rate (%)
% of Individuals
Below Poverty
Level
% Without
Health
Insurance
Augusta-Richmond County $42,728 $22,787 9.0% 23.0% 13.0%
Augusta $42,592 $22,709 9.0% 23.1% 13.0%
Blythe $56,786 $20,955 2.8% 9.0% 15.1%
Hephzibah $54,554 $26,966 10.1% 23.9% 15.8%
State of Georgia $58,700 $31,067 5.7%13.3%13.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Table 3.8 – Augusta-Richmond County Employment by Industry, 2019
Industry Augusta-
Richmond County
Georgia
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.6%1.1%
Construction 5.2%6.7%
Manufacturing 9.7%10.7%
Wholesale trade 1.9%2.8%
Retail trade 13.4%11.5%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.4%6.6%
Information 1.6%2.3%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 3.5%6.2%
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 37
2021
Industry Augusta-
Richmond County
Georgia
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 11.9%12.3%
Educational services, and healthcare and social assistance 24.9%20.7%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food
services 11.8%9.4%
Other services, except public administration 4.4%4.9%
Public administration 5.6%4.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
The largest industry sector in the county in 2019 was “educational services, and healthcare and social
assistance,” comprising 24.9 percent of employment across the county. The “retail trade” industry sectors
provide the second largest amount of employment, comprising 13.4 percent. Other notable industry sectors
include “Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services”
(11.9%), “arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services” (11.8%), and
“manufacturing” (9.7%).
With over 25,000 employees, Fort Gordon is the county’s largest employer and home to the U.S. Army Cyber
Center of Excellence, which operates the military's largest communications and cybersecurity training
centers and has an annual economic impact of $2.26 billion. According to the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce, more than $211 million in construction is currently ongoing at Fort Gordon, and another $1.4
billion in projected upgrades, renovations and construction, including a new Cyber Campus, are expected
at the installation over the next 10 years.
Table 3.9 summarizes the top ten largest employers in Augusta-Richmond County.
Table 3.9 – Major Employers, Augusta-Richmond County
Company Industry
U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence & Fort Gordon Military Base
Augusta University Educational Services
Richmond County School System Educational Services
NSA Augusta Government
University Hospital Health Care
Augusta University Hospitals Health Care
Augusta-Richmond County Municipal Services
VA Medical Centers Health Care
East Central Reginal Hospital Health Care
Doctors Hospital Health Care
Source: Augusta Finance Department; City of Augusta FY2021 Budget publication
Housing
Table 3.10 provides details on housing characteristics for the county and incorporated jurisdictions as well
as a comparison to the State of Georgia, and Table 3.11 provides further detail for Augusta-Richmond
County. Counts by jurisdiction for these characteristics are in individual jurisdictional annexes.
The American Community Survey estimates that there are 88,622 housing units in Augusta-Richmond
County, of which 80.6 percent are occupied. In comparison to the state (87.8%), occupancy rates are lower
in the county and cities of Augusta (80.4%) and Blythe (82.7%), while Hephzibah’s occupancy rate is the
highest at 90.6%. Renter-occupied units comprise 47.4 percent of the housing stock in Augusta-Richmond
County, which is nearly the same as the City of Augusta (47.9%), but significantly higher than the percentage
of renter-occupied units in the two other jurisdictions and across the state (36.7%). With 17 percent of its
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 38
2021
occupied units belonging to renters, Blythe has the lowest percentage of renter-occupied units of any
jurisdiction in the county. In Hephzibah, renters occupy 26 percent of occupied units. A high percentage of
renters is an indicator of higher pre- and post-disaster vulnerability as renters often do not have the financial
resources of homeowners, are more transient, are less likely to have information about or access to recovery
aid following a disaster and are more likely to require temporary shelter following a disaster (Cutter, et al.
2003). Higher rates of home ownership in some jurisdictions, such as Blythe and Hephzibah, where owner-
occupied housing rates are above 60 percent, may indicate that more residents in these areas are able to
implement certain types of mitigation in their homes. The lowest percentage of owner-occupied housing is
in Augusta (52.1%).
Augusta-Richmond County experienced a 3 percent increase in housing units between 2010-2019, which is
lower than that of the state (5%). Of all the jurisdictions in the county, the City of Augusta experienced the
highest increase in housing units during this time with a small increase of 3 percent. However, Blythe and
Hephzibah experienced a decrease in housing units by 11% and 3%, respectively.
At $115,700, the median home value for Hephzibah is higher than that of the county ($108,000) and its
other incorporated jurisdictions, however, it is below the state’s median home value of $176,000. Of the
County’s owner-occupied housing units, 60.6 percent have a mortgage.
Detached single-family homes comprise over 61.4 percent of the total housing units in Augusta-Richmond
County. The next most common housing type is multi-family units, which consist of 33.2 percent of the total
housing units. This percentage consists of 2-unit properties, 3 or 4 unit properties, 5 to 9 unit properties, 10
to 19 unit properties, as well as properties with 20 or more units. Mobile homes make up almost 8 percent
of the housing stock. Mobile home units can be more vulnerable to certain hazards, such as tornadoes and
windstorms, especially if they are not properly secured with tie downs. Of the total occupied housing units
in Augusta-Richmond County, approximately 9.4 percent of householders have no vehicle available to them,
which could cause difficulty in the event of an evacuation.
The majority of the County’s housing stock, 61.1 percent, was built in the four decades between 1960 and
1999. Age can indicate the potential vulnerability of a structure to certain hazards. For example, the City of
Augusta joined the National Flood Insurance Program in 1978 (the County later joining in 1980). Therefore,
based on housing age estimates, almost 37 percent of housing in the County was built before any floodplain
development restrictions were required.
Table 3.10 – Augusta-Richmond County and Incorporated Jurisdictions, Housing Characteristics,
2019
Jurisdiction
Housing
Units
(2010)
Housing
Units
(2019)
Housing
Units Percent
Change
(2010-2019)
Occupied
Units, %
(2019)
Owner-
Occupied
Units, %
(2019)
Renter-
Occupied
Units, %
(2019)
Median
Home
Value
(2019)
Augusta-Richmond
County 86,331 88,622 3% 80.6 52.6 47.4 $108,000
Augusta 84,427 86,795 3%80.4 52.1 47.9 $108,000
Blythe 305 271 -11%82.7 83 17 $97,500
Hephzibah 1,613 1,571 -3% 90.6 74 26 $115,700
Georgia 4,088,801 4,283,477 5%87.8 63.3 36.7 $176,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Decennial Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 39
2021
Table 3.11 – Augusta-Richmond County Housing Characteristics, 2019
Housing Characteristics Augusta-Richmond
County Georgia
Average Household Size 2.65 2.75
% of Housing Units with no Vehicles Available 9.4%6.5%
%of Housing Units that are mobile homes 7.8%9.0%
% Population Cost Burden*56.1%49.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Decennial Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
*Cost burden is defined as spending more than 30 percent of household income on rent
In 2019, the median cost for rent in Augusta-Richmond County was $888 compared the state median of
$1,006. The large majority (87%) of renters in the county paid between $500 and $1,500 a month. Over 56
percent of the population was paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing. The U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines those who pay more than 30 percent of their income
for housing as cost burdened, indicating they may have difficulty affording necessities such as food,
clothing, transportation, and medical care. This population could also be especially vulnerable when
responding to a disaster.
Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability refers to a community’s capacity to prepare for and respond to the stress of hazardous
events ranging from natural disasters, such as tornadoes or disease outbreaks, to human caused threats,
such as toxic chemical spills. That is to say that even if different groups share similar exposure to a hazard,
some groups may have a greater capacity to anticipate, cope, and recover from a disaster than others. Social
vulnerability often refers to the population characteristics that have historically made certain groups of
people more or less at risk when they are exposed to the impacts of a hazard event (Cutter, 2003; Berke et
al., 2019). Common and determining characteristics include age, gender, income, race, and ethnicity, and
language capacity (Cutter et al., 2003; Berke et al., 2015). However, additional characteristics can include
social networks, education, cultural knowledge, and political power (Otto et al., 2017). Social vulnerability
considerations were included in this plan update to identify areas across the County that might be more
vulnerable to hazard impacts based on a number of factors.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a social vulnerability index (SVI) as a
way to measure the resilience of communities when confronted by external stresses such as natural or
human-caused disasters or disease outbreaks. The SVI is broken down to the census tract level and provides
insight into particularly vulnerable populations to assist emergency planners and public health officials
identify communities more likely to require additional support before, during, and after a hazardous event.
The SVI indicates the relative vulnerability within census tracts based on 15 social factors: poverty,
unemployment, income, education, age, disability, household composition, minority status, language,
housing type, and transportation access. Higher social vulnerability is an indicator that a community may
be limited in its ability to respond to and recover from hazard events. Therefore, using this SVI information
can help the County and jurisdictions to prioritize pre-disaster aid, allocate emergency preparedness and
response resources, and plan for the provision of recovery support.
Figure 3.9 displays social vulnerability information for Augusta-Richmond County by census tract according
to most recent data and analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results are
presented via a score that ranges from 0 (lowest vulnerability) to 1 (highest vulnerability). The SVI score for
the entire county is 0.93 which indicates a high level of vulnerability. Within the county, the most vulnerable
residents live in the northeastern part of the county, primarily centered around the City of Augusta and
along the South Carolina border.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 40
2021
Non-English Speaking Population
Over six percent of the county population speaks a language other than English. Of that population, about
1.9% percent speak English “less than very well.” The most prominent language spoken other than English
is Spanish, with 3.3 percent of the non-English speaking population speaking Spanish.
In its justification of SVI indicators, the CDC explains that disaster communication is made increasingly
difficult for those with limited English proficiency. This difficulty is especially true in communities whose first
language is neither English nor Spanish, and for whom translators and/or accurate translations of advisories
may be scare.
Special Needs Population
According to the American Community Survey, an estimated 32,655 residents, or 17 percent, of Augusta-
Richmond County’s population identify as having some form of disability including hearing, vision,
cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and/or independent living difficulties. Lack of public transportation options
could pose significant issues for special needs population during an emergency or disaster.
Homeless Population
In 2018, for the first time, HUD’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report included the number of people
experiencing homelessness who were sheltering in locations specifically for people displaced by
presidentially declared natural disasters. The report found 3,864 displaced and homeless individuals.
Additionally, the National Low Income Housing Coalition explains that people experiencing homelessness
are particularly vulnerable during natural disasters and are often subject to discrimination during recovery.
Resources are often prioritized for those displaced during disasters, despite the case that there is no
difference between those that were made homeless by a hazard event and those who otherwise lack stable
housing.
The homeless population in Augusta-Richmond County and across the state is monitored and supported
by the Department of Community Affairs, which conducts a “Point in Time” (PIT) count every other January
to estimate the number of homeless individuals in counties throughout Georgia through the “Continuum
of Care” (CoC) reports. There are 9 CoC districts in Georgia that report on homelessness in their designated
areas. The seven most urbanized counties have individual CoCs, while the remaining 152 counties are
counted in the “Balance of State Continuum of Care”, which target the relatively less urbanized, more rural
counties. The combined results from these reports help to predict the rate of homeless across the state.
These efforts support the requirements by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
for each state to collect and maintain data on their homeless populations.
As of 2019, the CoC reports to HUD reported that Georgia had an estimated 10,443 individuals experiencing
homelessness on any given day. The 2019 Point in Time Count for the relatively less urbanized counties,
including Augusta-Richmond County, indicated that there were 4,183 individuals characterized as literally
homeless, as defined by HUD. Over half (54%) of this homeless population were found to be living in
unsheltered conditions, while the other 46 percent were in emergency or transitional housing.
Approximately 8 percent of this population was children (under age 18) or youth (under age 24). There are
several homeless shelters throughout the county, as well as a list of resources and agencies that can support
those experiencing homelessness.
Inmates
The County Sheriff’s office indicates that there are about 984 inmates in the Richmond County Jail System,
and a daily average of 835 inmates. This incarcerated population could require special planning during a
hazard event depending on the location of jail facilities in the county. Additional planning for food, water,
and health care may need to be considered.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 41
2021
Poverty
According to 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates, 23 percent of the total Augusta-Richmond
population was below the poverty level. In its justification of SVI indicators, the CDC explains that
economically disadvantaged populations are disproportionately affected by disasters. Low-income
residents are less likely to have the income or assets necessary to prepare for a possible disaster or to
recover after a disaster (Cutter et al. 2003). For low-income households, lost or damaged property is
proportionately more expensive to replace, especially without homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. Similarly,
for unemployed individuals may not have access to benefits plans that provide income and health cost
assistance in the event of injury. Additionally, housing quality and access is closely tied to socio-economic
status. Low-income households may live in less structurally sound houses or mobile homes, which are
particularly vulnerable to strong storm or earthquakes.
Of the 19 census tracts in the county that are characterized as Highly Vulnerable (scores greater than
0.7501), an average of almost 90 percent of the population lives below the poverty line.
Minority Status
Of the 19 census tracts in the county that are characterized as Highly Vulnerable, an average of 79% of the
population is people of color. In comparison, the census tracts with the lowest vulnerability rating (scores
less than 0.2501), only have an average of 28 percent people of color living in those areas.
The CDC indicates that, “social and economic marginalization of certain racial and ethnic groups, including
real estate discrimination, has rendered minority populations more vulnerable at all stages of disaster and
hazard events.” Similarly, the Urban Sustainability Network explains that, in the U.S., race is a major
determinant of life outcomes. Like housing, it is inextricably tied to income and wealth. Further, race is a
reliable predictor of hazard risk, including vulnerability to many of the hazards projected to intensify under
changing climate conditions.
Historical and current discriminatory practices have resulted in the inequitable distribution of resources and
access to opportunities for many lower-income populations and communities of color. The result is that
social inequities can increase disproportionate risk and vulnerability in these communities.
It should be noted that 1.8 percent of the County’s population includes Non-U.S. citizens, however, this
number is likely under-reported. Immigrants and undocumented residents often face increased vulnerability
during and after hazard events. Challenges include limited language proficiency; limited knowledge of local
environmental conditions, including natural hazards, legal framework and institutions, and markets; limited
social networks; lack of trust in authorities; restrictions on mobility; and discrimination. All of these
challenges can make it difficult for immigrant communities to access necessary information, resources, and
opportunities to prepare, cope with, and recover from hazard events.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
:
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
42
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
9
–
S
o
c
i
a
l
V
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
b
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
T
r
a
c
t
,
2
0
1
8
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
f
o
r
D
i
s
e
a
s
e
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
(
C
D
C
)
/
A
g
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
T
o
x
i
c
S
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
i
s
e
a
s
e
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
y
(
A
T
S
D
R
)
/
G
e
o
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
G
R
A
S
P
)
.
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY PROFILE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 43
2021
Land Use
Land use data was obtained from the County and 2018 Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to serve as a planning document that guides the growth and
development decisions of Augusta-Richmond County and its incorporated areas over the next 20 years. The
Comprehensive Plan serves as a countywide implementation guide to promote local goals related to
economic development, land use, transportation, housing, and cultural and natural resources.
The Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah also have 2018 comprehensive plans that were developed
independently. The plans provide character areas maps that lay out a vision and goals for the Cities, as well
as future land use maps that define general land use districts for future growth and change. Details on
development trends, including character areas and future land use, will be provided in each jurisdiction’s
annex.
Growth and Development Trends
According to the Georgia Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), Augusta-Richmond County is
projected to reach a population of 212,155 by 2050, which represents a 5.1 percent increase from the 2019
population. The highest increase in population is expected to occur over the next decade to 15 years, after
which the rate of increase will likely level out, as indicated in Figure 3.10. The population projections from
the GOPB estimate the average annual growth for the County to be about 0.67 percent through 2050.
Figure 3.10 – Population Projections for Augusta-Richmond County 2019 - 2050
Source: Georgia Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
202,518
203,330
206,609
210,374
212,605 212,899 212,933 212,155
202,000
204,000
206,000
208,000
210,000
212,000
214,000
2019 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year
Augusta-Richmond County Population Projections 2019-2050
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 44
2021
4 Hazard Identification
This section documents the Hazard Identification process for the development of the Augusta-Richmond
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It contains the following subsections:
•4.1 Overview
•4.2 Hazard Identification
•4.3 Past Occurrences and Disaster Declarations
•4.4 Hazard Evaluation
•4.5 Hazard Identification Results
Table 4.1 – Section 4 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 4 – Hazard Identification Section 4 – Hazard Identification
4.1 Overview 4.1 Overview – Minor updates
4.2 Description of Full Range of
Hazards
4.2 Full Range of Hazards Evaluation – This section was simplified to present
the list of hazards considered during the hazard identification process based
on existing state and local mitigation plans.
4.3 Disaster Declarations 4.3 Past Occurrence and Disaster Declarations – This section was expanded
to include emergency declarations and summary data on past hazard
occurrences.
4.4 Hazard Evaluation 4.4 Hazard Evaluation – This section was updated based on the range of
hazards evaluated and new HMPC determinations.
4.5 Hazard Identification Results 4.5 Hazard Identification Results – Minor updates
Overview
Augusta-Richmond County is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-caused hazards. FEMA
regulations and guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) require, at a minimum, an
evaluation of a full range of natural hazards, but evaluation of human-caused hazards is not required for
plan approval. However, Augusta-Richmond County has included an assessment of both types of hazards
in this plan in order to comprehensively evaluate risk and mitigation opportunities.
The hazard identification process was as follows:
1. The HMPC created a list of the full range of hazards to be considered for inclusion in this plan
update, detailed in Section 4.2.
2. Past hazard occurrences and disaster declarations in the planning area were reviewed, as detailed
in Section 4.3.
3. Based on preliminary information including past occurrences, disaster declarations, information
from the previous plan, and other data, each hazard was reviewed to determine whether it was
significant to the planning area and warranted further assessment, as summarized in Section 4.4.
4. The HMPC produced the final list of hazards to be included in this plan update, provided in Section
4.5.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide
sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to
reduce losses from identified hazards.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural
hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 45
2021
Full Range of Hazards Considered
To identify hazards relevant to the planning area, the HMPC began with a review of the list of hazards
identified in the 2019 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy and the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County Hazard
Mitigation Plan as summarized in Table 4.2. The HMPC used these lists to identify a full range of hazards
for potential inclusion in this plan update and to ensure consistency across these planning efforts. All
hazards on the below list were evaluated for inclusion in this plan update. Not all hazards included in the
2017 plan were carried forward for inclusion in this plan update.
Table 4.2 – Full Range of Hazards Evaluated
Hazard Included in 2019 Georgia
Mitigation Strategy?
Included in 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP?
Coastal Hazards (Storm Surge, Coastal Flooding) Yes No
Dam Failure Yes Yes (and Levee Failure)
Drought Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes
Extreme Heat Yes Yes
Flooding Yes Yes
Geologic Hazards (Sinkhole, Landslide)Yes No
Hurricane Wind Yes Yes (Hurricane/Tropical Storm)
Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning)Yes Yes (profiled separately)
Severe Winter Weather Yes Yes
Tornado Yes Yes
Wildfire Yes Yes
Wind Yes Yes (Windstorm/Thunderstorm)
Chemical Hazard No Yes
Cyberterrorism No Yes
Infectious Disease No Yes
Nuclear Power Plant Incident No Yes
Solar Flare/EMP No Yes
Terrorism No Yes
Utility Failure No Yes
Past Occurrences and Disaster Declarations
The HMPC evaluated the above list of hazards using existing hazard data, past disaster declarations, local
knowledge, and information from the 2019 State Plan and the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County Plan to
determine the significance of these hazards to the planning area. Significance was measured in general
terms and focused on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, which includes deaths and
injuries, as well as property and economic damage.
One key resource in this effort was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s National Center
for Environmental Information (NCEI), which has been tracking various types of weather events since 1950.
NCEI’s Storm Events Database contains an archive by county of destructive storm or weather data and
information which includes local, intense and damaging events. It should be noted that NCEI is not a
complete record of all past weather events because it relies on local reporting of weather and storm events.
NCEI receives storm data from the National Weather Service (NWS), which compiles their information from
a variety of sources, including but not limited to: county, state and federal emergency management officials;
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 46
2021
local law enforcement officials; SkyWarn spotters; NWS damage surveys; newspaper clipping services; the
insurance industry and the general public, among others. Reports can include multiple events within one
episode. The NCEI database contains 239 records of storm events that occurred in Richmond County in the
20-year period from 2001 through 2020. Table 4.3 summarizes these events.
Table 4.3 – NCEI Severe Weather Data for Richmond County, 2001-2020
Type # of Events Property Damage Crop Damage Deaths Injuries
Cold/Wind Chill 0 $0 $0 0 0
Dense Fog 0 $0 $0 0 0
Drought 0 $0 $0 0 0
Excessive Heat 0 $0 $0 0 0
Extreme Cold 0 $0 $0 0 0
Flash Flood 23 $295,200 $300 0 0
Flood 0 $0 $0 0 0
Freezing Fog 0 $0 $0 0 0
Frost/Freeze 0 $0 $0 0 0
Funnel Cloud 0 $0 $0 0 0
Hail 48 $15,310 $310 0 0
Heat 0 $0 $0 0 0
Heavy Rain 6 $10,000 $10 0 0
Heavy Snow 1 $0 $0 0 0
High Wind 5 $30,000 $10,000 0 0
Hurricane 0 $0 $0 0 0
Ice Storm 4 $0 $0 0 1
Lightning 2 $160,000 $100 0 3
Strong Wind 4 $35,020 $30 0 0
Thunderstorm Wind 139 $668,510 $1,010 1 29
Tornado 3 $5,010,000 0 0 12
Tropical Storm 1 $0 $0 0 0
Winter Storm 3 $0 $0 0 0
Winter Weather 0 $0 $0 0 0
Total: 239 $6,224,000 $11,760 1 45
Source: National Center for Environmental Information Events Database, retrieved May 2021, data available through 11/20
Note: Losses reflect totals for all impacted areas for each event.
Note that the NCEI period of record varies by hazard. For the more in-depth evaluation of historical
occurrences in each hazard profile, the full period of record available in NCEI was used.
The HMPC also researched past events that resulted in a federal and/or state emergency or disaster
declaration for Richmond County in order to identify significant hazards. Federal and/or state disaster
declarations may be granted when the Governor certifies that the combined local, county and state
resources are insufficient, and that the situation is beyond their recovery capabilities. When the local
government‘s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the
provision of state assistance. If the disaster is so severe that both the local and state government capacities
are exceeded, a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of
federal assistance.
Records of designated counties for FEMA major disaster declarations start in 1964. Since then, Richmond
County has been designated in five major disaster declarations, as detailed in Table 4.4, and six emergency
declarations, as detailed in Table 4.5.
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 47
2021
Table 4.4 – FEMA Major Disaster Declarations, Richmond County
Disaster
#Dec. Date Incident
Type Event Title
Individual
Assistance
Applications
Approved
Total Individual
and Households
Program Dollars
Approved
Total Public
Assistance Grant
Dollars Obligated
880 10/19/1990 Severe
Storms and
Flooding
Flooding, Severe Storm ------
1209 03/11/1998 Severe
Storms and
Flooding
Severe Storms,
Tornadoes and Flooding
------
4165 03/06/2014 Severe
Winter
Storm
Severe Winter Storm ------
4338 09/16/2017 Hurricane Hurricane Irma 9,371 $13,643,351.67 $120,002,359.45
4501 03/29/2020 Biological COVID-19 Pandemic 14 $111,638.91 $201,410,823.14
Source: FEMA Disaster Declarations Summary, May 5, 2021
Note: Number of applications approved and all dollar values represent totals for all counties in the state included in the disaster
declaration.
Table 4.5 – FEMA Emergency Declarations, Richmond County
Disaster #Dec. Date Incident Type Event Title/Description
3044 07/20/1977 Drought Drought
3218 09/05/2005 Hurricane Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
3368 02/11/2014 Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storm
3387 09/08/2017 Hurricane Hurricane Irma
3406 10/11/2018 Hurricane Hurricane Michael
3464 03/13/2020 Biological COVID-19
Source: FEMA Disaster Declarations Summary, May 5, 2021
Hazard Evaluation
Using the above information and additional discussion, the HMPC evaluated each hazard’s significance to
the planning area in order to decide which hazards to include in this plan update. Table 4.6 summarizes
how and why the determination for each hazard was made.
Table 4.6 – Hazard Evaluation
Hazard
Included in
this Plan
Update?
How Was Determination
Made?Why Was Determination Made?
Natural Hazards
Coastal Hazards
(Storm Surge &
Coastal
Flooding)
No
-Review of GA State HMP
-Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Review of FEMA Flood
Insurance Study (FIS)
-Not included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County
HMP
-Coastal hazards would not impact the planning area
due to its inland location.
Dam/Levee
Failure*Yes
-Review of GA State HMP
-Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Review of Georgia Safe
Dams Program data
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
-There are 27 dams on the Georgia Safe Dams
Program’s Dam Inventory, including 8 high hazard
dams.
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 48
2021
Hazard
Included in
this Plan
Update?
How Was Determination
Made?Why Was Determination Made?
Drought Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of U.S. Drought
Monitor data
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- The U.S. Drought Monitor recorded severe to
exceptional drought conditions in 9 of the last 20
years in Augusta-Richmond County.
Earthquake* Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of USGS seismic
hazard maps
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- Earthquakes have occurred in and around Georgia.
The state is affected by the Charleston and Eastern
Tennessee seismic zones.
- According to USGS seismic hazard maps, the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) with a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years for Augusta-Richmond
County is approximately 8 to 14%g; FEMA
recommends that earthquakes be evaluated for
mitigation in areas with a PGA of 3%g or more.
Extreme Heat Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of Augusta Bush
Field AP weather station
data
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- Augusta averages 79 days per year with temperatures
exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit
Flooding Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of NCEI data and
disaster declarations
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- NCEI records indicate that Richmond County has
experienced 23 flash flood events and 6 heavy rain
events in the 20 years from 2001-2020. The planning
area has also received 3 disaster declarations for
flood-related events.
Geologic
Hazards
(Sinkhole &
Landslide)
No
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Not included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County
HMP
- USGS sinkhole potential mapped in the 2019 GA
State HMP indicates some sinkhole-susceptible soil
underlying Richmond County but the hazard is rated
low risk.
- USGS landslide potential mapped in the 2019 GA
State HMP indicates low risk in Richmond County.
Hurricane &
Tropical Storm Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- The planning area received a disaster declaration for
Hurricane Irma.
- The 50-year return period peak gust for hurricane
and tropical storm events in Augusta-Richmond
County is around 68 mph.
Severe Weather
(Hail &
Lightning)
Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of NCEI data and
disaster declarations
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- NCEI records indicate that Richmond County has
experienced 2 damaging lightning events and 48
damaging hail events in the 20-year period from
2001-2020.
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 49
2021
Hazard
Included in
this Plan
Update?
How Was Determination
Made?Why Was Determination Made?
Severe Winter
Weather Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- The planning area received a disaster declaration for
a severe winter storm.
- NCEI records indicate that Richmond County has
experienced 3 winter storm events, 4 ice storm
events, and 1 heavy snow event in the 20-year period
from 2001-2020.
Tornado Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- NCEI records indicate that Richmond County has
experienced 3 tornados causing over $5 million in
property damages in the 20 years from 2001-2020.
Wildfire Yes
-Review of GA State HMP
-Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
- Review of Southern
Wildfire Risk Assessment
(SWRA) data
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
-SWRA data indicates some areas of moderate to high
(index of -5 to -9) Wildland Urban Interface Risk
Index
Windstorm/
Thunderstorm Yes
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
Technological and Human-Caused Hazards
Chemical
Hazard Yes
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- There are 123 Tier II facilities located in Richmond
County
Cyberterrorism Yes - Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
and rated as a moderate risk hazard.
Infectious
Disease Yes
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- The planning area received a disaster declaration for
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nuclear Power
Plant Incident* Yes
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- The Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant is located within 10
miles of southeastern Augusta-Richmond County.
-An incident is unlikely but could have major impacts.
Solar Flare/EMP No
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Not included in the GA State HMP
- Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
but not considered a significant enough threat to
warrant continued assessment or mitigation
Terrorism No
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Not included in the GA State HMP
- Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
but not considered a significant enough threat to
warrant continued assessment
- Opportunities for mitigation are limited and the
threat of terrorism is better addressed through
emergency operations planning
Utility Failure No
- Review of GA State HMP
- Review of 2017 Augusta-
Richmond County HMP
-Not included in the GA State HMP
- Included in the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County HMP
- HMPC discussion concluded that utility failure is a
consequence of other hazards in this plan and will be
evaluated and mitigated through those hazards.
*This hazard was found to be a low-risk hazard through the risk assessment process; therefore, it is not prioritized for mitigation.
SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 50
2021
Hazard Identification Results
Below is the final list of hazards selected by the HMPC for inclusion in this plan:
Natural Hazards
•Dam/Levee Failure
•Drought
•Earthquake
•Extreme Heat
•Flood
•Hurricane & Tropical Storm
•Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning)
•Severe Winter Weather
•Tornado
•Wildfire
•Windstorm/Thunderstorm
Technological/Human-Caused Hazards
•Chemical Hazard
•Cyberterrorism
•Infectious Disease
•Nuclear Power Plant Incident
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 51
2021
5 Hazard Risk & Vulnerability Assessment
This section describes and documents how Augusta-Richmond County met Step 4: Assess the Hazard, and
Step 5: Assess the Problem from the 10-step planning process. It includes detailed hazard profiles with risk
and vulnerability assessment data for each of the hazards identified in Section 4. It contains the following
subsections:
Overview
•5.1 Overview
•5.2 Methodology
•5.3 Asset Inventory
Natural Hazards
•5.4 Dam/Levee Failure
•5.5 Drought
•5.6 Earthquake
•5.7 Extreme Heat
•5.8 Flooding
•5.9 Hurricane & Tropical Storm
•5.10 Severe Weather
•5.11 Severe Winter Weather
•5.12 Tornado
•5.13 Wildfire
•5.14 Windstorm/Thunderstorm
Technological & Human-Caused Hazards
•5.15 Chemical Hazard
•5.16 Cyberterrorism
•5.17 Infectious Disease
•5.18 Nuclear Power Plant Incident
Conclusions
•5.19 Conclusions on Hazard Risk & Vulnerability
Table 5.1 – Section 5 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 5 – Hazard Profiles &
Section 6 – Vulnerability Assessment
Section 5 – Hazard Risk & Vulnerability Assessment
5.1 Overview,6.1 Overview, & 5.2
Study Area
5.1 Overview –This section combines the overview sections and study
area section of the previous plan. Minor updates to text.
5.3 Climate Change/Adaptation Details on the potential impacts of climate change on each hazard are
now incorporated into each hazard profile.
6.2 Methodology, &
6.3 Explanation of Data Sources
5.2 Methodology – This section details the methodology employed for
the risk and vulnerability assessment and incorporates detail on the data
sources used for each hazard.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the…location and extent of all
natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences
of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to
the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary
of each hazard and its impact on the community. Plans approved after October 1, 2008 must also address
NFIP insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. The plan should describe
vulnerability in terms of:
A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas;
(B): An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate; and
(C): Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation
options can be considered in future land use decisions.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 52
2021
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
6.4 Asset Inventory 5.3 Asset Inventory – The asset inventory was updated with current
parcel data, critical facility data, social vulnerability data, and growth and
development trends.
5.4 – 5.22 Hazard Profiles
6.5 Vulnerability Assessment Results
5.4-5.18 Hazard Profiles have been updated with new data and
evaluation to the extent possible. Vulnerability assessment results have
been incorporated into the hazard profiles.
5.23 Conclusions on Hazard Risk,
5.24 Final Determinations, &
6.6 Conclusions on Hazard
Vulnerability
5.19 Conclusions on Hazard Risk & Vulnerability – This section combines
the conclusions of the previous hazard risk and vulnerabilities
assessments into a single section. It classifies each hazard as either High,
Moderate, or Low Risk so that it may be prioritized for mitigation.
Overview
As defined by FEMA, risk is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. “It is the impact that a
hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood
of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage.” This section presents
detailed hazard profiles for each of the hazards identified in Section 4 as significant enough to warrant
further evaluation. Each hazard profile includes a general description of the hazard, its location, extent, past
occurrences, and the probability of future occurrences as well as a detailed vulnerability assessment
identifying the assets at risk and potential loss estimates. Each profile also includes specific items noted by
members of the HMPC as they relate to unique historical or anecdotal hazard information for the planning
area.
The hazard risk assessment includes all of Augusta-Richmond County and its incorporated municipalities,
the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah. The City of Augusta operates in conjunction with Richmond County as
part of a consolidated government; therefore, these communities are treated as a single entity and there
are no unincorporated areas within the county. Fort Gordon occupies a large section of the southwest
portion of the county and is also included in the risk and vulnerability assessment, although it is not an
incorporated municipality or an official participant of this plan.
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives,
property, infrastructure, and other assets to these hazards. The process allows for a better understanding
of the potential risks natural hazards pose in the county and provides a framework for developing and
prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events. This risk assessment followed the
methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and
Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2, 2002), which breaks the assessment down to a four-step process:
Methodology
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that the HMPC evaluate the risks associated with each of the
hazards identified in the planning process. Each hazard was evaluated to determine where it may occur, the
severity of potential events, records of past events, the probability of future occurrences, and potential
impacts from the hazard. A vulnerability assessment was conducted for each hazard using quantitative
and/or qualitative methods depending on the available data, to determine its potential to cause significant
losses to life or property. A consequence analysis was also completed for each hazard. Each hazard is
profiled in the following format:
1. Identify
Hazards
2. Profile
Hazard Events
3. Inventory
Assets
4. Estimate
Losses
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 53
2021
Hazard Description
This section provides a description of the hazard, including discussion of its duration and speed of onset or
warning time, as well as any secondary effects followed by details specific to the planning area.
Location
This section includes information on the hazard’s physical extent, describing where the hazard can occur,
with mapped boundaries where applicable.
Extent
This section includes information on the hazard extent in terms of its potential magnitude and describes
how the severity of the hazard can be measured. Where available, the most severe event on record is used
as a frame of reference.
Historical Occurrences
This section contains information on historical events, including the location and consequences of past
events on record within or near the planning area.
Probability of Future Occurrence
This section gauges the likelihood of future occurrences based on past events and existing data. The
frequency is determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and
multiplying by 100. This provides the percent chance of the event happening in any given year according
to historical occurrence (e.g. 10 winter storm events over a 20-year period equates to a 50 percent chance
of experiencing a severe winter storm in any given year). Unless otherwise noted in the hazard profile, a 20-
year period of record is used for determining probability in order to provide a uniform definition of
probability and to reflect current conditions, including recent trends driven by climate change. Longer
timeframes are used for hazards with significantly longer average recurrence intervals, such as earthquake,
or where data limitations otherwise restrict the period of record.
The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the classifications as follows:
• Highly Likely – Near or more than 100 percent chance of occurrence within the next year
• Likely – Between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence within the next year (recurrence
interval of 10 years or less)
•Possible – Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence within the next year (recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years)
• Unlikely – Less than 1 percent chance or occurrence within the next 100 years (recurrence interval
of greater than every 100 years)
Climate Change
Where applicable, this section discusses how climate change may or may not influence the risk posed by
the hazard on the planning area in the future.
Consequence Analysis
This section discusses how the hazard may impact people, first responders, continuity of operations, the
built environment, the natural environment, the local economy, and public confidence in local governance
in order to meet Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) plan standards.
Vulnerability Assessment
This section quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to the hazard and
potential loss estimates. Details on hazard specific methodologies and assumptions are provided in the
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 54
2021
hazard profiles where applicable. People, properties and critical facilities, and environmental assets that are
vulnerable to the hazard are identified.
The vulnerability assessments followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding
Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (August 2001). This risk assessment first describes
the total vulnerability and values at risk and then discusses specific exposure and vulnerability by hazard.
Data used to support this assessment included the following:
• Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets, including Augusta-Richmond County tax parcel
data and building point data from 2020, topography, transportation layers, and critical facility and
infrastructure locations;
• Hazard layer GIS datasets from state and federal agencies indicating risk and/or past occurrences;
•Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by the 2019 Georgia Hazard Mitigation
Strategy;
•Written descriptions of inventory and risks provided by the 2017 Augusta-Richmond County
Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
• Exposure and vulnerability estimates derived using local tax parcel data.
Two distinct risk assessment methodologies were used in the formation of the vulnerability assessment.
The first consists of a quantitative analysis that relies upon best available data and technology, while the
second consists of a qualitative analysis that relies on local knowledge and rational decision making.
Vulnerability can be quantified in those instances where there is a known, identified hazard area, such as a
mapped floodplain. In these instances, the numbers and types of buildings subject to the identified hazard
can be counted and their values tabulated. Exposure of other valued assets in the hazard area, such as the
location of critical facilities and infrastructure, historic resources, and valued natural resources (e.g., an
identified wetland or endangered species habitat), can also be estimated. Together, this information
conveys the vulnerability of that area to that hazard. Augusta-Richmond County’s GIS-based risk assessment
was completed using data collected from local, regional and national sources that included Augusta-
Richmond County, GEMA, and FEMA.
For applicable hazards, the quantitative analysis also involved the use of FEMA’s Hazus-MH, a nationally
applicable standardized set of models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and
hurricanes. Hazus uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risk to predict a hazard’s
frequency of occurrence and estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information. The
Hazus risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters—such
as wind speed and building type—were modeled using the Hazus software to determine the impact on the
built environment.
In addition to the Hazus analysis conducted as part of this plan update process, a Hazus analysis was
prepared for Augusta-Richmond County by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of
Georgia (UGA). This UGA Hazard Risk Analyses report was used to evaluate tornado vulnerability. The UGA
Hazard Risk Analyses report for Augusta-Richmond County is provided in Appendix F.
Changes in Development
This section describes how changes in development have impacted vulnerability since the last plan was
adopted. Future development is also discussed in this section, including how exposure to the hazard may
change in the future or how development may affect hazard risk.
Key Issues
This section summarizes key mitigation planning concerns related to this hazard. Where possible, problem
statements are provided at a jurisdictional level.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 55
2021
5.2.1 Priority Risk Index
The conclusions drawn from the hazard profiling and vulnerability assessment process are used to prioritize
all potential hazards to the Augusta Richmond-County planning area. The Priority Risk Index (PRI) was
applied for this purpose because it provides a standardized numerical value so that hazards can be
compared against one another (the higher the PRI value, the greater the hazard risk). PRI values are obtained
by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard (probability, impact, spatial extent,
warning time, and duration). Each degree of risk was assigned a value (1 to 4) and a weighting factor as
summarized in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 – Priority Risk Index
RISK
ASSESSMENT LEVEL DEGREE OF RISK CRITERIA INDEX WEIGHT
PROBABILITY
What is the likelihood
of a hazard event
occurring in a given year?
UNLIKELY LESS THAN 1% ANNUAL PROBABILITY 1
30%POSSIBLE BETWEEN 1 & 10% ANNUAL PROBABILITY 2
LIKELY BETWEEN 10 &100% ANNUAL PROBABILITY 3
HIGHLY LIKELY 100% ANNUAL PROBABILTY 4
IMPACT
In terms of injuries,
damage, or death,
would you anticipate
impacts to be minor,
limited, critical, or
catastrophic when a
significant hazard
event occurs?
MINOR
VERY FEW INJURIES, IF ANY. ONLY MINOR PROPERTY
DAMAGE & MINIMAL DISRUPTION ON QUALITY OF LIFE.
TEMPORARY SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL FACILITIES.
1
30%
LIMITED
MINOR INJURIES ONLY. MORE THAN 10% OF PROPERTY IN
AFFECTED AREA DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. COMPLETE
SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR > 1 DAY
2
CRITICAL
MULTIPLE DEATHS/INJURIES POSSIBLE.
MORE THAN 25% OF PROPERTY IN AFFECTED AREA
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR > 1 WEEK.
3
CATASTROPHIC
HIGH NUMBER OF DEATHS/INJURIES POSSIBLE. MORE
THAN 50% OF PROPERTY IN AFFECTED AREA DAMAGED
OR DESTROYED. COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF CRITICAL
FACILITIES > 30 DAYS.
4
SPATIAL EXTENT
How large of an area
could be impacted by
a hazard event? Are
impacts localized or
regional?
NEGLIGIBLE LESS THAN 1% OF AREA AFFECTED 1
20%SMALL BETWEEN 1 & 10% OF AREA AFFECTED 2
MODERATE BETWEEN 10 & 50% OF AREA AFFECTED 3
LARGE BETWEEN 50 & 100% OF AREA AFFECTED 4
WARNING TIME
Is there usually some
lead time associated
with the hazard
event? Have warning
measures been
implemented?
MORE THAN 24
HRS SELF DEFINED
1
10%12 TO 24 HRS SELF DEFINED 2
6 TO 12 HRS SELF DEFINED 3
LESS THAN 6 HRS SELF DEFINED 4
DURATION
How long does the
hazard event usually
last?
LESS THAN 6 HRS SELF DEFINED 1
10%
LESS THAN 24 HRS SELF DEFINED 2
LESS THAN 1 WEEK SELF DEFINED 3
MORE THAN 1
WEEK SELF DEFINED 4
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 56
2021
The sum of all five risk assessment categories equals the final PRI value, demonstrated in the equation below
(the lowest possible PRI value is a 1.0 and the highest possible PRI value is 4.0).
The purpose of the PRI is to categorize and prioritize all potential hazards for the Augusta-Richmond County
planning area as high, moderate, or low risk. The summary hazard classifications generated through the use
of the PRI allows for the prioritization of those high and moderate hazard risks for mitigation planning
purposes. Mitigation actions are not necessarily developed for hazards identified as low risk through this
process.
PRI ratings are provided by category throughout each hazard profile for the planning area as a whole.
Ratings specific to each jurisdiction are provided at the end of each hazard profile. The results of the risk
assessment and overall PRI scoring are provided in Section 5.19 Conclusions on Hazard Risk.
5.2.2 Explanation of Data Sources
The data collected for the hazard profiles and vulnerability assessment was obtained from multiple sources
covering a variety of spatial areas including county- and jurisdictional-level information. Table 5.3
summarizes the primary data sources and risk assessment methodology for each of the profiled hazards.
Table 5.3 – Summary of Hazard Data Sources and Geographic Coverage
Hazard Hazard Data Sources Vulnerability Methodology
Dam/Levee Failure GSDP, NID, FEMA, USACE GIS Spatial Analysis
Drought USDM, NDMC, USGS Qualitative Analysis
Earthquake USGS, NCEI, FEMA Hazus 4.2
Extreme Heat NWS, NOAA Qualitative Analysis
Flooding NCEI, FEMA Hazus 4.2
Hurricane & Tropical Storm NHC, NOAA, NCEI Hazus 4.2
Infectious Disease CDC, WHO Qualitative Analysis
Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning)USGS Qualitative Analysis
Severe Winter Weather NWS, NCEI Qualitative Analysis
Tornado NWS, NCEI UGA Hazus Report
Wildfire SouthWRAP GIS Spatial Analysis
Windstorm/Thunderstorm NWS, NCEI Qualitative Analysis
Chemical Hazard EPA, USDOT GIS Spatial Analysis
Cyberterrorism Internet Research Qualitative Analysis
Nuclear Power Plant Incident USNRC Qualitative Analysis
CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; FEMA = Federal Emergency
Management Agency; GFC = Georgia Forestry Commission; GSDP = Georgia Safe Dams Program; NCEI = National Centers for
Environmental Information; NDMC = National Drought Mitigation Center; NHC = National Hurricane Center; NID = National Inventory
of Dams; NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;NWS = National Weather Service; SouthWRAP = Southern Group
of State Foresters, Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal; UGA = University of Georgia; USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers;
USDM = United States Drought Monitor; USDOT = United States Department of Transportation; USGS = United States Geological
Survey; USNRC = United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; WHO = World Health Organization
Asset Inventory
An inventory of assets was compiled to identify the total count and value of property exposure in Augusta-
Richmond County. This asset inventory serves as the basis for evaluating exposure and vulnerability by
hazard. Assets identified for analysis include buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure. Building
exposure was estimated by summarizing building point data and tax parcel data provided by Augusta-
Richmond County. Critical facilities were provided by Augusta-Richmond County GIS and were compiled by
updating the list of critical facilities from the Georgia Mitigation Information System (GMIS) with a local
PRI = (PROBABILITY x .30) + (IMPACT x .30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x .20) + (WARNING TIME x .10) + (DURATION x .10)
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 57
2021
dataset maintained by Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Management. Additional critical
infrastructure was identified through data from Augusta-Richmond County GIS, Georgia Department of
Transportation (GDOT), GEMA, and U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA).
For all non-spatially defined hazards, this full asset inventory represents the extent of property exposed to
risk. For spatially defined hazards, property exposure is detailed in the hazard profile.
5.3.1 Building Exposure
Table 5.4 provides building exposure by jurisdiction according to 2020 building points and tax parcel data
provided by Augusta-Richmond County. All occupancy types were summarized into the following
categories: Agriculture, Commercial, Education, Government, Industrial, Religious, and Residential. Where
occupancy was not provided, residential occupancy was assumed.
Content value estimations were based on the FEMA Hazus methodology of estimating value as a percent
of improved structure values by property type. The residential property type assumes a content
replacement value equal to 50% of the building value. Agricultural, commercial, education, government,
and religious property types assume a content replacement value equal to 100% of the building value. The
industrial property type assumes a content replacement value equal to 150% of the building value.
Note that while Fort Gordon is not a participating jurisdiction in this plan, the property at Fort Gordon was
included in this analysis to provide a full inventory of asset exposure within the county boundaries.
Table 5.4 – Augusta-Richmond County Building Exposure by Jurisdiction and Occupancy
Occupancy Estimated
Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content Value Total Value
City of Augusta 109,196 $12,053,240,937 $8,324,123,983 $20,377,364,920
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 6,235 $2,046,849,646 $2,046,849,646 $4,093,699,292
Education 322 $326,098,084 $326,098,084 $652,196,168
Government 350 $126,671,531 $126,671,531 $253,343,062
Industrial 3,608 $936,860,330 $1,405,290,495 $2,342,150,825
Religious 586 $221,667,108 $221,667,108 $443,334,216
Residential 98,095 $8,395,094,238 $4,197,547,119 $12,592,641,357
City of Blythe 739 $42,557,649 $23,896,411 $66,454,060
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 11 $737,600 $737,600 $1,475,200
Education 2 $3,576,102 $3,576,102 $7,152,204
Government 1 $136,522 $136,522 $273,044
Industrial 1 $8,885 $13,328 $22,213
Religious 4 $767,179 $767,179 $1,534,358
Residential 720 $37,331,361 $18,665,681 $55,997,042
City of Hephzibah 3,716 $306,708,597 $176,033,889 $482,742,486
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 77 $9,557,870 $9,557,870 $19,115,740
Education 7 $14,792,038 $14,792,038 $29,584,076
Government 3 $979,288 $979,288 $1,958,576
Industrial 50 $4,992,754 $7,489,131 $12,481,885
Religious 34 $10,044,476 $10,044,476 $20,088,952
Residential 3,545 $266,342,171 $133,171,086 $399,513,257
Fort Gordon 486 $85,766,856,464 $42,883,859,174 $128,650,715,638
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 4 $851,966 $851,966 $1,703,932
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 58
2021
Occupancy Estimated
Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content Value Total Value
Education 0 $0 $0 $0
Government 0 $0 $0 $0
Industrial 1 $4,959 $7,439 $12,398
Religious 0 $0 $0 $0
Residential 481 $85,765,999,539 $42,882,999,770 $128,648,999,309
Countywide Totals 114,137 $98,169,363,647 $51,407,913,457 $149,577,277,104
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 6,327 $2,057,997,082 $2,057,997,082 $4,115,994,164
Education 331 $344,466,224 $344,466,224 $688,932,448
Government 354 $127,787,341 $127,787,341 $255,574,682
Industrial 3,660 $941,866,928 $1,412,800,392 $2,354,667,320
Religious 624 $232,478,763 $232,478,763 $464,957,526
Residential 102,841 $94,464,767,309 $47,232,383,655 $141,697,150,964
Source: Augusta-Richmond County GIS
5.3.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Exposure
Of significant concern with respect to any disaster event is the location of critical facilities and infrastructure
in the planning area. Critical facilities are often defined as those essential services and lifelines that, if
damaged during an emergency event, would result in severe consequences to public health, safety, and
welfare.
Critical facilities in Augusta-Richmond County are listed by type in Table 5.5 and shown in Figure 5.1; critical
infrastructure is shown in Figure 5.2. Detailed lists of critical facilities and critical infrastructure are provided
in each jurisdictional annex. Critical facilities assessed in this risk assessment were identified by Augusta-
Richmond County Emergency Management and Augusta-Richmond County GIS Department. Critical
infrastructure was identified with data from Augusta-Richmond County GIS, GDOT, GEMA, and USEIA.
Table 5.5 – Summary of Critical Facilities, Augusta-Richmond County
Jurisdiction Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Me
d
i
c
a
l
Ti
e
r
I
I
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
To
t
a
l
City of Augusta 63 35 37 8 121 134 398
City of Blythe 1 2 4 7
City of Hephzibah 3 3 15 21
Fort Gordon Military Reservation 1 1 1 39 8 50
Total 68 41 56 9 121 173 8 476
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
59
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
1
–
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
60
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
–
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 61
2021
Dam/Levee Failure
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Dam/Levee Failure Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.6
Hazard Description
Dam Failure
A dam is a barrier constructed across a watercourse that stores, controls, or diverts water. Dams are usually
constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. The water impounded behind a dam is referred to as
the reservoir and is measured in acre-feet. One acre-foot is the volume of water that covers one acre of
land to a depth of one foot. Dams can benefit farmland, provide recreation areas, generate electrical power,
and help control erosion and flooding issues. A dam failure is the collapse or breach of a dam that causes
downstream flooding. Dam failures may be caused by natural events, human-caused events, or a
combination. Dam failures are of particular concern because the water released by a failed dam generates
tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property, especially if the structure
is breached or significantly damaged. Failure can result in the release of the reservoir contents—this can
include water, mine wastes, or agricultural refuse—causing negative impacts upstream or downstream or
at locations far from the dam. Negative impacts of primary concern are loss of human life, property damage,
lifeline disruption, and environmental damage.
Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following:
•Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding
•Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping flows
•Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping
•Poor operation or improper maintenance, including failure to remove trees, repair internal
seepage problems, replace lost material from the cross-section of the dam and abutments, or
maintain gates, valves, and other operational components
•Improper design, including the use of improper construction materials and construction practices
•Negligent operation, including the failure to remove or open gates or valves during high flow
periods
•Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway
•High winds, which can cause significant wave action and result in substantial erosion
Levee Failure
FEMA defines a levee as “a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed
in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water in order to
reduce the risk from temporary flooding.” Levee systems consist of levees, floodwalls, and associated
structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with
sound engineering practices. Levees often have “interior drainage” systems that work in conjunction with
the levees to take water from the landward side to the water side. An interior drainage system may include
culverts, canals, ditches, storm sewers, and/or pumps.
Levees and floodwalls are constructed from the earth, compacted soil or artificial materials, such as concrete
or steel. To protect against erosion and scouring, earthen levees can be covered with grass and gravel or
hard surfaces like stone, asphalt, or concrete. Levees and floodwalls are typically built parallel to a waterway,
most often a river, in order to reduce the risk of flooding to the area behind it.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 62
2021
Levees provide strong flood protection, but they are not failsafe. Levees are designed to protect against a
specific flood level and could be overtopped during severe weather events. Levees reduce, not eliminate,
the risk to individuals and structures behind them. A levee system failure or overtopping can create severe
flooding and high water velocities. It is important to remember that no levee provides protection from
events for which it was not designed, and proper operation and maintenance are necessary to reduce the
probability of failure.
For both dam and levee failure events, there is generally very little warning time. A failure resulting from
heavy rains and flash flooding can occur within hours of the first signs of breaching. Due to the lack of
advance warning, failures resulting from natural events, such as earthquakes, landslides, or heavy rainfall
and flooding may be particularly severe. Depending on the cause, other failures and breaches can take
much longer to occur, from days to weeks. The duration of the flood will vary but may last as long as a
week.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than 1 week
Location
Dam Failure
Information on the location of dams in the planning area was retrieved from the Georgia Safe Dams
Program, an entity of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Environmental Protection Division,
which provides an inventory of all the dams in the state as of November 2019, as well as the National
Inventory of Dams (NID), which maintains a database of dams across the United States. The Georgia Safe
Dams Program has records of 27 dams, and the NID reports an additional 28 dams. Table 5.6 details all 55
dams reported within Richmond County by location.
Table 5.6 – Dam Inventory for Richmond County, GA
Dam Name NIDID Height
(Ft.)
Storage
(acre-
feet)
Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Augusta-Richmond County
Aug. Canal Left Embkmnt + Structures
(Below + Bulkhead Structure) GA06398 16 1100
Local
Government Flood Control High
Augusta Canal Right Embankment GA06398 14 1100
Local
Government Recreation High
Augusta Golf Course Flood Control
Dam GA04946 38 23
Local
Government Recreation Low (II)
B.S.A. Camp Linwood Hayne Lower
Lake Dam GA04945 14 280 Private Recreation Low (II)
B.S.A. Camp Linwood Upper Lake Dam GA04942 29 49 Private Recreation Low (II)
Babcock Wilcox Lake Dam GA02123 26.6 85 Private Irrigation Low
Bennock Millpond Dam GA02119 17 867 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Broome Lake Dam GA02120 17 91 Private Other Low
Dorns Pond Dam GA04947 8 75 Private Recreation n/a
Ellis Pond Dam GA02110 15 299 Private Recreation Low (II)
Forest Hills Lake Dam GA05230 28 38 Private
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High (I)
Gordon Lake Dam GA01722 24.5 341 Federal
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High
Goshen Plantation Lake Dam GA02111 18 173 Private Flood Control High (I)
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 63
2021
Dam Name NIDID Height
(Ft.)
Storage
(acre-
feet)
Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Hancock Millpond Dam GA02122 17 283 Private Recreation Low (II)
Highland Avenue WTP Pond Dam #1
East GA06403 30 110
Local
Government Recreation (I)
Highland Avenue WTP Pond Dam #2
West GA06404 30 135
Local
Government Recreation (I)
International Paper Augusta Mill
Sludge Ash Pond Dam GA07229 17.5 960 Not Listed Recreation (II)
Lake Aumond Dam GA02129 18 212
Local
Government Recreation High (I)
Lake Inez Dam GA02108 23 71 Private Other Low
Lake Olmstead Dam GA02130 10 490
Local
Government Recreation Low (II)
Lee Lake Dam GA05232 26 168 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Lombard's Mill Pond Dam GA02127 19 157.5 Private Recreation n/a
Mcdade Pond Dam GA00921 11 137.5 Private Recreation n/a
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam GA01703 70 11610 Federal Recreation Significant
Olin Pond Dam No. 2 GA04943 12 250 Private Irrigation Low
Richmond Co. Vo-Tech Retention Pond GA04940 42 137 State Recreation High (I)
Richmond Factory Pond Dam GA00922 16 406 Private Other (II)
Rocky Creek Regional Detention Pond
Dam GA06400 10 154
Local
Government Other Low (II)
Rosedale Pond Dam GA04941 25.2 237.6 Private Other n/a
Saul Pond Dam GA02250 12 102 Private Recreation Low
Storys Millpond Dam GA02112 14.3 157.5 Private Recreation Low
Tobacco Road WTP Dam GA05485 35 168
Local
Government Recreation High (I)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #1a GA02118 14 244 Private Other Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #1b GA02117 19 285 Private
Water Supply,
Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #2 GA02116 11 432 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #3 GA02115 10 230 Private
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #4 GA02114 12 300 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #5 GA02113 9 4650 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wildwood Pond Dam GA05231 13.8 280 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Woodlake Dam GA04944 15 85 Private Other Low
Wrightsboro Rd. Det. Dam GA05233 20 495 Not Listed Recreation High (I)
Hephzibah
Carrolls Lake Dam GA02121 16 42 Private Recreation High
Rhodes Pond Dam GA02124 10 89 Private Recreation Low
Fort Gordon
Big Beaver Pond GA10104 12 109 Federal Recreation Low
Big Beaver Pond Dam GA07164 12 109 Federal Other Low
Big Smoak Lake GA07162 9 59 Federal Other Low
Butler Reservoir GA01721 45 2619 Federal Recreation High
Clay Pit I GA07163 16 87 Federal Recreation Low
Gordon Lake Dam GA01722 24.5 341 Federal
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High
Leitner Pond GA07166 9 112 Federal Irrigation Low
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 64
2021
Dam Name NIDID Height
(Ft.)
Storage
(acre-
feet)
Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Lower Leitner Pond GA07165 8 89 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Rachel Lake I GA07161 9 52 Federal
Irrigation,
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Soil Erosion Lake GA01728 33 216 Federal Recreation
Significant
(II)
Union Mill GA00714 10 69 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low (II)
Upper Leitner GA07167 12 128 Federal Recreation Low
Upper Whittimore GA07160 8 50 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Safe Dams Program, November 2019; National Inventory of Dams, May 2021
Point location data was not available from the NID, therefore Figure 5.3 below provides a snapshot of dam
locations according to the NID database and Figure 5.4 reflects the location and hazard ranking of dams
recognized by the Georgia Safe Dams Program.
Information on the inundation areas of the above-listed dams was unavailable; however, in most cases the
inundation area of any single dam is unlikely to exceed 10 percent of the planning area.
Spatial Extent: 2 – Small
The planning area is also at risk to failure of upstream dams. In particular, Thurmond Dam at Clarks Hill
Lake, located approximately 20 miles up the Savannah River in Columbia County, could result in extensive
flooding in Augusta, as shown in Figure 5.5. Inundation from failure of Thurmond Dam at Clark Hill Lake
would reach downtown Augusta approximately 1 hour and 50 minutes after the failure.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
66
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
–
D
a
m
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
s
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
S
a
f
e
D
a
m
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
9
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 68
2021
Levee Failure
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains information on the nation’s levees in the National
Levee Database (NLD), which includes information on the Augusta Levee, located in Augusta-Richmond
County along the Savannah River. Per the NLD,
“The Augusta City Levee is located on the Georgia side of the Savannah River adjacent to the city
of Augusta. Original construction of the levee began in 1908 and was completed between 1914
and 1916. The levee, as it stands today, was authorized by Congress under the Flood Control Act
of 1936. The levee improvements authorized by the Flood Control Act were completed in May 1941
and turned over to the City to operate and maintain under the direction of USACE. The Augusta
Levee consists of 61,000 linear feet (11.5 miles) of earthen dike extending from high ground on the
south side of Rae’s Creek adjacent to Lake Olmstead to the high ground at New Savannah Bluff,
south of Butler Creek. Portions of the earthen dike are in combination with concrete retaining walls
on the landside of the levee and concrete and steel sheet pile retaining walls on the riverside of the
levee. The levee also includes 5 gate structures, 5 stop log breaches, 3 railroad crossings, 2 road
breaches, and several road ramps. The earthen portion of the levee has a minimum crest width of
8 feet with an average width of 15 to 20 feet. The top generally contains a dirt or gravel road, and
the side slopes are approximately 1 foot of drop for every 2 ½ feet of horizontal distance for the
top 18 vertical feet of levee. After the first 18 feet, the slope drops 1 foot for every 3 feet of
horizontal distance until the toe (bottom of the levee) meets the ground or the river. The levee
decreases in elevation along its length from the upstream end to the downstream end, beginning
at elevation 165 and decreasing to 132 NAVD 88. The levee system was originally designed to
protect against a flood with a discharge of 550,000 cfs, allowing 2 feet of freeboard. Since
construction of the levee, three flood control dam and lake projects have been constructed on the
Savannah River upstream of Augusta. The reservoirs have helped to control discharges through
Augusta thus reducing flood elevations and magnitudes of the moderate flood events; however,
they have little effect on floods with a recurrence interval of 500 years or more. Currently, the levee
provides protection against approximately the 2000-year event.”
Figure 5.6 shows the levee centerline and the approximate area protected by the levee. As determined by
USACE, the leveed area is 22.39 square miles, which is less than 10 percent of Augusta-Richmond County’s
total area.
Spatial Extent – Small
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
69
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
6
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
L
e
v
e
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
E
M
A
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 70
2021
Extent
Dam Failure
Each state has definitions and methods to determine the Hazard Potential of a dam. In Georgia, dams are
recognized by the state if they are 25 feet or more in height or impound 100 acre-feet or more. The height
of a dam is from the highest point on the crest of the dam to the lowest point on the downstream toe, and
the storage capacity is the volume impounded at the elevation of the highest point on the crest of the dam.
A dam is regulated only if it is deemed that its failure would result in loss of human life.
Georgia Safe Dams Program engineers determine the "hazard potential" of a dam based on the
consequences of failure, meaning the probable damage in terms of loss of human life that would occur if
the structure failed. Dams are assigned one of two categories based on their hazard potential:
1. Category II (Low Hazard) includes dams located where failure will not cause loss of human life.
Situations constituting probable loss of life are situations that involve frequently occupied
structures or facilities, including, but not limited to, residences, commercial and manufacturing
facilities, schools, and churches.
2. Category I (High Hazard) includes dams located where failure will likely cause loss of human life.
Category I dams are then further classified by their size with corresponding minimum spillway design
requirements expressed in terms of probable maximum precipitation (PMP), as follows:
Small: 25% PMP
Medium: 33.3% PMP
Large: 50% PMP
Very Large: 100% PMP
Category I dams are assessed bi-annually by Georgia Environmental Protection Division staff and quarterly
by their owners to ensure safety and compliance with regulations. Category II dams are reevaluated every
5 years for any hazard potential. The Safe Dams Program notes that there is a significant backlog in work
which means many Category II and proposed dams throughout the state need further study.
Where available, Georgia Safe Dams Program classifications are provided in Table 5.6 for the dams in
Augusta-Richmond County. Where not available, National Inventory of Dams (NID) classifications are
provided. The NID database tracks dams that meet any of the following criteria:
1) High hazard potential classification - loss of human life is likely if the dam fails,
2) Significant hazard potential classification - no probable loss of human life but can cause economic
loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other concerns,
3) Equal or exceed 25 feet in height and exceed 15 acre-feet in storage,
4) Equal or exceed 50 acre-feet storage and exceed 6 feet in height.
Based on these criteria there are 14 high hazard dams in Augusta-Richmond County; 8 identified by the
Georgia Safe Dams Program and an additional 6 identified by the NID. The NID also identifies two significant
hazard dams and eight dams of undetermined hazard potential.
Given the presence of several high hazard dams in the planning area, potential impact is considered critical.
It is also possible that dams in the planning area present greater risk than when they were last evaluated
due to downstream development and increased exposure, but without a reevaluation of these dams it is
difficult to draw any conclusions. Additionally, the NID reports that the average age of dams in Richmond
County is 74 years. While age does not equate to hazard potential, according to the 2021 Report Card for
America’s Infrastructure, it does indicate that many dams were not built to current standards and/or may
require rehabilitation or other action to ensure their continued safe operation.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 71
2021
Impact: 3 – Critical
Levee Failure
The NLD assigns levee risk classifications according to the likelihood of inundation due to breach and/or
system component malfunction in combination with loss of life, economic, or environmental consequences.
The NLD’s risk classification is provided on a scale of 1 (very high) to 5 (very low).
The NLD rates the Augusta Levee risk as 3 (moderate) for prior to overtopping “based on anticipated poor
performance with a high annual likelihood of breach, moderate life safety and very high property damage
risk consequences” and as 4 (low) for overtopping “due to anticipated moderate annual likelihood of
overtopping and associated moderate life safety and very high property damage risk consequences.” The
NLD’s risk rating also notes an analysis showing potential seepage issues at the 100-year event and the fact
that the sandbag closure structure has not been exercised. Risk uncertainty is increased by a lack of loading
history, but concerns are somewhat offset by the level of predictability of the upstream flow controls.
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
There have been no dam breaches reported in Augusta-Richmond County according to the Georgia Safe
Dams Program. There are no reports of failure of the Augusta Levee.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Per the Georgia Dam Inventory, NID database, and NLD, there are 14 high hazard dams, 41 significant or
low hazard dams, and a moderate risk levee within Augusta-Richmond County that could impact the
planning area. Based on the lack of past occurrences, the probability of future dam or levee failure would
be considered unlikely. However, given the current dam and levee inventory, the average age of dams, and
the potential impacts of climate change (discussed below) a dam or levee failure is considered possible in
the future. Regardless, regular monitoring is necessary and can help mitigate or prevent failures if
appropriate actions are taken when it is determined a failure may be likely.
Probability: 2 – Possible
Climate Change
A study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology was conducted to investigate the impact
of climate change scenarios on hydropower dam safety with a focus on impacts related to changes in
precipitation and flood. Climate change projections suggest that precipitation may increase and occur in
more extreme events, which may increase risk of flooding, putting stress on dams and increasing likelihood
of dam failure. This study evaluated changes in design floods and concluded that outflow floods and flood
water levels will increase in the future, the total hydrological failure probability of a dam will increase, and
the extent and depth of flood waters will increase by the future dam break scenario (Chernet et al. 2014).
A study on the impacts of climate change on dams and reservoirs produced for the UK Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indicates that concrete and masonry dams may be relatively resilient
to climate change, but earthen embankments are most likely to be vulnerable to climate change because
their structure may be weakened by increased erosion, more extreme fluctuations in water levels, and
changes in vegetation and prolonged drying during hot weather. Increasing frequency and size of flows as
well as increases in debris and vegetation may also increase vulnerability (Atkins, 2013).
There were no studies available on the local impacts of climate change on dams in Augusta-Richmond
County or Georgia; however, these international studies can be taken as an indication that the risk of dam
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 72
2021
failure may increase in the future. With heavy rain events becoming more frequent and intense, as shown
in Figure 5.7, conditions conducive to dam failure may occur more frequently as well.
Figure 5.7 – Projected Change in Heavy Rainfall Events
Source: Fourth National Climate Assessment
Consequence Analysis
Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam/levee failure are the amount of water
impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the
speed of failure.
Category Consequences
Public Major casualties and loss of life could result. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning
time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Localized impact expected
to be severe for inundation area and moderate to light for other adversely affected areas.
While impacts will mirror those of a flood event, residents who might be impacted by a
dam/levee failure may believe themselves to be protected from flood events and may not
anticipate the event.
Responders Response capabilities may be challenged as responders will likely need to attempt to assist
residents who are trapped in their homes or in flood waters. Responders may have difficulty
accessing homes or other structures where support is needed.
Continuity of
Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Damage to facilities/personnel in the inundation area may require temporary relocation of
some operations. Localized disruption of roads and/or utilities may postpone delivery of
some services. Overall continuity of operations is unlikely to be affected as the event would
likely be localized and most operations facilities are not at risk.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
Localized impact to facilities and infrastructure in the inundation area of the incident.
Potentially catastrophic damages to roads, bridges, and homes are possible. Localized power
outages could occur. Natural gas distribution networks may be damaged. Phone and internet
systems could be impacted on a local scale.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 73
2021
Category Consequences
Environment Localized impact expected to be severe for inundation area and moderate to light for other
adversely affected areas. Consequences include erosion, water quality degradation, wildlife
displacement or destruction, and habitat destruction. Ecosystems and habitats in the affected
river/stream/lake could be destroyed.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
Local economy and finances may be adversely affected, possibly for an extended period of
time, depending on damage extent.
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Localized impact expected to adversely affect only the dam owner and local entities. A
catastrophic failure could result in more widespread loss of public confidence. Residents may
view a dam/levee failure as a failure of government to property regulate and control the
dam/levee.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
There are 14 high hazard dams in the planning area, which by definition would cause probable loss of life
in the event of a failure. A person’s immediate vulnerability to a dam failure is directly associated with the
person’s distance downstream of the dam as well as proximity to the stream carrying the floodwater from
the failure. For dams that have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP), the vulnerability of loss of life for persons
in their homes or on their property may be mitigated by following the EAP evacuation procedures.
According to NID records, an estimated 82 percent of high hazard dams in the planning area have an
Emergency Action Plan, which means 18 percent of dams that should have an EAP in place do not.
Additionally, even if they are able to evacuate in time, displaced persons may still incur sheltering costs.
People are also vulnerable to the loss of the uses of the lake upstream of a dam following failure. Several
uses are minor, such as aesthetics or recreational use. However, two reservoirs in the planning area serve as
drinking water supplies and their loss could disrupt the drinking water supply and present a public health
problem.
The vulnerability of people to specific dam and levee failure events is estimated in table based on the count
of residential properties exposed to each event and an average household size estimate of 2.65 according
to U.S. Census Data. More detail on the property exposure analysis for each event is provided in the
following section.
Table 5.7 – Exposure of People to Dam and Levee Failure Events
Hazard Event Residential
Property Exposed
Estimated
Population Exposed
Thurmond Dam Normal High Fail Flood 10,788 28,588
Thurmond Dam Maximum High Fail Flood 14,553 38,565
Augusta Levee Failure 2,004 5,311
Augusta Canal Flooding 229 607
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS, Augusta Water Utilities Department, U.S. Census Bureau
Property
Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 summarize property exposure to normal and maximum failure scenarios of the
Thurmond Dam based on the extent of the inundation areas as provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The inundation information was provided for planning purposes only, and detail on the
inundation area extent, including mapping, were not released for use in this plan. All property exposure to
failure of Thurmond Dam is within Augusta; there is no exposure in Blythe or Hephzibah. Critical facility
exposure to normal and maximum failure scenarios of the Thurmond Dam is summarized in Table 5.10 and
Table 5.11.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 74
2021
Table 5.8 – Property Exposure to Thurmond Dam Normal High Fail Flood
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 1,521 $576,678,783 $576,678,783 $1,153,357,566
Education 148 $70,909,289 $70,909,289 $141,818,578
Government 114 $98,046,892 $98,046,892 $196,093,784
Industrial 1,451 $340,659,250 $510,988,875 $851,648,125
Religious 169 $54,590,315 $54,590,315 $109,180,630
Residential 10,788 $432,944,491 $216,472,246 $649,416,737
Total 14,191 $1,573,829,020 $1,527,686,400 $3,101,515,420
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
Table 5.9 – Property Exposure to Thurmond Dam Maximum High Fail Flood
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 1,970 $659,152,320 $659,152,320 $1,318,304,640
Education 165 $84,610,919 $84,610,919 $169,221,838
Government 135 $108,987,184 $108,987,184 $217,974,368
Industrial 1,731 $415,509,326 $623,263,989 $1,038,773,315
Religious 202 $63,868,806 $63,868,806 $127,737,612
Residential 14,553 $611,039,424 $305,519,712 $916,559,136
Total 18,756 $1,943,167,979 $1,845,402,930 $3,788,570,909
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
Table 5.10 – Critical Facilities Exposure to Thurmond Dam Normal High Fail Flood
Type Facility Count Exposed Structure Value
Education 14 $15,838,119
Emergency Services 9 $6,284,472
Government 19 $26,231,269
Medical 4 $122,257,359
Tier II Reporting Industries 61 $62,204,462
Utilities 24 $3,671,701
Total 131 $236,487,382
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
Table 5.11 – Critical Facilities Exposure to Thurmond Dam Maximum High Fail Flood
Type Facility Count Exposed Structure Value
Education 18 $24,281,495
Emergency Services 11 $10,730,212
Government 20 $30,382,668
Medical 4 $122,257,359
Tier II Reporting Industries 77 $70,852,920
Utilities 28 $16,286,871
Total 158 $274,791,525
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 75
2021
No other data could be obtained on dam inundation areas; therefore, property exposure could not be
estimated for each dam. There are no historical dam or levee failures on which to estimate annualized loss.
Vulnerability of the built environment includes damage to the dam itself and any structures located within
the inundation area caused by the dam failure. Downstream of the dam, vulnerability includes potential
damage to homes, personal property, commercial buildings and property, and government owned
buildings and property; destruction of bridge or culvert crossings; weakening of bridge supports through
scour; and damage or destruction of public or private infrastructure that cross the stream such as water and
sewer lines, gas lines and power lines. Water dependent structures on the lake upstream of the dam, such
as docks/piers, floating structures, or water intake structures, may be damaged by the rapid reduction in
water level during the failure.
Property exposure to levee failure was estimated based on the extent of the area with reduced risk due to
levee as mapped on the FEMA FIRM. Property and critical facilities may be exposed to flood risk in the event
of a levee failure or overtopping. Property exposure by type in the area protected by the Augusta Levee is
summarized in Table 5.12. Critical facilities located within the area protected by the Augusta Levee are
summarized in Table 5.13 and listed in Table 5.14.
Table 5.12 – Property Exposure to Augusta Levee Failure
Occupancy Estimated Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 455 $154,816,538 $154,816,538 $309,633,076
Education 11 $23,247,172 $23,247,172 $46,494,344
Government 61 $67,196,837 $67,196,837 $134,393,674
Industrial 705 $142,389,340 $213,584,010 $355,973,350
Religious 41 $22,004,828 $22,004,828 $44,009,656
Residential 2,004 $71,491,297 $35,745,649 $107,236,946
Total 3,277 $481,146,012 $516,595,034 $997,741,046
Table 5.13 – Critical Facility Exposure to Augusta Levee Failure
Facility Type Facility Count Structure Value
Education 4 $3,210,822
Emergency Services 3 $1,539,624
Government 2 $346,292
Tier II Reporting Industry 24 $10,699,317
Utilities 1 $29,185
Total 34 $15,825,240
Source: FEMA, Augusta GIS
Table 5.14 – Critical Facilities Exposed to Augusta Levee Failure
Facility Name Type Value
Hornsby Middle Education $915,080
Hornsby Elementary Education $915,080
Curtis Baptist School Education $1,049,799
Immaculate Conception Catholic School of Special Education Education $330,863
Fire Station 2 Emergency Services $1,182,205
Richmond County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services $167,620
Emergency 9-1-1 Dispatch Emergency Services $189,799
May Park Community Center Government $173,146
Sheriff's Office Counseling Center Government $173,146
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 76
2021
Facility Name Type Value
Polar Service Centers - Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $115,671
AIRGAS USA, LLC - Augusta S296 Tier II Reporting Industry $132,474
ManusBio Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $9,870
Level 3 - Augusta - AGSTGAGH Tier II Reporting Industry $13,084
MCI- AUTAGA (VZB- GAAUTAGA) Tier II Reporting Industry $82,283
A C Industries Tier II Reporting Industry $206,346
A&W Oil Company/DBA RelaDyne Tier II Reporting Industry $22,498
DSM Coating Resins, Inc Tier II Reporting Industry $149,709
Meridian Brick - Augusta Complex Tier II Reporting Industry $957,345
Americold Logistics Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $1,597,187
Columbia Nitrogen Facility Tier II Reporting Industry $1,331,928
Airgas Dry Ice Tier II Reporting Industry $21,937
Qualawash Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $57,713
CSXT Augusta Yard Tier II Reporting Industry $2
Linde Inc. - Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $33,760
Augusta Plant Tier II Reporting Industry $171,487
Union Agener, Inc. Tier II Reporting Industry $274,564
PCS-Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. Tier II Reporting Industry $455,771
Ryder Transportation Services #1504 Tier II Reporting Industry $197,203
GCP Applied Technologies-Augusta Tier II Reporting Industry $206,346
Cintas Loc 219 Tier II Reporting Industry $784,186
SRM - Plant 328 Tier II Reporting Industry $39,030
CVS Distribution Center CVS 8703 Tier II Reporting Industry $3,838,923
Airgas Specialty Products - Augusta, GA Tier II Reporting Industry $-
Goodrich Utilities $29,185
Source: FEMA, Augusta GIS
The Augusta Water Utilities Department maintains data on the area that would be subject to flooding from
failure of the Augusta Canal. Property exposure within this 1.14 square mile area is limited to Augusta and
is detailed in Table 5.15.
Table 5.15 – Property Exposure to Augusta Canal Flooding
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 266 $105,175,097 $105,175,097 $210,350,194
Education 15 $18,491,897 $18,491,897 $36,983,794
Government 10 $60,709,661 $60,709,661 $121,419,322
Industrial 120 $11,099,576 $16,649,364 $27,748,940
Religious 19 $7,466,243 $7,466,243 $14,932,486
Residential 229 $22,735,598 $11,367,799 $34,103,397
Total 659 $225,678,072 $219,860,061 $445,538,133
Source: Augusta Water Utilities Department, Augusta GIS
Critical facilities exposed to potential canal flooding are summarized by type in Table 5.16.
Table 5.16 – Critical Facilities Exposure to Augusta Canal Flooding
Facility Type Facility Count Structure Value
Education 3 $2,962,806
Emergency Services 3 $4,066,593
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 77
2021
Facility Type Facility Count Structure Value
Government 4 $6,549,300
Tier II Reporting Industries 6 $2,311,599
Utilities 1 $29,185
Total 17 $15,919,483
Source: Augusta Water Utilities Department, Augusta GIS
Environment
Aquatic species within the reservoir of the dam will either be displaced or destroyed. The velocity of the
flood wave will likely destroy riparian and instream vegetation and destroy wetland function. The flood
wave can cause erosion within and adjacent to the stream. Deposition of eroded deposits may choke
instream habitat or disrupt riparian areas. Sediments within the lake bottom and any low oxygen water
from within the lake will be dispersed, potentially causing fish kills or releasing heavy metals found in the
lake sediment layers.
Changes in Development
Development downstream of dams can significantly increase exposure. Dams are rated based on the
potential impact of their failure. As development occurs, exposure downstream of a Category II dam may
increase to the point that the dam should be rated as a Category I dam and require the associated
Emergency Action Plan and more regular inspections. However, because inspections of Category II dams
occur less frequently, there may be a delay in recognizing and acting on increases in risk.
It is also important to note that many residents of existing and new development may not know that they
are located downstream of a dam. Similarly, residents in levee-protected areas may consider themselves
safe from flooding as a result of the levee and may not understand their risk in the event of a levee failure.
Key Issues
• Two high hazard dams lack Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Other dams not rated high-hazard do
not require EAPs yet may have the potential to cause significant damage or loss of life due to
subsequent downstream development.
• Residents and/or property owners may not be aware that they are located in a dam inundation
area or a leveed area. This lack of awareness may increase vulnerability if residents and property
owners are unprepared and/or unequipped to react in the event of a dam or levee failure.
• Related hazards: Flood
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes dam/levee failure risk by jurisdiction. Warning time and duration are
inherent to the hazard and remain constant across jurisdictions. For jurisdictions with levees or dams
upstream or within their boundaries, probability of failure is possible. Additionally, spatial extent of any dam
failure will be small relative to the planning area, spatial extent of levee failure is inherent to the leveed area.
For all other jurisdictions, probability is unlikely and spatial extent is negligible. Jurisdictions with high
hazards dams upstream or within their boundaries were assigned an impact score of critical. Jurisdictions
with low hazard dams upstream or within their boundary were assigned an impact rating of limited; all other
jurisdictions were given an impact rating of minor.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 2 3 2 4 3 2.6 M
Blythe 2 1 2 4 3 2.0 M
Hephzibah 2 3 2 4 3 2.6 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 78
2021
Drought
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Drought Highly Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 3.1
Hazard Background
Drought is a deficiency in precipitation over an extended period. It is a normal, recurrent feature of climate
that occurs in virtually all climate zones. The duration of a drought varies widely. There are cases when
drought develops relatively quickly and lasts a very short period of time, exacerbated by extreme heat
and/or wind, and there are other cases when drought spans multiple years, or even decades. Studying the
paleoclimate record is often helpful in identifying when long-lasting droughts have occurred. Common
types of drought are detailed below in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 – Types of Drought
Type Details
Meteorological Drought Meteorological Drought is based on the degree of dryness (rainfall deficit) and the
length of the dry period.
Hydrological Drought Hydrological Drought is based on the impact of rainfall deficits on the water supply
such as stream flow, reservoir and lake levels, and ground water table decline.
Agricultural Drought
Agricultural Drought is based on the impacts to agriculture by factors such as rainfall
deficits, soil water deficits, reduced ground water, or reservoir levels needed for
irrigation.
Socioeconomic Drought
Socioeconomic drought is based on the impact of drought conditions
(meteorological, agricultural, or hydrological drought) on supply and demand of some
economic goods. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for an economic
good exceeds supply as a result of a weather-related deficit in water supply.
The wide variety of disciplines affected by drought, its diverse geographical and temporal distribution, and
the many scales drought operates on make it difficult to develop both a definition to describe drought and
an index to measure it. Many quantitative measures of drought have been developed in the United States,
depending on the discipline affected, the region being considered, and the particular application.
The U.S. Drought Monitor provides a summary of drought conditions across the United States and Puerto
Rico. Often described as a blend of art and science, the Drought Monitor map is updated weekly by
combining a variety of data-based drought indices and indicators and local expert input into a single
composite drought indicator.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is a measure of meteorological drought devised in 1965, and
was the first drought indicator to assess moisture status comprehensively. It uses temperature and
precipitation data to calculate water supply and demand, incorporates soil moisture, and is considered most
effective for unirrigated cropland. It primarily reflects long-term drought and has been used extensively to
initiate drought relief. It is more complex than the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and the Drought
Monitor. One benefit of the PDSI is that it can capture impacts of climate change on drought because it
accounts for key measures in evapotranspiration.
The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) is a way of measuring drought that, like the PDSI, is negative
for drought and positive for wet conditions. However, the SPI is a probability index that considers only
precipitation, while Palmer's indices are water balance indices that consider water supply (precipitation),
demand (evapotranspiration) and loss (runoff).
By definition, drought develops and worsens over a period of time. It inherently has a slow speed of onset
and a long duration. Additionally, due to the variety of indices for tracking drought, there is significant time
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 79
2021
to issue hazard warnings. Drought warnings can be regularly updated and allow for response to escalate
depending on the severity of conditions.
Warning Time: 1 – More than 24 hours
Duration: 4 – More than one week
The State of Georgia adopted Drought Management Rules in 2015 that specify response strategies to
varying levels of declared drought. These rules provide the framework to coordinate statewide response to
drought.
Location
Drought is a regional hazard that can cover the entire planning area, and in some cases the entire state.
Figure 5.8 shows the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the United States from 1895 to 1995, which indicates
that drought affects the entire United States but tends to be less severe in the Eastern U.S. Over the 100-
year period shown, Augusta-Richmond County spent between 5-10% of the time in severe to extreme
drought conditions.
Figure 5.8 – Historical Palmer Drought Severity Index, 1895-1995
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center
Figure 5.9 provides the U.S. Drought Monitor’s drought ratings for the southeast as of May 4, 2021; as of
that date, the Augusta-Richmond County was experiencing abnormally dry conditions. The figure illustrates
the large-scale, regional nature of drought.
Spatial Extent: 4 – Large
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 80
2021
Figure 5.9 – US Drought Monitor for Week of May 4, 2021
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Extent
Drought extent can be defined using the U.S. Drought Monitor scale. The Drought Monitor Scale measures
drought episodes with input from the Palmer Drought Severity Index, the Standardized Precipitation Index,
the Keetch-Byram Drought Index, soil moisture indicators, and other inputs as well as information on how
drought is affecting people. Figure 5.10 details the classifications used by the U.S. Drought Monitor and
Figure 5.11 details possible impacts specific to Georgia. A category of D2 (severe) on the U.S. Drought
Monitor Scale can typically result in crop and livestock impacts, water conservation requirements, low river
levels and dried up streams, and tree mortality.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 81
2021
Figure 5.10 – U.S. Drought Monitor Classifications
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 82
2021
Figure 5.11 – Possible Impacts by U.S. Drought Monitor Category in Georgia
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
The most intense drought to impact Augusta-Richmond County in the past 20 years occurred when the
county spent 97 weeks from May 2011 to March 2013 in severe or worse drought. At the drought’s peak
from April through August 2012, between 8 and 99 percent of the county was considered in D4 (exceptional)
drought. Overall drought conditions persisted from September 2010 through April 2013.
Impact: 2 – Limited
Historical Occurrences
U.S. Drought Monitor records drought intensity weekly throughout the country. Table 5.18 presents the
number of weeks that any portion of Augusta-Richmond County spent in drought by intensity over the
period from 2000 through 2020, for which the Drought Monitor has records for 1,045 weeks. Each week is
attributed to the most severe drought category present in the County for that week.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 83
2021
Table 5.18 – Weeks in Drought, 2001-2020
Weeks in Drought % of time in Severe
Drought or WorseTotalD0D1D2D3D4
627 232 176 82 110 27 21.0%
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Figure 5.12 shows the historical periods where the county was considered in some level of drought
condition. Between 2000 and 2021, Richmond County was in some level of drought 60 of the time.
Figure 5.12 – US Drought Monitor Historical Trends – Richmond County
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
Table 5.19 summarizes the U.S. Drought Monitor data shown above to indicate the most severe drought
condition reported each year.
Table 5.19 – Summary of Historical Drought Severity in Augusta-Richmond County
Year Severity
2000 Exceptional (D4)
2001 Extreme (D3)
2002 Exceptional (D4)
2003 Abnormally Dry (D0)
2004 Severe (D2)
2005 Abnormally Dry (D0)
2006 Moderate (D2)
2007 Exceptional (D4)
2008 Extreme (D3)
2009 Moderate (D1)
2010 Moderate (D1)
2011 Extreme (D3)
2012 Exceptional (D4)
2013 Extreme (D3)
2014 Moderate (D1)
2015 Moderate (D1)
2016 Severe (D2)
2017 Moderate (D1)
2018 Moderate (D1)
2019 Moderate (D1)
2020 Abnormally Dry (D0)
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 84
2021
The previous plan evaluated data from the State of Georgia’s Climatologist was also reviewed to obtain
additional information on historical drought events that may have been larger in scale or more regional in
nature. These events are identified in Table 5.20. No additional records were noted by the State
Climatologist since 2016.
Table 5.20 – Notable Historical Drought Occurrences in the State of Georgia
Year Area Affected Notes
1903-1905 Statewide Severe
1924-1927 North Central Georgia One of most severe of century
1930-1935 Mostly Statewide Affected most of U.S.
1938-1944 Statewide Regional drought
1950-1957 Statewide Regional drought
1968-1971 Southern and Central Georgia Variable severity
1985-1990 North and Central Georgia Regional drought
1999-2009 Statewide Severe
Source: USGS, GA State Climatologist
The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), located at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, provides
a clearinghouse for information on the effects of drought, based on reports from media, observers, impact
records, and other sources. According to the NDMC’s Drought Impact Reporter, during the 20-year period
from 2001 through 2020, 932 county-level drought impacts were noted for the State of Georgia, of which
25 were reported to affect Richmond County. Table 5.21 summarizes the number of impacts reported by
category and the years impacts were reported for each category. Note that the Drought Impact Reporter
may assign multiple categories to each impact, and multiple impacts may be reported for a single year.
Table 5.21 – Drought Impacts Reported for Richmond County, 2001-2020
Category Impacts Years Reported
Agriculture 8 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019
Business & Industry 1 2011
Fire 3 2016, 2019
Plants & Wildlife 4 2003, 2017
Relief, Response & Restrictions 18 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016
Water Supply & Quality 5 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2019
Source: Drought Impact Reporter, http://droughtreporter.unl.edu
The following events were reported by local officials and noted in the previous HMP as having significant
impacts on Augusta-Richmond County:
• 1986: A severe drought event occurred, which contributed to 3 deaths and caused over $300,000
in crop damage.
• 1998: A drought caused a reduction in normal flows of the Savannah River so much that tourism
was reduced, and water quality was negatively impacted.
• 2003: A major drought occurred in the region that was a -4.0 on the PDSI.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, for which Drought Monitor reports on 1,045 weeks, Augusta-
Richmond County experienced drought conditions ranging from abnormally dry to extreme drought every
year, with drought recorded for a total of 627 weeks or 60% of that time period.
Taken together as periods of drought, the county experienced 25 separate periods of drought over the 20-
year period from 2001 through 2020 where drought conditions reached or surpassed abnormally dry (D0)
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 85
2021
in at least 1 percent and up to 100 percent of the county. The length of these drought varied from 1 week
to 138 weeks. In seven of these periods of drought, conditions met or surpassed severe (D2) levels.
While severity may vary, given the historical record and the impacts of climate change (discussed below),
drought is highly likely to occur in any given year (near 100 percent annual probability).
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
Climate Change
The Fourth National Climate Assessment reports that average and extreme temperatures are increasing
across the country and average annual precipitation is decreasing in the Southeast. Heavy precipitation
events are becoming more frequent, meaning that there will likely be an increase in the average number of
consecutive dry days between rainfall events. As temperature is projected to continue rising, evaporation
rates are expected to increase, resulting in decreased surface soil moisture levels. Together, these factors
suggest that drought will increase in intensity and duration in the Southeast.
Research conducted at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change suggests
increasing frequency of drought across much of the southern U.S., with the Augusta-Richmond County area
and much of Georgia projected to experience an average increase of 11 to 17 months of drought over a
30-year period, as shown in Figure 5.13.
Figure 5.13 – Projected Mean Changes in the Number of Drought Months
Source: Strzepek et al., 2010
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 86
2021
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Drought can cause anxiety or depression about economic losses, conflicts over water
shortages, reduced incomes, and fewer recreational activities. Farmers and agricultural
producers are particularly vulnerable. Efforts to mitigate, such as using irrigation, have a high
initial cost, including the need for an increase in management, cost of operations and
maintenance, and lack of good quality water resources affected during drought.
Responders Impacts to responders are unlikely. Exceptional drought conditions may impact the amount
of water immediately available to respond to structure fire and wildfires.
Continuity of
Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Drought would have minimal impacts on continuity of operations due to the relatively long
warning time that would allow for plans to be made to maintain continuity of operations.
During prolonged or intense drought, alternative water supplies may be needed.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
Drought has the potential to affect water supply for residential, commercial, institutional,
industrial, and government-owned areas. Drought can reduce water supply in wells and
reservoirs. Utilities may be forced to increase rates and seek alternate supplies. Irrigation and
outdoor landscaping would be affected, as would recreational uses, such as golf courses
(most prominently, Augusta National Golf Club).
Environment Environmental impacts include strain on local plant and wildlife; increased probability of
wildfire; and decreased water quality. Pollution may increase due to lack of rainwater to dilute
industrial and agricultural chemical runoff. Dry soil may result in instability, leading to
erosion. These changes may cause habitat degradation through loss of wetlands, lake
capacity, and vegetation.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
Farmers may face crop losses or increased livestock costs. Businesses that depend on farming
may experience secondary impacts. Extreme drought has the potential to impact local
businesses in landscaping, recreation and tourism, and public utilities. In Augusta-Richmond
County, events at Augusta National Golf Club are recognized nationwide and contribute
substantially to the local economy. Irrigating golf courses of this caliber is critical in order to
maintain the course at an acceptable level to play. In a drought scenario, it is possible that
reduced water resources may hinder course maintenance and thereby have a negative
impact on course use and thus the economy.
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Public confidence is unlikely to be severely impacted. However, when drought conditions
persist with no relief, local or State governments must often institute water restrictions, which
may impact public confidence.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Drought can affect people’s physical and mental health. For those economically dependent on a reliable
water supply, drought may cause anxiety or depression about economic losses, reduced incomes, and other
employment impacts. Conflicts may arise over water shortages. People may be forced to pay more for water,
food, and utilities affected by increased water costs. Drought may cause health problems due to poorer
water quality from lower water levels. If accompanied by extreme heat, drought can also result in higher
incidents of heat stroke and even loss of life.
Property
Drought is unlikely to cause damages to the built environment, but it may cause severe property loss for
the agricultural industry in terms of crop and livestock losses. According to the UGA Extension 2021 Ag
Snapshot (based on 2019 data), the total economic contribution of agriculture and related industry in
Richmond County was $1,235,103,417 and 3,217 jobs. Richmond County has a Farm Gate Value of over $7.8
million. This value is exposed to damage from drought.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 87
2021
The USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) maintains a database of all paid crop insurance claims, with
detail on the cause of losses. According to these records, Augusta-Richmond County has had $97,301 in
crop insurance claims for 764 acres affected by drought. This equates to an annualized loss of $6,950.
Table 5.22 – Crop Losses Due to Drought, Augusta-Richmond County, 2007-2020
Year Determined Acres Indemnity Amount
2007 92.1 $8,604.00
2008 241 $23,260.00
2011 70.7 $7,897.00
2014 0.345 $7.25
2015 162.76 $11,885.40
2019 18 $5,385.00
2020 179.14 $40,262.40
Total 764.045 $97,301.05
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, Cause of Loss Records
Environment
Drought can affect local wildlife by shrinking food supplies and damaging habitats. Sometimes this damage
is only temporary, and other times it is irreversible. Wildlife may face increased disease rates due to limited
access to food and water. Increased stress on endangered species could cause extinction.
Another concern during a drought is that contaminants such as pesticides and fertilizers may concentrate
in the soil as precipitation wanes and then enter waterways during heavy rains and flooding. This can
threaten water quality with repercussions for agriculture, drinking water supply, and local plants and wildlife.
Drought conditions can also provide a substantial increase in wildfire risk. As plants and trees die from a
lack of precipitation, increased insect infestations, and diseases—all of which are associated with drought—
they become fuel for wildfire. Long periods of drought can result in more intense wildfires, which bring
additional consequences for the economy, the environment, and society. Drought may also increase
likelihood of wind and water erosion of soils.
Changes in Development
Drought is predominantly controlled by larger weather patterns and less by human development. However,
increased development and associated increases in impervious surfaces would mean less surface water
would be able to directly infiltrate into the ground. Additionally, as population grows, water demand will
likely increase, which could lower the threshold for socioeconomic drought – an inability of water supply to
meet water demand.
According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, from 2012 to 2017, Richmond County’s acres of farmland
decreased from 13,908 acres to 13,300 acres, and total farms decreased from 123 to 118. This trend
suggests that changes in development are resulting in lower overall agricultural exposure to drought.
Key Issues
• In the County, Agriculture is responsible for 3,217 jobs and a total output of over $1.2 billion.
Extended periods of drought in the County may have large economic impacts.
• Past droughts have increased incidence of wildfire across the Southeast.
• USACE maintenance of Hartwell and Thurmond dams may result in reduced water releases and
thus reduced flows on the Savannah River, affecting local water supply.
• Related Hazards: Extreme Heat, Wildfire
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 88
2021
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes drought hazard risk by jurisdiction. Drought risk is largely uniform across
the planning area. Warning time, duration, and spatial extent are inherent to the hazard and remain constant
across jurisdictions. The majority of damages that result from drought are to water- and agriculture-
dependent industries, which require water supply for irrigation and maintenance; therefore, the magnitude
of the impacts is typically greater in areas with these industries. In more heavily developed areas, drought
impacts may be limited to lawns and local gardens, but potential impacts on local water supplies may arise
during severe, prolonged drought.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 2 4 1 4 3.1 H
Blythe 4 2 4 1 4 3.1 H
Hephzibah 4 2 4 1 4 3.1 H
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 89
2021
Earthquake
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Earthquake Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.0
Hazard Background
An earthquake is a movement or shaking of the ground. Most earthquakes are caused by the release of
stresses accumulated as a result of the rupture of rocks along opposing fault planes in the Earth’s outer
crust. These fault planes are typically found along borders of the Earth's 10 tectonic plates. The areas of
greatest tectonic instability occur at the perimeters of the slowly moving plates, as these locations are
subjected to the greatest strains from plates traveling in opposite directions and at different speeds.
Deformation along plate boundaries causes strain in the rock and the consequent buildup of stored energy.
When the built-up stress exceeds the rocks' strength a rupture occurs. The rock on both sides of the fracture
is snapped, releasing the stored energy and producing seismic waves, generating an earthquake.
Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles and can cause major damage to property
and loss of life or injury in the affected area. Most property damage and deaths are caused by the failure
and collapse of structures due to ground shaking. The level of damage depends upon the amplitude and
duration of the shaking, which are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site, and
regional geology.
Earthquakes generally occur with little to no warning and last for a short period of time. However,
earthquakes can often be followed by periods of aftershocks that vary in severity but can compound
damages.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours
Duration: 1 – Less than 6 hours
Location
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary faults database was consulted to determine the
sources of potential earthquakes within range of Augusta-Richmond County. Quaternary faults are active
faults recognized at the surface which have evidence of movement in the past 2.58 million years. Georgia is
affected by the Charleston Fault and the Eastern Tennessee Fault. The Charleston Fault has generated
earthquakes measuring greater than 8 on the Richter Scale during the last 200 years and is the fault most
likely to impact the Augusta-Richmond County planning area.
Earthquakes are generally felt over a wide area, with impacts occurring hundreds of miles from the
epicenter. Therefore, any earthquake that impacts Augusta-Richmond County is likely to be felt across most
if not all of the planning area.
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
Extent
Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is measured using the
Richter Scale, an open-ended logarithmic scale that describes the energy release of an earthquake through
a measure of shock wave amplitude. A description of the Richter Scale is given in Table 5.23.
Table 5.23 – Richter Scale
Magnitude Effects
Less than 3.5 Generally, not felt, but recorded.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 90
2021
Magnitude Effects
3.5 – 5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.
5.4 – 6.0
At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to poorly
constructed buildings over small regions.
6.1 – 6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to 100 kilometers across where people live.
7.0 – 7.9 Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas.
8.0 or greater Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across.
Source: FEMA
Although the Richter scale is usually used by the news media when reporting the intensity of earthquakes
and is the scale most familiar to the public, the scale currently used by the scientific community in the United
States is the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The MMI scale is an arbitrary ranking based on
observed effects. It describes the intensity of an earthquake at a particular location. Lower numbers of the
MMI scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people, while higher numbers
are generally based on observed structural damage. Figure 5.14 shows descriptions for levels of earthquake
intensity on the MMI scale.
Figure 5.14 – Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale Felt Intensities
Source: USGS
Table 5.24 approximates the Richter Scale magnitudes that would correspond with certain intensities on the
MMI scale.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 91
2021
Table 5.24 – Comparison of Modified Mercalli Scale and Richter Scale
MMI Scale Corresponding Richter
Scale Magnitude
I -
II <4.2
III -
IV -
V <4.8
VI <5.4
VII <6.1
VIII -
IX <6.9
X <7.3
XI <8.1
XII >8.1
Source: FEMA
The most intense earthquake felt in Augusta-Richmond County history was the 1886 Charleston earthquake;
impacts in Augusta were measured as VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale according to NCEI’s U.S.
Earthquake Intensity Database. However, according to FEMA’s Seismic Design Category (SDC) mapping
shown in Figure 5.15, Augusta-Richmond County (shown in the red rectangle) falls completely within SDC
Category B, which indicates potential for shaking of moderate intensity but only slight damage with a few
instances of fallen plaster and/or moved furniture.
Impact: 1 – Minor
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 92
2021
Figure 5.15 – Seismic Design Category Mapping for the Eastern U.S.
Source: FEMA
Note: Augusta-Richmond County indicated by red rectangle.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 93
2021
Historical Occurrences
The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program maintains a database of historical earthquakes of a magnitude 2.5
and greater. Earthquake events that occurred within 100 miles of Augusta-Richmond County since 1900 are
shown in Figure 5.16 in relation to the planning area. Given the long distances across which earthquake
impacts can be felt and the long potential return periods between events, these events do not encompass
all earthquakes that may have affected the planning area.
NCEI (formerly the National Geophysical Data Center) maintains a database of the felt intensity of
earthquakes from 1638 to 1985 including the maximum intensity for each locality that felt the earthquake.
According to this database, during this 347-year period, there were 21 earthquakes felt in the planning area;
three of these earthquakes were reported in both Augusta and Hephzibah. These earthquakes are detailed
in Table 5.25.
Table 5.25 – Historical Earthquakes Felt in Augusta-Richmond County, 1638-1985
Date Magnitude MMI Epicentral Distance (km)
Augusta-Richmond County
2/7/1812 7.4 5 777.0
1/5/1843 Not available 4 762.0
11/2/1875 Not available 6 61.0
9/1/1886 Not available 8 193.0
10/22/1886 Not available 6 193.0
1/24/1903 Not available 3 Not available
4/19/1907 Not available 5 193.0
9/22/1914 Not available 2 171.0
10/18/1916 Not available 2 393
2/21/1916 Not available 4 231
10/20/1924 Not available 2 179
7/29/1943 Not available 3 Not available
7/26/1945 5.6 3 122
8/3/1959 Not available 5 234
3/12/1960 Not available 4 280
11/9/1968 5.3 4 775
11/20/1969 4.3 4 445
5/19/1971 3.4 4 127
2/3/1972 4.5 5 144
8/2/1974 4.9 4 66
11/6/1983 3.3 2 181
Hephzibah
9/1/1886 Not available 6 200.0
2/3/1972 4.5 4 159
8/2/1974 4.9 3 71
Source: NCEI U.S. Earthquake Intensity Database
The U.S. Earthquake Intensity Database is no longer being updated. The USGS database did not contain any
earthquakes above a magnitude 4.5 since 1985 within 100 miles of the planning area. There are no other
records of any earthquakes since 1985 affecting Augusta-Richmond County.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
94
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
1
6
–
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
E
p
i
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
0
M
i
l
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
1
9
0
0
-
2
0
2
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
G
S
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 95
2021
Probability of Future Occurrence
Ground motion is the movement of the earth’s surface due to earthquakes or explosions. It is produced by
waves generated by a sudden slip on a fault or sudden pressure at the explosive source and travels through
the earth and along its surface. Ground motion is amplified when surface waves of unconsolidated materials
bounce off of or are refracted by adjacent solid bedrock. The probability of ground motion is depicted in
USGS earthquake hazard maps by showing, by contour values, the earthquake ground motions that have a
common given probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
Figure 5.17 on the following page reflects the seismic hazard for Augusta-Richmond County (indicated in
the red rectangle) based on the national USGS map of peak acceleration with two percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. To produce these estimates, the ground motions being considered at a given
location are those from all future possible earthquake magnitudes at all possible distances from that
location. The ground motion coming from a particular magnitude and distance is assigned an annual
probability equal to the annual probability of occurrence of the causative magnitude and distance. The
method assumes a reasonable future catalog of earthquakes, based upon historical earthquake locations
and geological information on the recurrence rate of fault ruptures. When all the possible earthquakes and
magnitudes have been considered, a ground motion value is determined such that the annual rate of its
being exceeded has a certain value. Therefore, for the given probability of exceedance, two percent, the
locations shaken more frequently will have larger ground motions. Most of Augusta-Richmond County,
including the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah, is located within the zone with peak acceleration of 10-14%
g, which indicates low to moderate earthquake risk. The northern and northeastern edge of Augusta-
Richmond County falls within the zone with peak acceleration of 14-20% g, indicating moderate earthquake
risk.
In simplified terms, based on the record of past occurrences over a 382-year period from 1638 to 2020 there
were three earthquakes that have or could have caused building damage, defined for this purpose as an
MMI of 6 or greater. Using past occurrences as an indicator of future probability, there is a less than 1
percent annual chance of an earthquake causing some building damage in the planning area.
Based on historical occurrences and modeled data, it can be reasonably assumed that an earthquake event
affecting Augusta-Richmond County is possible.
Probability: 2 – Possible
Climate Change
According to NASA’s Global Climate Change Program, scientists are beginning to believe there may be a
connection between climate change and earthquakes. Changing ice caps and sea-level redistribute weight
over fault lines, which could potentially have an influence on earthquake occurrences. However, currently
no studies quantify the relationship to a high level of detail, so recent earthquakes should not be linked
with climate change. Additionally, it’s possible that increased groundwater pumping as a result of climate
change-driven increases in drought could add to stress buildup in tectonic plates and hasten the occurrence
of earthquakes. Again, this relationship is hypothetical and not yet well studied. While not conclusive, early
research suggest that more intense earthquakes may eventually be added to the adverse consequences
that are caused by climate change.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 96
2021
Figure 5.17 – Seismic Hazard Information for Augusta-Richmond County
Source: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public In this area, earthquakes are generally not high impact events. The public may experience
shaking and the greatest threat to health and well-being is often from objects falling from
shelves.
Responders Minimal expected impact on responders given only moderate events. If a more severe
incident occurs, responders may need to enter compromised structures or infrastructure.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Little to no disruption expected to services or operations.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Damage to buildings and infrastructure determined by severity of the earthquake, soil
characteristics, and the quality of the impacted structures. Wood-frame multi-unit
structures, mobile homes, and unreinforced masonry buildings are most vulnerable.
Impacts to buildings could include cracked foundations, chimneys breaking at the roof
line, wood frames coming off their foundations, and racking of cripple walls.
Environment No severe impacts expected, but damage to key infrastructure, utility systems, or facilities
that house hazardous materials could harm the surrounding environment and may require
remediation.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Economic loss is unexpected with moderate events, but could include property damage,
business interruption costs, cost to repair public infrastructure, and debris removal costs.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 97
2021
Category Consequences
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
Public confidence is unlikely to be affected from an earthquake event.
Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology & Assumptions
Hazus 4.2 was used to evaluate potential earthquake impacts, leveraging Hazus general building stock
information. The probabilistic earthquake scenario was run to estimate annualized loss and to evaluate
annualized loss and to model the most significant earthquake on record for the planning area, the 1886
Charleston earthquake, a magnitude 6.8 event that occurred on September 1, 1886.
People
Earthquake events in Augusta-Richmond County are unlikely to produce more than moderate ground
shaking; therefore, injury or death is unlikely. Objects falling from shelves generally pose the greatest threat
to safety. In severe cases, an earthquake could cause fatalities due to building collapse.
Hazus models social impact of earthquakes, including shelter needs and casualties. These estimates did not
vary between the annualized loss and the 1886 earthquake scenarios. Either event would result in 115
households being displaced and 87 people requiring temporary shelter. Additionally, Hazus estimates
potential injuries and fatalities depending on the time of day of an event. Casualty estimates are shown in
Figure 5.18. Casualties are broken down into the following four levels that describe the extent of injuries:
• Level 1: Injuries will require medical attention, but hospitalization is not needed.
• Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening.
• Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly
treated.
• Level 4: Victims are killed by the earthquake.
Impacts do not vary significantly by time of day. The majority of casualties are minor injuries, with a few
requiring hospitalization, and the potential for a life-threatening casualty and/or a fatality.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 98
2021
Figure 5.18 – Hazus Casualty Estimate from Earthquake Event
Source: Hazus 4.2
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 99
2021
Property
In a severe earthquake event, buildings can be damaged by the shaking itself or by the ground beneath
them settling to a different level than it was before the earthquake (subsidence). Buildings can even sink
into the ground if soil liquefaction occurs. If a structure (a building, road, etc.) is built across a fault, the
ground displacement during an earthquake could seriously damage that structure.
Earthquakes can also cause damages to infrastructure, resulting in secondary hazards. Damages to dams or
levees could cause failures and subsequent flooding. Fires can be started by broken gas lines and power
lines. Fires can be a serious problem, especially if the water lines that feed the fire hydrants have been
damaged as well. Impacts of earthquakes also include debris clean-up and service disruption. Per the Hazus
analysis, the annualized loss scenario and the 1886 Charleston earthquake scenario would produce an
estimated 54,000 tons of debris.
Augusta-Richmond County has not been impacted by an earthquake with more than a moderate intensity,
so major damage to the built environment is unlikely. However, there is potential for impacts to certain
masonry buildings, as well as environmental damages with secondary impacts on structures.
Table 5.26 details the annualized building loss estimates, as modeled by Hazus. Note that building value
estimates are inherent to Hazus, which relies on 2010 Census data, and do not necessarily reflect damages
to the asset inventory generated using Augusta-Richmond County’s tax parcel and building point data.
Table 5.26 – Annualized Loss Estimates for Earthquake Hazard
Occupancy Type Estimated Building Damage Estimated Content Loss Estimated Total Damage
Residential $672,600 $336,300 $1,008,900
Commercial $498,100 $498,100 $996,200
Industrial $97,900 $146,850 $244,750
Other $94,200 $94,200 $188,400
Total $1,362,800 $1,075,450 $2,438,250
Source: Hazus
Table 5.27 details the building losses estimated to result from an event equivalent to 1886 Charleston
earthquake, as modeled by Hazus.
Table 5.27 – Estimated Building and Content Loss for Modeled 1886 Charleston Earthquake
Occupancy Type Estimated Building Damage Estimated Content Loss Estimated Total Damage
Residential $64,327,400 $32,163,700 $96,491,100
Commercial $34,687,000 $34,687,000 $69,374,000
Industrial $6,378,000 $9,567,000 $15,945,000
Other $7,407,100 $7,407,100 $14,814,200
Total $112,799,500 $83,824,800 $196,624,300
Source: Hazus
All critical facilities should be considered at risk to minor damage should an earthquake event occur.
However, none of the essential facilities included in Hazus—which include 13 hospital, 91 schools, 24 fire
stations, 9 police stations, and 1 emergency operation facility—were estimated to sustain moderate or
worse damages. All were estimated to maintain at least 50 percent functionality after day one following an
event. Additionally, Hazus did not project any impacts to utility system facilities, pipelines, or transportation
infrastructure.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 100
2021
Environment
An earthquake is unlikely to cause substantial impacts to the natural environment in Augusta-Richmond
County. Impacts to infrastructure, such as a ruptured gas line, could cause secondary damages to the
surrounding environment. However, this type of damage is unlikely based on historical occurrences and
Hazus model results.
Changes in Development
Development since 2017 has increased overall exposure in Augusta-Richmond County. However,
development changes have not affected the risk characteristics of earthquakes. The probability, impact,
spatial extent, warning time, and duration of earthquakes in Augusta-Richmond County have not changed,
nor are they expected to in the near future.
Key Issues
• Poorly constructed masonry buildings that lack reinforcement may be vulnerable to the
magnitude of earthquake that could be expected to impact Augusta-Richmond County; these
structures could be retrofitted for earthquake resilience.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes earthquake hazard risk by jurisdiction. Earthquake risk is uniform across the
planning area.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 2 1 3 4 1 2.0 M
Blythe 2 1 3 4 1 2.0 M
Hephzibah 2 1 3 4 1 2.0 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 101
2021
Extreme Heat
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Extreme Heat Highly Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Hazard Background
As defined by FEMA, in most of the United States extreme heat is classified by a long period (2 to 3 days)
of high heat and humidity with temperatures above 90 degrees. However, the 2019 Georgia Mitigation
Strategy notes that extreme heat is relative; it can also be defined as an event at least three days long where
temperatures are 10 degrees greater than the normal temperature for the affected area. Extreme heat is
often referred to as a “heat wave.”
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), heat is one of the leading
weather-related killers in the United States. Under extreme heat conditions, the human body has difficulties
cooling through the normal method of the evaporation of perspiration and must work harder to maintain
a normal temperature. Health risks rise when a person is overexposed to heat. The most dangerous place
to be during an extreme heat incident is in a permanent home, with little or no air conditioning. Per the
National Weather Service (NWS), certain populations are more vulnerable to heat, including young children
and infants, older adults, people with chronic medical conditions, and pregnant women. People who are
socially isolated are also at heightened risk, as are individuals who work outside under direct sun exposure.
Even young and healthy individuals are susceptible to heat-related disorders if they participate in strenuous
physical activities during hot weather or are not acclimated to hot weather.
Ambient air temperature and relative humidity determine the relative intensity of heat conditions. The
relationship of these factors creates what is known as the apparent temperature. The Heat Index Chart,
shown in Figure 5.19, uses temperature and humidity to produce a guide for the apparent temperature, to
better inform the public of heat dangers.
Figure 5.19 – Heat Index Chart
Source: National Weather Service (NWS) https://www.weather.gov/safety/heat-index
The Heat Index Chart was devised for shady locations. Exposure to direct sun can increase Heat Index values
by as much as 15°F.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 102
2021
Table 5.28 lists typical symptoms and health impacts of heat exposure according to the severity
classifications shown in the heat index chart.
Table 5.28 – Typical Health Impacts of Extreme Heat
Classification Heat Index Effect on the Body
Caution 80-90°F Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
Extreme
Caution 90-103°F Heat stroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure
and/or physical activity
Danger 103-124°F Heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged
exposure and/or physical activity
Extreme
Danger
125°F or
higher Heat stroke highly likely
Source: National Weather Service, https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex
Impacts of extreme heat are not only focused on human health; prolonged heat exposure can have negative
impacts on infrastructure as well. Prolonged high heat exposure increases the risk of pavement
deterioration, as well as railroad warping or buckling. High heat also puts a strain on energy systems and
consumption, as air conditioners are run at a higher rate and for longer; extreme heat can also reduce
transmission capacity over electric systems.
The NWS has a system in place to initiate alert procedures (advisories or warnings) when the Heat Index is
expected to have a significant impact on public safety. The expected severity of the heat determines whether
advisories or warnings are issued. The National Weather Service Forecast Office in Peachtree City/Atlanta
sets the following criteria, which apply to then entire state of Georgia for heat advisory and excessive heat:
• Heat Advisory – At least 80% chance of heat index of 105°F or greater or daytime air
temperature of 103°F or greater for any duration within 12 to 24 hours.
• Excessive Heat Watch – At least 50% chance for heat index of 110°F or greater or daytime air
temperature of 105°F or greater within 36 to 72 hours.
• Excessive Heat Warning – At least 80% chance for heat index of 110°F or greater or daytime air
temperature of 105°F or greater for any duration within 12 to 24 hours.
While heat conditions may last several days, a warning can be issued even for one day of expected heat
conditions.
Warning Time: 1 – More than 24 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than one week
Location
Extreme heat typically impacts a large area and cannot be confined to any geographic or political
boundaries. The entire planning area is susceptible to extreme heat events.
Spatial Extent: 4 – Large
Extent
The heat index chart, shown in Figure 5.19, provides a measure of the severity of extreme heat. Per the NWS,
heat index values above 90°F can cause heat-related disorders affecting public health and safety.
The extent of extreme heat in the planning area can be defined by the historical maximum temperature
reached. The Northeast Regional Climate Center’s Climate Information for Management and Operational
Decisions (CLIMOD 2) tool was used to compile data on historical maximum temperatures in the planning
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 103
2021
area. Table 5.29 provides the monthly highest maximum temperature on record for the Augusta Bush Field
Airport weather station.
Table 5.29 – Monthly Highest Max Temperature, Bush Field Airport Weather Station, 2001-2020
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 78 80 78 90 95 92 96 97 90 89 83 79 97
2002 82 77 88 92 93 100 100 101 99 90 79 69 101
2003 72 77 82 85 90 91 93 94 90 84 85 70 94
2004 78 72 86 90 95 97 99 97 89 87 84 78 99
2005 79 78 83 86 90 96 99 99 97 90 84 75 99
2006 76 75 87 91 97 99 102 103 92 91 84 78 103
2007 78 78 91 90 93 97 97 108 97 94 84 82 108
2008 74 81 81 86 94 101 103 101 95 87 77 82 103
2009 77 77 86 90 93 100 100 99 92 90 77 79 100
2010 74 70 81 91 95 104 103 98 98 89 80 73 104
2011 76 84 90 92 99 101 104 105 98 87 83 78 105
2012 75 82 88 91 96 106 104 95 93 88 84 77 106
2013 81 73 80 86 90 96 95 95 94 89 86 83 96
2014 69 82 82 87 95 97 99 100 98 92 81 76 100
2015 72 70 85 91 94 101 104 100 96 86 78 81 104
2016 68 79 86 91 91 101 102 98 94 91 87 84 102
2017 82 84 91 92 96 98 98 98 97 94 87 78 98
2018 75 86 84 87 95 98 96 96 97 93 83 73 98
2019 76 85 84 90 101 97 101 101 101 101 79 81 101
2020 82 80 89 87 93 97 100 100 97 89 87 73 100
Mean 76 79 85 89 94 98 100 99 95 90 83 77 101
Max
(Year)
82 86 91 92 101 106 104 108 101 101 87 84 108
2020 2018 2017 2017 2019 2012 2015 2007 2019 2019 2020 2016 2007
Source: Northeast Regional Climate Center CLIMOD 2
Per this historical temperature data, the highest temperature on record for the planning area during the last
20 years was 108°F, recorded in August 2007. Given the NWS classification of danger for heat cramps, heat
exhaustion, and heat stroke at this temperature, the magnitude of heat in the Augusta-Richmond County
planning area is considered critical.
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
According to the NOAA, 2016 and 2017 are tied as Georgia’s hottest years on record; that record stretches
back 123 years to 1895.
NCEI does not record any incidents of heat or excessive heat for Richmond County between 1996-2020.
However, historical temperatures and heat index climatology derived from weather station data was
evaluated to determine the frequency and severity of past heat events. Data from the Southeast Regional
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 104
2021
Climate Center indicates that over of the period of record from April 1944 through December 2018, Augusta
has averaged 79 days per year with temperatures at or above 90°F. This data is summarized in Table 5.30
below.
Table 5.30 – Average Days with Maximum Temperature 90°F, 1944-2018
Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
03820
Augusta 0 0 n/a 1 7 17 23 20 10 1 n/a 0 79
Source: Southeast Regional Climate Center, NCEI Comparative Climate Data
Heat index records indicate that the Augusta-Richmond County area regularly experiences heat index
temperatures above 100°F. Table 5.31 provides counts of heat index values by threshold recorded from
2001 through 2020 at the Bush Field weather station (KAGS), Counts are provided as the number of hours
in a given year where the heat index reached or exceeded 100°F. According to this data, Augusta-Richmond
County averages approximately 147 hours per year with heat index values above 100°F. In the last five years,
that average increased to 243 hours per year, suggesting a possible trend toward more frequent extreme
heat.
Table 5.31 – Historical Heat Index Counts, Bush Field (KAGS), 2001-2020
Year Heat Index Value Total 100-104°F 105-109°F 110-114°F
2001 56 6 0 0 62
2002 124 18 0 0 142
2003 27 1 2 1 31
2004 107 6 0 0 113
2005 93 40 8 0 141
2006 112 38 1 0 151
2007 133 46 25 1 205
2008 119 19 2 0 140
2009 75 8 0 0 83
2010 242 112 19 0 373
2011 208 95 16 0 319
2012 104 37 5 2 148
2013 50 0 0 0 50
2014 83 8 0 0 91
2015 190 41 0 0 231
2016 266 53 2 0 321
2017 206 94 9 0 309
2018 204 31 0 0 235
2019 288 95 14 0 397
2020 251 68 5 0 324
Sum 2,938 816 108 4 3,866
Average 147 41 5 0 193
Source: North Carolina Climate Office, Heat Index Climatology Tool
Probability of Future Occurrence
According to maximum temperature data for Augusta Bush Field Airport, shown in Table 5.29 above,
Augusta-Richmond County has experienced a max temperature above 90°F during all of the last 20 years
and a max temperature at or above 100°F during 13 of the last 20 years. The effects of humidity further
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 105
2021
compound heat conditions at these temperatures, as evidenced by the heat index climatology summarized
in Table 5.31. Heat index values surpassed 100°F in all of the last 20 years, which equates to a 100 percent
annual chance of heat index values exceeding 100°F in any given year. Augusta-Richmond County also
averages 41 hours per year with a heat index above 105°F, which is the criteria for issuing a Heat Advisory.
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
Climate Change
Research shows that average temperatures will continue to rise in the Southeast United States and globally,
directly affecting Augusta-Richmond County. Per the Fourth National Climate Assessment, “extreme
temperatures are projected to increase even more than average temperatures. Cold waves are projected to
become less intense and heat waves more intense.” The number of days over 95°F is expected to increase
by between 30 and 40 days annually, as shown in Figure 5.20.
Figure 5.20 – Projected Change in Number of Days Over 95°F
Source: NOAA NCDC from 2014 National Climate Assessment
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 106
2021
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Extreme heat may cause illness and/or death. Children and infants, older adults,
individuals with chronic conditions, and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable.
Responders Consequences may be greater for responders if their work requires physical exertion,
sun exposure, and/or wearing heavy protective gear.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Extreme heat would have minimal impacts on continuity of operations.
Complications may arise if electricity demand results in power outages; however, this
should be managed for critical operations with backup power and system
redundancies.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Minor impacts may occur, including possible damages to road surfaces, rail lines,
and power lines as well as increased strain on power generation and water systems
infrastructure.
Environment Environmental impacts include strain on local plant and wildlife, including potential
for illness or death. Crops and livestock may be affected.
Economic Condition of the
Jurisdiction
Short term impacts could include reduced local spending if individuals are
encouraged to stay inside. Farmers may face crop losses or increased livestock costs
resulting in income loss.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
Extreme heat is unlikely to impact public confidence because these events are
frequent and the public likely understands the potential impacts.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Extreme heat can cause heat stroke and even loss of human life. Older adults and very young children are
most at risk to the effects of heat. Table 5.32 summarizes the percent of young children and older adults in
the population by jurisdiction. Based on these statistics, exposure of vulnerable populations may be greater
than average in Blythe and Hephzibah; both cities have a larger population of older adults, and Blythe has
a larger population of young children.
Table 5.32 – Population Under 5 Years of Age and Over 65 Years of Age by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Population under 5
years of age (%)
Population over 65
years of age (%)
Augusta-Richmond County 6.9 13.5
Blythe 15.6 14.0
Hephzibah 3.5 15.2
Total 6.8 13.6
State Average 6.3 13.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates
People with chronic health conditions, pregnant women, people who are isolated, and people who work
outdoors with sun exposure are also more vulnerable to extreme heat, however demographic data on these
groups was not available.
Property
Extreme heat is unlikely to cause significant damages to the built environment. However, road surfaces can
be damaged as asphalt softens, and concrete sections may buckle under expansion caused by heat. Train
rails may also distort or buckle under the stress of head induced expansion. Power transmission lines may
sag from expansion and if contact is made with vegetation the line may short out causing power outages.
Additional power demand for cooling also increases power line temperature adding to heat impacts.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 107
2021
Extreme heat can also cause significant agricultural losses. However, according to insurance claim data from
the USDA Risk Management Agency, between 2007-2020, there was only one year with reported crop losses
due to heat. The loss occurred in 2011 and totaled $7,897 and 70.7 acres. As noted in Section 5.5, Augusta-
Richmond County has a Farm Gate Value of over $7.8 million and agriculture produces an economic
contribution of $1,235,103,417 and 3,217 jobs. This value is exposed to damage from extreme heat.
Environment
Wild animals are vulnerable to heat disorders similar to humans, including mortality. Vegetation growth
will be stunted, or plants may be killed if temperatures rise above their tolerance extremes.
Changes in Development
Increases in impervious surface area can exacerbate heat conditions through the urban heat island effect,
whereby the concentration of structures, infrastructure, and human activity, traps and stores heat, resulting
in localized “heat islands.” As development occurs, the area impacted by the urban heat island effect may
grow. The severity of the urban heat island effect may be mitigated through the installation of cool roofs,
urban trees, and other interventions that reflect heat or provide shade in urban areas.
Key Issues
• Populations most vulnerable to the effects of excessive heat are children under the age of 5 and
those over the age of 65. The percentage of population over 65 in Blythe and Hephzibah is higher
than that of the county and the state; the proportion of population under 5 years of age in
Augusta and Blythe is higher than that of the county and the state.
• Individuals without access to air conditioning, especially older adults and individuals with
underlying conditions making them more susceptible to heat stroke, are more vulnerable to
extreme heat events. Cooling centers, fan distribution, and other mitigation actions could reduce
vulnerability.
• Related Hazards: Drought
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes extreme heat hazard risk by jurisdiction. Extreme heat risk does not vary
significantly by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 3 4 1 3 3.3 H
Blythe 4 3 4 1 3 3.3 H
Hephzibah 4 3 4 1 3 3.3 H
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 108
2021
Flooding
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Flood Highly Likely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hrs Less than 1 week 3.3
Hazard Background
Flooding is defined by the rising and overflowing of water onto normally dry land. As specified by FEMA, a
flood is a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of
normally dry land area or of two or more properties. Inland flooding generally results from excessive
precipitation and can stem from an overflow of inland waters or an unusual accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source.
Inland flooding can typically be classified under two categories: general riverine flooding, which is defined
by precipitation over a given river basin for a long period of time, and flash flooding, which is the product
of heavy localized precipitation over a short period of time. The severity of a flooding event is typically
determined by a combination of several major factors, including stream and river basin topography and
physiography, precipitation and weather patterns, recent soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative
clearing, and impervious surface.
Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United States and has caused more than
10,000 death(s) since 1900. Approximately 90 percent of presidentially declared disasters result from flood-
related natural hazard events.
Sources and Types of Flooding
Flooding in Augusta-Richmond County can be attributed to three main sources: riverine flooding, flash
flooding, and localized stormwater flooding.
Riverine Flooding: Augusta-Richmond County has numerous rivers, streams, and tributaries running
throughout its jurisdiction that are susceptible to overflowing their banks during and following excessive
precipitation events. The Richmond County, GA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report, dated November 15,
2019, was used to identify riverine flooding source. Per the 2019 FIS Report, Augusta-Richmond County falls
primarily within the Middle Savannah Watershed, with a small portion of the southwestern portion of the
county in the Brier Watershed. The primary flood sources in these watersheds are the Savannah River and
the Brier Creek, respectively. Primary flood problems noted in the FIS Report include Savannah River and
Raes Creek, where flood stages rise from normal to extreme very quickly but normally recede within 24
hours.
Riverine flooding is mapped and evaluated based on the floodplain, which is the area adjacent to rivers and
streams that is expected to experience periodic flooding. Floodplains are discussed further under “Flooding
and Floodplains” below.
Flash Flooding: A flash flood occurs when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate as a result of intense
rainfall over a brief period, possibly from severe thunderstorms, hurricanes, or tropical storms, and
sometimes combined with saturated soil or impermeable surfaces. Flash flooding can also result from dam
or levee failures, which are discussed in Section 5.4, or from a sudden release of water held by a retention
basin or other stormwater control facility.
Flash flooding can happen anywhere, in or out of floodplains. Flash flood hazards caused by surface water
runoff are common in urbanized areas, where greater impervious surface (e.g., pavement and buildings)
increases the amount of surface water generated.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 109
2021
Flash flooding is a dangerous form of flooding which can reach full peak in only a few minutes. The rapid
onset allows little or no time for protective measures. Flash flood waters move at very fast speeds and can
damage buildings and infrastructure, tear out trees, and scour channels. Flash flooding can result in higher
loss of life, both human and animal, than slower developing river and stream flooding.
Localized Stormwater Flooding: While riverine and flash flooding can affect urban areas, localized
stormwater flooding refers specifically to flooding that occurs when heavy rainfall and an accumulation of
runoff overburden the stormwater drainage system of an urban area. Localized stormwater flooding can
be attributed to large amounts of developed and impervious land, which limit ground absorption and
increases surface water runoff.
The following structural drainage issues may cause or exacerbate localized stormwater flooding:
•Inadequate Capacity – An undersized/under capacity pipe system can cause water to back-up
behind a structure which can lead to areas of ponded water and/or overtopping of banks.
•Clogged Inlets – Debris covering the asphalt apron and the top of grate at catch basin inlets may
contribute to an inadequate flow of stormwater into the system. Debris within the basin itself
may also reduce the efficiency of the system by reducing the carrying capacity.
• Blocked Drainage Outfalls – Debris blockage or structural damage at drainage outfalls may
prevent the system from discharging runoff, which may lead to a back-up of stormwater within
the system.
• Improper Grade – Poorly graded asphalt around catch basin inlets may prevent stormwater from
entering the catch basin as designed. Areas of settled asphalt may create low spots within the
roadway that allow for areas of ponded water.
While localized flooding may not be as destructive riverine or coastal flooding, it is a chronic problem. The
repetitive damage caused by such flooding can add up. Sewers may back up, yards can be inundated, and
mechanical systems can be damaged when homes, businesses, and vehicles are flooded. These impacts,
and other localized flooding impacts, can create public health and safety concerns. Drainage and sewer
systems not designed to carry the capacity currently needed to handle increased storm runoff will only
continue to cause flooding without mitigation.
Flooding and Floodplains
A floodplain, as shown in Figure 5.21, is flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river that experiences
occasional or periodic flooding. It includes the floodway, which consists of the stream channel and adjacent
areas that carry flood flows, and the flood fringe, which are areas covered by the flood, but which do not
experience a strong current. Floodplains are made when floodwaters exceed the capacity of the main
channel or escape the channel by eroding its banks. When this occurs, sediments (including rocks and
debris) are deposited that gradually build up over time to create the floor of the floodplain. Floodplains
generally contain unconsolidated sediments, often extending below the bed of the stream.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 110
2021
Figure 5.21 – Characteristics of a Floodplain
Source: FEMA
Floodplains are defined by the flood recurrence interval that is expected to cover them. In its common
usage, the floodplain most often refers to the area that is inundated by the “100-year flood,” better defined
as the “1-percent-annual-chance flood” because it is the flood that has a 1 percent chance in any given year
of being equaled or exceeded. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) utilizes the 1-percent-annual-
chance flood as a basis for floodplain management. The “500-year flood” or “0.2-percent-annual-chance
flood” is the flood that has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land
surface, which result in a change to the floodplain. Similarly, a change in environment can create localized
flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage
channels. These changes are most often created by human activity.
The 1-percent-annual-chance flood, which is the minimum standard used by most federal and state
agencies, is used by the NFIP as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for
flood insurance. Participation in the NFIP requires adoption and enforcement of a local floodplain
management ordinance which is intended to prevent unsafe development in the floodplain, thereby
reducing future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP allows for the federal government to make flood
insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. Since floods have
an annual probability of occurrence, have a known magnitude, depth and velocity for each event, and in
many cases, have a map indicating where they will likely occur, they are in many ways often the most
predictable and manageable hazard.
While weather forecasting can project periods of heavy rain, the likelihood of flooding is difficult to predict,
leaving limited warning time for flood events. Especially as heavy rain events become more common, as
discussed below under Climate Change, warning time for flooding may decrease, thereby increasing risk to
those in harm’s way.
Warning Time: 3 – 6 to 12 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than 1 week
Location
Regulated floodplains are illustrated on inundation maps called Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). A FIRM
is the official map for a community on which FEMA has delineated both the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. SFHAs represent the areas subject to
inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. SFHAs and risk premium zones in Augusta-
Richmond County were identified using the digital FIRMs (DFIRMs), effective as of November 15, 2019.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 111
2021
The SFHA in Augusta-Richmond County includes Zone A and Zone AE. Structures located within the SFHA
have a 26-percent chance of flooding during the life of a standard 30-year mortgage. The DFIRMs also
delineate Shaded X Zones, which are subject to inundation from the 0.2-percent-annual-chance-flood.
Descriptions of all mapped flood zones identified by the DFIRM are provided in Table 5.33.
Table 5.33 – Mapped Flood Insurance Zones within Augusta-Richmond County
Zone Description
AE
Areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed
methods. They represent the flood profile determined by hydrologic and hydraulic investigations.
Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are shown.
A
Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-
year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas, no depths or base
flood elevations are shown within these zones.
0.2% Annual
Chance
(shaded
Zone X)
Moderate risk areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-
chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance
flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected
from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood by a levee. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown
within these zones. (Zone X (shaded) is used on new and revised maps in place of Zone B.)
Zone X
(unshaded)
Minimal risk areas outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains. No BFEs or
base flood depths are shown within these zones. Zone X (unshaded) is used on new and revised
maps in place of Zone C.
Source: FEMA
Augusta-Richmond County also has areas designated as levee-protected areas. The Augusta Levee is
accredited by FEMA as reducing the risk from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. However, areas protected
by the levee are vulnerable should the levee fail. Levee failure is discussed in Section 5.4.
It is important to note that while FEMA digital flood data is recognized as the best available data for planning
purposes, it does not always reflect the most accurate and up-to-date flood risk. Floods can and do occur
outside of the SFHA and Shaded X Zone.
Figure 5.22 reflects the 2019 mapped flood insurance zones for Augusta-Richmond County. Maps for each
participating jurisdiction are provided in the jurisdictional annexes.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
11
2
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
2
–
F
E
M
A
F
l
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
A
r
e
a
s
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
E
M
A
2
0
1
9
D
F
I
R
M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 113
2021
Approximately 15.7 percent of the planning area falls within the SFHA. Table 5.34 provides a summary of
the County’s total area by flood zone per the effective DFIRM. This is further broken down by jurisdiction in
each jurisdiction’s annex.
Table 5.34 – Flood Zone Acreage in Augusta-Richmond County
Flood Zone Acreage Percent of Total (%)
A 7,007 3.3%
AE 14,772 7.0%
Floodway 11,291 5.4%
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 2,784 1.3%
Areas with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee 4,209 2.0%
Unshaded X 170,197 80.9%
Total 210,260 --
SFHA Total 33,070 15.7%
Source: FEMA 2019 DFIRM
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
In addition to riverine flooding, the planning area may also experience smaller scale localized stormwater
flooding events. Table 5.35 lists locations of stormwater flooding and the cause of flooding in these areas,
as identified by the HMPC.
Table 5.35 – Stormwater Flooding Hotspot Locations
Jurisdiction Street Name or Intersection Cause of Flooding
Augusta Augusta University Campus - R.A. Dent Blvd Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Laney Walker Blvd Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Goss Ln & Floyd St Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Harper St & New Bailie St & Old Bailie St Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Harper St & 15
th St Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Spellman St Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus - Emmet St Heavy Rains
Augusta Augusta University Campus – Old Bailie St & Walton Way Heavy Rains
Source: HMPC input; Augusta-Richmond County
Locations of localized flooding around Augusta University’s campus are shown in Figure 5.23.
Extent
Flood extent can be defined by the amount of land in the floodplain, detailed above, and the potential
magnitude of flooding as measured by flood depth. Figure 5.24 shows the depth of flooding predicted from
a 1-percent-annual-chance flood, and Figure 5.25 shows the depth of flooding predicted from a 0.2-
percent-annual-chance flood. Flood damage is closely related to depth, with greater flood depths generally
resulting in more damages.
Impact: 3 – Critical
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
11
5
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
4
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
1
-
P
e
r
c
e
m
t
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
-
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
E
M
A
2
0
1
9
D
F
I
R
M
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
11
6
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
5
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
0
.
2
-
P
e
r
c
e
m
t
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
-
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
E
M
A
2
0
1
9
D
F
I
R
M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 117
2021
Historical Occurrences
According to the NCEI Storm Events Database, Augusta-Richmond County has experienced 34 flood-related
events, including 28 flash flood events and 6 heavy rain events, since 1996, as detailed in Table 5.36. Note
that only those historical occurrences listed in the NCEI database are shown here, and other unrecorded or
unreported events may have occurred within the planning area during this timeframe.
Table 5.36 – NCEI Recorded Flooding Events, 1996-2020
Location Date Deaths/Injuries Reported Property Damage Reported Crop Damage
Flash Flood
Northern Half 3/7/1996 0/0 $400,000 $0
Augusta 12/24/1997 0/0 $2,000 $0
Augusta 3/8/1998 0/0 $0 $0
Augusta 9/3/1998 0/0 $0 $0
Countywide 6/20/2000 0/0 $0 $0
Countywide 5/30/2002 0/0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/18/2003 0/0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/8/2003 0/0 $0 $0
(Ags) Bush Fld Augusta 1/25/2010 0/0 $20,000 $0
National Hills 8/7/2012 0/0 $60,000 $0
Lakemont 8/7/2012 0/0 $80,000 $0
Peach Orchard 8/7/2012 0/0 $10,000 $0
Lakemont 8/7/2012 0/0 $16,000 $0
Avondale 8/7/2012 0/0 $10,000 $0
De Bruce 8/11/2012 0/0 $4,000 $0
De Bruce 8/11/2012 0/0 $4,000 $0
De Bruce 8/11/2012 0/0 $2,000 $0
National Hills 7/10/2013 0/0 $4,000 $0
National Hills 7/11/2013 0/0 $2,000 $0
Ft Gordon 7/12/2013 0/0 $2,000 $0
South Nellieville 6/24/2014 0/0 $2,000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/24/2014 0/0 $2,000 $0
Augusta 6/24/2014 0/0 $1,000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/4/2015 0/0 $1,000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 7/15/2017 0/0 $100 $100
Peach Orchard 7/15/2017 0/0 $100 $100
National Hills 10/11/2018 0/0 $25,000 $100
National Hills 9/17/2020 0/0 $50,000 $0
Heavy Rain
Augusta 9/2/2014 0/0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld Augusta 9/11/2017 0/0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 9/11/2017 0/0 $0 $0
Peach Orchard 4/19/2019 0/0 $10,000 $10
Augusta Daniel Arpt 7/6/2020 0/0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld Augusta 7/6/2020 0/0 $0 $0
Total 0/0 $707,200 $310
Source: NCEI
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 118
2021
According to NCEI, 34 recorded flood-related events occurring across 23 separate days affected the
planning area in the 25-year period from 1996 through 2020. These events caused an estimated $707,200
in property damage and $310 in crop damage, with no direct injuries or fatalities. However, there is one
record of an indirect death from an automobile crash on a wet roadway. These records do not specifically
note flood impacts in all participating jurisdictions, but there are several countywide events on record.
The following event narratives are provided from the NCEI Storm Events Database to illustrate the impacts
of flood events on the county:
March 7, 1996 – Thunderstorms in the Augusta area send several streams over their banks and into homes.
Flash flooding also closed several major highways which were under water. Rainfall amounts of 2-4 inches
occurred in a 6-9 hour period over southern Columbia and northern Richmond counties.
December 24, 1997 – Flash flooding along several creeks flooded several highways including Richmond
Hill Road.
September 8, 1998 – EPD reported flash flooding along several streams. About 50 people were evacuated
form two subdivisions and several streets were closed.
May 18, 2003 – High water covered an area of US 1 and Bobby Jones Highway.
January 25, 2010 – Flooding along several streams, especially Rocky Creek, flooded businesses and homes.
August 7, 2012 – Locally heavy rains produced some flash flooding in portions of the CSRA as nearly
stationary thunderstorms lingered over the area. Sheriff reported water inside an apartment complex on
Stevens Creek Road; water inside a personal care home on Division Street with several roads closed; and
flooding on Bungalow and Peach Roads that were closed. Additionally, a vehicle stalled in a flash flood in
the 100 block of Wood street with a person inside, and swift water rescue team had to save the person.
August 11, 2012 – Locally heavy rains produced some flash flooding in Columbia and Richmond Counties.
Law enforcement reported flash flooding in the area of Laney Walker Blvd, East Hall Streen in Augusta, and
along Magnolia Ave. in Augusta.
July 10-12, 2013 – Three days in a row, slow moving thunderstorms and rain events produced 2 to 5 inches
of rain in a few hours over portions of Columbia and Richmond counties causing streams to come out of
their banks and flooding areas. Dispatch reported flash flooding along the frontage road at Wheeler and I-
20 closing the road on the 10th. Two to three feet of water covered the area. Richmond County Dispatch
reported Warren Road flooded and closed on the 11th. County Dispatch reported flooding along the 3000
block of Gordon Highway closing the road the road near the train tracks on the 12th.
June 24, 2014 – Slow moving thunderstorms over the CSRA caused flash flooding of streams and low lying
areas closing a few roads. Flash flooding was reported on Olive and Cook Roads, Wrightsboro and Jackson
Roads, and Broad and 4th Streets, temporarily closing them.
June 4, 2015 – Heavy rains produced 2 to 5 inches of rain causing flash flooding in portions of Columbia
and Richmond counties. Dispatch reported several roads closed due to flash flooding including Wrightsboro
Road and Highland Ave in Augusta.
July 15, 2017 – A public report via social media showed 2 to 3 feet of water flowing over the road from
Rocky Creek, near Milledgeville Road and Wheeless Road. Richmond County dispatch received a report of
water flowing into a home on Lisbon Road.
October 11, 2018 – Flash flooding produced by Tropical Storm Michael occurred along Raes Creek. This
impacted roads and homes along Ingelside Drive and Berckmans Road.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 119
2021
April 19, 2019 – Broadcast media reported a fatality of a 64-year-old male driver of a vehicle that
hydroplaned on a wet roadway at Deans Bridge Rd at Spring Grove Dr.
September 17, 2020 – Hurricane Sally produced widespread flooding in and around Augusta, including at
Wrightsboro Rd at Blount Ave, Laney Walker Blvd at 15th St, Harper St at 15th St, Walton Way near Medical
College of GA, Walton Way at St Sebastian Way, Oellerich Ave, and Central Ave near Paine College.
Augusta-Richmond County has received two Major Disaster Declarations for severe storms that included
elements of flooding, in 1990 and 1998. Additionally, the county received a Major Disaster Declaration for
Hurricane Irma in 2017, which included damages associated with flooding.
Summary of Insured Flood Losses
Flood insurance policy records provide another measure of historical flood occurrences. According to
records in the FEMA Community Information System, there have been 481 paid flood insurance claims in
Augusta-Richmond County since 1978, totaling over $3.8 million in claims payments. These records are
summarized in Table 5.37 by jurisdiction. It should be emphasized that these numbers include only those
losses to structures that were insured through the NFIP and for losses in which claims were sought and
received. It is likely that many additional instances of flood loss in Augusta-Richmond County were either
uninsured, denied claims payment, or not reported. Additional detail on active policies and paid claims are
provided in each jurisdictional annex.
Table 5.37 – Summary of Insured Flood Losses in Augusta-Richmond County
Location Number of Claims Closed Paid Losses Amount Adjustment Expense
Augusta1 85 $648,087.63 $26,750.00
Blythe2 n/a n/a n/a
Hephzibah 0 $0 $0
Augusta-Richmond County 396 $3,197,408.24 $281,210.03
Total 481 $3,845,495.87 $307,960.03
Source: FEMA Community Information System
1This claims data pre-dates the consolidation of the city-county
2Blythe does not participate in the NFIP due to limited mapped flood hazard area.
Probability of Future Occurrence
By definition, SFHAs are those areas that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year, and the Shaded X Zone is the area that will be inundated by
the flood event having a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This
delineation is a useful way to identify the most at-risk areas. However, flooding does not occur in set
intervals; any given flood may be more or less severe than the defined 1-percent-annual-chance flood.
There is also risk of localized stormwater flooding in areas outside the SFHA and at different intervals than
the 1-percent-annual-chance flood.
Floods of varying severity occur regularly in Augusta-Richmond County. NCEI reports 30 flood-related
events in the 20-year period from 2001 through 2020, which equates to an annual probability of 150%, or
an average of 1.5 flood events per year. Overall, flood events remain a threat in Augusta-Richmond County,
and the probability of future occurrences remains highly likely. Flood events will continue to occur with
varying magnitudes and probabilities. It can be inferred from the floodplain location maps, previous
occurrences, and repetitive loss properties that risk and probability varies throughout Augusta-Richmond
County. For example, Blythe has a much lower risk of flood than the other communities.
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 120
2021
Climate Change
According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation
events is expected to increase across the country. More specifically, there is a 90-100% probability that by
the late 21st century most areas of the U.S. will exhibit an increase of at least 5% in the maximum 5-day
precipitation. Overall increases in precipitation totals are also expected in the Southeast. The mean change
in the annual number of days with rainfall over 1 inch for the Southeastern U.S. is 0.5 to 1.5 days. Therefore,
with more rainfall falling in more intense incidents, the planning area may experience more frequent flash
flooding and localized stormwater flooding. Increased flooding may also result from more intense tropical
cyclones; researchers have noted the occurrence of more intense storms bringing greater rainfall totals, a
trend that is expected to continue as ocean and air temperatures rise. The effects of climate change on
hurricanes and tropical storms are discussed further in Section 5.9.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Localized impact expected to be severe for flooded areas. People may become stranded in
their homes or vehicles. Flooding may cause injuries or loss of life. People may also suffer
large financial losses, especially if they do not have flood insurance for their home and/or
contents.
Responders First responders are at risk when attempting to rescue people from their homes or vehicles.
They are subject to the same health hazards as the public. Flood waters may prevent
access to areas in need of response or the flood may prevent access to the critical facilities
themselves which may prolong response time.
Continuity of
Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Floods can severely disrupt normal operations, especially when there is a loss of power or
when flooding blocks access to facilities or travel routes. Damage to facilities in the affected
area may require temporary relocation of some operations. Localized disruption of roads,
facilities, and/or utilities may postpone delivery of some services.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
Buildings and infrastructure, including transportation and utility infrastructure, may be
damaged or destroyed. Impacts are expected to be localized to the area of the incident.
Severe damage is possible.
Environment Chemicals and other hazardous substances may contaminate local water bodies. Wildlife
and livestock deaths are possible. Flooding may adversely impact crops and other
vegetation through inundation and impacts to the soil. Conversely, flooding in wetlands
can support biodiversity and may control invasive water weeds.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
Local economy and finances will be adversely affected, possibly for an extended period of
time. During floods (especially flash floods), roads, bridges, buildings and vehicles can be
destroyed. Businesses may need to shut down if they are damaged. According to the NFIP,
almost 40 percent of small businesses that are impacted by a flood never reopen their
doors. It may take years for affected communities to rebuild and recover and for business
to return to normal.
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Public confidence is often impacted by flood events, especially when impacted individuals
do not have flood insurance, or when government aid for recovery is needed, which can be
a difficult process to navigate. The ability to respond and recover may be questioned and
challenged if planning, response, and recovery are not timely and effective.
Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology & Assumptions
Wood performed a Level 2 flood loss analysis in Hazus 4.2 by leveraging 2020 building point and tax parcel
data provided by Augusta-Richmond County. Wood leveraged a depth raster for all Zone AE portions of
the SFHA as well as areas of Zone A with base flood elevations made available in the FEMA database; this
depth raster was then loaded in Hazus along with the parcel data. An additional depth raster was available
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 121
2021
for the 0.2% annual chance flood, and also included areas of the Shaded X Zone. Losses were calculated
based on Hazus standard depth damage functions. Only areas that were contained within the extent of
available LiDAR (and by extension the depth grid) were analyzed; this accounted for 99% of all structures in
the SFHA and Shaded X Zone with available base flood elevations.
Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding by the application of a depth damage curve. In
applying the curve, a specific depth of water translates to a specific percentage of damage to the structure,
which translates to the same percentage of the structure’s replacement value. Figure 5.24 and Figure 5.25
depict the depth of flooding that can be expected within the Augusta-Richmond County planning area
during the 1-percent-annual-chance and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood events. Table 5.38 provides the
depth damage factors that were used to calculate flood losses for the planning area. These depth damage
factors are based on the default depth damage curve in Hazus.
Table 5.38 – Depth Damage Percentages
Depth
(ft)
Percent Damaged (%)
Agricultural Commercial Education Government Industrial Religious Residential
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 18
1 6 9 5 5 10 10 22
2 11 14 7 8 12 11 25
3 15 16 9 13 15 11 28
4 19 18 9 14 19 12 30
5 25 20 10 14 22 12 31
6 30 23 11 15 26 13 40
7 35 26 13 17 30 14 43
8 41 30 15 19 35 14 43
9 46 34 17 22 29 15 45
10 51 38 20 26 42 17 46
11 57 42 24 31 48 19 47
12 63 47 28 37 50 24 47
13 70 51 33 44 51 30 49
14 75 55 39 51 53 38 50
15 79 58 45 59 54 45 50
16 82 61 52 65 55 52 50
17 84 64 59 70 55 58 51
18 87 67 64 74 56 64 51
19 89 69 69 79 56 69 52
20 90 71 74 83 57 74 52
21 92 74 79 87 57 78 53
22 93 76 84 91 57 82 53
23 95 78 89 95 58 85 54
24 96 80 94 98 58 88 54
Source: Hazus
People
Flood events pose many threats to public health and safety. While such problems are often not reported,
three general types of health hazards accompany floods: physical hazards from the water itself,
environmental hazards in the aftermath of the flood, and long-term psychological hazards. These common
health and safety hazards are detailed below:
• Contaminated water: Floodwaters carry anything that was on the ground that the upstream
runoff picked up, including dirt, oil, animal waste, and lawn, farm and industrial chemicals.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 122
2021
Pastures and areas where farm animals are kept or where their wastes are stored can contribute
polluted waters to the receiving streams. Floodwaters also saturate the ground, which leads to
infiltration into sanitary sewer lines, or wastewater treatment plants may be flooded or over
loaded. When wastewater treatment plants are flooded, there is nowhere for the sewage to flow.
Infiltration and lack of treatment can lead to overloaded sewer lines that can back up into low-
lying areas and homes. Even when it is diluted by flood waters, raw sewage can be a breeding
ground for bacteria such as E.coli and other disease causing agents. Private sewer and septic
systems may also introduce pollutants into floodwaters. Private wells may become contaminated
through infiltration of polluted water. Given the many potential sources of contamination, direct
or indirect contact with floodwaters poses a significant health risk for contraction of infectious
disease.
•Debris: During a flood, debris carried by floodwaters can cause physical injury from impact.
During the recovery process, people may often need to clear debris out of their properties but
may encounter dangers such as sharp materials or rusty nails that pose a risk of tetanus.
• Unsafe food: If floodwaters come into contact with food items, that food may no longer be safe
for consumption due to the potential contaminants in the floodwaters. Foods stored in cardboard,
plastic bags, jars, bottles, and paper packaging may all be subject to contamination. Even if foods
don’t come into direct contact with floodwaters, the introduction of mold and mildew from
flooding may cause foods to spoil faster. Additionally, power outages may cause refrigerated and
frozen foods to spoil.
• Mosquitos and animals: After most of the water has receded, stagnant pools can become
breeding grounds for mosquitoes, which may carry infectious diseases such as West Nile virus or
St. Louis encephalitis. Wild animals such as snakes or rodents may carried by floodwaters or lose
their habitat and seek shelter in buildings. Snakes may also be swimming in floodwaters seeking
higher ground. People may be at risk for bites or disease if they come in contact with these
animals or animal carcasses.
• Mold and mildew: Areas of a building that were exposed to excessive moisture can breed mold
and mildew. Molds can start to grow in only 24 to 48 hours and will continue to grow without
steps to dry out and disinfect the affected surface. Some molds are allergens, while others can
produce harmful mycotoxins. Exposure to mold can cause respiratory problems; nasal and sinus
congestion; eye, nose, and throat irritation; aches and pains; and effects on the nervous system.
Infants, children, immunocompromised individuals, elderly adults, pregnant women, and
individuals with respiratory conditions are all at higher risk.
•Reentering a flooded building: Health hazards may occur when heating ducts in a forced air
system are not properly cleaned after inundation. When the furnace or air conditioner is turned
on, the sediments left in the ducts are circulated throughout the building and breathed in by the
occupants. If the public water systems lose pressure, public water supplies may be contaminated,
and a boil order may be issued to protect people and animals from contaminated water.
• Mental stress: Long-term psychological impacts can result after having been through a flood and
seeing one‘s home damaged and personal belongings destroyed. The cost and labor needed to
repair a flood-damaged home can also put a severe strain on people, especially individuals who
were unprepared and uninsured. There is also a long-term problem for those who know that
their homes can be flooded again. The resulting stress on floodplain residents takes its toll in the
form of aggravated physical and mental health problems.
Floods can also result in fatalities. Individuals face high risk when driving through flooded streets.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 123
2021
Another important consideration for the health and safety of residents and visitors is the ability to safely
evacuate flooded areas. Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Management coordinates sheltering and
evacuation for the planning area.
The County does not have permanent signs in place to identify evacuation routes but instead provides
information on safe routes to use when evacuation orders are given based on the details and affected areas
of the event in question. These evacuation plans stress situational flexibility but also require extensive
communication to the public during an evacuation. Evacuation orders specify the perimeters of the area to
be evacuated and direct residents to available shelters, which residents of areas not in the defined area may
be encouraged to shelter in place.
Augusta has numerous facilities that have been identified and equipped to serve as shelters; however, the
locations to be used in any given evacuation order depend on the size and severity of the disaster, the
location of the disaster area, and the numbers of people requiring shelter. All pre-designated shelters have
auxiliary power provided by generators and are ADA accessible. When the determination is made as to
which shelter(s) to open, the community is informed via traditional media, the County’s website, and the
Emergency Notification System.
An estimate of population at risk to flooding was developed based on the Hazus loss estimates for
residential property. Counts of residential buildings at risk were multiplied by the average household size
for each jurisdiction, as reported in the 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates. The resulting
estimates of population at risk are shown in Table 5.39. Overall, approximately 2,084 people are at risk to
the 1%-annual-chance flood and 3,223 people are at risk to the 0.2%-annual-chance flood.
Table 5.39 – Augusta-Richmond County Population at Risk to Flood
Jurisdiction
Household
Factor
Residential Parcels at Risk Population at Risk
1% ACF Event 0.2% ACF Event 1% ACF Event 0.2% ACF Event
Augusta-Richmond County 2.68 766 1,187 2,053 3,181
Blythe 3.07 0 0 0 0
Hephzibah 2.79 11 15 31 42
Total --777 1,202 2,084 3,223
Source: FEMA; U.S. Census Bureau 2015-2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
ACF = Annual Chance Flood
Property
Residential, commercial, and public buildings, as well as critical facilities and infrastructure such as
transportation, water, energy, and communication systems may be damaged or destroyed by flood waters.
Table 5.40 summarizes the property exposure by occupancy in each flood zone throughout the planning
area.
Table 5.40 – Property Exposure by Flood Zone and Occupancy
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Zone A 200 $572,244,180 $286,480,527 $858,724,707
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 10 $676,361 $676,361 $1,352,722
Education 0 $0 $0 $0
Government 0 $0 $0 $0
Industrial 2 $20,256 $30,384 $50,640
Religious 0 $0 $0 $0
Residential 188 $571,547,563 $285,773,782 $857,321,345
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 124
2021
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Zone AE 1,658 $123,113,611 $78,081,259 $201,194,870
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 85 $11,910,349 $11,910,349 $23,820,698
Education 2 $492,000 $492,000 $984,000
Government 0 $0 $0 $0
Industrial 62 $9,633,974 $14,450,961 $24,084,935
Religious 6 $1,378,609 $1,378,609 $2,757,218
Residential 1,503 $99,698,679 $49,849,340 $149,548,019
Floodway 281 $20,461,567 $11,521,498 $31,983,065
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 11 $1,126,521 $1,126,521 $2,253,042
Education 1 $246,000 $246,000 $492,000
Government 0 $0 $0 $0
Industrial 19 $604,454 $906,681 $1,511,135
Religious 0 $0 $0 $0
Residential 250 $18,484,592 $9,242,296 $27,726,888
X Shaded 1,158 $113,252,444 $88,095,930 $201,348,374
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 123 $15,795,272 $15,795,272 $31,590,544
Education 2 $5,653,006 $0 $5,653,006
Government 2 $7,606 $0 $7,606
Industrial 119 $26,936,104 $40,404,156 $67,340,260
Religious 4 $1,067,453 $0 $1,067,453
Residential 908 $63,793,003 $31,896,502 $95,689,505
Area with Reduced
Flood Risk due to Levee 3,277 $481,146,012 $516,595,034 $997,741,046
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 455 $154,816,538 $154,816,538 $309,633,076
Education 11 $23,247,172 $23,247,172 $46,494,344
Government 61 $67,196,837 $67,196,837 $134,393,674
Industrial 705 $142,389,340 $213,584,010 $355,973,350
Religious 41 $22,004,828 $22,004,828 $44,009,656
Residential 2,004 $71,491,297 $35,745,649 $107,236,946
X Unshaded 107,563 $96,859,145,833 $50,420,411,146 $147,279,556,979
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 5,643 $1,873,672,041 $1,873,672,041 $3,747,344,082
Education 315 $314,828,046 $314,828,046 $629,656,092
Government 291 $60,582,898 $60,582,898 $121,165,796
Industrial 2,753 $762,282,800 $1,143,424,200 $1,905,707,000
Religious 573 $208,027,873 $208,027,873 $416,055,746
Residential 97,988 $93,639,752,175 $46,819,876,088 $140,459,628,263
Source: FEMA Effective DFIRM; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
Table 5.41 and Table 5.42 detail the estimated losses for the 1%-annual-chance flood event and the 0.2%-
annual chance flood event, respectively, for the entire planning area. The total damage estimate value is
based on damages to the total of improved building value and contents value. Land value is not included
in any of the loss estimates as generally land is not subject to loss from floods. Loss estimates are detailed
by jurisdiction in each jurisdiction’s annex; the majority of these estimated losses are attributed to Augusta,
with no estimated losses in Blythe and limited estimated losses in Hephzibah.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 125
2021
Table 5.41 – Estimated Building Damage and Content Loss for 1% Annual Chance Flood
Occupancy
Type
Total
Buildings
with Loss
Total Value
(Building &
Contents)
Estimated
Building
Damage
Estimated
Content Loss
Estimated
Total Damage
Loss
Ratio
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Commercial 126 $17,130,095 $655,874 $2,049,480 $2,705,355 16%
Educational 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Government 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Industrial 3 $535,618 $635 $0 $635 0%
Religious 11 $3,308,824 $20,942 $197,274 $218,216 7%
Residential 777 $81,326,419 $1,738,747 $989,097 $2,727,844 3%
Total 917 $102,300,956 $2,416,198 $3,235,852 $5,652,049 6%
Source: Hazus 4.2; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
Table 5.42 – Estimated Building Damage and Content Loss for 0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Occupancy
Type
Total
Buildings
with Loss
Total Value
(Building &
Contents)
Estimated
Building
Damage
Estimated
Content Loss
Estimated
Total Damage
Loss
Ratio
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Commercial 243 $31,109,167 $1,481,952 $4,103,798 $5,585,750 18%
Educational 1 $13,599,900 $0 $0 $0 0%
Government 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Industrial 9 $908,434 $4,106 $2,030 $6,136 1%
Religious 15 $4,737,890 $156,461 $1,009,978 $1,166,440 25%
Residential 1,202 $131,809,961 $7,040,410 $3,952,508 $10,992,918 8%
Total 1,470 $182,165,352 $8,682,930 $9,068,314 $17,751,244 10%
Source: Hazus 4.2; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
The loss ratio is the loss estimate divided by the total potential exposure (i.e., total of improved and contents
value for all buildings located within the flood zones included in this Hazus analysis) and displayed as a
percentage of loss. FEMA considers loss ratios greater than 10% to be significant and an indicator a
community may have more difficulties recovering from a flood. Overall, the 1%-annual-chance flood event
is projected to cause a 6% loss ratio, while the 0.2%-annual-chance flood event is estimated to cause a 10%
loss ratio, which would pose more significant difficulty for recovery.
Critical facilities are shown in relation to the mapped flood zones in Figure 5.26. Table 5.43 summarizes
critical facilities exposed to flooding by flood zone and facility type. Only utilities and Tier II facilities are
located in mapped special flood hazard areas. Table 5.44 lists these critical facilities and, where possible,
provides the depth of flooding estimated to occur at each facility from the 1%-annual-chance flood and the
0.2%-annual-chance flood.
Table 5.43 – Summary of Critical Facilities Exposed to Flood
Facility Type
Critical Facilities Count by Flood Zone
Total Facilities at RiskZone A Zone AE Floodway
Tier II Reporting Industries 4 2 6
Utilities 3 3 2 8
Total 3 7 4 14
Source: FEMA, Hazus, Augusta-Richmond County
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 126
2021
Table 5.44 – Critical Facilities Exposed to Flood and Expected Flood Depth
Facility Type Facility Name Jurisdiction
Flood
Zone
100-Year
Flood Depth
(NAVD FT)
500-Year
Flood Depth
(NAVD FT)
Utilities Marina Augusta Floodway 6.5 15.1
Utilities Hyde Park Augusta AE 5.2 5.8
Tier II Reporting Industry PPB Augusta GA Augusta AE 2.7 3.2
Utilities Palmers Augusta AE 1.7 9.1
Utilities Goodale Augusta AE 1.4 7.9
Utilities Chaffee Augusta A 1.1 1.3
Tier II Reporting Industry GA, Augusta POP Augusta AE 0.9 1.1
Tier II Reporting Industry Southern Ionics - Augusta Augusta AE 0.7 N/A
Tier II Reporting Industry FPL Food, LLC - Main Plant Augusta Floodway 0.3 2.5
Tier II Reporting Industry United Rentals Branch L68/97B Augusta AE 0.3 1.9
Utilities 110WW0001 Augusta Floodway N/A N/A
Tier II Reporting Industry New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Augusta Floodway N/A N/A
Utilities Valley Park Augusta A N/A N/A
Utilities Leachate System Fort Gordon A N/A N/A
Source: FEMA, Hazus, Augusta-Richmond County
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
12
7
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
6
–
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
F
E
M
A
F
l
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
A
r
e
a
s
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 128
2021
Table 5.45 summarizes current active flood insurance policies, premiums, and insurance in force by
jurisdiction. Compared with the building loss estimate for the 1-percent-annual-chance flood, shown in
Table 5.41, insurance in force within the SFHA exceeds the total loss estimate, but at least 621 of the 917
buildings with losses do not have coverage.
Table 5.45 – Summary of Flood Insurance Policies in Augusta-Richmond County
Location
SFHA X Zones
Policies in
Force
Total
Premiums
Insurance in
Force
Policies in
Force
Total
Premiums
Insurance in
Force
Augusta 295 $270,938 $61,948,000 514 $228,423 $141,345,900
Blythe1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Hephzibah 1 $3,162 $302,000 3 $1,612 $950,000
Total 296 $274,100 $62,250,000 517 $230,035 $142,295,900
Source: FEMA Community Information System
1Blythe does not participate in the NFIP due to limited mapped flood risk.
Mortgage lenders require that owners of properties with federally backed mortgages located within SFHAs
purchase and maintain flood insurance policies on their properties. Consequently, newer and recently
purchased properties in the community are typically insured against flooding.
Repetitive Loss Analysis
A repetitive loss property is a property for which two or more flood insurance claims of more than $1,000
have been paid by the NFIP within any 10-year period since 1978. Some repetitive loss buildings are
classified as “severe repetitive loss” properties if they have four or more separate claim payments of more
than $5,000 each (including building and contents payments) or two or more separate claim payments
(building only) where the total of the payments exceeds the current value of the property. An analysis of
2021 repetitive loss data was completed to examine repetitive losses within the planning area.
According to 2021 NFIP records, there are a total of 60 repetitive loss properties within the planning area
including 8 severe repetitive loss buildings, all located in Augusta-Richmond County. Approximately 30
percent are mitigated. Over 93% of the repetitive loss properties are residential, including 45 single family
residential buildings, six 2-4 family buildings, 3 condos, and 2 other residential buildings. Two buildings are
commercial and two are classified as other non-residential buildings.
Table 5.46 summarizes repetitive loss properties by jurisdiction as identified by FEMA through the NFIP and
reported in the FEMA Community Information System.
Table 5.46 – Repetitive Loss Properties by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Property
Count % Mitigated Total Number
of Losses
Total Amount of
Claims Payments
(Building & Contents)
SRL
Count
Augusta-Richmond County 60 30% 184 $2,498,071.97 8
Blythe n/a - - - -
Hephzibah 0 - - - -
Total 60 30% 184 $2,498,071.97 8
Source: FEMA CIS accessed October 8, 2020; Note: SRL = Severe Repetitive Loss
Note: Blythe does not participate in the NFIP due to limited area at risk.
The general location of repetitive loss areas throughout Augusta-Richmond County is shown in Figure 5.27.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
12
9
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
7
–
R
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
L
o
s
s
A
r
e
a
s
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
F
E
M
A
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
9
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 130
2021
Environment
During a flood event, chemicals and other hazardous substances may end up contaminating local water
bodies. Flooding kills animals and in general disrupts the ecosystem. Snakes and insects may also make
their way to the flooded areas.
Floods can also cause significant erosion, which can alter streambanks and deposit sediment, changing the
flow of streams and rivers and potentially reducing the drainage capacity of those waterbodies.
Changes in Development
It is very likely that development can and will change the flood hazard and increase risk. While specific plans
for development are not known, there are general trends in development that may affect future flooding
conditions.
Areas Subject to Future Flooding
Areas subject to continued or worsening flooding in the future include existing floodplain areas,
surrounding moderate risk areas, and urbanized areas with inadequate stormwater management. The
following factors may influence future flooding:
• Changes in floodplain development and demographics may result in increased exposure and
increased vulnerability. If development occurs in the floodplain without proper flood protection,
these properties will be vulnerable to flood. Additionally, encroachments, such as new
development and/or fill in the flood fringe, which is the area of the floodplain outside the
floodway, reduce the natural floodplain and limit natural floodplain functions. Encroachments can
cause a rise in the base flood elevation, putting new and existing development at greater risk.
Increases in socially vulnerable populations, discussed in Section 3, within the floodplain can also
increase future flood risk.
• Development in the watershed may alter flood patterns and increase flood frequency and
intensity. Increased development anywhere in the planning area will likely lead to increased
impervious surfaces; such development will limit infiltration and increase runoff. This is especially
true of increased development within or near identified floodplains where development may
contribute to increased runoff and simultaneously reduce natural floodplain areas and limit
natural floodplain functions. There will be a greater strain on stormwater infrastructure to convey
runoff and a possibility for more flash flooding and urban flooding where system capacity is
overwhelmed.
• Climate change, as discussed above, may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of
heavy rainfall events. These changes could result in more frequent flooding and/or flooding of
greater magnitude.
Key Issues
• Over 15% of the entire county falls within the SFHA, including nearly 20% of Augusta-Richmond
County and only 5% of Hephzibah and less than 1% of Blythe.
• Flood insurance coverage in the community is inadequate: there are at least 621 buildings in the
SFHA that are expected to be damaged by the 1%-annual-chance flood event but are uninsured.
• The loss ratio resulting from the Hazus analysis is 10% for the 0.2%-annual-chance flood, meaning
it would be difficult to recover from.
• By being a member of the NFIP’s CRS program, Augusta-Richmond County is taking steps beyond
the basic NFIP requirements to reduce flood risk.
• Augusta-Richmond County has 60 repetitive loss properties; 70% of these properties are
unmitigated. Mitigation strategies should prioritize these structures.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 131
2021
• Related Hazards: Hurricane, Severe Weather
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes flood hazard risk by jurisdiction. Warning time and duration were
considered uniform across the planning area. Probability was based on known flood risk areas and past
events, with flooding considered highly likely in Augusta-Richmond County, likely in Hephzibah, and
unlikely in Blythe. Impact was assigned based on Hazus loss estimates, with possibility for critical impacts in
Augusta, minor impacts in Blythe, and limited impacts in Hephzibah. All participating jurisdictions have
some area in SFHA but to varying degrees; Augusta-Richmond County has nearly 20% of its area in the
SFHA, Hephzibah has nearly 5% of its area in the SFHA, and only 0.1% of Blythe is in the SFHA. Given that
other sources of flooding and other levels of flooding may occur beyond these areas, the spatial extent was
considered moderate for Augusta-Richmond County, small for Hephzibah, and negligible for Blythe.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 3 3 3 3 3.3 H
Blythe 1 1 1 3 3 1.7 L
Hephzibah 3 2 2 3 3 2.5 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 132
2021
Hurricane & Tropical Storm
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Hurricane & Tropical Storm Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Hazard Background
Hurricanes and tropical storms are classified as cyclones and defined as any closed circulation developing
around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere (or
clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical
cyclone refers to any such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical cyclones act as a “safety-
valve,” limiting the continued build-up of heat and energy in tropical regions by maintaining the
atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the tropics and the pole-ward latitudes. The primary
damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and
tornadoes.
The key energy source for a tropical cyclone is the release of latent heat from the condensation of warm
water. Their formation requires a low-pressure disturbance, warm sea surface temperature, rotational force
from the spinning of the earth, and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere.
The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico
during the official Atlantic hurricane season, which encompasses the months of June through November.
The peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is in early to mid-September and the average number of storms
that reach hurricane intensity per year in the Atlantic basin is about six.
While hurricanes pose the greatest threat to life and property, tropical storms and depressions also can be
devastating. A tropical disturbance can grow to a more intense stage through an increase in sustained wind
speeds. The progression of a tropical disturbance is described below.
•Tropical Depression: A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of 38 mph (33 knots) or
less.
•Tropical Storm: A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph (34 to 63
knots).
•Hurricane: A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of 74 mph (64 knots) or higher. In
the western North Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons; similar storms in the Indian Ocean and
South Pacific Ocean are called cyclones.
•Major Hurricane:A tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of 111 mph (96 knots) or
higher, corresponding to a Category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.
Damage during hurricanes may also result from inland flooding from associated heavy rainfall.
Warning Time: 1 – More than 24 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than 1 week
Location
Hurricanes and tropical storms can occur anywhere within the Augusta-Richmond County planning area.
While coastal areas are most vulnerable, the wind and rain impacts of hurricanes and tropical storms can
be felt hundreds of miles inland. Wind impacts can occur uniformly across the planning area but may only
affect a portion of the planning area during any given event.
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 133
2021
Extent
As an incipient hurricane develops, barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls
and winds increase. If the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical
depression. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated
a tropical storm, given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.
When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane. Hurricane
intensity is further classified by the Saffir-Simpson Scale (Table 5.47), which rates hurricane intensity on a
scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most intense.
Table 5.47 – Saffir-Simpson Scale
Category Maximum Sustained
Wind Speed (MPH)Types of Damage
1 74–95
Very dangerous winds will produce some damage; Well-constructed frame
homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large
branches of trees will snap, and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled.
Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power
outages that could last a few to several days.
2 96–110
Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage; Well-constructed
frame homes could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly
rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-
total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days
to weeks.
3 111–129
Devastating damage will occur; Well-built framed homes may incur major
damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be
snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will
be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.
4 130–156
Catastrophic damage will occur; Well-built framed homes can sustain
severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior
walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed.
Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages
will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable
for weeks or months.
5 157 +
Catastrophic damage will occur; A high percentage of framed homes will
be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and
power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks
to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or
months.
Source: National Hurricane Center
The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon maximum sustained winds and
barometric pressure, which are combined to estimate potential damage. Categories 3, 4, and 5 are classified
as “major” hurricanes and, while hurricanes within this range comprise only 20 percent of total tropical
cyclone landfalls, they account for over 70 percent of the damage in the United States. Table 5.48 describes
the damage that could be expected for each category of hurricane. Damage during hurricanes may also
result from spawned tornadoes and inland flooding associated with heavy rainfall that usually accompanies
these storms.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 134
2021
Table 5.48 – Hurricane Damage Classifications
Storm
Category
Damage
Level Description of Damages Photo
Example
1 MINIMAL
No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily
to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also,
some coastal flooding and minor pier damage.
2 MODERATE
Some roofing material, door, and window damage.
Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc.
Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected
moorings may break their moorings.
3 EXTENSIVE
Some structural damage to small residences and utility
buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures.
Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast
destroys smaller structures, with larger structures damaged
by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland.
4 EXTREME
More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete
roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of
beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland.
5 CATASTROPHIC
Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial
buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility
buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major
damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline.
Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required.
Source: National Hurricane Center; Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Saffir-Simpson scale provides a measure of extent of a hurricane. Based on historical hurricane tracks
passing within 75 miles of the planning area, discussed below, Augusta-Richmond County may reasonably
experience up to a Category 4 hurricane.
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
Augusta-Richmond County has received one Major Disaster Declaration for Hurricane Irma (2017), and three
Emergency Declarations, for Hurricane Katrina Evacuations (2005) Hurricane Irma (2017), and Hurricane
Michael (2018).
According to the Office of Coastal Management’s Tropical Cyclone Storm Segments data, which is a subset
of the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) dataset, 93 tropical storms or
extratropical storms passed within 75 miles of Augusta-Richmond County since 1850. This is the most
current spatial data available. These storm tracks are shown in Figure 5.28. The date, storm name, storm
category, and maximum wind speed of each event are detailed in Table 5.49.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
13
5
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
2
8
–
H
u
r
r
i
c
a
n
e
/
T
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
T
r
a
c
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
1
8
5
0
-
2
0
2
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
N
O
A
A
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
N
O
A
A
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 136
2021
Table 5.49 – Tropical Cyclone Tracks within 75 Miles of Augusta-Richmond County, 1850-2020
Storm Name Date Max Storm Category*Max Wind Speed (mph)
Not Named 8/24/1851 Tropical Depression 60
Not Named 8/27/1852 Tropical Depression 40
Not Named 8/28/1852 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 10/10/1852 Tropical Depression 60
Not Named 10/21/1853 Category 1 80
Not Named 9/9/1854 Category 1 75
Not Named 8/31/1856 Tropical Depression 60
Not Named 9/16/1859 Tropical Depression 40
Not Named 9/27/1861 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 11/2/1861 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 9/17/1863 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 10/2/1863 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 8/14/1867 Tropical Depression 0
Not Named 8/28/1871 Tropical Depression 35
Not Named 10/3/1877 Tropical Depression 45
Not Named 8/28/1881 Category 1 70
Not Named 9/10/1882 Tropical Depression 50
Not Named 9/11/1884 Tropical Depression 40
Not Named 10/12/1885 Tropical Depression 45
Not Named 6/21/1886 Tropical Storm 55
Not Named 7/1/1886 Tropical Depression 55
Not Named 10/20/1887 Tropical Depression 30
Not Named 9/9/1888 Tropical Depression 40
Not Named 9/24/1889 Tropical Depression 45
Not Named 8/28/1893 Category 2 90
Not Named 10/3/1893 Tropical Depression 45
Not Named 10/9/1894 Category 1 65
Not Named 7/8/1896 Tropical Storm 40
Not Named 9/29/1896 Category 2 85
Not Named 8/31/1898 Category 1 68
Not Named 9/15/1900 Tropical Depression 25
Not Named 9/18/1901 Tropical Depression 35
Not Named 9/28/1901 Extratropical Storm 35
Not Named 6/15/1902 Tropical Depression 35
Not Named 9/16/1903 Tropical Depression 30
Not Named 11/4/1904 Tropical Depression 30
Not Named 9/18/1906 Tropical Depression 50
Not Named 10/23/1908 Extratropical Storm 32
Not Named 7/2/1909 Tropical Depression 27
Not Named 8/28/1911 Tropical Storm 57
Not Named 6/14/1912 Extratropical Storm 35
Not Named 8/3/1915 Tropical Depression 40
Not Named 7/15/1916 Tropical Depression 50
Not Named 9/30/1924 Extratropical Storm 55
Not Named 10/3/1927 Tropical Depression 50
Not Named 8/10/1928 Tropical Depression 30
Not Named 10/1/1929 Extratropical Storm 50
Not Named 9/6/1933 Tropical Storm 40
Not Named 9/5/1935 Tropical Depression 55
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 137
2021
Storm Name Date Max Storm Category*Max Wind Speed (mph)
Not Named 8/12/1940 Category 1 65
Not Named 10/8/1941 Tropical Depression 45
Not Named 10/20/1944 Tropical Depression 50
Not Named 10/8/1946 Tropical Depression 52
Not Named 9/24/1947 Extratropical Storm 42
Not Named 10/8/1947 Tropical Depression 20
Not Named 8/28/1949 Category 1 65
Love 10/22/1950 Tropical Depression 30
Able 8/31/1952 Category 2 85
Not Named 9/1/1953 Tropical Depression 30
Flossy 9/25/1956 Extratropical Storm 42
Arlene 6/2/1959 Tropical Depression 20
Gracie 9/29/1959 Category 4 115
Not Named 7/23/1964 Tropical Depression 20
Cleo 8/29/1964 Tropical Depression 45
Dora 9/13/1964 Tropical Depression 60
Not Named 6/15/1965 Tropical Depression 40
Abby 6/7/1968 Tropical Depression 45
Alma 5/25/1970 Tropical Depression 25
Not Named 9/11/1971 Tropical Depression 0
Agnes 6/20/1972 Tropical Depression 30
David 9/4/1979 Category 1 72
Bob 7/25/1985 Category 1 65
Kate 11/22/1985 Tropical Storm 57
Charley 8/14/1986 Subtropical Depression 12
Chris 8/28/1988 Tropical Depression 40
Marco 10/12/1990 Extratropical Storm 20
Gordon 11/21/1994 Tropical Depression 20
Allison 6/6/1995 Extratropical Storm 35
Jerry 8/27/1995 Tropical Depression 20
Danny 7/23/1997 Tropical Depression 20
Earl 9/3/1998 Tropical Depression 42
Gordon 9/18/2000 Tropical Depression 27
Helene 9/22/2000 Tropical Depression 25
Allison 6/12/2001 Subtropical Depression 25
Not Named 7/26/2003 Tropical Depression 22
Jeanne 9/27/2004 Tropical Depression 30
Alberto 6/14/2006 Tropical Storm 32
Hermine 9/2/2016 Tropical Depression 50
Florence 9/16/2018 Tropical Depression 42
Michael 10/11/2018 Category 1 65
Nestor 10/20/2019 Extratropical Storm 40
Fay 7/7/2020 Tropical Depression 20
Sally 9/17/2020 Extratropical Storm 20
*Reports the most intense category that occurred within 75 miles of Augusta-Richmond County, not for the storm event overall.
Source: NOAA Office of Coastal Management
It’s important to note that hurricanes and tropical storms tracking further than 75 miles from the planning
area may still impact the area. For example, as detailed below, Hurricane Irma caused flooding and wind
damage in the Augusta-Richmond County area yet is not included in the above list.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 138
2021
Hurricane Matthew (2016) was also not included in the above list, but per the 2016 plan, Matthew passed
within 75 miles of Augusta-Richmond County and had a major impact on many communities in the
southeastern United States, affecting people and property from Florida to Virginia, as well as some areas in
the northeast. Some additional information on this major storm is available below:
Hurricane Matthew (October 8-9, 2016) – Hurricane Matthew was the strongest storm on record in the
Atlantic Basin during the 2016 season with peak wind speeds of around 160 miles per hour (while in the
Caribbean). The storm caused more than 1,700 fatalities and 11.6 billion dollars in damages. As the storm
approached Georgia, mandatory evacuation orders were issued for all areas of the state east of Interstate
95 and traffic lanes had to be reversed to support the evacuation. Over 250,000 people lost power across
the state and at least 3 deaths were a result of the storm, leading to a disaster declaration for many counties.
In the end, the storm was one of the most devastating to impact Georgia in many years.
NCEI’s Storm Events Database records one tropical storm event, Tropical Storm Michael, in Augusta-
Richmond County since 1996. Additionally, NCEI also reports a flash flood event and two heavy rain events
associated with Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Sally. The event summaries and their local impacts, as
reported in NCEI, are provided below:
Hurricane Irma (September 12, 2017) – Irma made landfall in south Florida as a category 4 hurricane on
Sunday, September 10th, then moved north up the Florida peninsula during the day and night while
gradually weakening. Irma weakened to Tropical Storm status while over north Florida Monday morning
September 11th and shifted NW over SW Georgia and into Alabama through Monday night while weakening
to a Depression. Copious rainfall amounts associated with the cyclone occurred across the Central Savannah
River Area (CSRA) of GA and the Midlands of SC, which generally fell from late Sunday night, through
Monday and Monday night the 11th, and into the early morning hours of Tuesday the 12th. In addition,
the pressure gradient between the cyclone to our SW, and high pressure to our north, provided strong wind
gusts over the region as well which downed numerous trees. The strongest wind gusts occurred Monday
afternoon Sept 11th. Augusta GA Bush Field Airport measured a total rainfall amount of 4.11 inches. Augusta
GA Daniel Field Airport measured a total rainfall amount of 3.92 inches.
Tropical Storm Michael (October 10-11, 2018) – Winds associated with Tropical Storm Michael downed
45 or more trees throughout the county, many involving power lines down as well. 2 trees on houses were
reported on Ravenel Rd and on Warren St in Augusta. Two power poles were either snapped or down in
roadway. Over 5,600 power outages were reported. The highest measured wind gust in the county was 52
MPH at Augusta Bush Field on October 11. A 47 MPH wind gust was measured at Augusta Daniel Field.
Hurricane Sally (September 17, 2020) – Hurricane Sally made landfall near Gulf Shores, AL, as a Category
2 hurricane, in the early morning of Wednesday, September 16, 2020, and then weakened and turned to
the NE, tracking across the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) of Georgia, and across Central SC, as a post-
tropical area of low pressure, on Thursday, September 17. Moisture, instability and low-level wind shear,
produced tornadoes, heavy rain, and flooding. 48-hour rainfall totals ranged from 1 to 2 inches across
northern portions of the CSRA to 2 to 6 inches across the central and southern CSRA. Widespread flooding
occurred in the city of Augusta and vicinity. Numerous roads were closed and impassable. Numerous
vehicles were flooded. Locations of flooded vehicles included Wrightsboro Rd at Blount Ave, Laney Walker
Blvd at 15th St, Harper St at 15th St, Walton Way near Medical College of GA, Walton Way at St Sebastian
Way, Oellerich Ave, and Central Ave near Paine College.
Probability of Future Occurrence
In the 20-year period from 2001 through 2020, 11 hurricanes and tropical storms passed within 75 miles of
Augusta-Richmond County, and impacts in the planning area were noted from four hurricanes and tropical
storms. Using storms with reported impacts as an indicator of future probability, there is a 20 percent annual
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 139
2021
probability of hurricane or tropical storm force winds or rains impacting the planning area. Therefore, future
hurricane or tropical storm impacts are considered likely.
Probability: 3 – Likely
Climate Change
According to research synthesized by NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Library as of March 2021, tropical
cyclone intensity and rainfall rates are expected to increase as a result of climate change. Specifically,
modeling studies for a 2-degree Celsius global warming scenario project an average increase of 10-15
percent for rainfall rates within about 100 km of a storm. Also in this scenario, tropical cyclone intensities
are projected to increase by 1-10 percent, which implies even larger increases in the destructive potential
per storm. According to the US Government Accountability Office, national storm losses from changing
frequency and intensity of storms is projected to increase anywhere from $4-6 billion in the near future.
According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, these changes are already being observed, with an
increase in North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity since the 1970s. The Fourth National Climate Assessment
also reports that there may be less frequent, low-category storm events (Tropical Storms, Category 1
Hurricanes), and more, high-category storm events (Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes) in the future. This means
that there may be fewer hurricanes overall in any given year, but when hurricanes do form, it is more likely
that they will become the large storms that are generally responsible for the majority of deaths and damages
associate with tropical cyclones.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Impacts include injury or death, loss of property, outbreak of diseases, mental trauma and
loss of livelihoods. Power outages and flooding may displace people from their homes.
Water can become polluted such that if consumed, diseases and infection can be easily
spread. Residential, commercial, and public buildings, as well as critical infrastructure such
as transportation, water, energy, and communication systems may be damaged or
destroyed, resulting in cascading impacts on the public.
Responders Impacts on responders could be severe, including potential for death or injury during
response operations. Downed trees and flooding may block roads. Response time may be
reduced due to the large geographic scale of likely impacts and the high potential number
of incidents requiring response.
Continuity of
Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Damage to facilities and/or personnel, power outages, road blockages, and other impacts
from flooding or wind may require temporary relocation of some operations and may disrupt
operations. Disruption or damage of roads and/or utilities may postpone delivery of some
services. The County’s EOP may mitigate some potential issues.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
Structural damage to buildings may occur; loss of glass windows and doors by high winds
and debris; loss of roof coverings, partial wall collapses, and other damages requiring
significant repairs are possible in a major (category 3 to 5) hurricane. Flood damages may
also impact buildings and infrastructure. Regulatory waivers may be needed locally.
Environment Hurricanes can devastate wooded ecosystems and remove foliage from forest canopies, and
they can change habitats, affecting indigenous animal populations as a result. Specific foods
can be taken away as high winds will often strip fruits, seeds and berries from bushes and
trees. Secondary impacts may occur; for example, high winds and debris may result in
damage to an above-ground fuel tank, resulting in a significant chemical spill.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
Local economy and finances can be adversely affected, possibly for an extended period of
time, depending on damages. Intangible impacts are also likely, including business
interruption and additional living expenses.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 140
2021
Category Consequences
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Similar to the flood hazard, these events have the potential to negatively impact public
confidence due to the possibility of major event requiring substantial response and long-
term recovery effort.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Young children, older adults, and individuals with limited mobility are especially vulnerable to harm from
hurricanes. There should be plans in place to care for special-needs patients and individuals in hospitals
and nursing homes who are unable to evacuate for medical reasons. Many of these patients are either
oxygen-dependent, insulin-dependent, or in need of intensive medical care. There is a need to provide
ongoing treatment for these vulnerable citizens.
The stress from disasters such as hurricanes can result in immediate and long-term physical and emotional
health problems among victims. Many of the health impacts discussed in Section 5.8 Flooding are also
relevant to hurricanes.
Individuals in manufactured and/or mobile homes are more vulnerable to hurricane winds, especially if their
unit does not have tie downs and other wind safety measures. Overall, there are 6,900 occupied mobile or
manufactured housing units in the planning area. As shown in Table 5.50, while the majority of these units
are located in Augusta-Richmond County, mobile and manufactured housing makes up a significantly larger
proportion of the housing stock in Blythe and Hephzibah, making them particularly vulnerable to more
severe impacts from hurricane events.
Table 5.50 – Mobile Home Units by Jurisdiction, 2019
Jurisdiction Total Housing Units Mobile Home Units Mobile Home Units,
Percent of Total
Augusta-Richmond County 86,795 6,284 7.2%
Blythe 271 135 49.8%
Hephzibah 1,571 487 31.0%
Richmond County Total 88,622 6,900 7.8%
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Property
Hazus was used to determine hurricane risk based on probabilistic parameters for the 100-year and 500-
year return periods. This analysis produced estimates of the likelihood of varying levels of damage as well
as building-related economic losses. Note that Hazus only assesses hurricane wind and does not account
for any other hazards associated with hurricane.
Table 5.51 provides the likelihood of damage at varying levels of severity by occupancy type. During the
probabilistic hurricane event with a 100-year return period, it’s estimated that on average across all
categories approximately 6% of buildings in the county are likely to sustain damages. During the 500-year
return period event, on average 69% of the county’s buildings are likely to be damaged.
Table 5.51 – Likelihood of Damage by Severity and Occupancy, 100-year Hurricane Event
Occupancy
Buildings
at Risk Value at Risk
Likelihood of Damage (%)
None Minor Moderate Severe Destruction
100-year event
Agriculture 150 $441,590 99.06% 0.87% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00%
Commercial 14,815 $42,643,680 98.99% 0.95% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00%
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 141
2021
Occupancy
Buildings
at Risk Value at Risk
Likelihood of Damage (%)
None Minor Moderate Severe Destruction
Education 925 $2,661,140 99.17% 0.82% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
Government 542 $1,557,130 99.14% 0.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Industrial 2,648 $7,627,270 99.03% 0.95% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%
Religion 1,715 $4,936,940 99.25% 0.73% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%
Residential 54,435 $15,665,851,000 99.19% 0.78% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00%
500-year event
Agriculture 150 $441,590 89.73% 7.78% 1.73% 0.70% 0.05%
Commercial 14,815 $42,643,680 89.73% 8.00% 2.13% 0.15% 0.00%
Education 925 $2,661,140 91.75% 7.13% 1.07% 0.04% 0.00%
Government 542 $1,557,130 89.66% 8.61% 1.66% 0.07% 0.00%
Industrial 2,648 $7,627,270 90.91% 7.38% 1.42% 0.26% 0.02%
Religion 1,715 $4,936,940 91.04% 7.88% 1.02% 0.06% 0.00%
Residential 54,435 $15,665,851,000 88.43% 10.31% 1.23% 0.02% 0.02%
Source: Hazus
Table 5.52 details estimated property damages from the 100-year and 500-year hurricane wind events by
occupancy type.
Table 5.52 – Estimated Property Damages, 100-year and 500-year Hurricane Wind Events
Area Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total
100-year Hurricane Event
Building $27,433,100 $999,290 $154,800 $180,780 $28,767,970
Content $5,374,100 $4,660 $1,000 $370 $5,380,130
Inventory $0 $0 $210 $40 $250
Total $32,807,200 $1,003,950 $156,010 $181,190 $34,148,350
500-year Hurricane Event
Building $135,350,020 $13,462,310 $2,576,520 $1,983,070 $153,371,920
Content $24,436,410 $3,497,470 $1,355,120 $379,740 $29,668,740
Inventory $0 $61,100 $256,480 $10,350 $327,930
Total $159,786,430 $17,020,880 $4,188,120 $2,373,160 $183,368,590
Source: Hazus
Loss ratio, which is the loss estimate divided by the total potential exposure (i.e., total of improved and
contents value for all buildings in the planning area) and displayed as a percentage of loss, provides an
indication of how much property may be damaged and how difficult recovery might be. Estimated property
damages for the 100-year hurricane wind event total $34,148,350, which equates to a loss ratio of less than
one percent. Estimated property damages for the 500-year event total $183,368,590, which represents a
loss ratio of approximately 1.1 percent. FEMA considers a loss ratio of 10 percent or more to be an indicator
that a community will have significant difficulty recovering from an event. However, damages from an actual
hurricane event would likely also involve flood impacts that would raise the damage total. Therefore, even
a 100-year hurricane event may cause more serious damages than what is reported here from Hazus.
Given equal vulnerability to hurricane winds across Augusta-Richmond County, all critical facilities are
considered to be at risk. Certain buildings may perform better than others based on their age and
construction, among other factors.
Hazus estimates the total amount of debris that will be generated by a hurricane, breaking the debris down
into four general categories: Brick/Wood, Reinforced Concrete/Steel, Eligible Tree Debris, and Other Tree
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 142
2021
Debris. Hazus also estimates the number of trucks needed to remove the building debris, assuming 25 tons
of debris per truck. Table 5.53 summarizes debris and trucks needed by storm event.
Table 5.53 – Estimated Debris Generation (tons)
Event Type Tree Debris Brick/
Wood
Concrete/
Steel Total
Building
Debris
Truckloads Eligible Other
100-year hurricane event 6,992 27,934 2,232 0 37,158 89
500-year hurricane event 25,712 90,111 20,422 4 136,249 817
Source: Hazus
Environment
Hurricane winds can cause massive damage to the natural environment, uprooting trees and other debris
within the storm’s path. Animals can either be killed directly by the storm or impacted indirectly through
changes in habitat and food availability caused by high winds and intense rainfall. Endangered species can
be dramatically impacted. Forests can be completely defoliated by strong winds.
Changes in Development
While increased development will not impact the incidence of hurricane wind, it will lead to more exposure,
which in turn may increase risk. This is especially true for mobile home development, which is more at risk
to wind.
Key Issues
• Blythe and Hephzibah are potentially more vulnerable to hurricane wind due to the greater
percentage of mobile homes. Providing targeted outreach on the importance of tie-downs and
enforcing the installation of tie-downs for mobile home units could mitigate this vulnerability.
• Related Hazards: Flood, Windstorm/Thunderstorm, Tornado
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes hurricane hazard risk by jurisdiction. Most aspects of hurricane risk,
particularly related to wind, do not vary substantially by jurisdiction; however, mobile home units are more
vulnerable than other housing types to wind damage. Therefore, impacts from wind may be more severe in
Hephzibah and Blythe. Despite these differences, all jurisdictions have the possibility for critical impacts.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 3 3 4 1 3 2.8 M
Blythe 3 3 4 1 3 2.8 M
Hephzibah 3 3 4 1 3 2.8 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 143
2021
Severe Weather (Hail & Lightning)
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Hail Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.4
Lightning Highly Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.2
Hazard Background
Hail
As defined by NOAA, hail is precipitation that is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops
upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere causing them to freeze. The raindrops form into small
frozen droplets and then continue to grow as they come into contact with super-cooled water which will
freeze on contact with the frozen rain droplet. This frozen rain droplet can continue to grow and form hail.
As long as the updraft forces can support or suspend the weight of the hailstone, hail can continue to grow.
At the time when the updraft can no longer support the hailstone, it will fall to the earth. For example, a ¼”
diameter or pea sized hail requires updrafts of 24 mph, while a 2 ¾” diameter or baseball sized hail requires
an updraft of 81 mph. The largest hailstone recorded in the United States was found in Vivian, South Dakota
on July 23, 2010; it measured eight inches in diameter, almost the size of a soccer ball. While soccer-ball-
sized hail is the exception, but even small pea sized hail can cause damage.
Hailstorms in Georgia cause damage to property, crops, and the environment, and kill and injure livestock.
In the United States, hail causes more than $1 billion in damage to property and crops each year. Much of
the damage inflicted by hail is to crops. Even relatively small hail can shred plants to ribbons in a matter of
minutes. Vehicles, roofs of buildings and homes, and landscaping are the other things most commonly
damaged by hail. Hail has been known to cause injury to humans; occasionally, these injuries can be fatal.
The onset of thunderstorms with hail is generally rapid. However, advancements in meteorological
forecasting allow for some warning. Storms usually pass in a few hours.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than six hours
Duration: 1 – Less than six hours
Lightning
Lightning is a sudden electrical discharge released from the atmosphere that follows a course from cloud
to ground, cloud to cloud, or cloud to surrounding air, with light illuminating its path. Lightning’s
unpredictable nature causes it to be one of the most feared weather elements.
All thunderstorms produce lightning, which often strikes outside of the area where it is raining and is known
to fall more than 10 miles away from the rainfall area. When lightning strikes, electricity shoots through the
air and causes vibrations creating the sound of thunder. A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures
approaching 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Nationwide, lightning kills 75 to 100 people each year. Lightning
strikes can also start building fires and wildland fires, and damage electrical systems and equipment.
The watch/warning time for a given storm is usually a few hours. There is no warning time for any given
lightning strike. Lightning strikes are instantaneous. Storms that cause lightning usually pass within a few
hours.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than six hours
Duration: 1 – Less than six hours
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 144
2021
Location
Lightning and hail events do not have a defined vulnerability zone. The scope of lightning and hail is
generally confined to the footprint of its associated thunderstorm.
Hail
Hailstorms frequently accompany thunderstorms, so their locations and spatial extents coincide. However,
large-scale hail tends to occur in a more localized area within the storm.
Spatial Extent: 2 – Small
Lightning
While the total area vulnerable to a lightning strike corresponds to the footprint of a given thunderstorm,
a specific lightning strike is usually a localized event and occurs randomly. While lightning is most often
affiliated with severe thunderstorms, it may also strike outside of heavy rain and might occur as far as 10
miles away from any rainfall. All of Augusta-Richmond County is exposed to lightning.
Spatial Extent: 1 – Negligible
Extent
Hail
The National Weather Service classifies hail by diameter size, and corresponding everyday objects to help
relay scope and severity to the population. Table 5.54 indicates the hailstone measurements utilized by the
National Weather Service.
Table 5.54 – Hailstone Measurement Comparison Chart
Average Diameter Corresponding Household Object
.25 inch Pea
.5 inch Marble/Mothball
.75 inch Dime/Penny
.875 inch Nickel
1.0 inch Quarter
1.5 inch Ping-pong ball
1.75 inch Golf ball
2.0 inch Hen egg
2.5 inch Tennis ball
2.75 inch Baseball
3.00 inch Teacup
4.00 inch Softball
4.5 inch Grapefruit
Source: National Weather Service
The Tornado and Storm Research Organization (TORRO) has further described hail sizes by their typical
damage impacts. Table 5.55 describes typical intensity and damage impacts of the various sizes of hail.
Table 5.55 – Tornado and Storm Research Organization Hailstorm Intensity Scale
Intensity
Category
Diameter
(mm)
Diameter
(inches)
Size
Description Typical Damage Impacts
Hard Hail 5-9 0.2-0.4 Pea No damage
Potentially
Damaging
10-15 0.4-0.6 Mothball Slight general damage to plants, crops
Significant 16-20 0.6-0.8 Marble, grape Significant damage to fruit, crops, vegetation
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 145
2021
Intensity
Category
Diameter
(mm)
Diameter
(inches)
Size
Description Typical Damage Impacts
Severe 21-30 0.8-1.2 Walnut Severe damage to fruit and crops, damage to glass
and plastic structures, paint and wood scored
Severe 31-40 1.2-1.6 Pigeon’s egg
> squash ball
Widespread glass damage, vehicle bodywork damage
Destructive 41-50 1.6-2.0 Golf ball >
Pullet’s egg
Wholesale destruction of glass, damage to tiled roofs,
significant risk of injuries
Destructive 51-60 2.0-2.4 Hen’s egg Bodywork of grounded aircraft dented, brick walls
pitted
Destructive 61-75 2.4-3.0 Tennis ball >
cricket ball
Severe roof damage, risk of serious injuries
Destructive 76-90 3.0-3.5 Large orange
> softball
Severe damage to aircraft bodywork
Super
Hailstorms
91-100 3.6-3.9 Grapefruit Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe or even
fatal injuries to persons caught in the open
Super
Hailstorms
>100 4.0+ Melon Extensive structural damage. Risk of severe or even
fatal injuries to persons caught in the open
Source: Tornado and Storm Research Organization (TORRO), Department of Geography, Oxford Brookes University
Notes: In addition to hail diameter, factors including number and density of hailstones, hail fall speed and surface wind speeds affect severity.
The average hailstone size recorded between 2000 and 2020 in Augusta-Richmond County was a little over
1” in diameter; the largest hailstone recorded was 1.75”. Records of hailstones this size date from 1967 to
the most recent occurrence in September 2014. The largest hailstone ever recorded in the U.S. fell in Vivian,
SD on June 23, 2010, with a diameter of 8 inches and a circumference of 18.62 inches.
Impact: 1 – Minor
Lightning
Lightning is measured by the Lightning Activity Level (LAL) scale, created by the National Weather Service
to define lightning activity into a specific categorical scale. The LAL, shown in Table 5.56, is a common
parameter that is part of fire weather forecasts nationwide.
Table 5.56 – Lightning Activity Level Scale
Lightning Activity Level Scale
LAL 1 No thunderstorms
LAL 2 Isolated thunderstorms. Light rain will occasionally reach the ground. Lightning is very infrequent, 1
to 5 cloud to ground lightning strikes in a five-minute period
LAL 3 Widely scattered thunderstorms. Light to moderate rain will reach the ground. Lightning is
infrequent, 6 to 10 cloud to ground strikes in a five-minute period
LAL 4 Scattered thunderstorms. Moderate rain is commonly produced. Lightning is frequent, 11 to 15
cloud to ground strikes in a five-minute period
LAL 5 Numerous thunderstorms. Rainfall is moderate to heavy. Lightning is frequent and intense, greater
than 15 cloud to ground strikes in a five-minute period
LAL 6 Dry lightning (same as LAL 3 but without rain). This type of lightning has the potential for extreme
fire activity and is normally highlighted in fire weather forecasts with a Red Flag warning
Source: National Weather Service
With the right conditions in place, the entire county is susceptible to each lightning activity level as defined
by the LAL. Most lightning strikes cause limited damage to specific structures in a limited area, and cause
very few injuries or fatalities, and minimal disruption on quality of life.
Impact: 1 – Minor
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 146
2021
Historical Occurrences
Hail
NCEI began recordkeeping of hail events in 1955. NCEI records 84 hail incidents across 60 days between
1955 and 2020 in Augusta-Richmond County. These events caused a reported $25,310 in property damage
and $310 in crop damage. No deaths or injuries were reported. The largest diameter hail recorded in the
County was 1.75 inches, which most recently occurred in McBean on September 17, 2014. The average hail
size of all events in the County was just over one inch in diameter. Table 5.57 summarizes hail events by
location. In some cases, hail was reported for multiple locations on the same day.
Table 5.57 – NCEI Recorded Hail Events, 1955-2020
Location Date Diameter Death Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Richmond County 5/12/1955 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 5/28/1962 1 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 5/21/1967 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 5/12/1971 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 6/28/1972 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 10/4/1979 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 2/16/1982 1 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 2/16/1982 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 6/10/1982 1 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 7/15/1983 1 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/14/1984 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/14/1984 1.25 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/14/1984 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/14/1984 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/14/1984 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 4/17/1984 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 6/2/1985 1.5 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 6/2/1985 1 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 6/26/1986 1.5 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 7/30/1988 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond County 1/29/1990 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 3/31/1993 1 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 1/2/1996 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 1/2/1996 1 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 3/15/1996 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 3/17/1996 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/7/1996 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/22/1997 1.75 0 0 $10,000 $0
Augusta 4/3/1998 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/8/1998 1 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/22/1998 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/10/1998 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/10/1998 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/16/1998 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/19/1998 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/19/1998 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 3/31/2002 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 3/31/2002 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 3/31/2002 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 5/3/2002 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 147
2021
Location Date Diameter Death Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 5/3/2002 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/3/2002 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/6/2003 1 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 2/21/2005 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 2/21/2005 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 2/21/2005 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/22/2005 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 5/10/2005 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 5/10/2005 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 5/20/2005 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 7/29/2005 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 12/4/2005 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 12/28/2005 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 2/13/2007 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 2/13/2007 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/12/2007 1 0 0 $0 $0
McBean 3/15/2008 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 5/20/2008 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/20/2008 1.25 0 0 $0 $0
McBean 8/16/2008 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/11/2009 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/31/2010 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 5/26/2011 1 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 5/26/2011 1 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/21/2011 1 0 0 $0 $0
Gracewood 6/21/2011 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
(AGS) Bushfield 8/13/2011 1 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 2/24/2012 1.75 0 0 $15,000 $0
Bel Air 4/3/2012 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 7/5/2012 1 0 0 $0 $0
McBean 7/5/2012 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
McBean 9/17/2014 1.75 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 6/17/2016 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 9/11/2016 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 9/22/2017 1 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/12/2018 0.75 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/12/2018 0.5 0 0 $100 $100
Augusta 5/12/2018 0.25 0 0 $100 $100
Gracewood 6/11/2018 1 0 0 $0 $0
Ellwood 6/11/2018 1 0 0 $0 $0
Gracewood 6/11/2018 1.25 0 0 $0 $0
DeBruce 6/16/2018 0.88 0 0 $0 $0
(AGS) Bushfield 3/25/2019 0.88 0 0 $100 $100
Ft Gordon 8/10/2020 0.25 0 0 $10 $10
Total 0 0 $25,310 $310
Source: NCEI
The following narratives provide detail on select hailstorms from the above list of NCEI recorded events:
April 22, 1997 – HAM reports 1 3/4 inch hail in Augusta. Several roofs and cars damaged.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 148
2021
February 24, 2012 – A squall line moved through the CSRA and produced intense winds and large hail.
Numerous trees and powerlines were down in the Augusta area and there were several injuries. WJBF
reported golf ball size hail in Augusta and the surrounding area.
May 12, 2018 – Daytime heating and a weak upper impulse resulted in a few strong thunderstorms. A
report of one-half inch hail.
March 25, 2019 – Marginal instability along and ahead of a cold front led to a band of scattered showers
and thunderstorms. An isolated stronger cell produced nickel sized hail. Public reported nickel sized hail at
Goshen Industrial Blvd and Mike Padgett Hwy.
August 10, 2020 – Daytime heating led to scattered thunderstorms, one of which produced small hail.
Public reported pea sized hail at Richmond Academy on Fort Gordon.
Lightning
NCEI recordkeeping of lightning began in 1996. According to NCEI data, there were 2 lightning strikes
reported from 1996 to 2020. Both events recorded property damage totaling approximately $160,100,
which was mostly recorded as fire damage ignited by lightning. The highest rate of property damage
recorded for a single incident was $160,000. One event caused 3 injuries, and none caused fatalities. Another
event caused $100 of crop damage. It should be noted that lightning events recorded by the NCEI are only
those that are reported; it is certain that additional lightning incidents have occurred in Augusta-Richmond
County. Table 5.58 details NCEI-recorded lightning strikes from 1996 to 2020.
Table 5.58 – Recorded Lightning Strikes in Richmond County, 1996-2020
Location Date Time Fatalities Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 7/17/2012 17:00 0 3 $160,000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/27/2018 19:00 0 0 $100 $100
Total 0 3 $160,100 $100
Source: NCEI
The following are a selection of narrative descriptions recorded in NCEI for lightning events that occurred
in Augusta-Richmond County:
July 17, 2012 – Lightning struck the roof of SunBelt Auto Center in Augusta. The lightning rippled through
the interior of the facility injuring a few people. Then the wind blew out the cracked windows. The general
manager was injured on his arm and head and said he couldn't believe the devastation.
June 27, 2018 – A lightning strike, due to thunderstorm activity, caused a fire to a structure in Augusta, GA.
Augusta Fire Dept reported that the rectory at St. Mary on the Hill, on Monte Sano Ave in Augusta, was
struck by lightning. The rectory suffered extensive damage.
Probability of Future Occurrence
The average hail storm in Augusta-Richmond County occurs in the afternoon and has a hail stone with a
diameter of just over one inch. Over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, Augusta-Richmond County
experienced 48 reported hail incidents, which averages to about 2.5 hail incidents per year.
Based on historical occurrences recorded by NCEI for the 20-year period, 2 lightning events were reported
as having caused death, injury, or property damage, which equates to an average of 8% damaging lightning
strikes per year. However, the lightning events recorded by the NCEI are only those that are reported to
have caused damage or injuries; it is certain that additional non-damaging lightning incidents will occur in
Augusta-Richmond County. According to figure 5.26, located below, the county is likely to experience 3 to
8 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 149
2021
According to the Vaisala 2020 Annual Lightning Report, Georgia had the tenth most cloud-to-ground
lightning flashes and in 2018 the state has the seventh highest flash density per square mile. According to
Vaisala’s flash density map, shown in Figure 5.29, the majority of Richmond County is located in an area
that experiences 3 to 8 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year. It should be noted that future
lightning occurrences may exceed these figures.
Figure 5.29 – Average Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Flash Density (2015-2019)
Source: Vaisala
Based on past occurrences, there is a 100% annual chance that the County will experience severe weather.
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
Climate Change
Higher temperatures and humidity may increase atmospheric variability associated with the origination of
severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, and early research suggests that continued climate change and
greenhouse forcing are likely to increase severe thunderstorm occurrence (Diffenbaugh, et al. 2013).
Decreases in vertical wind shear can result in fewer or weaker severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.
However, this decrease is most likely to occur when convective available potential energy is high in spring
and summer, which could result in more frequent severe storms. There has been a surge in the number of
severe storms reported over the past 50 years, but this increase could at least be partially attributed to
technological developments that allow for better identification and reporting of such storms.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public
Impacts from lightning and hail can result in injuries and fatalities if a person is struck.
Fatalities and injuries most often occur when a person is exposed and in outdoor
conditions during a storm. Exposure to water and open areas also increases the
likelihood that a person will be struck by lightning.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 150
2021
Category Consequences
Responders
Hail and lightning can affect responders who are often more susceptible to events due
to the nature of their work which often forces police and emergency medical providers
to be exposed to the elements. In these cases, responders are at risk of Injuries;
fatalities; potential impacts to response capabilities.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Lightning can shut down large parts of the power grid due to blowing a transformer,
and hail can have impacts on continuity of operations as the warning time is usually
shorter. Hail stones could potentially knock out power supplies or other critical
resources which can affect operations temporarily.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Possibility of structure fire ignition; potential for disruptions in power and
communications infrastructure; destruction and/or damage to any exposed property,
especially windows, cars and siding; mobile homes see increased risk
Environment
Lightning can affect power and energy sources through strikes which can shut down
power for hours and sometimes days. Lightning can ignite wildfires that can result in
widespread damage to property. Depending on the size, hailstones can damage roofs
or other parts of homes, business, or any type of facility or infrastructure.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Damages to power-related infrastructure could cause economic strain to return the
system to full capacity. Hail damages to property can lead to costly recovery efforts.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance Public confidence is not generally affected by severe weather events.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
People and populations exposed to the elements are most vulnerable to severe weather. Risk of being
struck by lightning is greater in open areas, at higher elevations, and on the water.
Lightning can also cause cascading hazards, including power loss. Loss of power could critically impact
those relying on energy to service, including those that need powered medical devices. Additionally, the
ignition of fires is always a concern with lightning strikes.
The availability of sheltered locations such as basements, buildings constructed using hail-resistant
materials and methods, and public storm shelters, all reduce the exposure of the population. Residents
living in mobile homes are more vulnerable to hail events due to the lack of shelter locations and the
vulnerability of the housing unit to damages. According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-
Year Estimates, 5,120 occupied housing units (7.2 percent) in Richmond County are classified as “mobile
homes or other types of housing. Individuals who work outdoors may also face increased risk.
Since 1955, NCEI records no fatalities attributed to lightning or hail events in Richmond County, however,
three injuries from lightning have been reordered. There is a potential for injury or fatality from such events.
Property
Property damage caused by lightning usually occurs in one of two ways – either by direct damages through
fires ignited by lightning, or by secondary impacts due to power loss. According to data collected on
lightning strikes in Richmond County, the majority of recorded property damage was due to fires.
NCEI records lightning impacts over 24 years (1996-2020), with $160,100 in property damage recorded.
Based on these records, the planning area experiences an annualized loss of $26,683 in property damage.
The average impact from lightning per incident in Richmond County is $80,050.
General damages to property from hail are direct, including destroyed windows, dented cars, and building,
roof and siding damage in areas exposed to hail. Hail can also cause enough damage to cars to cause them
to be totaled. The level of damage is commensurate with both a material’s ability to withstand hail impacts,
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 151
2021
and the size of the hailstones that are falling. Construction practices and building codes can help maximize
the resistance of the structures to damage. Large amounts of hail may need to be cleared from roadways
and sidewalks, depending on accumulation. Hail can cause cascading impacts, including power loss.
NCEI reported $25,310 in property damage and $310 in crop damage from 1955 to 2020 as a direct result
of hail. This damage was from only six storms.
It should be noted that property damage due to hail is usually insured loss, with damages covered under
most major comprehensive insurance plans. Because of this, hail losses are notoriously underreported by
the NCEI. It is difficult to find an accurate repository of hail damages in Richmond County, thus the NCEI is
still used to form a baseline.
Environment
Lightning may also result in the ignition of wildfires. This is part of a natural process, however, and the
environment will return to its original state in time. Since large hail often appears near the area within a
thunderstorm where tornadoes are most likely to form, people should be cautious that a tornado could be
nearby and seek appropriate shelter.
Hail can cause extensive damage to the natural environment, pelting animals, trees and vegetation with
hailstones. Melting hail can also increase both river and flash flood risk.
Changes in Development
Development is not expected to impact the incidence of severe weather. As the county grows, overall asset
exposure will increase, which may increase risk.
Key Issues
• Severe weather events are highly likely to continue occurring in Richmond County. Communities
should consider examining power redundancy and surge protection solutions for critical facilities
to maintain operations in the event of a power outage.
• Past severe weather events caused injuries to individuals outside and/or in high-risk locations
during these events. Solutions might include an awareness campaign to educate the public on
severe weather risk and preparedness, with particular outreach focused on support for homeless
and those with insecure housing options.
• The population living in areas with a larger share of mobile home units are more vulnerable to
thunderstorms and hail events, particularly if there are high wind impacts.
•Related Hazards: Flood, Hurricane, Tornado
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes severe weather hazard risk by jurisdiction. Most aspects of severe weather
risk do not vary substantially by jurisdiction; however, mobile and manufactured home units are more
vulnerable to structural damage. Just above 7 percent of the housing stock in Augusta-Richmond County
comprises manufactured housing units. These communities may therefore face more severe impacts from
severe weather events. Where priority ratings vary between, lightning, and hail for impact and spatial extent,
these scores represent an average rating with greater weight given to lightning because it occurs much
more frequently.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 2 3 4 1 2.9 M
Blythe 4 1 3 4 1 2.6 M
Hephzibah 4 1 3 4 1 2.6 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 152
2021
Severe Winter Weather
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Severe Winter Weather Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.7
Hazard Background
Winter weather can range from a moderate snow over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions with
blinding wind-driven snow that lasts for several days. Events may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix
of these wintry forms of precipitation and can be accompanied by extreme cold temperatures. Some winter
storms might be large enough to affect several states, while others might affect only localized areas. Heavy
snow might also cause significant property damages, such as roof collapses on older buildings.
All winter storm events—snow, sleet, ice, freezing temperatures, etc.—have the potential to present
dangerous conditions to the affected area. The typical elements of winter storm events are described below:
Heavy snow events are defined by the National Weather Service (NWS) as an accumulation of 4 or more
inches in 12 hours or less. Larger snowfalls pose a greater risk, reducing visibility due to blowing snow and
making driving conditions treacherous. However, even small accumulations may cause costly damage or
disruptions.
Ice storms are defined as storms with significant amounts of freezing rain and are a result of cold air
damming (CAD). CAD is a shallow, surface-based layer of relatively cold, stably-stratified air entrenched
against the eastern slopes of a north-south oriented mountain range. With warmer air above, falling
precipitation in the form of snow melts, then becomes either super-cooled (liquid below the melting point
of water) or re-freezes. In the former case, super-cooled droplets can freeze on impact (freezing rain), while
in the latter case, the re-frozen water particles are ice pellets (sleet). Sleet typically bounces when it hits the
ground and does not stick to the surface but instead accumulates like snow, posing similar problems. It has
the potential to accumulate into a layer of ice on surfaces. Freezing rain usually sticks to the ground, creating
a sheet of ice on roadways and other surfaces.
All winter storm elements—snow, sleet, ice, freezing temperatures, etcetera—have the potential to cause
significant hazard to a community. Even small accumulations can down power lines and tree limbs, create
hazardous driving conditions, and disrupt communication and power for days.
Advancements in meteorology and forecasting usually allow for mostly accurate forecasting a few days in
advance of an impending storm. Most storms have a duration of a few hours; however, impacts can last
several days after the initial incident until cleanup is completed.
Warning Time: 1 – More than 24 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than 1 week
Location
Severe winter weather is usually a countywide or regional hazard, impacting the entire county at the same
time. The entirety of Georgia is susceptible to winter storm and freeze events. Some ice and winter storms
may be large enough to affect several states, while others might affect limited, localized areas. The degree
of exposure typically depends on the normal expected severity of local winter weather. Augusta-Richmond
County is accustomed to smaller scale severe winter weather conditions and is most likely to receive winter
weather from December to February. Given the atmospheric nature of the hazard, severe winter weather
can occur anywhere in the county.
Spatial Extent: 4 – Large
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 153
2021
Extent
Severe winter weather often involves a mix of hazardous weather conditions. The magnitude of an event
can be defined based on the severity of each of the involved factors, including precipitation type,
precipitation accumulation amounts, temperature, and wind.
NOAA uses the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI), shown in Table 5.59, to assess the societal impact of winter
storms. The index uses the spatial extent of a storm, the amount of snowfall, and the juxtaposition of these
elements with population to assess the impact of snowfall. For example, areas which receive very little
snowfall on average may be more adversely affected than other regions, resulting in a higher severity.
The February 2014 winter storm that resulted in a disaster declaration for Augusta-Richmond County was
rated with an RSI index of 4 for the Southeast. This is the most severe RSI level expected for the planning
area, though the Southeast may experience any level on the RSI scale. An event of any extent may cause
disruption in Augusta-Richmond County.
Table 5.59 – Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) Values
Category RSI Value Description
1 1-3 Notable
2 3-6 Significant
3 6-10 Major
4 10-18 Crippling
5 18+Extreme
Source: NOAA
The NWS Wind Chill Temperature Index, shown in Figure 5.30, provides a formula for calculating the dangers
of winter winds and freezing temperatures.
Figure 5.30 – NWS Wind Chill Temperature Index
Source: https://www.weather.gov/safety/cold-wind-chill-chart
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 154
2021
Figure 5.31 graphs snowfall extremes at the Augusta Bush Field Airport for the period of record from 1949
through 2020.
Figure 5.31 – Snowfall Extremes, Augusta Bush Field Airport
Northeast Regional Climate Center CLIMOD 2
Impact: 2 – Limited
Historical Occurrences
Augusta-Richmond County has received one Major Disaster Declaration for a severe winter storm in 2014.
The NCEI Storm Events Database was reviewed for winter weather related events including cold/wind chill,
extreme cold/wind chill, frost/freeze, heavy snow, ice storm, sleet, winter storm, and winter weather. These
events are defined by NCEI as follows:
•Cold/Wind Chill – Period of low temperatures or wind chill temperatures reaching or exceeding
locally/regionally defined advisory conditions of 0°F to -14°F with wind speeds 10 mph or greater.
•Extreme Cold/Wind Chill – A period of extremely low temperatures or wind chill temperatures
reaching or exceeding locally/regionally defined warning criteria, defined as wind chill -15°F or
lower with wind speeds 10 mph or greater.
•Frost/Freeze – A surface air temperature of 32°F or lower, or the formation of ice crystals on the
ground or other surfaces, for a period of time long enough to cause human or economic impact,
during the locally defined growing season.
•Heavy Snow – Snow accumulation meeting or exceeding 12 and/or 24-hour warning criteria of 3
and 4 inches, respectively.
•Ice Storm – Ice accretion meeting or exceeding locally/regionally defined warning criteria of ¼
inch or greater resulting in significant, widespread power outages, tree damage and dangerous
travel. Issued only in those rare instances where just heavy freezing rain is expected and there will
be no "mixed bag" precipitation meaning no snow, sleet or rain.
•Sleet – Sleet accumulations meeting or exceeding locally/regionally defined warning criteria of ½
inch or more.
•Winter Storm – A winter weather event that has more than one significant hazard and meets or
exceeds locally/regionally defined 12 and/or 24-hour warning criteria for at least one of the
precipitation elements. Defined by NWS Raleigh Forecast Office as snow accumulations 3 inches
or greater in 12 hours (4 inches or more in 24 hours); Freezing rain accumulations ¼ inch or
greater; Sleet accumulations ½ inch or more. Issued when there is at least a 60% forecast
confidence of any one of the three criteria being met.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 155
2021
• Winter Weather – A winter precipitation event that causes a death, injury, or a significant impact
to commerce or transportation, but does not meet locally/regionally defined warning criteria.
For the period of record, from 1996 through 2020, NCEI records three winter storm events, one heavy snow
event, and four ice storm events. All events are reported for the entire county; NCEI does not report winter
storm related events at the municipal level. As detailed in Table 5.60, these events caused one reported
direct injury but no fatalities, property damage, or crop damage.
Table 5.60 – NCEI Recorded Winter Storm Related Events, 1996-2020
Date Event Type Deaths/Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
1/2/2002 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 $0
1/26/2004 Ice Storm 0/1 $0 $0
12/26/2004 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 $0
1/29/2005 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 $0
2/12/2010 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 $0
1/10/2011 Winter Storm 0/0 $0 $0
1/28/2014 Heavy Snow 0/0 $0 $0
2/12/2014 Ice Storm 0/0 $0 $0
Total 0/1 $0 $0
Source: NCEI
The following event narratives reported in NCEI describe the types of impacts felt locally as a result of winter
storms:
January 27, 2004 – An ice storm developed over the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) late Sunday night
and Monday and produced 1/4-3/4 inch of ice. The heaviest ice accumulations occurred in Lincoln,
Columbia, and McDuffie counties. Many trees and powerlines were down causing scattered power outages.
About 100,000 homes were without power for several days. Four people were injured in traffic related
accidents and one person was killed in Lincoln county when a tree fell on his vehicle.
January 30, 2005 – An ice storm started late Friday night and continued off and on through Saturday night.
Most areas received a quarter of an inch of ice on trees and other structures. Some areas received a quarter
to a half an inch of ice. These areas had some power outages which were of short duration. Overpasses
and bridges iced up but ground temperatures of roadways kept the rain from freezing on them. Still, there
were many accidents from people losing control when driving over the bridges and overpasses.
January 11, 2011 – EM reported total snow accumulation of 2 to 3 inches in the northern portion of the
county and 1 to 2 inches in the southern part. The snow was followed by freezing rain and drizzle with ice
accumulations of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Some power outages were also reported.
February 13, 2014 – A major winter storm spread into Georgia and South Carolina. It produced 3/4 to 1
inch of ice and 1 to 2 inches of snow and sleet across Richmond County taking down numerous trees and
powerlines. Power outages were widespread across the county affecting most of the population. I-535 and
other highways were closed due to the ice accumulations. Just about everything came to a standstill as
federal, state, county, and city governments closed along with schools and businesses. Power outages took
up to four days to restore in some areas.
Probability of Future Occurrence
NCEI records 8 severe winter weather related events during the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, which
equates to a 40 percent probability in any given year.
Probability: 3 – Likely
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 156
2021
Climate Change
Per the 2019 Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy, the impacts of climate change on winter storms are
unclear. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, which could suggest
greater hazard impacts in the future. However, winter storm tracks have shifted northward over the United
States; therefore, the increase in intensity may be offset in Georgia by the northward shift of the storm
tracks.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Winter storms can create dangerous driving conditions by limited visibility or making
roads slick. Loss of power can create very cold conditions increasing the risk of
hypothermia or frostbite. Individuals seeking alternative means of heating their homes
may run the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning or fire hazards.
Responders Responders face heightened risk due to slick roads and limited visibility. Snow and ice
accumulations may block roads, limited access for responders to reach areas in need.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Continuity of operations is generally expected to be maintained. However, localized
disruption of roads and/or utilities caused by incident may postpone delivery of some
services or make it difficult for emergency management personnel to arrive at work.
Schools may be delayed or closed, which can lead to logistical problems for teachers
and administrators.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Disruption of major and local roads is possible, limiting mobility. Air travel delays are
possible. Disruption of utilities is likely; utilities at risk include water, cable, internet,
water, and power.
Environment Environmental damage to trees and other vegetation may occurred. Downed trees and
limbs may cause secondary damages to property and people or may down power lines.
Environmental impacts may result when snow is cleared from roadways, picking up
contaminants from chemicals, oil products, and salt mixture used to de-ice roads. These
contaminants can be carried to local waterways and impact water quality.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Local economy and finances may be adversely affected, depending on damage and
business interruption costs. During a winter storm event, there is a high potential for
business and office closures, modified business and office hours, and cancellation or
postponement of events, especially due to power outages and poor road conditions.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
Public confidence is unlikely to be impacted unless road clearing, power restoration, and
other response activities are particularly slow.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Because winter storms are large scale events, all of the Augusta-Richmond County population is exposed.
Winter storms are considered deceptive killers because most deaths are indirectly related to the storm
event. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from automobile crashes due to poor visibility
and/or slippery roads. Additionally, exhaustion and heart attacks caused by overexertion may result from
winter storms.
Power outages during very cold winter storm conditions can also create potentially dangerous situations.
Elderly people account for the largest percentage of hypothermia victims. In addition, if the power is out
for an extended period, residents are forced to find alternative means to heat their homes. The danger
arises from carbon monoxide released from improperly ventilated heating sources such as space or
kerosene heaters, furnaces, and blocked chimneys. House fires also occur more frequently in the winter due
to lack of proper safety precautions when using an alternative heating source.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 157
2021
Property
A winter storm may cause damage to homes and vehicles when severe. However, no property damage was
reported in association with any winter weather events recorded by NCEI since 1996 for Augusta-Richmond
County. Therefore, no annualized loss estimate could be calculated for this hazard.
Environment
Winter storm events may include ice or snow accumulation on trees which can cause large limbs, or even
whole trees, to snap and potentially fall. This potential for winter debris creates a dangerous environment
to be outside in; significant injury or fatality may occur if a large limb snaps while a local resident is out
driving or walking underneath it.
Late season frost or freeze may harm vegetation, which can reduce habitats and threaten wildlife.
Changes in Development
The winter weather hazard is not expected to be impacted by changes in development. Aside from increases
in overall building and infrastructure exposure in the planning area that comes with growth, future
development will not significantly increase risk of winter weather.
Key Issues
• Local capability to clear roads is limited. Expanding local capability could reduce hazard risk for
travelers.
• Given the limited frequency of winter storm events, residents may be unprepared. Education and
outreach as well as adequate communication can help mitigate potential accidents, injuries, or
fatalities.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes severe winter weather hazard risk by jurisdiction. Severe winter weather risk
does not vary substantially by jurisdiction because these events are typically regional in nature.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 3 2 4 1 3 2.7 M
Blythe 3 2 4 1 3 2.7 M
Hephzibah 3 2 4 1 3 2.7 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 158
2021
Tornado
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Tornado Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Hazard Background
According to the Glossary of Meteorology (AMS 2000), a tornado is "a violently rotating column of air,
pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as
a funnel cloud." Tornadoes can appear from any direction. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of
the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris, sometimes accompanied by lightning or large hail.
NOAA records estimate that an average of 1,253 tornadoes occur in the United States each year. Most
tornadoes are related to thunderstorms, which gain most of their energy from solar heating and latent heat
released by the condensation of water vapor; therefore, tornadoes most often occur in the afternoon and
evening hours, when temperatures are higher. Similarly, the months in which tornadoes are most likely
correspond to the times of year with increased solar heating and strong frontal systems. In the Southeast,
tornadoes are more likely in the early spring. However, tornadoes can occur at any time of day or year, with
little warning.
The severity of tornadoes can vary significantly. According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind
speeds normally range from 40 miles per hour to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornadoes
have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and
turning normally harmless objects into deadly missiles. A tornado’s path might vary from only a few dozen
yards wide to over a mile wide. Figure 5.32 summarizes the average breakdown of tornadoes and their
impacts by their magnitude.
Figure 5.32 – Summary of Tornado Occurrences and Impacts by Magnitude
Source: Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy / NOAA National Weather Service
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 159
2021
Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours
Duration: 1 – Less than 6 hours
According to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center (SPC), the highest concentration of tornadoes in the United
States has been in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Florida respectively. Although the Great Plains region of
the Central United States does favor the development of the largest and most dangerous tornadoes
(earning the designation of “tornado alley”), tornadoes can and do occur throughout the central and eastern
U.S., as shown in Figure 5.33, which depicts tornado activity based on the number of recorded tornadoes
per 1,000 square miles. Augusta-Richmond County, shown in the blue square, is in an area that averages 1-
5 tornadoes per 1,000 square miles.
Figure 5.33 – Tornado Activity in the U.S.
Source: American Society of Civil Engineers
Location
Figure 5.34 reflects the tracks of past tornados that passed within 10 miles of Augusta-Richmond County
from 1950 through October 2019 according to data from the NOAA/National Weather Service Storm
Prediction Center.
Tornados can occur anywhere in the County. Tornadoes typically impact a small area, but damage may be
extensive. Tornado locations are completely random, meaning risk to tornado isn’t increased in one area
of the county versus another. All of Augusta-Richmond County is exposed to this hazard.
Spatial Extent: 2 – Small
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
16
0
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
3
4
–
T
o
r
n
a
d
o
P
a
t
h
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
M
i
l
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
1
9
5
0
-
2
0
1
9
So
u
r
c
e
:
N
O
A
A
/
N
W
S
S
t
o
r
m
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 161
2021
Extent
Prior to February 1, 2007, tornado intensity was measured by the Fujita (F) scale. This scale was revised and
is now the Enhanced Fujita (EF) scale. Both scales are sets of wind estimates (not measurements) based on
damage. The new scale provides more damage indicators (28) and associated degrees of damage, allowing
for more detailed analysis and better correlation between damage and wind speed. It is also more precise
because it accounts for the materials affected and the construction of structures damaged by a tornado.
Table 5.61 shows the wind speeds associated with the Enhanced Fujita scale ratings and the damage that
could result at different levels of intensity.
Table 5.61 – Enhanced Fujita Scale
EF
Number
3 Second
Gust (mph) Damage
0 65-85 Light damage. Peels surface off some roofs; some damage to gutters or siding; branches
broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees pushed over.
1 96-110 Moderate damage.Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes overturned or badly
damaged; loss of exterior doors; windows and other glass broken.
2 111-135
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off well-constructed houses; foundations of frame
homes shifted; mobile homes completely destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted;
light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.
3 136-165
Severe damage.Entire stories of well-constructed houses destroyed; severe damage to
large buildings such as shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars
lifted off the ground and thrown; structures with weak foundations blown away some
distance.
4 166-200 Devastating damage.Well-constructed houses and whole frame houses completely
leveled; cars thrown and small missiles generated.
5 Over 200
Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away;
automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 m; high-rise buildings have
significant structural deformation; incredible phenomena will occur.
The most intense tornado to pass through Augusta-Richmond County since 1950 was an EF3 in Augusta on
April 10, 2009. This even caused 12 injuries and an estimated $5 million in property damage. This tornado
was one of several spawned from supercell thunderstorms that moved across the Central Savannah River
Area.
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
NCEI’s Storm Events Database and the NOAA Storm Prediction Center’s Severe Weather Database were
reviewed for past tornado events. According to these databases, Augusta-Richmond County has
experienced 11 tornado incidents since 1950, as summarized in Table 5.62. These events caused 26 injuries
and over $8 million in property damage. No fatalities or crop damages were reported.
Table 5.62 – Recorded Tornadoes in Augusta-Richmond County, 1950-2020
Location Date Time Magnitude Injuries Deaths Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 8/17/1954 14:30 F1 0 0 $25,000 $0
Augusta 2/24/1961 17:30 F1 0 0 $25,000 $0
Augusta 5/8/1978 19:20 F1 0 0 $2,500,000 $0
Augusta 4/23/1983 17:17 F0 0 0 $250,000 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 162
2021
Location Date Time Magnitude Injuries Deaths Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 1/29/1990 14:43 F2 6 0 $250,000 $0
Augusta 5/19/1993 10:25 F0 0 0 $50,000 $0
Augusta 12/16/2000 23:10 F2 8 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/12/2001 13:30 F0 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/10/2009 20:30 EF3 12 0 $5,000,000 $0
Augusta,
Hephzibah 11/16/2011 15:53 EF0 0 0 $10,000 $0
Augusta 4/19/2015 13:42 EF2 0 0 $0 $0
Total 26 0 $8,110,000 $0
Source: NCEI and NOAA Storm Prediction Center
The following narratives from NCEI illustrate that damage occurred in many of these incidents even if a
monetary value was not recorded:
May 19, 1993 – A short lived tornado touched down on old trail road along the Richmond-Columbia county
line. One home and two cars were damaged by toppled trees.
December 17, 2000 – An F2 tornado intermittently touched down along a 2-mile path. Extensive damage
was done to the Timberidge subdivision and to other homes and mobile homes along its path. Eight people
were injured, one seriously. There were no deaths.
June 12, 2001 – WAGT TV and others reported a small tornado touchdown at Point South golf course
taking down several trees.
April 10, 2009 – A supercell tornado continued out of Columbia county and tracked across the Augusta
area severely damaging many homes and business and taking down numerous trees and powerlines. One
hundred and fifty people had to be evacuated from a nursing home that was damaged and there were
around a dozen minor injuries.
November 16, 2011 – WRDW reported a tornado touchdown near Hephzibah taking down trees in rural
areas east of Hephzibah.
In 1998, Augusta-Richmond County received a Major Disaster Declaration for a severe storm event that
included tornadoes.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Probability of future occurrence was calculated based on past occurrences and was assumed to be uniform
across the county.
In the 20-year period from 2001 through 2020, Augusta-Richmond County experienced four tornados. This
correlates to a 20 percent annual probability that the planning area will experience a tornado. Two of these
past tornado events were a magnitude EF2 or greater; therefore, the annual probability of a significant
tornado event is approximately 10 percent.
Probability: 3 – Likely
Climate Change
There presently is not enough data or research to quantify the magnitude of change that climate change
may have related to tornado frequency and intensity. NASA’s Earth Observatory has conducted studies
which aim to understand the interaction between climate change and tornadoes. Based on these studies
meteorologists are unsure why some thunderstorms generate tornadoes and others don’t, beyond knowing
that they require a certain type of wind shear. Tornadoes spawn from approximately one percent of
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 163
2021
thunderstorms, usually supercell thunderstorms that are in a wind shear environment that promotes
rotation. Some studies show a potential for a decrease in wind shear in mid-latitude areas. Because of
uncertainty with the influence of climate change on tornadoes, future updates to the mitigation plan should
include the latest research on how the tornado hazard frequency and severity could change. The level of
significance of this hazard should be revisited over time.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Injuries and fatalities are possible. Individuals who cannot take shelter are most
vulnerable.
Responders Responders may be hindered by storm impacts; damages may block access to affected
areas or make it dangerous to enter affected buildings or areas.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Potential impacts to continuity of operations may result if personnel are harmed or if
critical systems or resources are damaged. Delays in providing services may result.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
The weakest tornadoes, EF0, can cause minor roof damage, while strong tornadoes can
destroy frame buildings and even badly damage steel reinforced concrete structures.
Buildings are vulnerable to direct impact from tornado winds and wind-borne debris.
Mobile homes are particularly susceptible to damage during tornadoes. Buildings,
critical facilities, and infrastructure are all vulnerable to damage. Impacts to
infrastructure may also include structural damage, impassable or blocked roadways or
bridges, failed utility lines, or railway failure.
Environment Downed trees and damages to vegetation are likely. Debris may be thrown great
distances and end up in natural areas, with potential impacts on habitats. If hazardous
materials facilities are impacted, chemical releases may occur and would require
remediation.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Economic impacts are contingent on tornado’s path, but a tornado can severely
impact/destroy critical infrastructure and other economic drivers, halt economic activity,
or cause direct losses to businesses.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
Public confidence in the jurisdiction’s governance may be influenced by severe tornado
events if response and recovery are not timely and effective.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
People and populations exposed to the elements are most vulnerable to tornados. The availability of
sheltered locations such as basements, buildings constructed using tornado-resistant materials and
methods, and public storm shelters, all reduce the exposure of the population. Residents of mobile and
manufactured housing may be particularly vulnerable due to the structure’s vulnerability and the lack of
sheltered locations in these units. According to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,
6,900 occupied housing units (7.8 percent) in Richmond County are classified as “mobile homes or other
types of housing.” Blythe and Hephzibah are particularly vulnerable, with 49.8 percent and 31.0 percent of
occupied units classified as mobile/manufactured homes, respectively. Individuals who work outdoors may
also face increased risk.
Since 1990, the NCEI Storm Events database records 26 injuries attributed to tornadoes in Augusta-
Richmond County.
Property
General damages to property are both direct (what the tornado physically destroys) and indirect (additional
costs, damages, and losses attributed to secondary hazards spawned by the tornado or due to the damages
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 164
2021
caused by the tornado). Depending on its size and path, a tornado is capable of damaging and eventually
destroying almost anything. Construction practices and building codes can help maximize the resistance
of the structures to damage.
Secondary impacts of tornado damage often result from damage to infrastructure. Downed power and
communications transmission lines, coupled with disruptions to transportation, create difficulties in
reporting and responding to emergencies. These indirect impacts of a tornado put tremendous strain on a
community. In the immediate aftermath, the focus is on emergency services.
Since 1950, damaging tornadoes in the County are directly responsible for $8,110,000 worth of damage to
property according to NCEI data. This equates to an annualized loss of $114,225.
To supplement this vulnerability assessment, GEMA provided a hazard risk analysis produced by the Carl
Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia (UGA). The full Hazard Risk Analyses document
is provided in Appendix F. To evaluate potential tornado losses, the UGA analysis models a hypothetical EF3
tornado running along the predominant direction of historical tornados (southeast to northwest) and placed
to travel through Augusta. The tornado width was modeled after a recreation of the Fujita Scale guidelines
based on conceptual wind speeds, path widths, and path lengths. Damage is expected to be most intense
within the center of the path, with decreasing amounts of damage away from the center. To reflect this, the
modeled EF3 tornado has four damage zones. The tornado path and buffer zones are shown in Figure 5.35.
Figure 5.35 – Hypothetical EF3 Tornado for Risk Analysis
Source: The Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia Hazard Risk Analyses Supplement to the Richmond
County Joint Hazard Mitigation Plan
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 165
2021
This analysis estimates that approximately 2,263 buildings could sustain damages, totaling over $102
million. Building losses are an estimate of replacement cost multiplied by the percentage of damage based
on the tornado zone and a damage curve. Table 5.63 details the estimated building losses by occupancy
type for this hypothetical EF3 tornado.
Table 5.63 – Estimated Building Losses by Occupancy Type
Source: The Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia Hazard Risk Analyses Supplement to the Richmond
County Joint Hazard Mitigation Plan
For more detail on this analysis, see Appendix F.
Environment
Tornadoes can cause massive damage to the natural environment, uprooting trees and other debris within
the tornado’s path. This is part of a natural process, however, and the environment will return to its original
state in time.
Secondary impacts may occur if hazardous materials are released into the environment as a result of
tornado damages. In this case, remediation would be needed.
Changes in Development
Development is not expected to impact the incidence of tornado events. As the county grows, overall asset
exposure will increase, which may increase risk.
Key Issues
•Wind-borne debris can become a dangerous hazard during tornado events. Educating the public
on tornado risk and severe storms preparedness, including the need to secure loose items
outdoors, may reduce potential damages in the event that a tornado spawns.
•Mobile homes and their occupants are particularly vulnerable to tornadoes; as such, Blythe and
Hephzibah have higher vulnerability.
•Related Hazards: Hurricane, Severe Weather, Windstorm/Thunderstorm
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes tornado hazard risk by jurisdiction. Tornado hazard risk does not vary
substantially by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 3 3 2 4 1 2.7 M
Blythe 3 3 2 4 1 2.7 M
Hephzibah 3 3 2 4 1 2.7 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 166
2021
Wildfire
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Wildfire Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Hazard Background
A wildfire is an uncontained fire that spreads through the environment. Wildfires are part of the natural
management of forest ecosystems but may also be caused by human factors. Wildfires can consume large
areas, including infrastructure, property, and resources. When massive fires, or conflagrations, develop near
populated areas, evacuations possibly ensue. Not only do the flames impact the environment, but the
massive volumes of smoke spread by certain atmospheric conditions also impact the health of nearby
populations. There are three types of fire spread that are recognized:
•Ground fires – burn organic matter in the soil beneath surface litter and are sustained by glowing
combustion.
•Surface fires – spread with a flaming front and burn leaf litter, fallen branches and other fuels
located at ground level.
•Crown fires – burn through the top layer of foliage on a tree, known as the canopy or crown fires.
Crown fires, the most intense type of fire and often the most difficult to contain, need strong
winds, steep slopes and a heavy fuel load to continue burning.
Generally, wildfires are started by humans, either through arson or carelessness. The second most common
cause of wildfire is lightning. In Georgia, most fires are caused by debris burning such as burning yard leaf
piles.
Fire intensity is controlled by both short-term weather conditions and longer-term vegetation conditions.
During intense fires, understory vegetation, such as leaves, small branches, and other organic materials that
accumulate on the ground, can become additional fuel for the fire. The most explosive conditions occur
when dry, gusty winds blow across dry vegetation.
Weather plays a major role in the birth, growth and death of a wildfire. In support of forecasting for fire
weather, the National Weather Service Fire Weather Program emerged in response to a need for weather
support to large and dangerous wildfires. This service is provided to federal and state land management
agencies for the prevention, suppression, and management of forest and rangeland fires.
Weather conditions favorable to wildfire include drought, which increases flammability of surface fuels, and
winds, which aid a wildfire‘s progress. The combination of wind, temperature, and humidity affects how fast
wildland fires can spread. Rapid response can contain wildfires and limit their threat to property.
Augusta-Richmond County experiences a variety of wildfire conditions found in the Keetch-Byram Drought
Index, which is described in Table 5.64. The Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) for June 2021 is shown in
Figure 5.36. The KBDI for Augusta-Richmond County and the surrounding areas at this time was between
400-500.
Table 5.64 – Keetch-Byram Drought Index Fire Danger Rating System
KBDI Description
0-200 Soil and fuel moisture are high. Most fuels will not readily ignite or burn. However, with sufficient sunlight
and wind, cured grasses and some light surface fuels will burn in sports and patches.
200-400 Fires more readily burn and will carry across an area with no gaps. Heavier fuels will still not readily ignite
and burn. Also, expect smoldering and the resulting smoke to carry into and possibly through the night.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 167
2021
KBDI Description
400-600 Fire intensity begins to significantly increase. Fires will readily burn in all directions exposing mineral soils
in some locations. Larger fuels may burn or smolder for several days creating possible smoke and control
problems.
600-800 Fires will burn to mineral soil. Stumps will burn to the end of underground roots and spotting will be a
major problem. Fires will burn through the night and heavier fuels will actively burn and contribute to fire
intensity.
Source: USFS Wildland Fire Assessment System
Figure 5.36 – Keetch-Byram Drought Index, June 2021
Source: USFS Wildland Fire Assessment System
Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours
Duration: 3 – Less than 1 week
Location
The location of wildfire risk can be defined by the acreage of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The WUI is
described as the area where structures and other human improvements meet and intermingle with
undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels, and thus demarcates the spatial extent of wildfire risk. The WUI
is essentially all the land in the county that is not heavily urbanized. The Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
(SWRA) estimates that 82.9 percent of the Augusta-Richmond County population lives within the WUI. The
expansion of residential development from urban centers out into rural landscapes increases the potential
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 168
2021
for wildland fire threat to public safety and the potential for damage to forest resources and dependent
industries. Population growth within the WUI substantially increases the risk of wildfire. Approximately 52.6
percent of the County’s land area is outside of the WUI. Table 5.65 details the extent of the WUI in Augusta-
Richmond County, and Figure 5.37 maps the WUI.
Table 5.65 – Wildland Urban Interface, Population and Acres
Housing Density
WUI
Population
Percent of WUI
Population WUI Acres
Percent of
WUI Acres
LT 1hs/40ac 229 0.1 % 12,729 13.6 %
1hs/40ac to 1hs/20ac 190 0.1 % 5,805 6.2 %
1hs/20ac to 1hs/10ac 934 0.6 % 8,989 9.6 %
1hs/10ac to 1hs/5ac 1,995 1.2 % 9,815 10.5 %
1hs/5ac to 1hs/2ac 9,157 5.5 % 16,295 17.4 %
1hs/2ac to 3hs/1ac 115,895 69.5 % 36,472 39.0 %
GT 3hs/1ac 38,367 23.0 % 3,438 3.7 %
Total 166,767 -- 93,543 --
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
16
9
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
3
7
–
W
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 170
2021
Extent
Wildfire extent can be defined by the fire’s intensity and measured by the Characteristic Fire Intensity Scale,
which identifies areas where significant fuel hazards which could produce dangerous fires exist. Fire Intensity
ratings identify where significant fuel hazards and dangerous fire behavior potential exist based on fuels,
topography, and a weighted average of four percentile weather categories. The Fire Intensity Scale, shown
in Table 5.66, consists of five classes, as defined by Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. Table details the
characteristic fire intensity scale across Augusta-Richmond County, and Figure 5.38 shows the potential fire
intensity geographically.
Table 5.66 – Fire Intensity Scale
Class Description
1, Very Low Very small, discontinuous flames, usually less than 1 foot in length; very low rate of spread; no
spotting. Fires are typically easy to suppress by firefighters with basic training and non-specialized
equipment.
2, Low Small flames, usually less than two feet long; small amount of very short-range spotting possible.
Fires are easy to suppress by trained firefighters with protective equipment and specialized tools.
3, Moderate Flames up to 8 feet in length; short-range spotting is possible. Trained firefighters will find these
fires difficult to suppress without support from aircraft or engines, but dozer and plows are generally
effective. Increasing potential for harm or damage to life and property.
4, High Large Flames, up to 30 feet in length; short-range spotting common; medium range spotting
possible. Direct attack by trained firefighters, engines, and dozers is generally ineffective, indirect
attack may be effective. Significant potential for harm or damage to life and property.
5, Very High Very large flames up to 150 feet in length; profuse short-range spotting, frequent long-range
spotting; strong fire-induced winds. Indirect attack marginally effective at the head of the fire.
Great potential for harm or damage to life and property.
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
Table 5.67 – Characteristic Fire Intensity, Augusta-Richmond County
Housing Density Acres Percent
Non-Burnable 55,673 26.5 %
1 Lowest Intensity 26,031 12.4 %
1.5 22,272 10.6 %
2 Low 28,545 13.6 %
2.5 6,122 2.9 %
3 Moderate 35,421 16.9 %
3.5 20,103 9.6 %
4 High 14,941 7.1 %
4.5 982 0.5 %
5 Highest Intensity 0 0.0 %
Total 210,090 100.0 %
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
17
1
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
3
8
–
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
F
i
r
e
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 172
2021
A small portion, approximately 7.6 percent, of Augusta-Richmond County’s total land area may experience
up to a Class 4 or 4.5 Fire Intensity, which poses significant harm or damage to life and property. These
areas are generally located in the southern portion of the County, particularly outside the Cities of Blythe
and Hephzibah. Approximately 26.5 percent of the county may experience Class 3 or 3.5 Fire Intensity, which
has potential for harm to life and property but is easier to suppress with dozer and plows. The remainder
of the region is either non-burnable (26.5%) or would face a Class 1 or Class 2 Fire Intensity, which are easily
suppressed. Given the small amount of land with high risk, potential impact is considered limited.
Impact: 2 – Limited
Historical Occurrences
Based on data from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) for 2007 through 2020, Augusta-Richmond
County has experienced an average of 29.9 wildfires annually, which burn a combined average of 99.7 acres
per year. Table 5.68 summarizes Augusta-Richmond County’s wildfire history by year as reported by the
GFC. Note that this data is from GFC records only and may not include data on fires burned within
jurisdictional limits that did not require GFC assistance to suppress. Actual number of fires and acreage
burned may be higher than what is reported here.
Table 5.68 – Records for Wildfire in Augusta-Richmond County, 2007-2020
Year Acreage Burned Number of Fires
2007 109 42
2008 328 47
2009 55 37
2010 46 23
2011 177 51
2012 100 36
2013 54 27
2014 194 30
2015 65 32
2016 57.79 21
2017 57.7 30
2018 48.53 14
2019 55.1 14
2020 48.64 14
Total 1,395.76 418
Average 99.70 29.9
Source: Georgia Forestry Commission
Of the 93 fires burned in the last five years (2016-2020), 55% were of undetermined cause; the next most
common causes were machine use (11%), and residential, leaf piles, and yard debris (10%), household
garbage (4%), and lightning (3%).
Probability of Future Occurrence
The Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment provides a Burn Probability analysis which predicts the probability
of an area burning based on landscape conditions, weather, historical ignition patterns, and historical fire
prevention and suppression efforts. Burn Probability data is generated by simulating fires under different
weather, fire intensity, and other conditions. Values in the Burn Probability (BP) data layer indicate, for each
pixel, the number of times that cell was burned by a modeled fire, divided by the total number of annual
weather scenarios simulated. The simulations are calibrated to historical fire size distributions. The Burn
Probability for Augusta-Richmond County is illustrated in Figure 5.39 and summarized in Table 5.69.
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
17
3
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
3
9
–
B
u
r
n
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 174
2021
Table 5.69 – Burn Probability, Augusta-Richmond County
Class Acres Percent
1 25,003 17.2 %
2 35,163 24.2 %
3 42,747 29.4 %
4 21,959 15.1 %
5 20,410 14.0 %
6 0 0.0 %
7 0 0.0 %
8 0 0.0 %
9 0 0.0 %
10 0 0.0 %
Total 145,282 100.0 %
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
Augusta-Richmond County has areas of moderate burn probability (Class 4-5), located primarily in the
southwestern portion of the county, including most of Blythe and Hephzibah, and portions of Fort Gordon.
Most of the remaining burnable areas have a low burn probability between Class 2-3. The most developed
areas of Augusta have the lowest burn probability or were not rated as burnable. Given the areas of
moderate burn probably in all three participating jurisdictions, the probability of wildfire across the county
is considered likely, defined as between a 10% and 100% annual chance of occurrence.
Probability: 3 – Likely
Climate Change
Per the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the Southeast is projected to experience an increase in the
duration and intensity of drought, which is expected to increase wildfire occurrence and reduce the
effectiveness of prescribed fire. Although total area burned by wildfire is greatest in the western U.S., the
Southeast has historically had the highest number of wildfires and the most area burned by prescribed fire.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public In addition to the potential for fatalities, wildfire and the resulting diminished air quality pose
health risks. Smoke and air pollution can cause serious health problems, including asthma
attacks and pneumonia, and can worsen chronic heart and lung diseases. Vulnerable
populations include children, the elderly, and people with respiratory and cardiovascular
problems. Even healthy citizens may experience symptoms such as sore throats and itchy
eyes.
Responders Wildfires are a significant threat to the health and safety of the emergency services, both
while fighting the fire and from after effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. More
rural areas may require response personnel ready to act.
Continuity of
Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Wildfire events can result in a loss of power which may impact operations. Downed trees,
power lines and damaged road conditions may prevent access to critical facilities and/or
emergency equipment. Critical facilities run from urbanized areas are not likely to be
significantly impacted.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 175
2021
Category Consequences
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
Damage to buildings and facilities, especially those in the wildland urban interface, is
possible. Infrastructure, including roadways, communication networks and facilities, power
lines, utilities, and water distribution systems, may also be damaged. New homes constructed
without considering community wildland fire planning can create neighborhoods with
limited accessibility and flammable buildings and landscaping.
Environment Wildfires cause damage to the natural environment, killing vegetation and animals. The risk
of floods and debris flows increases after wildfires due to the exposure of bare ground and
the loss of vegetation. In addition, the secondary effects of wildfires, including erosion,
landslides, introduction of invasive species, and changes in water quality, are often more
disastrous than the fire itself. Water supplies can be degraded by post-fire erosion and
stream sedimentation.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
Wildfires can have significant short-term and long-term effects on the local economy.
Wildfires, and extreme fire danger, may reduce recreation and tourism in and near the fires,
and can destroy crops and other agricultural property. If aesthetics are impaired, local
property values can decline. Extensive fire damage to trees can significantly alter the timber
supply, both through a short-term surplus from timber salvage and a longer-term decline
while the trees regrow. Post-fire cleanup costs include rehabilitation and repair, equipment
and capital goods replacement, drinking water pollution remediation, smoke damage, and
increase in fire insurance premiums.
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Wildfire events may cause issues with public confidence because they have very visible
impacts on the community.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Wildfire can cause fatalities and human health hazards. Ensuring procedures are in place for rapid warning
and evacuation are essential to reducing vulnerability.
Based on 2012 housing density data, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) estimates that 82.9% of
the total planning area population lives within the WUI and are therefore at risk to wildfire.
Property
Wildfire can cause direct property losses, including damage to buildings, vehicles, landscaped areas,
agricultural lands, and livestock. Construction practices and building codes can increase fire resistance and
fire safety of structures. Techniques for reducing vulnerability to wildfire include using street design to
ensure accessibility to fire trucks, incorporating fire resistant materials in building construction, and using
landscaping practices to reduce flammability and the ability for fire to spread.
Exposure to wildfire was estimated using the SWRA’s Wildland Urban Interface Risk Index (WUIRI), which
combines WUI data, which indicates where people live, and Response Function modeling, which uses flame
length data to determine susceptibility to fire, to provide a rating of the potential impact of a wildfire on
people and their homes. This index ranges from 0 to -9, where lower values are relatively more severe.
Figure 5.40 depicts the WUIRI ratings for Augusta-Richmond County.
Using WUIRI data and Augusta-Richmond County building points, a GIS analysis was employed to estimate
the exposure of buildings most at risk to loss due to wildfire. Areas with a WUIRI value below -5 were chosen
because they indicate the areas of moderate to high risk for wildfire impacts. Table 5.70 summarizes the
number of buildings and their total value that fall within areas rated -5 or less on the WUIRI. This table
represents exposure within the area rated under -5, actual damages in the event of a wildfire would vary.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 176
2021
Critical facility exposure to moderate and high risk for wildfire impacts is summarized in Table 5.71. Exposure
to wildfire risk is detailed by jurisdiction in the jurisdictional annexes.
Table 5.70 – Building Counts and Values within WUIRI under -5
Occupancy Parcels
Affected
% of
Total Structure Value Estimated
Content Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 n/a $0 $0 $0
Commercial 3,480 55.0%$973,906,166 $973,906,166 $1,947,812,332
Education 150 45.3%$227,633,296 $227,633,296 $455,266,592
Government 87 24.6%$14,048,080 $14,048,080 $28,096,160
Industrial 1,288 35.2%$275,044,126 $412,566,189 $687,610,315
Religious 391 62.7%$158,127,518 $158,127,518 $316,255,036
Residential 76,147 74.0%$44,861,064,211 $22,430,532,106 $67,291,596,317
Total 81,543 71.4%$46,509,823,397 $24,216,813,355 $70,726,636,752
Source: GIS Analysis, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
Table 5.71 – Critical Facility Exposure within WUIRI under -5
Facility Type Facility Count Structure Value
Education 26 $95,610,448
Emergency Services 25 $21,112,345
Government 31 $7,182,637
Medical 5 $34,306,931
Tier II Reporting Industries 37 $16,670,042
Utilities 109 $22,195,019
Other 3 $0
Total 236 $197,077,422
Source: GIS Analysis, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
17
7
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
0
–
W
U
I
R
i
s
k
I
n
d
e
x
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 178
2021
Environment
Wildfires have the potential to destroy forest and forage resources and damage natural habitats. Wildfire
can also damage agricultural crops on private land. Wildfire is part of a natural process, however, and the
environment will return to its original state in time.
Changes in Development
Increased development on the wildland fringe, areas immediately adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface,
will expand the WUI itself and further increase vulnerability. Conversely, as infill development occurs and
urban areas become more densely developed, fuel sources may be removed such that these areas may fall
out of the WUI.
Integrating wildfire management into land use and subdivision regulations can limit the risk of new
development. State and local governments can impose fire safety regulations on home sites and
developments to help curb wildfire. Land treatment measures such as fire access roads, water storage,
helipads, safety zones, buffers, firebreaks, fuel breaks, and fuel management can be designed as part of an
overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel management, prescribed burning, and cooperative
land management planning can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards.
Key Issues
• Small areas with moderate to high potential fire intensity exist in all participating jurisdictions;
concentrations are higher in southern portions of the county. Fuels management can greatly
reduce potential fire intensity and burn probability.
• Over 71% of building points in the County are located in an area rated -5 or lower on the WUI
Risk Index. Although a wildfire is not likely to impact the entirety of the area that falls within this
classification at once, impacts of a potential wildfire could be severe. Comprehensive education
for property owners, especially residential, could help mitigate losses in the event of a wildfire.
• Related Hazards: Drought, Severe Weather
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes flood hazard risk by jurisdiction. Wildfire warning time and duration do not
vary by jurisdiction. Spatial extent ratings were estimated based on the proportion of area within the WUI;
all jurisdictions have at least 10% of their area in the WUI and were assigned a rating of 3. Impact ratings
were based on fire intensity data from SWRA; all jurisdictions have clusters of moderate to high fire intensity
and were assigned a rating of 3. Probability ratings were determined based on burn probability data from
SWRA. All jurisdictions have clusters of moderate burn probability and were assigned a rating of 3.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 3 2 3 4 3 2.8 M
Blythe 3 2 3 4 3 2.8 M
Hephzibah 3 2 3 4 3 2.8 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 179
2021
Windstorm/Thunderstorm
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Windstorm/ Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Hazard Background
Thunderstorms result from the rapid upward movement of warm, moist air. They can occur inside warm,
moist air masses and at fronts. As the warm, moist air moves upward, it cools, condenses, and forms
cumulonimbus clouds that can reach heights of greater than 35,000 ft. As the rising air reaches its dew
point, water droplets and ice form and begin falling the long distance through the clouds towards earth‘s
surface. As the droplets fall, they collide with other droplets and become larger. The falling droplets create
a downdraft of air that spreads out at earth‘s surface and causes strong winds associated with
thunderstorms.
There are four ways in which thunderstorms can organize: single cell, multi-cell cluster, multi-cell lines
(squall lines), and supercells. Even though supercell thunderstorms are most frequently associated with
severe weather phenomena, thunderstorms most frequently organize into clusters or lines. Warm, humid
conditions are favorable for the development of thunderstorms. The average single cell thunderstorm is
approximately 15 miles in diameter and lasts less than 30 minutes at a single location. However,
thunderstorms, especially when organized into clusters or lines, can travel intact for distances exceeding
600 miles.
Thunderstorms are responsible for the development and formation of many severe weather phenomena,
posing great hazards to the population and landscape. Damage that results from thunderstorms is mainly
inflicted by downburst winds, lightning and hail (discussed in Section 5.10), and flash flooding caused by
heavy precipitation (discussed in Section 5.8). Stronger thunderstorms are capable of producing tornadoes
(discussed in Section 5.12).
Downbursts, which are excessive bursts of wind in excess of 125 miles per hour, are also possible with
thunderstorm events. They are often confused with tornadoes. Downbursts are caused by down drafts from
the base of a convective thunderstorm cloud. It occurs when rain-cooled air within the cloud becomes
heavier than its surroundings. Thus, air rushes towards the ground in a destructive yet isolated manner.
There are two types of downbursts. Downbursts less than 2.5 miles wide, duration less than 5 minutes, and
winds up to 168 miles per hour are called “microbursts.” Larger events greater than 2.5 miles at the surface
and longer than 5 minutes with winds up to 130 miles per hour are referred to as “macrobursts.”
While conditions for thunderstorm conditions may be anticipated within a few hours, severe conditions are
difficult to predict. Regardless of severity, storms generally pass within a few hours.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than six hours
Duration: 1 – Less than six hours
Location
Thunderstorm and wind events are atmospheric hazards and do not have a defined geographic vulnerability
zone. The entirety of Augusta-Richmond County can be affected by thunderstorm winds. Thunderstorm
wind events can span many miles and travel long distances, covering a significant area in one event. While
a thunderstorm may not impact the entire planning area at once, 50% or more of the planning area could
be impacted by any one event.
Spatial Extent: 4 – Large
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 180
2021
Extent
The magnitude of a thunderstorm event can be defined by the storm’s maximum wind speed and its
impacts. NCEI divides wind events into several categories including High Wind, Strong Wind, Thunderstorm
Wind, Tornado and Hurricane. For this severe weather risk assessment, High Wind, Strong Wind and
Thunderstorm Wind data was collected. Hurricane and Tornado are addressed as separate hazards. The
following definitions come from the NCEI Storm Data Preparation document.
• High Wind – Sustained non-convective winds of 40mph or greater lasting for one hour or longer
or winds (sustained or gusts) of 58 mph for any duration on a widespread or localized basis.
• Strong Wind – Non-convective winds gusting less than 58 mph, or sustained winds less than 40
mph, resulting in a fatality, injury, or damage.
•Thunderstorm Wind – Winds, arising from convection (occurring within 30 minutes of lightning
being observed or detected), with speeds of at least 58 mph, or winds of any speed (non-severe
thunderstorm winds below 58 mph) producing a fatality, injury or damage.
The strongest recorded thunderstorm wind events in the county had estimated wind gusts of approximately
87 knots (100 mph). Event of such magnitude occurred on April 3, 2017 and March 20, 2018 in Augusta and
Neco. These events downed trees and power lines and caused damage to structures and vehicles but did
not cause any fatalities or injuries. However, separate incidents have directly resulted in 1 death and 36
injuries throughout the planning area.
Impact: 2 – Limited
Historical Occurrences
NCEI began recordkeeping for thunderstorm wind in 1955. Since 1955, NCEI has records of 224 incidents
of thunderstorm winds, occurring on 173 separate days, detailed in Table 5.72. These events caused
$2,790,610 in recorded property damage and $1,010 in crop damages. One death and 36 injuries were also
recorded. The recorded gusts averaged 42 knots, with the highest gusts recorded at 87 knots on multiple
dates.
Table 5.72 – NCEI Recorded Wind Events, Augusta-Richmond County, 1955-2020
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Richmond Co. 5/22/1955 58 0 0
$0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/24/1955 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/6/1955 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 6/29/1956 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/15/1956 58 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/27/1956 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 6/11/1961 65 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/3/1966 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/8/1967 65 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/25/1968 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/8/1969 50 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/3/1970 50 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/16/1970 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/16/1970 53 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 3/2/1972 53 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 3/16/1972 75 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/5/1972 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 3/21/1974 58 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/7/1974 57 0 0 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 181
2021
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Richmond Co. 5/16/1975 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/22/1977 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 10/2/1977 54 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/19/1978 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/29/1978 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/29/1978 54 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 10/4/1979 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/9/1980 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/26/1980 60 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/7/1980 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 3/16/1981 50 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/10/1981 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/12/1981 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 2/16/1982 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 4/26/1982 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 6/10/1982 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 4/23/1983 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 6/5/1983 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/5/1983 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/15/1983 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 8/24/1983 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 4/14/1984 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 4/14/1984 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/3/1984 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/22/1985 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/24/1988 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/30/1988 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 4/4/1989 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/5/1989 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 5/5/1989 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 2/10/1990 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 2/22/1990 0 0 1 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 6/9/1990 52 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 3/1/1991 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 7/12/1992 0 0 0 $0 $0
Richmond Co. 9/3/1992 0 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/13/1993 0 0 0 $5,000 $0
Augusta 5/19/1993 0 0 0 $5,000 $0
Augusta 5/19/1993 0 0 0 $50,000 $0
Hephzibah 6/17/1994 0 0 0 $5,000 $0
Mcbean 6/26/1994 0 0 0 $500 $0
Augusta 6/28/1994 0 0 0 $5,000 $0
Augusta 6/28/1994 0 0 0 $5,000 $0
Augusta 5/14/1995 0 0 4 $2,000 $0
Richmond 6/9/1995 0 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/12/1995 0 0 0 $500 $0
South Augusta 6/12/1995 0 0 0 $18,000 $0
Hephzibah 7/16/1995 0 0 0 $600 $0
Augusta 7/24/1995 0 0 0 $500 $0
Augusta 11/7/1995 0 0 0 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 182
2021
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 11/11/1995 0 0 0 $0 $0
West Augusta 1/24/1996 50 0 0 $0 $0
Goeshen 3/7/1996 75 0 0 $2,000,000 $0
Augusta 5/28/1996 50 0 0 $0 $0
Gracewood 4/22/1997 60 0 0 $7,000 $0
Blythe 4/22/1997 60 0 2 $15,000 $0
Hephzibah 4/22/1997 55 0 0 $3,000 $0
Augusta 5/3/1997 50 0 0 $0 $0
Blythe 7/27/1997 50 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/10/1998 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/19/1998 55 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 9/8/1998 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/15/1999 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/23/1999 50 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/22/2000 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/18/2000 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/3/2001 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/3/2001 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/22/2001 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/8/2001 50 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 12/17/2001 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/3/2002 70 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/3/2002 70 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/3/2002 50 0 0 $0 $0
Countywide 5/13/2002 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/29/2002 55 0 1 $18,000 $0
Augusta 7/30/2002 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/18/2002 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 9/18/2002 50 0 0 $0 $0
Countywide 12/24/2002 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 2/22/2003 55 0 0 $0 $0
Central Portion 5/2/2003 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/18/2003 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/11/2003 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 11/19/2003 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Bush Arpt 5/2/2004 64 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/2/2004 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 4/22/2005 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/20/2005 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/4/2005 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/15/2006 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/20/2006 55 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 7/22/2006 55 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 2/13/2007 50 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 3/1/2007 50 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 3/2/2007 55 0 0 $0 $0
Blythe 4/14/2007 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/18/2007 58 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 6/18/2007 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/11/2007 60 1 4 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 183
2021
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
Augusta 3/4/2008 70 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 3/15/2008 61 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 5/20/2008 58 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 5/20/2008 65 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/22/2008 60 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 7/31/2008 50 0 0 $0 $0
Blythe 8/7/2008 55 0 0 $0 $0
South Nellieville 6/12/2009 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/18/2009 55 0 0 $6,000 $0
Ft Gordon 6/18/2009 50 0 0 $35,000 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/30/2009 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 8/11/2009 50 0 0 $2,000 $0
Augusta 12/9/2009 50 0 0 $4,000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 1/24/2010 50 0 0 $5,000 $0
Augusta 6/15/2010 60 0 0 $40,000 $0
South Nellieville 6/25/2010 55 0 0 $6,000 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/27/2010 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/31/2010 55 0 0 $4,000 $0
Augusta 10/25/2010 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 3/9/2011 50 0 0 $500 $0
South Nellieville 4/5/2011 65 0 0 $68,000 $0
Hephzibah 4/5/2011 65 0 0 $84,000 $0
South Nellieville 4/5/2011 50 0 0 $1,000 $0
Bath 4/28/2011 55 0 0 $18,000 $0
South Nellieville 4/28/2011 55 0 0 $38,000 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/15/2011 58 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 6/15/2011 60 0 24 $12,000 $0
Elwood 6/21/2011 50 0 0 $500 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/21/2011 52 0 0 $0 $0
Hephzibah 6/21/2011 55 0 0 $3,000 $0
South Nellieville 6/21/2011 55 0 0 $8,000 $0
Aragon Park 6/28/2011 50 0 0 $4,000 $0
Aragon Park 6/28/2011 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 8/13/2011 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 8/13/2011 50 0 0 $3,000 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 9/15/2011 59 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 10/13/2011 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 10/13/2011 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 2/24/2012 70 0 0 $120,000 $0
National Hills 4/3/2012 60 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 4/3/2012 60 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 4/3/2012 60 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 4/3/2012 60 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 7/3/2012 60 0 0 $5000 $0
South Nellieville 7/5/2012 50 0 0 $6000 $0
National Hills 7/5/2012 50 0 0 $4000 $0
Ft Gordon 7/5/2012 50 0 0 $4000 $0
Hephzibah 7/5/2012 50 0 0 $4000 $0
South Nellieville 8/9/2012 50 0 0 $500 $0
National Hills 8/9/2012 50 0 0 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 184
2021
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
South Nellieville 8/17/2012 60 0 0 $30000 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 3/18/2013 50 0 0 $0 $0
De Bruce 1/11/2014 50 0 0 $4000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 11/23/2014 55 0 0 $8000 $0
Hephzibah 4/19/2015 55 0 0 $2000 $0
Blythe 6/9/2015 55 0 0 $500 $0
Nixon 6/22/2015 60 0 0 $48000 $0
Ft Gordon 6/27/2015 55 0 0 $4000 $0
National Hills 6/27/2015 50 0 0 $500 $0
National Hills 7/2/2015 55 0 0 $28000 $0
Augusta 7/20/2015 50 0 0 $24000 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 2/24/2016 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/5/2016 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta 7/5/2016 65 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/8/2016 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 9/11/2016 50 0 0 $15,000 $0
National Hills 3/21/2017 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 4/3/2017 87 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 4/3/2017 87 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 4/5/2017 55 0 0 $0 $0
Mechanic Hill 7/2/2017 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/15/2017 53 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 7/15/2017 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 7/15/2017 44 0 0 $100 $100
Augusta Daniel Arpt 7/26/2017 34 0 0 $100 $100
National Hills 3/1/2018 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 3/1/2018 41 0 0 $100 $100
(Ags)Bush Fld August 3/1/2018 40 0 0 $100 $100
Neco 3/20/2018 87 0 0 $0 $0
Peach Orchard 4/15/2018 55 0 0 $0 $0
South Nellieville 4/15/2018 55 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 4/15/2018 45 0 0 $100 $100
Gracewood 6/11/2018 60 0 0 $0 $0
Ft Gordon 6/11/2018 50 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/15/2018 55 0 0 $0 $0
Lakemont 6/16/2018 60 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/22/2018 38 0 0 $100 $100
De Bruce 6/24/2018 60 0 0 $0 $0
De Bruce 6/24/2018 65 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/25/2018 41 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/25/2018 46 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 2/12/2019 49 0 0 $10 $10
Augusta Daniel Arpt 4/19/2019 50 0 0 $0 $0
Peach Orchard 6/23/2019 55 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/23/2019 36 0 0 $100 $100
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/23/2019 46 0 0 $100 $100
Peach Orchard 10/31/2019 60 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 1/11/2020 60 0 0 $0 $0
(Ags)Bush Fld August 1/11/2020 55 0 0 $0 $0
Neco 2/6/2020 60 0 0 $0 $0
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 185
2021
Location Date Wind Speed (kts)Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
National Hills 2/6/2020 55 0 0 $0 $0
National Hills 2/6/2020 60 0 0 $0 $0
Bath 4/13/2020 60 0 0 $0 $0
Augusta Daniel Arpt 6/27/2020 43 0 0 $100 $100
(Ags)Bush Fld August 6/27/2020 46 0 0 $100 $100
Total 1 36 $2,790,610 $1,010
Source: NCEI
In addition to recorded thunderstorm wind events, NCEI reports four strong wind events and five high wind
events during the 25-year period from 1996-2020, listed in Table 5.73. These events are all listed for the
entire Richmond County zone. They caused an estimated $65,020 in property damage and $10,030 in crop
damage. No deaths or injuries were reported.
Table 5.73 – NCEI Recorded Strong Wind Events, 1996-2020
Date Event Type Wind Speed (kts)Deaths/Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage
10/24/2008 High Wind 50 0/0 $20,000 $10,000
1/7/2009 Strong Wind 43 0/0 $15,000 $0
9/2/2016 High Wind 50 0/0 $10,000 $0
9/11/2017 High Wind 50 0/0 $0 $0
9/11/2017 High Wind 50 0/0 $0 $0
9/11/2017 High Wind 50 0/0 $0 $0
4/23/2020 Strong Wind 43 0/0 $20,000 $10
4/23/2020 Strong Wind 44 0/0 $10 $10
4/23/2020 Strong Wind 36 0/0 $10 $10
Total 0/0 $65,020 $10,000
Source: NCEI
The following event narratives from NCEI describe the impacts and damages caused by some past event
and are indicative of potential futures risks:
March 7, 1996 – An intense microburst caused $2 million in damage to 25 homes in Goshen GA which is
just south of Augusta. Nearly a thousand trees were damaged or destroyed, with 400 of those being on a
golf course. The damaged area of homes was 1/4 by 1/2 mile in size.
April 22, 1997 – HAM reports mobile home blown over in Blythe. Two people had minor injuries.
July 11, 2007 – Sheriff reported trees and powerlines down. One man died when storms caused a tree to
fall on him while he was riding his bike. Nearby, there were two men and two children trapped in a store on
the corner of 11th and Dugas Street when a tree was completely uprooted and leveled the corner store. All
four individuals were injured when the building collapsed.
April 5, 2011 – An intense squall line moved through the Carolinas and Georgia producing straight line
wind damage and numerous microbursts. Numerous trees were down and many structures were severely
damaged. Microburst winds were estimated to be around 100mph for some events. Numerous trees and
powerlines were downed from the Martin Town Road area to Hephzibah, including some on homes. A tree
fell on a home on Holden Street with 8 people inside, but there were no injuries.
June 15, 2011 – Sheriff reported trees and powerlines down around the Augusta area. About 24 soldiers
at Ft. Gordon were injured from debris crashing into their tents and were taken to the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Army Medical Center for treatment.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 186
2021
August 17, 2012 – Dispatch and Emergency Management reported numerous trees and powerlines down
Richmond County, especially in the Augusta area. Up to three thousand residents were without power.
February 6, 2020 – Upper energy and a cold front, along with moderate instability and strong shear,
produced a band of showers and thunderstorms, some severe. Trees reported down onto two homes on
Satcher Blvd., a tree fell on a power line on Regent Rd and Wheeler Rd., and another tree fell on a house on
Overton Rd.
The County received Major Disaster Declarations for severe storms in 1990 and 1998.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Based on historical occurrences in the 20-year period from 2001 through 2020—for which time NCEI records
148 thunderstorm wind, strong wind, and high wind events—Augusta-Richmond County averages 7.4 wind
events per year. Based on these historical occurrences, there is a 100% chance that the County will
experience windstorm/thunderstorm hazards each year.
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
Climate Change
Severe thunderstorm potential is affected by convective available potential energy (CAPE) and wind shear.
According to research published by NASA Earth Observatory in 2013, climate change may increase CAPE by
driving higher temperatures and humidity, thus increasing atmospheric variability associated with the
origination of severe thunderstorms. However, some research also suggests decreases in vertical wind shear
in mid-latitude areas which could result in fewer or weaker severe thunderstorms. Increase in CAPE are
expected to outweigh decreases in wind shear, resulting in more frequent severe storms, as shown in Figure
5.41.
Figure 5.41 – Project Increase in Severe Thunderstorm Environment Day by 2072-2099
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 187
2021
There has been a surge in the number of severe storms reported over the past 50 years, but this increase
could at least be partially attributed to technological developments that allow for better identification and
reporting of such storms. Further research is needed on the potential connections between climate change
and severe thunderstorms.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Injuries or fatalities may result from fallen trees or limbs or from wind-borne debris.
Individuals in open areas or in mobile/manufactured housing may be more vulnerable.
Responders Responders may face similar impacts as the public; response activities could be affected
by downed trees or power lines.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Operations may be impacted by power outages or road blockages. Otherwise,
disruptions are not expected.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Winds may cause direct damages to buildings or may cause trees or debris to impact
buildings. Critical facilities and infrastructure may be similarly impacted.
Environment Winds can down trees and harm forests. Downed power lines could ignite a fire.
Economic Condition of the
Jurisdiction
Some business interruption could result from wind damages or indirectly from power
outages.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
Public confidence is not generally affected by severe weather events.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
People and populations exposed to the elements, including individuals who work outdoors, are most
vulnerable to severe weather. A common hazard associated with wind events is falling trees and branches,
which may impact an individual directly, or may fall on a vehicle or structure with people inside. Wind-borne
debris can also become a danger with stronger wind speeds.
Residents living in mobile or manufactured homes are more vulnerable to wind events due to the lack of
shelter locations and the vulnerability of the housing unit to damages. According to 2019 American
Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 6,900 occupied housing units (7.8 percent) in Richmond County
are classified as “mobile homes or other types of housing.” Blythe and Hephzibah are particularly vulnerable,
with 49.8 percent and 31.0 percent of occupied units classified as mobile/manufactured homes, respectively.
The availability of sheltered locations, such as basements and public storm shelters, reduces the exposure
of the population and can mitigate wind risks.
Since 2000, NCEI records one fatality and 36 injuries attributed to wind events in Augusta-Richmond County.
Causes of harm included downed trees, wind-borne debris, and wind blowing over a mobile home.
Property
Wind events reported in NCEI during the 66-year period from 1955 through 2020 totaled $2,790,610 in
property damage, which equates to an annualized loss of $42,282 across the planning area.
Environment
The main environmental impact from wind is damage to trees and vegetation. In areas with limited
vegetative cover, wind-driven erosion may also occur. Wind events can also bring down power lines, which
could cause a fire and result in even greater environmental impacts.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 188
2021
Changes in Development
Development is not expected to impact the incidence of severe weather. As the county grows, overall asset
exposure will increase, which may increase risk.
Key Issues
• Severe weather events are highly likely to continue occurring in Augusta-Richmond County.
Communities should consider examining power redundancy and surge protection solutions for
critical facilities to maintain operations in the event of a power outage.
• Past severe weather events caused injuries to individuals outside and/or in high-risk locations
during these events. Solutions might include an awareness campaign to educate the public on
severe weather risk and preparedness.
•The Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah have larger shares of mobile/manufactured home units within
their jurisdictions; the individuals living in these homes are more vulnerable to wind impacts.
• Related Hazards: Hurricane, Tornado, Severe Weather
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The table below summarizes severe weather risk by jurisdiction. Most aspects of severe weather risk do not
vary substantially by jurisdiction; however, mobile/manufactured home units are more vulnerable to wind
damage and account for over 49 percent of occupied housing units in Blythe and 31 percent of occupied
housing units in Hephzibah. Therefore, these communities may face more severe impacts from wind.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 1 3 4 1 2.6 M
Blythe 4 2 3 4 1 2.9 M
Hephzibah 4 2 3 4 1 2.9 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 189
2021
Chemical Hazard
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Chemical Hazard Highly Likely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 24 hrs 3.3
Hazard Background
A hazardous substance is any substance that may cause harm to persons, property, or the environment
when released to soil, water, or air. Chemicals are manufactured and used in increasing types and quantities.
Each year over 1,000 new synthetic chemicals are introduced and as many as 500,000 products pose physical
or health hazards and can be defined as “hazardous chemicals”. Hazardous substances are categorized as
toxic, corrosive, flammable, irritant, or explosive.
A hazardous material incident can include spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing a hazardous material into the
environment. It is common to see hazardous materials releases as escalating incidents resulting from other
hazards such as floods, wildfires, and earthquakes that may cause containment systems to fail or affect
transportation infrastructure. For example, flooding and hurricane events can lead to hazardous spills by
causing flooded junkyards, disturbed cemeteries, deceased livestock, floating propane tanks, uncontrolled
fertilizer spills, and a variety of other environmental pollutants that are of widespread toxicologic concern.
The release of hazardous materials can greatly complicate or even eclipse the response to the natural
hazards disaster that caused the spill. Similarly, the natural hazard event may hinder response efforts to
address the hazardous material incident.
Generally, a hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause or significantly contribute
to an increase in mortality or serious illness. Hazardous materials may also pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous material incidents can occur while a hazardous substance is
stored at a fixed facility, or while the substance is being transported along a road corridor or railroad line
or via an enclosed pipeline or other linear infrastructure. Hazardous material incidents generally affect a
localized area.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) all have responsibilities relating to the
transportation, storage, and use of hazardous materials and waste. The Right to Know Network (RTK NET),
maintained by the EPA’s National Response Center (NRC), is a primary source of information on the use and
storage of hazardous materials, as well as data regarding spills and releases.
Hazardous materials are typically divided into the following classes:
•Explosives
•Compressed gases: flammable, non-flammable compressed, poisonous
•Flammable or combustible liquids
•Flammable solids: spontaneously combustible, dangerous when wet
•Oxidizers and organic peroxides
•Toxic materials: poisonous material, infectious agents
•Radioactive material
•Corrosive material: destruction of human skin, corrodes steel
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 190
2021
Fixed Hazardous Materials Incident
A fixed hazardous materials incident is the release of chemical substances or mixtures during production or
handling at a fixed facility. Hazardous materials releases can be accidental or intentional, as with a terror
attack.
Fixed facilities with hazardous materials can include industrial, commercial, and federal facilities. The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) created several methods for tracking
facilities with hazardous materials. Section 313 of the EPCRA created the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The
TRI tracks toxic chemical releases and pollution prevention activities reported by industrial and federal
facilities. TRI data is made publicly available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 312
of the EPCRA mandated additional reporting of hazard materials by businesses and organizations with
quantities of hazardous materials over a certain threshold. Tier II reports must be submitted annually, and
help local fire departments, Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and State Emergency Response
Commissions (SERCs) plan for and respond to chemical emergencies.
Transportation Hazardous Materials Incident
A transportation hazardous materials incident is the accidental release of chemical substances or mixtures
during transport. Transportation Hazardous Materials Incidents in Augusta-Richmond County can occur
during highway or rail transport. Highway accidents involving hazardous materials pose a great potential
for public exposures. Both nearby populations and motorists can be impacted and become exposed by
accidents and releases. Additionally, if airplanes carrying hazardous cargo crash, or otherwise leak
contaminated cargo, populations and the environment in the impacted area can become exposed.
Pipeline Incident
A pipeline transportation incident occurs when a break in a pipeline creates the potential for an explosion
or leak of a dangerous substance (oil, gas, etc.) possibly requiring evacuation. An underground pipeline
incident can be caused by environmental disruption, accidental damage, or sabotage. Incidents can range
from a small, slow leak to a large rupture where an explosion is possible. Inspection and maintenance of
the pipeline system along with marked gas line locations and an early warning and response procedure can
lessen the risk to those near the pipelines.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than six hours
Duration: 2 – Less than 24 hours
Location
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program run by the EPA maintains a database of industrial facilities across
the country and the type and quantity of toxic chemicals they release. The program also tracks pollution
prevention activities and which facilities are reducing toxic releases. The Toxic Release Inventory reports 18
sites reporting hazardous materials in Augusta-Richmond County as of 2019. All 18 sites are located in
Augusta. These sites detailed by sector in Table 5.74.
Table 5.74 – Toxic Release Inventory Facilities, Augusta-Richmond County
Facility Name Sector
Argos Augusta Concrete Co Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Augusta Newsprint Co LLC Paper
Augusta Ready Mix Nonmetallic Mineral Product
DSM Coating Resins Inc Chemicals
E-Z-Go A Textron Co Transportation Equipment
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 191
2021
Facility Name Sector
GCP Applied Technologies Inc Chemical Wholesalers
Graphic Packaging International LLC Paper
Kemira Chemicals Inc Chemicals
Kendall Patient Recovery LLC Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Meridian Brick - Augusta Plants 4&5 Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Modern Welding Co Of Georgia, Inc Fabricated Metals
Olin Corp Chemicals
PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer LP Chemicals
PVS Technologies Inc Chemicals
Reladyne - A&W Oil Co Petroleum Bulk Terminals
Solvay Specialty Polymers USA LLC Chemicals
U.S. Army HQ Signal Center Fort Gordon Other
Us Battery Manufacturing Co Electrical Equipment
Source: EPA Toxic Release Inventory
In addition to the EPA TRI sites, there are 126 Tier II Facilities that reported hazardous materials storage in
Augusta-Richmond County in 2020. The EPA TRI sites and Tier II facilities are shown in Figure 5.42.
In transit, hazardous materials generally follow major transportation routes, including roads and railroads,
creating a risk area immediately adjacent to these routes. There are no designated or restricted hazardous
materials routes in the planning area; all the area’s roads have the potential for hazardous material incidents,
particularly interstate highways, U.S. highways, and State highways, including I-20, I-540, US 1, US 25, US
78, and State Route 28. Railroad lines may also transport hazardous materials, including the freight lines
run by Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation. Figure 5.43 shows the major transportation routes
and rail lines through the planning area.
Gas pipelines in the planning area also present the risk of a hazardous material incident. The U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
maintains an inventory of the location of all gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines as well as liquid
natural gas plants and hazardous liquid breakout tanks. The location of gas transmission pipelines in
Augusta-Richmond County is shown in Figure 5.44, as reported in the public viewer of the National Pipeline
Mapping System.
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
19
2
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
2
–
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
P
A
T
o
x
i
c
s
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
;
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
19
3
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
3
–
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
G
D
O
T
;
U
S
D
O
T
,
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 195
2021
Extent
The magnitude of a hazardous materials incident can be defined by the material type, the amount released,
and the location of the release. The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), which records hazardous material incidents across the country, defines a
“serious incident” as a hazardous materials incident that involves any of the following conditions:
•a fatality or major injury caused by the release of a hazardous material
• the evacuation of 25 or more persons as a result of release of a hazardous material or exposure to
fire
• a release or exposure to fire which results in the closure of a major transportation artery
• the alteration of an aircraft flight plan or operation
•the release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging
•the release of over 11.9 galls or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant
•the release of a bulk quantity (over 199 gallons or 882 pounds) of a hazardous material
Prior to 2002, however, a hazardous materials “serious incident” was defined as an incident meeting one of
the following criteria:
• a fatality or major injury due to a hazardous material
• closure of a major transportation artery or facility or evacuation of six or more persons due to the
presence of hazardous material
• a vehicle accident or derailment resulting in the release of a hazardous material
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
The USDOT’s PHMSA maintains a database of reported hazardous materials incidents since 1989, which are
listed in Table 5.75 and summarized in Figure 5.45 by mode of transport and Figure 5.46 by hazard class.
According to PHMSA records, there were 255 recorded releases in the planning area, all in Augusta, from
1989 to 2020. Of these events, 18 were flagged as serious incidents. In total, these events caused $662,765
in damages.
Table 5.75 – PHMSA Recorded Hazardous Materials Incidents, 1989-2020
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
I-1989110463 10/16/1989 2.1 Highway Fire, Temperature, or Heat; $70,259 No
I-1990020218 1/31/1990 8 Rail $0 No
I-1990050075 4/4/1990 2 Rail $0 No
I-1990060181 5/25/1990 8 Rail Over-pressurized; $0 No
I-1990100590 9/12/1990 8 Rail $60 No
I-1990090627 9/13/1990 8 Rail
Defective Component or Device;
Over-pressurized; $0 No
I-1991040562 4/14/1991 3 Highway Defective Component or Device; $15 No
I-1991060673 5/30/1991 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-1991070746 7/19/1991 8 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1991070747 7/19/1991 8 Rail Over-pressurized $1 No
I-1992020211 2/10/1992 2 Rail $550 No
I-1992040558 3/16/1992 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-1992060113 5/25/1992 8 Rail $0 No
I-1992060406 5/26/1992 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-1992070583 7/16/1992 8 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $5 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 196
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
I-1992080147 7/20/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1992080148 7/20/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1992080672 7/28/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $20 No
I-1992100705 9/22/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1992100608 9/29/1992 8 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $2 No
I-1992110518 10/25/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $50 No
I-1992110519 10/25/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $50 No
I-1992110520 10/25/1992 8 Rail Over-pressurized $50 No
I-1993060977 5/14/1993 8 Highway Overfilled $0 No
I-1993060923 5/27/1993 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $150 No
I-1993100138 9/7/1993 3 Highway Dropped $1,363 No
I-1993100130 9/16/1993 3 Highway $30 No
I-1993110942 10/6/1993 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; Improper Preparation
for Transportation $483 No
I-1993110325 10/23/1993 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $0 No
I-1994050375 4/1/1994 3 Rail $0 No
I-1994051341 4/11/1994 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $10,600 Yes
I-1994051470 4/28/1994 8 Highway
Loose Closure, Component, or Device;
Water Damage $125 No
I-1994051216 5/8/1994 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $0 Yes
I-1994060684 5/9/1994 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $0 No
I-1994060996 5/31/1994 3 Highway Overfilled $3,010 No
I-1994091182 8/16/1994 8 Highway $39 No
I-1995010637 11/28/1994 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; Improper Preparation
for Transportation $0 No
I-1995010636 12/5/1994 8 Highway $0 No
I-1995010232 12/20/1994 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $300 No
I-1995020729 1/10/1995 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $0 No
I-1995020726 1/24/1995 8 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1995040434 3/29/1995 3 Rail Defective Component or Device $0 No
I-1995050161 4/7/1995 8 Rail Defective Component or Device; $0 No
I-1995060242 5/9/1995 8 Highway Corrosion - Exterior;$0 No
I-1995080029 7/13/1995 8 Rail Overfilled;$500 No
I-1995080029 7/13/1995 8 Rail Overfilled;$500 No
I-1995111072 11/8/1995 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $3,500 Yes
I-1995121060 11/20/1995 8 Rail $0 No
I-1996020123 1/4/1996 8 Highway
Rollover Accident; Vehicular Crash or
Accident Damage $150,000 Yes
I-1996030549 2/20/1996 3 Highway $2,985 No
I-1996050229 4/5/1996 8 Rail $0 No
I-1996050936 4/19/1996 8 Highway Overfilled $300 No
I-1996050700 4/26/1996 8 Rail Corrosion - Exterior $0 No
I-1996060338 5/8/1996 3 Rail Over-pressurized $0 No
I-1996080336 7/18/1996 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-1996090839 9/6/1996 5.1 Rail Derailment; Rollover Accident; $25,000 Yes
I-1996091322 9/12/1996 2.2 Rail $0 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 197
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
I-1996090670 9/17/1996 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; $588 Yes
I-1997110332 1/3/1997 3 Highway $50 Yes
I-1997020138 1/24/1997 8 Rail $0 No
I-1997020139 1/29/1997 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-1997110333 2/14/1997 8 Highway $50 No
I-1997110334 4/18/1997 8 Highway $0 No
I-1997060720 5/14/1997 6.1 Highway $2,385 No
I-1997060332 5/17/1997 8 Highway
Defective Component or Device;
Water Damage $150 No
I-1997070020 5/23/1997 8 Highway Corrosion - Exterior; Water Damage $150 Yes
I-1997080708 6/4/1997 3 Highway $200 No
I-1997070220 6/6/1997 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-1997101161 9/11/1997 8 Highway
Loose Closure, Component, or Device;
Water Damage;$0 No
I-1997091435 9/13/1997 8 Highway $0 Yes
I-1997101147 9/21/1997 8 Highway $0 No
I-1997101140 9/28/1997 8 Highway $0 No
I-1998040756 3/23/1998 8 Highway $390 No
I-1998050006 4/8/1998 8 Highway
Defective Component or Device;
Water Damage;$3,300 No
I-1998050003 4/20/1998 8 Highway Water Damage $300 No
I-1998051393 5/11/1998 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
I-1998061071 6/9/1998 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; Corrosion - Exterior;
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
I-1998080048 7/10/1998 8 Highway $200 No
I-1998091500 9/11/1998 8 Highway Water Damage $3,100 No
I-1998091535 9/15/1998 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $175 No
I-1998111179 10/5/1998 8 Highway $990 No
I-1998110702 11/13/1998 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
I-1999030868 2/22/1999 5.2 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
I-1999050623 4/14/1999 3 Rail $0 No
I-1999060018 5/22/1999 8 Highway $515 No
I-1999110106 9/21/1999 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-1999110805 10/29/1999 3 Highway Dropped $857 No
I-1999121244 12/5/1999 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2001051487 12/10/1999 8 Highway Dropped $11,200 Yes
I-1999121425 12/17/1999 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2000010656 1/11/2000 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2000020604 2/2/2000 8 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-2000041053 4/14/2000 3 Highway $2,688 No
I-2000051648 5/11/2000 5.1 Highway $300 No
I-2000080506 7/18/2000 3 Highway $0 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 198
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
I-2000081322 7/22/2000 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2000090275 7/28/2000 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; Impact with Sharp or
Protruding Object (e.g., nails)$180 No
I-2000080495 7/30/2000 3 Highway Defective Component or Device;$20 No
I-2000090923 8/16/2000 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2000120384 8/30/2000 8 Highway $2,000 No
I-2000100184 9/10/2000 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2000120101 10/23/2000 6.1 Highway $750 No
I-2001030287 1/18/2001 5.1 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation; Impact with Sharp or
Protruding Object (e.g., nails)$250 No
I-2001070596 6/20/2001 8 Highway $0 No
I-2001070599 6/25/2001 8 Highway $0 No
I-2001071521 6/27/2001 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-2001070509 7/5/2001 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $200 No
I-2001080495 7/21/2001 8 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-2001110044 10/26/2001 5.1 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $200 No
I-2002010100 10/30/2001 8 Highway $0 No
I-2002060257 5/8/2002 8 Highway $0 No
I-2002071160 7/10/2002 8 Highway $0 No
I-2002090356 7/23/2002 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $200 No
I-2002100745 8/27/2002 8 Rail $0 No
I-2002090696 8/29/2002 8 Highway $15 No
I-2002100283 9/4/2002 8 Highway $1,100 No
I-2002101094 10/14/2002 8 Highway Dropped;$10 No
I-2002120628 12/5/2002 8 Highway Defective Component or Device; $150 Yes
I-2003030330 2/14/2003 3 Highway $0 No
I-2003040247 3/13/2003 6.1 Highway $0 No
I-2003050062 4/11/2003 3 Rail $10 No
I-2003051205 4/25/2003 8 Highway $300 Yes
I-2003060385 5/8/2003 8 Highway $4,125 No
I-2003070400 5/28/2003 6.1 Highway $0 No
I-2003060888 6/4/2003 3 Highway
Inadequate Blocking and Bracing; Too
Much Weight on Package $135 No
I-2003060884 6/5/2003 8 Highway Defective Component or Device $850 No
I-2003080102 6/24/2003 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $250 No
I-2003080457 6/26/2003 3 Highway Dropped $30 No
I-2003080322 7/14/2003 8 Highway $0 No
I-2003101106 9/24/2003 8 Rail $0 No
I-2003101416 10/2/2003 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $0 No
I-2003120701 11/17/2003 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2004030306 2/27/2004 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $200 No
I-2004040357 4/1/2004 3 Highway Dropped $145 No
I-2004071171 7/8/2004 8 Highway $10 No
I-2004080379 7/22/2004 8 Highway $0 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 199
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
I-2004080097 7/29/2004 6.2 Air $0 No
I-2004090424 8/14/2004 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device; $100 No
I-2004110038 10/25/2004 8 Highway $0 Yes
I-2004110296 10/26/2004 8 Highway $0 No
I-2005010065 12/21/2004 8 Highway $0 No
I-2005020956 2/1/2005 2.1 Highway $0 No
E-2005040157 3/15/2005 2.1 Highway Vehicular Crash or Accident Damage $45,045 No
E-2005040157 3/15/2005 2.1 Highway Vehicular Crash or Accident Damage $45,045 No
E-2005040157 3/15/2005 2.1 Highway
Vehicular Crash or Accident Damage;
Vehicular Crash or Accident Damage $45,045 No
I-2005050010 3/19/2005 3 Rail Inadequate Maintenance $650 No
I-2005050305 4/2/2005 3 Rail Deterioration or Aging $8,750 No
I-2005050744 4/22/2005 8 Rail Broken Component or Device $3,530 No
E-2005080090 7/21/2005 3 Highway Overfilled $3,750 No
I-2005081778 7/25/2005 3 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
I-2005090002 8/4/2005 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2005091140 9/12/2005 3 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
I-2006020313 1/20/2006 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2006020420 1/27/2006 8 Highway $2,533 No
I-2006030266 2/15/2006 8 Rail
Missing Component or Device;
Inadequate Preparation for
Transportation $1,510 No
I-2006060155 5/23/2006 3 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
I-2006070723 6/26/2006 3 Highway $0 No
E-2006100093 8/25/2006 9 Highway
Impact with Sharp or Protruding
Object (e.g., nails)$0 No
E-2006110138 8/29/2006 8 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
X-2006120114 11/9/2006 2 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2006120394 11/22/2006 3 Highway Dropped $0 No
X-2007010028 12/8/2006 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2007020606 2/7/2007 8 Rail Defective Component or Device $0 No
X-2007030081 2/9/2007 8 Highway Over-pressurized $0 No
I-2007040129 3/24/2007 5.1 Rail $35,500 Yes
X-2007040079 3/27/2007 8 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
X-2007050336 5/5/2007 3 Rail
Loose Closure, Component, or Device;
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $1,500 No
X-2007070073 6/27/2007 8 Highway Broken Component or Device $0 No
E-2007070412 7/19/2007 3 Highway Defective Component or Device $0 No
X-2007100336 10/5/2007 8 Highway Human Error $0 No
X-2007100400 10/11/2007 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2007110385 11/21/2007 8 Highway Defective Component or Device $0 No
X-2008020089 2/4/2008 8 Rail Valve Open $3,000 No
E-2008030214 2/21/2008 3 Highway Defective Component or Device $0 No
X-2008050015 4/11/2008 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2008060142 5/22/2008 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2008060122 5/27/2008 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2008070279 7/3/2008 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 200
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
X-2008080252 8/12/2008 5.1 Rail Derailment $5,000 No
X-2008090120 8/28/2008 2.1 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2008100074 9/5/2008 3 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
X-2008090286 9/10/2008 5.1 Rail Over-pressurized $1,510 No
E-2008090278 9/15/2008 5.1 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
E-2008100346 10/3/2008 2 Highway Forklift Accident $5,000 No
X-2008120005 11/15/2008 8 Highway Broken Component or Device $0 No
X-2008120205 12/5/2008 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2009050154 4/18/2009 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2009050247 4/20/2009 3 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
X-2009060333 6/10/2009 5.1 Rail
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
E-2009070201 6/15/2009 8 Highway Defective Component or Device $0 No
X-2009070007 6/23/2009 3 Rail
Deterioration or Aging; Inadequate
Preparation for Transportation $0 No
X-2009070008 6/27/2009 3 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $1,505 No
X-2009100167 9/18/2009 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2009110173 10/27/2009 3 Highway Incompatible Product $0 No
X-2010070262 7/6/2010 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2011010236 1/18/2011 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2011040220 4/11/2011 8 Rail Loose Closure, Component, or Device $600 No
X-2011050487 5/11/2011 2 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2011070287 6/22/2011 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2011070461 7/8/2011 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2011080234 7/18/2011 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2011090438 8/30/2011 3 Rail Human Error $0 No
X-2011100174 9/16/2011 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2012080475 7/25/2012 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2012080569 7/31/2012 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2012100157 9/17/2012 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2012100311 10/1/2012 3 Highway Overfilled $0 No
I-2013010443 11/28/2012 8 Highway Deterioration or Aging $0 No
E-2012120319 12/3/2012 8 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
E-2013040069 3/19/2013 8 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
E-2013040071 3/19/2013 8 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
X-2013120086 11/12/2013 3 Highway
Improper Preparation for
Transportation $0 No
X-2014040006 3/21/2014 8 Rail Over-pressurized $2,500 No
E-2014090674 6/3/2014 3 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
E-2014060223 6/9/2014 8 Highway $0 No
X-2014060452 6/10/2014 5.1 Rail Corrosion - Exterior $0 No
X-2014080382 7/29/2014 3 Highway Broken Component or Device $0 No
E-2014080273 8/15/2014 8 Highway $0 No
I-2014100047 9/9/2014 8 Highway Over-pressurized $0 No
X-2014110392 11/10/2014 2.2 Rail Overfilled $4,500 No
E-2014120328 12/16/2014 3 Highway $0 No
E-2015020506 1/30/2015 3 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
E-2015071286 7/28/2015 8 Highway $0 No
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 201
2021
Report
Number Date Hazard
Class
Mode of
Transport/
Route
Cause of Failure Total
Damages Serious?
E-2015120470 11/30/2015 9 Highway Forklift Accident $0 No
X-2016010159 12/14/2015 3 Highway Defective Component or Device $0 No
E-2016010325 12/26/2015 8 Highway Rollover Accident $5,000 Yes
I-2016030041 2/23/2016 8 Highway Abrasion $0 No
E-2016100530 3/16/2016 3 Highway
Inadequate Accident Damage
Protection $0 No
I-2016030250 3/18/2016 8 Highway Human Error $0 No
X-2016080527 7/21/2016 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2016070779 7/27/2016 8 Highway Valve Open $7,500 No
E-2016080673 8/12/2016 8 Highway Human Error $0 No
X-2016100496 10/5/2016 8 Rail Broken Component or Device $2,500 No
X-2016120578 12/5/2016 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2017020200 1/30/2017 8 Highway $0 No
E-2017030619 3/13/2017 5.1 Highway Deterioration or Aging $0 No
E-2017050057 5/5/2017 8 Highway $4,500 No
E-2017095021 8/23/2017 3 Rail $0 No
E-2017110443 10/27/2017 8 Highway Inadequate Blocking and Bracing $0 No
I-2018080105 4/16/2018 3 Highway $63,598 Yes
X-2018060109 5/9/2018 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2018060113 5/9/2018 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
I-2018090073 7/30/2018 3 Highway $12,236 Yes
I-2018100238 9/7/2018 3 Highway $42,193 No
E-2019020611 1/9/2019 3 Highway $0 No
X-2019030350 2/15/2019 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2019100508 7/23/2019 3 Highway $0 No
X-2019081000 7/29/2019 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2019090095 8/5/2019 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2019090150 8/6/2019 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2019090423 8/15/2019 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2020020045 10/3/2019 3 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
X-2020080091 2/3/2020 8 Highway Loose Closure, Component, or Device $0 No
E-2020090495 8/3/2020 3 Highway $0 No
E-2021010037 12/3/2020 9 Highway $0 No
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Incident Reports Database Search
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 202
2021
Figure 5.45 - Count of Hazardous Materials Incidents by Mode of Transport, 1989-2020
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Incident Reports Database Search
Figure 5.46 – Count of Hazardous Materials Incidents by Hazardous Material Class, 1989-2020
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Incident Reports Database Search
The most common materials spilled in the planning area are Class 3 (Flammable and Combustible Liquids)
and Class 8 (Corrosives). Figure 5.47 describes all nine hazard classes.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 203
2021
Figure 5.47 – Hazardous Materials Classes
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
The following narratives highlight some of the potential damages caused by a hazardous material incident:
May 8, 1994: (A&B) Tank carload of sulfuric acid noted leaking during switching operations. Tank car
splashed foreman, first degree burns and switchman with second degree burns. Both injuries were non-
hospitalized. Consignee's response team replaced ruptured disk.
January 4, 1996: Vehicle separated from road resulting in overturn- van and power unit destroyed with
680 battery casings concentrated to area of impact 40 x 60 ft. Notification to Georgia Department of
Transportation and Environmental Protection included complaint in coordination with cleanup contracting
services to establish corrective action as appropriate.
March 24, 2007: NW 176841 was derailed and overturned during yard switching operations. Material
leaked from the top hopper doors and from a small crack at one bottom hopper door. A total of
approximately 2 tons of material was released due to the derailment and overturned car. All spilled material
was recovered. Remaining material in car was removed and returned to the manufacturer along with the
recovered spilled material.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Based on historical occurrences recorded by PHMSA, there have been 255 incidents of hazardous materials
release, 18 of which were considered serious, in the 32-year period from 1989 through 2020. Using historical
occurrences as an indication of future probability, the planning area averages 8 hazardous materials
incidents per year, which equates to over a 100% annual chance of a hazardous materials incident. There is
a 56 percent annual probability of a serious incident occurring.
Probability: 4 – Highly Likely
Climate Change
Climate change is not expected to have any impact on a chemical hazards.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 204
2021
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Contact with hazardous materials could cause serious illness or death. Those living and
working closest to hazardous materials sites face the greatest risk of exposure.
Evacuation may be necessary. Exposure may also occur through contamination of food
or water supplies.
Responders Responders face similar risks as the general public but a heightened potential for
exposure to hazardous materials. Responders must have personal protective
equipment and follow proper protocols for response and decontamination based on
the type of material released.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
A hazardous materials incident may cause temporary road closures or other localized
impacts but is unlikely to affect continuity of operations.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Some hazardous materials are flammable, explosive, and/or corrosive, which could
result in structural damages to property. Impacts would be highly localized. While
facilities that store or produce chemicals and routes used for their transport are the
highest priority, many hazardous chemicals are stored in smaller quantities in residential
and commercial buildings and could cause localized harm. Transportation systems may
be affected if a route is closed due to a spill. If a gas pipeline is the site/source of an
incident, utility service may be interrupted for a prolonged time.
Environment Consequences depend on the type of material released and the location of the event.
Possible ecological impacts include loss of wildlife, loss of habitat, and degradation of
air and/or water quality. Impacts from contamination may be long lasting, including
destruction of crops or vegetation, contamination of habitats, displacement of animals.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Clean up, remediation, and/or litigation costs may apply. Long-term economic damage
is unlikely. Costs associated with lost business, delayed deliveries, and property
damage may also be incurred. Economic effects from major transportation corridor
closures could be significant.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
A hazardous materials incident may affect public confidence if the environmental or
health impacts are enduring. Because of the dangers associated with many chemicals
and the level of control that humans have over chemical incidents compared to natural
hazards, public confidence could be damaged.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Hazardous materials incidents can cause injuries, hospitalizations, and even fatalities to people nearby.
People living near hazardous facilities and along transportation routes may be at a higher risk of exposure,
particularly those living or working downstream and downwind from such facilities. For example, a toxic
spill or a release of an airborne chemical near a populated area can lead to significant evacuations and have
a high potential for loss of life. Individuals working with or transporting hazardous materials are also at
heightened risk.
In addition to the immediate health impacts of releases, a handful of studies have found long term health
impacts such as increased incidence of certain cancers and birth defects among people living near certain
chemical facilities. However there has not been sufficient research done on the subject to allow detailed
analysis.
Property
The impact of a fixed hazardous facility, such as a chemical processing facility is typically localized to the
property where the incident occurs. The impact of a small spill (i.e. liquid spill) may also be limited to the
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 205
2021
extent of the spill and remediated if needed. While cleanup costs from major spills can be significant, they
do not typically cause significant long-term impacts to property.
Impacts of hazardous material incidents on critical facilities are most often limited to the area or facility
where they occurred, such as at a transit station, airport, fire station, hospital, or railroad. However, they can
cause long-term traffic delays and road closures resulting in major delays in the movement of goods and
services. These impacts can spread beyond the planning area to affect neighboring counties, or vice-versa.
While cleanup costs from major spills can be significant, they do not typically cause significant long-term
impacts to critical facilities, but there is a chance they may be impacted.
GIS analysis was used evaluate vulnerability to chemical hazards by identifying building points in proximity
to fixed sites and transportation routes. Two buffer areas, a 0.5-mile and 1.0-mile buffer, were established
around fixed facilities and major transportation routes to delineate areas where immediate (primary) and
secondary impacts could be felt, respectively. Building points within these buffer areas were considered
exposed to chemical hazards. For fixed sites, TRI and Tier II facility locations were used; these sites and the
surrounding buffer zones are shown in Figure 5.48. For transportation routes, interstate highways, U.S.
highways, State highways, and rail lines were used; these routes and their buffer zones are shown in Figure
5.49. Primary and secondary exposure to hazardous materials fixed sites is summarized by occupancy in
Table 5.76. Primary and secondary exposure to hazardous materials transportation routes is summarized by
occupancy in Table 5.77.
Table 5.76 – Exposure of Improved Property to Hazardous Materials Fixed Sites
Occupancy
Estimated
Parcel Count
Estimated Total Value
(Structure &
Contents)
Estimated
Parcel Count
Estimated Total Value
(Structure &
Contents)
0.5-Mile Buffer 1.0-Mile Buffer
Agriculture 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial 4,098 $2,644,016,364 6,916 $4,767,373,092
Education 160 $168,372,426 321 $451,753,058
Government 444 $342,959,012 498 $397,384,606
Industrial 3,692 $3,069,195,320 5,100 $3,668,456,035
Religious 281 $184,582,682 533 $395,471,094
Residential 27,564 $3,126,980,274 66,104 $8,661,219,935
Total 36,239 $9,536,106,078 79,472 $18,341,657,820
Source: EPA TRI Explorer, Augusta-Richmond County
Table 5.77 – Exposure of Improved Property to Hazardous Materials Transportation Routes
Occupancy
Estimated
Parcel Count
Estimated Total Value
(Structure &
Contents)
Estimated
Parcel Count
Estimated Total Value
(Structure &
Contents)
0.5-Mile Buffer 1.0-Mile Buffer
Agriculture 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial 2,734 $2,097,309,424 4,608 $2,860,181,156
Education 194 $237,599,586 239 $315,974,620
Government 205 $218,162,932 292 $229,562,118
Industrial 2,582 $1,848,982,750 3,230 $2,081,401,205
Religious 289 $189,918,422 421 $286,680,412
Residential 28,330 $5,713,357,940 50,144 $15,431,388,838
Total 34,334 $10,305,331,054 58,934 $21,205,188,349
Source: GDOT, Augusta-Richmond County
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
20
6
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
8
–
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
F
i
x
e
d
S
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
Z
o
n
e
s
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
20
7
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
4
9
–
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
Z
o
n
e
s
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 208
2021
Environment
Hazardous material incidents may affect a small area at a regulated facility or cover a large area outside
such a facility. Widespread effects occur when hazards contaminate the groundwater and eventually the
municipal water supply, or they migrate to a major waterway or aquifer. Impacts on wildlife and natural
resources can also be significant.
Changes in Development
While hazardous material sites are occasionally located near incompatible uses such as residential
development, increases in risk can be mitigated through land use planning and zoning practices to direct
the development of future hazardous materials facilities away from existing residential uses and discourage
new residential development near existing hazardous materials sites and transport routes.
Key Issues
• Hazardous materials incidents are highly likely to occur. Serious impacts—including injury or
fatality, bulk release, evacuations, or road closures—are likely.
• Major highways and rail lines pass through all participating jurisdictions. The presence of these
major thoroughfares raises the likelihood of a transportation based hazardous materials incident,
including spills or rollover accidents like those that have happened in the planning area in the
past. Approximately 78% of past transportation related spills in the planning area have occurred
on highways and 22% have occurred on rail.
• Gas transmission pipelines run through Augusta-Richmond County and Blythe. Areas around the
pipeline may be exposed to pipeline incidents, including fires or explosions caused by ignition of
the natural gas; however, these incidents are rare. Pipeline age is an indicator of risk, as corrosion
over time can lead to pipeline failure. Therefore, monitoring and maintenance may mitigate this
risk.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes hazardous materials incident risk by jurisdiction. Given the presence of
major transportation routes through all jurisdictions, risk is does not vary considerably throughout the
planning area.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 4 3 3 4 2 3.3 H
Blythe 4 3 3 4 2 3.3 H
Hephzibah 4 3 3 4 2 3.3 H
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 209
2021
Cyberterrorism
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Cyberterrorism Possible Limited Small Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.4
Hazard Background
Cyberterrorism is a deliberate attack on an information technology system using the internet. A cyber-attack
is an attempt to access or damage a computer system, potentially leading to loss of data or money, or theft
of personal information. Such attacks can occur on individual computers or larger computer networks,
mobile phones, gaming systems, and other devices.
Cyber-attacks use malicious code to alter computer operations or data. The vulnerability of computer
systems to attacks is a growing concern as people and institutions become more dependent upon
networked technologies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that “cyber intrusions are
becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated,” with implications for private-
and public-sector networks.
There are many types of cyber-attacks. Among the most common is a direct denial of service, or DDoS
attack. This is when a server or website will be queried or pinged rapidly with information requests,
overloading the system and causing it to crash.
Malware, or malicious software, can cause numerous problems once on a computer or network, from taking
control of users’ machines to discreetly sending out confidential information. Ransomware is a specific type
of malware that blocks access to digital files and demands a payment to release them. Hospitals, school
districts, state and local governments, law enforcement agencies, businesses, and even individuals can be
targeted by ransomware.
Cyber spying or espionage is the act of illicitly obtaining intellectual property, government secrets, or other
confidential digital information, and often is associated with attacks carried out by professional agents
working on behalf of a foreign government or corporation. According to cybersecurity firm Symantec, in
2016 “…the world of cyber espionage experienced a notable shift towards more overt activity, designed to
destabilize and disrupt targeted organizations and countries.”
Major data breaches—when hackers gain access to large amounts of personal, sensitive, or confidential
information—have become increasingly common. The Symantec report says more than seven billion
identities have been exposed in data breaches over the last eight years. In addition to networked systems,
data breaches can occur due to the mishandling of external drives, as has been the case with losses of some
state employee data.
Cyber-crime can refer to any of the above incidents when motivated primarily by financial gain or other
criminal intent.
The most severe type of attack is cyber terrorism, which aims to disrupt or damage systems in order to
cause fear, injury, and loss to advance a political agenda.
The Georgia Technology Authority (GTA) has been working to keep Georgia’s information technology
infrastructure secure from cyber threats both internal and external. In July 2019, the GTA strengthened its
position as a national leader in cybersecurity with the opening of the Georgia Cyber Center in Augusta. The
center not only trains cybersecurity professionals but also houses the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s
cybercrime unit.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than six hours
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 210
2021
Duration: 4 – More than one week
Location
Cyber disruption events can occur and/or impact virtually any location where computing devices are used.
Incidents may involve a single location or multiple geographic areas. A disruption can have far-reaching
effects beyond the location of the targeted system; disruptions that occur far outside the planning area can
still impact people, businesses, and institutions within Augusta-Richmond County.
Spatial Extent: 2 – Small
Extent
The severity of a cyber disruption event is variable depending on the nature of the event. A disruption
affecting a small, isolated system could impact only a few functions or processes. Disruptions of large,
integrated systems could impact many functions or processes, as well as many individuals that rely on those
systems.
There is no universally accepted scale to quantify the severity of cyber-attacks. The strength of a DDoS
attack is sometimes explained in terms of a data transmission rate. One of the largest DDoS disruptions
ever, which brought down some of the internet’s most popular sites on October 21, 2016, peaked at 1.2
terabytes per second.
Data breaches are often described in terms of the number of records or identities exposed.
A cyberattack will not cause direct physical harm to people in the planning area, but it may still cause a
significant disruption to critical systems the county depends on.
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
Verizon’s 2021 Data Breach Investigations Report shows that most incidents are Denial of Service attacks,
followed by basic web application attacks, social engineering, and system intrusion, as shown in Figure 5.50.
Figure 5.50 – Patterns Over Time in Cyber Incidents by Type
Source: 2021 Data Breach Investigations Report
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 211
2021
Most Data breaches are the result of social engineering, followed by basic web application attacks, system
intrusion, and miscellaneous errors, as shown in Figure 5.51.
Figure 5.51 – Patterns Over Time in Data Breaches by Type
Source: 2021 Data Breach Investigations Report
The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit organization based in San Diego, maintains a timeline of
2,533 data breaches resulting from computer hacking incidents in the United States from 2005-2019. The
database lists 255 data breaches in Georgia, totaling over 353 million impacted records. Five of these
reported hacks were recorded in the planning area and are summarized in Table 5.78.
Table 5.78 – Data Breaches Reported in Augusta-Richmond County, 2005-2019
Date Made
Public Company City
Total
Records Type of Organization
Type of
Breach
1/3/2008
Dorothy Hains
Elementary School Augusta 0 Educational Institutions
Stationary
Computer
Loss
6/25/2010 University Hospital Augusta 13,000
Healthcare, Medical Providers
and Medical Insurance Services
Portable
Device Loss
5/27/2017
Augusta University and
Augusta University
Medical Center Augusta 0
Healthcare, Medical Providers
and Medical Insurance Services
Hacked by an
Outside Party
or Infected by
Malware
3/15/2012
Georgia Health Sciences
University Augusta 513
Healthcare, Medical Providers
and Medical Insurance Services
Portable
Device Loss
6/1/2012
Charlie Norwood VA
Medical Center Augusta 824 Government & Military
Portable
Device Loss
Source: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
In addition to local incidents, residents of the planning area were almost certainly included in some of the
breaches that occurred across the state, such as the 2015 State of Georgia breach that compromised roughly
6 million social security numbers.
Planning area residents may also be impacted by cyber-attacks throughout the country. For example, in
May 2021 during the development of this plan, a cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline interrupted supply
infrastructure, caused a surge in demand, and led to gas shortages across the East Coast.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 212
2021
Probability of Future Occurrence
Cyber attacks occur daily, but most have negligible impacts at the local or county level. The possibility of a
larger disruption affecting systems within the county is a constant threat, but it is difficult to quantify the
exact probability due to such highly variable factors as the type of attack and intent of the attacker. Minor
attacks against business and government systems have become a commonplace occurrence but are usually
stopped with minimal impact. Similarly, data breaches impacting the information of residents of Augusta-
Richmond County are almost certain to happen in coming years. Major attacks or breaches specifically
targeting systems in the county are less likely but cannot be ruled out.
Probability: 2 – Possible
Climate Change
Climate change is not expected to have any impact on a potential cyberterrorism incident.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Cyber-attacks can impact personal data and accounts. Injuries or fatalities could
potentially result from a major cyber terrorist attack against critical infrastructure.
Responders A cyber-attack on electronic safety equipment or systems could increase call volume,
block systems, or otherwise hinder emergency operations.
Continuity of Operations
(including Continued
Delivery of Services)
Agencies that rely on electronic backup of critical files are vulnerable. The delivery of
services can be impacted since governments rely, to a great extent, upon electronic
delivery of services.
Property, Facilities and
Infrastructure
Rare. Most attacks affect only data and computer systems, however these critical
facilities and infrastructure dependent on these systems may be impacted. Sabotage of
utilities and infrastructure from a major cyber terrorist attacks could potentially result in
system failures that damage property on a scale equal with natural disasters. Facilities
and infrastructure may become unusable as a result of a cyber-attack.
Environment Rare. A major attack could theoretically result in a hazardous materials release.
Economic Condition of
the Jurisdiction
Could greatly affect the economy. In an electronic-based commerce society, any
disruption to daily activities can have disastrous impacts to the economy. It is difficult
to measure the true extent of the impact.
Public Confidence in the
Jurisdiction’s Governance
The government’s inability to protect critical systems or confidential personal data could
impact public confidence. An attack could raise questions regarding the security of using
electronic systems for government services. Public confidence may be impacted by
media interpretation and reporting of an event.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Injuries or fatalities from cyber-attacks would generally only be possible from a major cyber terrorist attack
against critical infrastructure. People may be impacted by the loss of their personal data and accounts.
Property
Short of a major cyber terrorist attack against critical infrastructure, property damage from cyber-attacks is
typically limited to computer systems.
Cyber-attacks can have a significant cumulative economic impact. A 2020 report from McAfee, “The Hidden
Costs of Cybercrime,” estimated that the average annual cost of cybercrime globally has reached $1 trillion,
due to financial costs, opportunity costs, system downtime, reduced efficiency, brand damage and loss of
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 213
2021
trust, intellectual property theft, incident response costs, outside assistance costs, cyber risk insurance, and
damage to employee morale.
Environment
A major cyber terrorism attack could potentially impact the environment by triggering a release of a
hazardous materials, or by causing an accident involving hazardous materials by disrupting traffic-control
devices.
Changes in Development
Increased development will not necessarily lead to increased incidents of cyberattack. However, increased
population puts more records at risk in the event of a cyberattack.
Key Issues
• Implementing a data backup plan can limit the possibility for data loss and reduce vulnerability to
ransomware attacks.
• Training municipal staff about cyber security and how to identify potential phishing scams can
reduce vulnerability to a cyber-attack.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes cyberterrorism risk by jurisdiction. Cyberterrorism risk does not vary
significantly by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 2 2 2 4 4 2.4 M
Blythe 2 2 2 4 4 2.4 M
Hephzibah 2 2 2 4 4 2.4 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 214
2021
Infectious Disease
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Infectious Disease Possible Critical Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 2.8
Hazard Description
As defined by the Mayo Clinic, infectious diseases are “disorders caused by organisms — such as bacteria,
viruses, fungi or parasites… Some infectious diseases can be passed from person to person. Some are
transmitted by insects or other animals. And you may get others by consuming contaminated food or water
or being exposed to organisms in the environment.” The impacts of infectious disease can range from the
mild effects of the common cold to the extreme lethality of the pneumonic plague.
The public health system in the United States was developed in large part as a response to the often urgent
need to respond to or prevent outbreaks of infectious disease. prevent outbreaks of communicable
diseases. Through public health methods of disease reporting, vaccinations, vector control, and effective
treatments, most communicable diseases are well controlled in the United States and Augusta-Richmond
County. However, control systems can fail and when people come together from locations outside of the
county, state, and the country, outbreaks can occur.
The following provides a summary description of some of the more significant potential infectious diseases
of public health concern in the United States:
Influenza – Whether natural or manmade, health officials say the threat of a dangerous new strain of
influenza (flu) virus in pandemic proportions is a very real possibility in the years ahead. Unlike most
illnesses, the flu is especially dangerous because it is spread through the air. A classic definition of influenza
is a respiratory infection with fever. Each year, flu infects humans and spreads around the globe. There are
three types of influenza virus: Types A, B, and C. Type A is the most common, most severe, and the primary
cause of flu epidemics. Type B cases occur sporadically and sometimes as regional or widespread epidemics.
Type C cases are quite rare and hence sporadic, but localized outbreaks have occurred. Seasonal influenza
usually is treatable, and the mortality rate remains low. Each year, scientists estimate which particular strain
of flu is likely to spread, and they create a vaccine to combat it. A flu pandemic occurs when the virus
respiratory system and leave the body‘s immune system defenseless against the invader.
Coronaviruses – Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses found in both animals and humans and are
known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and Novel Coronavirus (COVID-
19). Coronaviruses can cause respiratory infections and can lead to serious illnesses, like pneumonia, and
can be deadly. Typical coronavirus symptoms include fever, cough, headache, runny nose, and sore throat.
The most significant recent coronavirus, COVID-19 first emerged in Wuhan, China in 2019 and rapidly
spread across the world. According to CDC data, as of May 2021, there had been over 33 million cases of
COVID-19 reported in the United States. MERS was first reported in 2012 in Saudi Arabia and spread to
more than 25 countries. It produced symptoms that often progressed to pneumonia and 30-40 percent of
cases were fatal. SARS emerged in 2002 and spread to more than two dozen countries. It caused acute
respiratory distress and had a mortality rate of about 10 percent.
Tuberculosis – Tuberculosis, or TB, is the leading cause of infectious disease worldwide. It is caused by a
bacteria called Mycobacterium tuberculosis that most often affects the lungs. TB is an airborne disease
spread by coughing or sneezing from one person to another. The World Health Organization (WHO)
estimates that one-third of the world's population, approximately two billion people, has latent TB, which
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 215
2021
means people have been infected by TB bacteria but are not yet ill with the disease and cannot transmit the
disease. In 2018, the CDC reported 9,025 new tuberculosis cases in the United States.
St. Louis Encephalitis – In the United States, the leading type of epidemic flaviviral Encephalitis is St. Louis
encephalitis (SLE), which is transmitted by mosquitoes that become infected by feeding on birds infected
with the virus. SLE is the most common mosquito-transmitted pathogen in the United States. There is no
evidence to suggest that the virus can be spread from person to person.
Meningitis – Meningitis is an infection of fluid that surrounds a person’s spinal cord and brain. High fever,
headache, and stiff neck are common symptoms of meningitis, which can develop between several hours
to one to two days after exposure. Meningitis can be caused by either a viral or bacterial infection; however,
a correct diagnosis is critically important, because treatments for the two varieties differ. Meningitis is
transmitted through direct contact with respiratory secretions from an infected carrier. Primary risk groups
include infants and young children, household contact with patients, and refugees. In the United States,
periodic outbreaks continue to occur, particularly among adolescents and young adults. About 2,600 people
in the United States get the disease each year. Generally, 10 to 14 percent of cases are fatal, and 11 to 19
percent of those who recover suffer from permanent hearing loss, mental retardation, loss of limbs, or other
serious effects. Two vaccines are available in the United States.
Lyme Disease – Lyme disease was named after the town of Lyme, Connecticut, where an unusually large
frequency of arthritis-like symptoms was observed in children in 1977. It was later found that the problem
was caused by bacteria transmitted to humans by infected deer ticks, causing an average of more than
16,000 reported infections in the United States each year (however, the disease is greatly under-reported).
Lyme disease bacteria are not transmitted from person to person. Following a tick bite, 80 percent of
redness, fever, headache, stiff neck, muscle aches,
and joint pain. If untreated, some patients may develop arthritis, neurological abnormalities, and cardiac
problems, weeks to months later. Environmental issues addressed in this profile focus on air and water
pollution because contamination of those media can have widespread impacts on public health and
devastating consequences. Particular issues of primary concern associated with sources of air and water
pollution change over time depending on recent industrial activity, economic development, enforcement
of environmental regulations, new scientific information on adverse health effects of particular
contaminants or concentrations, and other factors. Lyme disease is rarely fatal. During early stages of the
disease, oral antibiotic treatment is generally effective, while intravenous treatment may be required in more
severe cases.
Zika Virus – Discovered in the Zika forest of Uganda in 1947, the Zika virus is a member of the flavivirus
family. It is transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected Aedes species mosquito (Ae. aegypti
and Ae. albopictus). Zika virus can also be transmitted from an infected pregnant woman to her baby during
pregnancy and can result in serious birth defects, including microcephaly. Less commonly, the virus can be
spread through intercourse or blood transfusion. However, most people infected with the Zika virus do not
become sick.
West Nile Virus – West Nile virus is a flavivirus spread by infected mosquitoes and is commonly found in
Africa, West Asia, and the Middle East. It was first documented in the United States in 1999. Although it is
not known where the U.S. virus originated, it most closely resembles strains found in the Middle East. It is
closely related to St. Louis encephalitis and can infect humans, birds, mosquitoes, horses, and other
mammals.
Most people who become infected with West Nile virus will have either no symptoms or only mild effects.
However, on rare occasions, the infection can result in severe and sometimes fatal illness. There is no
evidence to suggest that the virus can be spread from person to person.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 216
2021
An abundance of dead birds in an area may indicate that West Nile virus is circulating between the birds
and mosquitoes in that area. Although birds are particularly susceptible to the virus, most infected birds
survive. The continued expansion of West Nile virus in the United States indicates that it is permanently
established in the Western Hemisphere.
Ebola – Previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a rare and deadly disease caused by infection with
one of the Ebola virus species. It was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically in Africa.
Warning Time: 1 – More than 24 hours
Duration: 4 – More than one week
Location
Infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies can occur anywhere in the planning area,
especially, in the case of diseases transmitted from person-to-person, where there are groups of people in
close quarters.
Spatial Extent: 4 – Large
Extent
When on an epidemic scale, diseases can lead to high infection rates in the population causing isolation,
quarantine, and potential mass fatalities. An especially severe influenza or coronavirus pandemic or other
major disease outbreak can lead to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss. As was
seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, impacts can range from school and business closings to the
interruption of basic services such as public transportation, health care, and the delivery of food and
essential medicines.
Table 5.79 describes the World Health Organization’s six main phases to a pandemic flu as part of their
planning guidance.
Table 5.79 – World Health Organization's Pandemic Flu Phases
Phase Description
1 No animal influenza virus circulating among animals have been reported to cause infection in
humans.
2 An animal influenza virus circulating in domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused
infection in humans and is therefore considered a specific potential pandemic threat.
3
An animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small
clusters of disease in people but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to
sustain community-level breakouts.
4 Human-to-human transmission of an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus able to
sustain community-level breakouts has been verified.
5 The same identified virus has caused sustained community-level outbreaks in two or more
countries in one WHO region.
6 In addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5, the same virus has caused sustained community-
level outbreaks in at least one other country in another WHO region.
Post-Peak
Period
Levels of pandemic influenza in most countries with adequate surveillance have dropped below
peak levels.
Post-Pandemic
Period
Levels of influenza activity have returned to levels seen for seasonal influenza in most countries
with adequate surveillance.
Source: World Health Organization
Impact: 3 – Critical
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 217
2021
Historical Occurrences
Influenza and Coronavirus Pandemics
Since the early 1900s, five lethal pandemics have swept the globe: Spanish Flu of 1918-1919; Asian Flu of
1957-1958; Hong Kong Flu of 1968-1969; Swine Flu of 2009-2010; and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The Spanish Flu was the most severe pandemic in recent history. The number of deaths was estimated to
be 50-100 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States. Its primary victims were mostly young,
healthy adults. The 1957 Asian Flu pandemic killed about 70,000 people in the United States, mostly the
elderly and chronically ill. The 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic killed 34,000 Americans. The 2009 Swine Flu
caused 12,469 deaths in the United States. As of June 2021, the COVID-19 virus has caused 591,265 deaths
in the U.S. These historic pandemics are further defined in the following paragraphs along with several
“pandemic scares”.
Spanish Flu (H1N1 virus) of 1918-1919
Beginning in March 1918, when World War I was in its fourth year, the Spanish Flu swept the world in three
waves during a two-year period, rivalling the war itself as the greatest killer in human history.
The first reported case occurred at Camp Funston (Fort Riley), Kansas, where 60,000 soldiers trained to be
deployed overseas. Within four months, the virus traversed the globe, as American soldiers brought the
virus to Europe. The first wave sickened thousands of people and caused many deaths (46 died at Camp
Funston), but it was considered mild compared to what was to come. The second and deadliest wave struck
in the autumn of 1918 and killed millions. At Camp Funston alone, there were 14,000 cases and 861 deaths
reported during the first three weeks of October 1918.
Outbreaks caused by a variant exploded almost simultaneously in many locations including France, Sierra
Leone, Boston, and New York City, where more than 20,000 people died that fall. The flu gained its name
from Spain, which was one of the hardest hit countries. From there, the flu went through the Middle East
and around the world, eventually returning to the United States along with the troops.
Of the 57,000 Americans who died in World War I, 43,000 died from the Spanish Flu. At one point, more
than 10 percent of the American workforce was bedridden. By a conservative estimate, a fifth of the human
race suffered the fever and aches of influenza between 1918 and 1919 and 20 million people died.
Asian Flu (H2N2 virus) of 1957-1958
This influenza pandemic was first identified in February 1957 in the Far East. Unlike the Spanish Flu, the 1957
virus was quickly identified, and vaccine production began in May 1957. A number of small outbreaks
occurred in the United States during the summer of 1957, with infection rates highest among school
children, young adults, and pregnant women; however, the elderly had the highest rates of death. A second
wave of infections occurred early the following year, which is typical of many pandemics.
Hong Kong Flu (H3N2 virus) of 1968-1969
This influenza pandemic was first detected in early 1968 in Hong Kong. The first cases in the United States
were detected in September 1968, although widespread illness did not occur until December. This became
the mildest pandemic of the twentieth century, with those over the age of 65 the most likely to die. People
infected earlier by the Asian Flu virus may have developed some immunity against the Hong Kong Flu virus.
Also, this pandemic peaked during school holidays in December, limiting student-related infections.
Pandemic Flu Threats: Swine Flu of 1976, Russian Flu of 1977, and Avian Flu of 1997 and 1999
Three notable flu scares occurred in the twentieth century. In 1976, a swine-type influenza virus appeared
in a U.S. military barracks (Fort Dix, New Jersey). Scientists determined it was an antigenically drifted variant
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 218
2021
of the feared 1918 virus. Fortunately, a pandemic never materialized, although the news media made a
significant argument about the need for a Swine Flu vaccine.
In May 1977, influenza viruses in northern China spread rapidly and caused epidemic disease in children
and young adults. By January 1978, the virus, subsequently known as the Russian Flu, had spread around
the world, including the United States. A vaccine was developed for the virus for the 1978–1979 flu season.
Because illness occurred primarily in children, this was not considered a true pandemic.
In March 1997, scores of chickens in Hong Kong‘s rural New Territories began to die—6,800 on three farms
alone. The Avian Flu virus was especially virulent and made an unusual jump from chickens to humans. At
least 18 people were infected, and six died in the outbreak. Chinese authorities acted quickly to exterminate
over one million chickens and successfully prevented further spread of the disease. In 1999, a new avian flu
virus appeared. The new virus caused illness in two children in Hong Kong. Neither of these avian flu viruses
started pandemics.
Swine Flu (H1N1 virus) of 2009–2010
This influenza pandemic emerged from Mexico in 2009. The first U.S. case of H1N1, was diagnosed on April
15, 2009. The U.S. government declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26. By June,
approximately 18,000 cases of H1N1 had been reported in the United States. A total of 74 countries were
affected by the pandemic.
The CDC estimates that 43 million to 89 million people were infected with H1N1 between April 2009 and
April 2010. There were an estimated 8,870 to 18,300 H1N1 related deaths. On August 10, 2010, the World
Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to the global H1N1 flu pandemic.
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), 2019-ongoing
During the update of this plan, COVID-19 has been an ongoing pandemic. COVID-19 was caused by severe
acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2). First identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019,
the virus quickly spread throughout China and then globally. In the United States, COVID-19 was first
identified in late January in Washington State and rapidly spread throughout the Country, with large
epicenters on both the east and west coasts.
As of June 1, 2021, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, there were over 170.8
million cases worldwide resulting in over 3.55 million deaths. The United States has accounted for over 33.2
million cases and an estimated 594,590 deaths. In Augusta-Richmond County, there have been 24,949 cases
and 514 deaths due to COVID-19.
Other Infectious Disease Outbreaks
Meningitis, 1996-1997
During 1996 and 1997, 213,658 cases of meningitis were reported, with 21,830 deaths, in Africa. According
to the Georgia Division of Public Health, meningitis cases in Georgia peaked at this time, with 147 reported
cases and 9 deaths in 1996 and 107 cases and 12 deaths in 1997. As of 2008, there were 18 cases in Georgia.
Lyme Disease, 2015
In the United States, Lyme disease is mostly found in the northeastern, mid-Atlantic, and upper north-
central regions, and in several counties in northwestern California. In 2015, 95-percent of confirmed Lyme
Disease cases were reported from 14 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vector-borne illness in the United States. In 2015,
it was the sixth most common nationally notifiable disease. However this disease does not occur nationwide
and is concentrated heavily in the northeast and upper Midwest.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 219
2021
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, 2003
During November 2002-July 2003, a total of 8,098 probable SARS cases were reported to the World Health
Organization (WHO) from 29 countries. In the United States, only 8 cases had laboratory evidence of
infection. Since July 2003, when SARS transmission was declared contained, active global surveillance for
SARS disease has detected no person-to-person transmission. CDC has therefore archived the case report
summaries for the 2003 outbreak.
Zika Virus, 2015
In May 2015, the Pan American Health Organization issued an alert noting the first confirmed case of a Zika
virus infection in Brazil. Since that time, Brazil and other Central and South America countries and territories,
as well as the Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have experienced ongoing Zika virus
transmission. In August 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidance for
people living in or traveling to a 1-square-mile area in Miami, Florida, identified by the Florida Department
of Health as having mosquito-borne spread of Zika. In October 2016, the transmission area was expanded
to include a 4.5-square-mile area of Miami Beach and a 1-squre mile area of Miami-Dade County. In
addition, all of Miami-Dade County was identified as a cautionary area with an unspecified level of risk. As
of the end of 2018, the CDC reported 74 cases of Zika across the United States; however, none were reported
to be acquired through presumed local mosquito-borne transmission.
Ebola, 2014-2016
In March 2014, West Africa experienced the largest outbreak of Ebola in history. Widespread transmission
was found in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea with the number of cases totaling 28,616 and the number of
deaths totaling 11,310. In the United States, four cases of Ebola were confirmed in 2014 including a medical
aid worker returning to New York from Guinea, two healthcare workers at Texas Presbyterian Hospital who
provided care for a diagnosed patient, and the diagnosed patient who traveled to Dallas, Texas from Liberia.
All three healthcare workers recovered. The diagnosed patient died in October 2014.
In March 2016, the WHO terminated the public health emergency for the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
Probability of Future Occurrence
It is impossible to predict when a pandemic will occur or what its impact will be. The CDC continually
monitors and assesses pandemic threats and prepares for an influenza pandemic. Novel influenza A viruses
with pandemic potential include Asian lineage avian influenza A (H5N1) and (H7N9) viruses. These viruses
have all been evaluated using the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT) to assess their potential pandemic
risk. Because the CDC cannot predict how severe a future pandemic will be, advance planning is needed at
the national, state, and local level; this planning is done through public health partnerships at the national,
state, and local level.
Today, a much larger percentage of the world’s population is clustered in cities, making them ideal breeding
grounds for epidemics. Additionally, the explosive growth in air travel means a virus could be spread around
the globe within hours. Under such conditions, there may be very little warning time. Most experts believe
we will have just one to six months between the time that a dangerous new influenza strain is identified and
the time that outbreaks begin to occur in the United States. Outbreaks are expected to occur simultaneously
throughout much of the nation, preventing shifts in human and material resources that normally occur with
other natural disasters. These and many other aspects make influenza pandemic unlike any other public
health emergency or community disaster.
Given the record of past events with known or possible impacts in Augusta-Richmond County or across the
State of Georgia, the probability of future occurrences is considered possible (between 1 and 10 percent
annual chance).
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 220
2021
Probability: 2 – Possible
Climate Change
According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the influences of climate change on infectious
disease include the threats of temperature extremes and precipitation changes and their connections to
insects. Climate and weather can also affect water and food quality in particular areas, with implications for
public health.
Higher temperatures and wetter conditions tend to increase mosquito and tick activity, leading to an
increased risk of zoonotic diseases. Mosquitos are known to carry diseases such as West Nile Virus (WNV),
La Crosse/California encephalitis, Jamestown Canyon virus, St. Louis encephalitis, and Eastern equine
encephalitis. Ticks are also well-known disease vectors, carrying pathogens such as Lyme disease,
anaplasmosis, Ehrlichiosis, Powassan virus, and Babesiosis.
The two major concerns associated with warmer and wetter conditions are that the mosquito species
already present and the diseases that they carry will become more prevalent, and that new species carrying
unfamiliar diseases will start to appear for the first time. Warmer winters with fewer hard freezes in areas
that already see WNV-carrying mosquitos are likely to observe both a higher incidence of WNV and a longer
WNV season, ultimately leading to an increase in human cases. Non-native mosquito species may move
into the region if the climate becomes more suitable for them, bringing with them diseases such as
Jamestown Canyon virus, Chikungunya, and Dengue Fever.
If these predictions come true, communities must contend with the human health impacts related to the
increased prevalence of infectious diseases. Public health officials will need to focus on spreading
information and enacting pest and disease reduction.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public Exposure to emerging diseases will vary based on the type of threat and its potential
transmission routes. Vaccinations are the best means of preventing transmission and
infection. Public health information will be disseminated via the media to provide other
preventive measures to limit or avoid exposure.
Responders Responders can expect an increase in workload and should practice a higher level of
precaution toward exposure.
Continuity of
Operations
(including
Continued Delivery
of Services)
Continuity of operations may be impacted if individuals in key roles are unable to perform
their normal duties. Plans are in place to coordinate response and maintain operations, but a
large-scale event could still interrupt normal operations.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
No direct impacts are expected to the built environment. Hospitals and emergency services
would likely see increased demand.
Environment Impacts will depend on the particular disease vector and whether the disease is transmittable
to animal or plant life, or if it can be distributed through the water or food supply.
Economic
Condition of the
Jurisdiction
Local economy and finances may be adversely affected, possibly for an extended period of
time, especially if shutdowns are required directly by the government or indirectly as a result
of employee absence. Large scale events may need to be cancelled if an outbreak is large
enough or has the potential to spread quickly and easily.
Public Confidence
in the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
Public confidence in government and nongovernmental organizations may be impacted. The
level of confidence the public possesses is based upon societal expectations, media influence,
and past experience following other outbreaks. An effective response to the outbreak can
help to guide public confidence toward a favorable level. Collaboration with media outlets
can also assist in keeping the public informed and helping to protect them from exposure.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 221
2021
Vulnerability Assessment
People
Disease spread and mortality is affected by a variety of factors, including virulence, ease of spread,
aggressiveness of the virus and its symptoms, resistance to known antibiotics and environmental factors.
While every pathogen is different, diseases normally have the highest mortality rate among the very young,
the elderly or those with compromised immune systems. As an example, the unusually deadly 1918 H1N1
influenza pandemic had a mortality rate of 20%. If an influenza pandemic does occur, it is likely that many
age groups would be seriously affected. The greatest risks of hospitalization and death—as seen during the
pandemics in 1957 and 1968 as well as during annual outbreaks of influenza—will be to infants, the elderly,
and those with underlying health conditions. The recent COVID-19 pandemic also posed greater risk to the
elderly and those with underlying health conditions. However, in the 1918 pandemic, most deaths occurred
in young adults. Few people, if any, would have immunity to a new virus.
Approximately twenty percent of people exposed to West Nile Virus through a mosquito bite develop
symptoms related to the virus; it is not transmissible from one person to another. Preventive steps can be
taken to reduce exposure to mosquitos carrying the virus; these include insect repellent, covering exposed
skin with clothing and avoiding the outdoors during twilight periods of dawn and dusk, or in the evening
when the mosquitos are most active.
Property
For the most part, property itself would not be impacted by an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic.
However, as concerns about contamination increase, property may be quarantined or destroyed as a
precaution against spreading illness. Furthermore, staffing shortages could affect the function of critical
facilities.
Environment
A widespread pandemic would not have an impact on the natural environment unless the disease was
transmissible between humans and animals. However, affected areas could result in denial or delays in the
use of some areas, and may require remediation.
Changes in Development
No changes in development are expected that would significantly affect the incidence of pandemic.
Key Issues
• Infectious disease response may require substantial coordination across jurisdictions and levels of
government.
• Vaccination is considered the best method to prevent disease and/or protect against infection.
Large-scale vaccination efforts will require public education and awareness campaigns in addition
to significant coordination to acquire and administer vaccines.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes pandemic risk by jurisdiction. Pandemic hazard risk does not vary
substantially by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 2 3 4 1 4 2.8 M
Blythe 2 3 4 1 4 2.8 M
Hephzibah 2 3 4 1 4 2.8 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 222
2021
Nuclear Power Plant Incident
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Radiological Incident Unlikely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 week 2.6
Hazard Background
A nuclear or radiological incident is an occurrence resulting in the release of radiological material. Often,
this type of incident results from damage to the reactor of a nuclear power plant. The release could affect
the natural environment as well as the health and safety of anyone in its path.
Radiological emergencies at nuclear power plants are divided into classifications. Table 5.80 shows these
classifications, as well as descriptions of each.
Table 5.80 – Radiological Emergency Classifications
Emergency
Classification Description
Notification of Unusual
Event (NOUE)
Events are in progress or have occurred which indicate a potential degradation of the level
of safety of the plant or indicate a security threat to facility protection has been initiated.
No releases of radioactive material requiring offsite response or monitoring are expected
unless further degradation of safety systems occurs.
Alert Events are in progress or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial
degradation of the level of safety of the plant or a security event that involves probable
life-threatening risk to site personnel or damage to site equipment because of hostile
action. Any releases are expected to be limited to small fractions of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs)
Site Area Emergency
(SAE)
Events are in progress or have occurred which involve actual or likely major failures of
plant functions needed for protection of the public or hostile action that results in
intentional damage or malicious acts; 1) toward site personnel or equipment that could
lead to the likely failure of, or; 2) that prevent effective access to, equipment needed for
the protection of the public. Any releases are not expected to result in exposure levels
which exceed EPA PAG exposure levels beyond the site boundary.
General Emergency Events are in progress or have occurred which involve actual or imminent substantial core
degradation or melting with potential for loss of containment integrity or hostile action
that results in an actual loss of physical control of the facility. Releases can be reasonably
expected to exceed EPA PAG exposure levels offsite for more than the immediate site area.
Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear incidents are a rare occurrence. Many incidents are well known due to their large-scale impacts and
serious effects on people and the environment, but these incidents are not common. Nuclear incidents can
occur with very little warning. If radiation does leave a nuclear power plant site, the impacts may last years.
Warning Time: 4 – Less than 6 hours
Duration: 4 – More than one week
Location
Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, which is the plant located closest to Augusta-Richmond County, is a 3,626-
megawatt power plant that began commercial operation in 1987. It has pressurized water reactors and
operates with a very high level of security.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear plants:
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 223
2021
• Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) – The EPZ is a 10-mile radius around nuclear facilities. It is also
known as the Plume Exposure Pathway. Areas located within this zone are at highest risk of
exposure to or inhalation of radioactive materials. Within this zone, the primary concern is
exposure to and inhalation of radioactive contamination. Predetermined action plans within the
EPZ are designed to avoid or reduce dose from such exposure. This is the designated evacuation
radius recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and residents within this zone
would be expected to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Other actions, such as sheltering
and the use of potassium-iodide, must be taken to avoid or reduce exposure in the event of a
nuclear incident.
• Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ) – The IPZ is delineated by a 50-mile radius around nuclear
facilities as defined by the federal government. Also known as the Ingestion Exposure Pathway,
the IPZ has been designated to mitigate contamination in the human food chain resulting from a
radiological accident at a nuclear power facility. Contamination to fresh produce, water supplies,
and other food produce may occur when radionuclides are deposited on surfaces.
Figure 5.52 shows the location of Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant with the EPZ and IPZ. All of Augusta-Richmond
County is within the plant’s IPZ. However, the southeastern portion of the county is located within the EPZ
and is at highest risk to a nuclear incident.
Spatial Extent: 3 – Moderate
SE
C
T
I
O
N
5
:
H
A
Z
A
R
D
R
I
S
K
&
V
U
L
N
E
R
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
22
4
20
2
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
.
5
2
–
V
o
g
t
l
e
N
u
c
l
e
a
r
P
o
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
.
S
.
N
u
c
l
e
a
r
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 225
2021
Extent
The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) developed the International Nuclear and Radiological
Event Scale to quantify the magnitude of radiological events. This scale is logarithmic, meaning each
increasing level represents a 10-fold increase in severity compared to the previous level.
Source: International Atomic Energy Association
Impact: 3 – Critical
Historical Occurrences
Though there have been incidences of nuclear reactor failures around the country, particularly at nuclear
power plants, there have been no such occurrences at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. There have been several
smaller scale notifiable events, as summarized in Table 5.81.
Table 5.81 – Notifiable Events at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, 1989-2020
Date Retrieved From Classification Plant Description
1/19/1989 Licensee Event Report
Notification of
Unusual Event Vogtle Unit 1 Reactor coolant pressure boundary
leakage leads to unit shutdown
3/9/1989 Licensee Event Report
Notification of
Unusual Event Vogtle Unit 1 Reactor coolant system leakage
during check valve testing
3/20/1990 Licensee Event Report
Site Area
Emergency Vogtle Unit 1 Loss of offsite power leads to site
area emergency
5/14/1992 Licensee Event Report
Notification of
Unusual Event Vogtle Unit 1 Reactor shutdown due to excessive
unidentified leakage
4/18/1993 Licensee Event Report
Notification of
Unusual Event Vogtle Unit 1 Safety injection initiated during slave
relay testing
8/8/2003 Preliminary
Notification Reports N/A Vogtle Unit 2
Shutdown to investigate and repair
mechanical seal leak on reactor vessel
head
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 226
2021
Date Retrieved From Classification Plant Description
5/24/2005 Preliminary
Notification Reports N/A Vogtle Unit 2 Shutdown to repair condenser tube(s)
leak
12/12/2005 Preliminary
Notification Reports N/A Vogtle Unit 2 Shutdown to repair RHR pipe leak
12/19/2005 Preliminary
Notification Reports N/A Vogtle Unit 2
Shutdown to repair residual heat
removal pipe leak
3/9/2007 Preliminary
Notification Reports
Notification of
Unusual Event Vogtle Unit 2 Reactor coolant system leakage in
excess of 10 gallons per minute
4/25/2007 Preliminary
Notification Reports N/A Vogtle Unit 2 Automatic reactor trip/plant
shutdown greater than 72 hours
Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Note: Preliminary NotificationReports (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/prelim-notice/): These are
brief descriptions, generated by NRC regions when needed, of matters that are of significant safety or safeguards concern or have
high public interest. PNs are used to promptly inform the Commissioners and others in NRC and Agreement States with new and
current information.
Licensee Event Reports (https://lersearch.inl.gov/Entry.aspx): Commercial nuclear reactor licensees are required to report
certain event information per 10 CFR 50.73.
Probability of Future Occurrence
Radiological hazards are highly unpredictable. Nuclear reactors present the possibility of catastrophic
damages, yet the operation of nuclear power plants is highly regulated and historical precedence suggests
an incident is unlikely.
Probability: 1 – Unlikely
Climate Change
Climate change is not expected to have any impact on a potential nuclear power plant incident.
Consequence Analysis
Category Consequences
Public High levels of radiation could cause serious illness or death. Those living and working
closest to the nuclear plant would face the greatest risk of exposure to radiation, which
can cause acute and chronic health risks. Most of the public would be at risk through
ingestion of contaminated crops, livestock, water, and other products which can cause
internal contamination if ionizing radiation is released in the body.
Responders Responders face potential for heightened exposure to radiation, which could cause severe
chronic illness and death. Responders will need to operate in personal protective
equipment and limit their outdoor exposure. Proper decontamination would be necessary.
Continuity of
Operations (including
Continued Delivery of
Services)
An incident at the nuclear plant could interrupt power generation and cause power
shortages. However, regular operations would not likely be affected.
Property, Facilities
and Infrastructure
The plant itself could be damaged by a radiological incident. Nearby property and facilities
could be affected by contamination. Buildings and infrastructure in the IPZ would not likely
be affected. Checkpoints may be set up on highways and airports to monitor contamination.
Environment Water supplies, food crops, and livestock within 50 miles of the nuclear plant could be
contaminated by radioactive material in the event of a major incident.
Economic Condition
of the Jurisdiction
The local economy could be affected if a radiological incident caused contamination of
nearby areas. Property values and economic activity could decline as a result. EPZ areas
could be evacuated and locked down. Travel and visitation within the IPZ may be limited
to prevent spread of contamination.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 227
2021
Category Consequences
Public Confidence in
the Jurisdiction’s
Governance
A radiological incident would likely cause severe loss of public confidence given that the
hazard is human-caused and highly regulated. The public will be extremely concerned
about their health and safety. Public confidence can also be affected by false alarms.
Vulnerability Assessment
People
People within the 10-mile EPZ are at risk of direct exposure to radioactive material. People within the 50-
mile EPZ are at risk of exposure through ingestion of contaminated food and water. Low levels of radiation
are not considered harmful, but a high exposure to radiation can cause serious illness or death.
People within the 50-mile IPZ are at risk of exposure through ingestion of contaminated food and water.
Low levels of radiation are not considered harmful, but a high exposure to radiation can cause serious illness
or death.
Property
A radiological incident could cause severe damage to the nuclear plant itself but would not cause direct
property damage outside the station, especially with the distance between the reactor and the planning
area. However, property values could drop substantially if a radiological incident resulted in contamination
of nearby areas.
Environment
A radiological incident could result in the spread of radioactive material into the environment, which could
contaminate water and food sources and harm animal and plant life. These impacts are lessened the further
an area is from the plant site.
Changes in Development
Increased development will not increase the detrimental impacts of a radiological impact. However,
increased development in close proximity to radiological sites will increase exposure in the event of an
incident.
Key Issues
• Southeastern Augusta-Richmond County is within the 10-mile radius of Vogtle Nuclear Power
Plant. In the event of an incident, the population in this area would be most at risk. The entire
planning area is within a 50-mile radius of the power plant – impacting food and water supplies.
Hazard Summary by Jurisdiction
The following table summarizes nuclear power plant incident risk by jurisdiction. Impact will vary based on
distance from the power plant, with impacts most severe in the EPZ and lessening with distance in the IPZ.
Catastrophic impacts could occur within the EPZ, which includes a portion of southeastern Augusta-
Richmond County.
Jurisdiction Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Priority
Augusta 1 4 3 4 4 2.9 M
Blythe 1 3 3 4 4 2.6 M
Hephzibah 1 3 3 4 4 2.6 M
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 228
2021
Conclusions on Hazard Risk
Priority Risk Index
As discussed in Section 5.2, the Priority Risk Index was used to rate each hazard on a set of risk criteria and
determine an overall standardized score for each hazard. The conclusions drawn from this process are
summarized below.
Table 5.82 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each identified hazard using the PRI method.
Table 5.82 – Summary of PRI Results
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Natural Hazards
Dam/Levee Failure Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.6
Drought Highly Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 3.1
Earthquake Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.0
Extreme Heat Highly Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 3.3
Flood Highly Likely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours Less than 1 week 3.3
Hurricane Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Severe Weather (Hail)1 Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.4
Severe Weather (Lightning)1 Highly Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.2
Severe Winter Weather Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.7
Tornado Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Wildfire Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 2.8
Windstorm/Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Technological & Human-Caused Hazards
Chemical Hazard Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 3.1
Cyberterrorism Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.4
Infectious Disease Possible Critical Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 2.8
Nuclear Power Plant Incident Unlikely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours More than 1 week 2.6
1Note: Severe Weather hazards average to a score of 2.5 and are therefore considered together as a moderate-risk hazard.
The results from the PRI have been classified into three categories based on the assigned risk value which
are summarized in Table 5.83:
•High Risk – Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread.
•Moderate Risk – Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and
less costly than a more widespread disaster.
•Low Risk – Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and
property is minimal. This is not a priority hazard.
SECTION 5: HAZARD RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 229
2021
Table 5.83 – Summary of Hazard Risk Classification
High Risk
( 3.0)
Extreme Heat
Flood
Drought
Chemical Hazard
Moderate Risk
(2.0 – 2.9)
Tornado
Hurricane/Tropical Storm
Infectious Disease
Wildfire
Severe Winter Weather
Cyberterrorism
Windstorm/Thunderstorm
Dam/Levee Failure
Nuclear Power Plant Incident
Severe Weather
Earthquake
Low Risk
(< 2.0) n/a
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 230
2021
6 Capability Assessment
This section discusses the capability of the Augusta-Richmond County planning area to implement hazard
mitigation activities. It consists of the following subsections:
6.1 Overview
6.2 Capability Assessment Findings
6.3 Conclusions on Local Capability
Table 6.1 – Section 6 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 7 – Capability Assessment Section 6 – Capability Assessment
7.1 What is a Capability Assessment? 6.1 Overview – This section provides an overview of the capability
assessment and describes how the capability assessment was
conducted. A qualitative evaluation methodology was used in place of
the previous scoring system.
7.2 Conducting the Capability
Assessment
7.3 Capability Assessment Findings 6.2 Capability Assessment Findings – This section was updated to
catalogue current existing capabilities of the County and incorporated
jurisdictions.
7.4 Conclusions on Local Capability 6.3 Conclusions on Local Capability – This section was updated to
summarize key findings and identify gaps and areas for improvement
across all jurisdictions.
Overview
The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to
implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or
enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs, or projects. As in any planning process, it is important to
try to establish which goals, objectives, and actions are feasible, based on an understanding of the
organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability
assessment helps to determine which mitigation actions are practical and likely to be implemented over
time given a local government’s planning and regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical
support, amount of fiscal resources, and current political climate.
The capability assessment completed for the Augusta-Richmond County planning area serves as a critical
planning step toward developing an effective mitigation strategy. Coupled with the risk assessment, the
capability assessment helps identify and target effective goals, objectives, and mitigation actions that are
realistically achievable under given local conditions.
To facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities within the planning area, a detailed
Data Collection Guide worksheet was distributed to members of the HMPC after the first planning
committee meeting. The worksheet requested information on a variety of “capability indicators” such as
existing local plans, policies, programs, or ordinances that contribute to and/or hinder the region’s ability
to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators included information related to the region’s fiscal,
administrative, and technical capabilities, such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for
mitigation purposes, and existing education and outreach programs that can be used to promote
mitigation. Communities were also asked to comment on the current political climate with respect to hazard
mitigation, an important consideration for any local planning or decision-making process.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 231
2021
In addition to requesting HMPC input, the planning team reexamined data from the 2017 plan and
conducted a review of plans, policies, and ordinances in order to identify changes in capability over the past
five years.
At a minimum, the capability assessment findings provide an extensive and consolidated inventory of
existing local plans, ordinances, programs, and resources in place or under development. With this
information, inferences can be made about the overall effect on hazard loss reduction in each community.
Capability Assessment Findings
The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this plan to provide insight into the relevant
capacity of Augusta-Richmond County and its incorporated municipalities to implement hazard mitigation
activities. Information is based upon input provided by community representatives on the HMPC as well as
research conducted by the planning consultant.
6.2.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability
Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances, and programs that
demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development, and
redevelopment in a responsible manner, while maintaining the general welfare of the community. It
includes emergency response and mitigation planning, comprehensive land use planning, and
transportation planning. Regulatory capability also includes the enforcement of zoning or subdivision
ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built, as well as
protecting environmental, historic, and cultural resources in the community. Although some conflicts can
arise, these planning initiatives generally present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation
principles and practices into the local decision-making process.
This assessment provides a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools or programs in place
or under development for the Augusta-Richmond County planning area. This information will help identify
opportunities to address gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts with other initiatives and integrate the
implementation of this plan with existing planning mechanisms where appropriate.
Table 6.2 summarizes the relevant local plans, ordinances, and programs already in place or under
development for the Augusta-Richmond County planning area. A checkmark () indicates that the given
item is currently in place and being implemented. An asterisk (*) indicates that the given item is currently
being developed for future implementation. A plus sign (+) indicates that a jurisdiction is covered for that
item under a version implemented by Augusta-Richmond County. Each of these local plans, ordinances,
and programs should be considered available mechanisms for incorporating the requirements of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Table 6.2 – Relevant Plans, Ordinances, and Programs
Hazard Mitigation Plan ++
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Floodplain Ordinance
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control ordinance
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 232
2021
Au
g
u
s
t
a
Bl
y
t
h
e
He
p
h
z
i
b
a
h
Other Special Purpose Ordinance (stormwater, growth management, wildfire)
Building Code
Fire department ISO Rating 1
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Rating 4/4
Stormwater Management Program
Site Plan Review Requirements
Capital Improvements Plan
Economic Development Plan
Local Emergency Operations Plan + +
Flood Insurance Study or Other Engineering Study for Streams
Other Special Plans
Elevation Certificates
Additional planning tools in the County include the City of Augusta Tree Ordinance, which aims to enforce
a minimum amount of tree canopy coverage on all new development sites. Tree coverage has a range of
environmental and heat mitigation benefits. Another special purpose ordinance in place within the county
is the Groundwater Recharge Protection Ordinance. Other city plans include a Greenspace Plan, Debris
Management Organization and Strategy Plan within the Emergency Operations Plan, a Downtown
Redevelopment Plan, and the Augusta Regional Transportation Study Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The
Debris Management Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan also include the cities of Blythe and
Hephzibah.
Based upon the results summarized in the above table, jurisdictions in Augusta-Richmond County have a
range of planning and regulatory capability. While Augusta-Richmond County and Hephzibah have
significant to moderate planning capability, respectively, the City of Blythe has limited capacity. All three
jurisdictions could improve by creating economic development plans that incorporate pre- and post-
disaster economic resilience and recovery strategies. Blythe and Hephzibah could consider working with
Augusta-Richmond County to expand and adopt existing ordinances and plans like the Tree Ordinance and
Greenspace Plan. Beyond the planning and regulatory tools listed above, communities in Augusta-
Richmond County could increase their resilience to hazards through developing local post-disaster recovery
plans.
A more detailed discussion on planning and regulatory tools and capability follows.
6.2.1.1 Plans and Ordinances
Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management.
Mitigation is interconnected with all other phases and is an essential component of effective preparedness,
response, and recovery. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are most
often implemented before a disaster event, such as through the elevation of flood-prone structures or by
regular enforcement of policies that regulate development. However, mitigation opportunities can also be
identified during immediate preparedness or response activities, such as installing storm shutters in advance
of a hurricane. Furthermore, incorporating mitigation during the long-term recovery and redevelopment
process following a disaster event is what enables a community to become more resilient.
The implementation of hazard mitigation activities also often involves agencies and individuals beyond the
emergency management profession. Stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials,
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 233
2021
economic development specialists, and others. In many instances, concurrent local planning efforts will help
to achieve or complement hazard mitigation goals, even though they may not be designed as such.
The following list defines some of the different plans and ordinances available to Augusta-Richmond County
and its incorporated jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
A hazard mitigation plan is a community’s blueprint for how it intends to reduce the impact of natural, and
in some cases human-caused, hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a
hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment, and mitigation strategy.
All participating jurisdictions in this multi-jurisdictional planning effort have previously been covered by the
2017 Augusta-Richmond County Hazard Mitigation Plan and continue to be covered under this update –
making each community eligible for the associated hazard mitigation funding mechanisms.
Comprehensive/Land Use Plan
A comprehensive land use plan, or general plan, establishes the overall vision for what a community wants
to be and serves as a guide for future governmental decision making. Typically, a comprehensive plan
contains sections on demographic conditions, land use, transportation elements, and community facilities.
Given the broad nature of the plan and its regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of
hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can enhance the likelihood of achieving risk
reduction goals, objectives, and actions. Both Blythe and Hephzibah have their own comprehensive plans
and land use mapping in place. Regular updates of comprehensive plans are important for guiding the
growth and development of a community. The County plan and both jurisdictions’ plans were most recently
updated in 2018.
Zoning Ordinance
Zoning represents the primary means by which land use is controlled by local governments. As part of a
community’s police power, zoning is used to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of those in a
given jurisdiction that maintains zoning authority. A zoning ordinance is the mechanism through which
zoning is typically implemented. Since zoning regulations enable municipal governments to limit the type
and density of development, a zoning ordinance can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified
hazard areas. All participating jurisdictions have a zoning ordinance in place.
Subdivision Ordinance
A subdivision ordinance is intended to regulate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, or
other uses, including associated public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or
future development. Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the
exposure of future development. All participating jurisdictions have a subdivision ordinance in place.
Building Codes, Permitting, and Inspections
Building codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits and inspections are required
for new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that account for hazard risk), the
type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of inspection
protocols all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community. All of the jurisdictions have a building
code in place based on the International Building Code. Augusta-Richmond County, City of St. Hephzibah,
and Town of Blythe employ the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code
(IRC) among other codes.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 234
2021
The Georgia Department of Community Affairs states that local jurisdictions may adopt their own local
codes; however, in order to enforce it, the proposed amendment must have been submitted to the
Department of Community Affairs for review.
The adoption and enforcement of building codes by local jurisdictions is routinely assessed through the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) program, developed by the Insurance Services
Office, Inc. (ISO). The results of BCEGS assessments are routinely provided to ISO’s member private
insurance companies, which in turn may offer ratings credits for new buildings constructed in communities
with strong BCEGS classifications. The expectation is that communities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes
should experience fewer disaster-related losses, and as a result should have lower insurance rates.
Capital Improvements Plan
A capital improvements plan guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A capital
improvements plan can serve as an important mechanism for guiding future development away from
identified hazard areas. Limiting public spending in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term
mitigation actions available to local governments. Capital improvement plans can also address problems
within hazardous areas; for example, a jurisdiction might obligate money to address site-specific drainage
related problems. The Augusta-Richmond County Utilities Department maintains a capital improvement
plan as does the Augusta Regional Airport. The Augusta-Richmond County comprehensive plan also
provides guidance on capital improvement projects. The City of Hephzibah also has a capital improvement
plan.
Emergency Operations Plan
An emergency operations plan outlines the responsibilities of different departments and how resources will
be deployed during and following an emergency or disaster. Augusta-Richmond County maintains an
emergency operations plan through the city-county Emergency Management Agency. This plan includes
Blythe and Hephzibah. The City of Blythe has also adopted a municipal-level emergency operations plan
and the City of Hephzibah is in the process of developing one.
The Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Operations Plan also establishes and emergency support
function (ESF) for long-term recovery and mitigation which enacts post-disaster mitigation policies and
procedures. The purpose of these procedures is to support municipal governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and private sector entities in enabling post-disaster mitigation and recovery. The following
activities will be undertaken to support post-disaster mitigation and recovery in Augusta-Richmond County:
1. Preparedness
a. Develop systems to use predictive modeling to determine vulnerable critical facilities as a basis
for identifying recovery activities.
b. Review County Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify vulnerable facilities.
c. Analyze and evaluate long-term damage assessment data.
d. Ensure all ESF 14 personnel integrate NIMS principles in all planning.
2. Response
a. Use predictive modeling to determine vulnerable critical facilities as a basis for identifying
recovery activities.
3. Recovery
a. Analyze/evaluate long-term damage assessment data.
b. In coordination with the state government, assign staff to identify and document economic
impact and losses avoided due to previous mitigation and new priorities for mitigation in
affected areas.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 235
2021
c. Review the County Hazard Mitigation Plan for affected areas to identify potential mitigation
projects.
4. Mitigation
a. Support requests and directives resulting from the state and/or federal government concerning
mitigation and/or re-development activities.
b. Document matters that may be needed for inclusion in agency or state/federal briefings,
situation reports and action plans.
The following additional operations procedures are established:
1. This ESF will assess the social and economic consequences in the impacted area and coordinate
efforts to address long-term community recovery issues resulting from a disaster or emergency.
2. Advise on the long-term recovery implications of response activities and coordinate the transition
from response to recovery in field operations.
3. Work with municipal governments; non-governmental organizations; and private-sector
organizations to conduct comprehensive market disruption and loss analysis and develop a
comprehensive long-term recovery plan for the community.
4. Identify appropriate State and Federal programs and agencies to support implementation of the
long-term community recovery plan, ensure coordination, and identify gaps in resources available.
5. Determine/identify responsibilities for recovery activities, and provide a vehicle to maintain
continuity in program delivery among departments and agencies, and with municipal governments
and other involved parties, to ensure follow-through of recovery and hazard mitigation efforts.
6. Develops coordination mechanisms and requirements for post-incident assessments, plans, and
activities that can be scaled to incidents of varying types and magnitudes.
7. Establishes procedures for integration of pre-incident planning and risk assessment with post-
incident recovery and mitigation efforts.
8. Facilitates recovery decision making across ESFs. Also facilitates awareness of post incident digital
mapping and pre-incident County and municipal hazard mitigation and recovery planning across
ESFs.
Stormwater Management Plan
A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater runoff. The
stormwater management plan is typically focused on design and construction measures that are intended
to reduce the impact of more frequently occurring minor urban flooding. All jurisdictions have adopted a
stormwater management ordinance.
6.2.1.2 Floodplain Management
Flooding represents the greatest natural hazard facing the nation, yet the tools available to reduce the
impacts associated with flooding are among the most developed when compared to other hazard-specific
mitigation techniques. In addition to approaches that cut across hazards such as education, outreach, and
the training of local officials, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) contains specific regulatory
measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to flood
hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary for local governments; however, program participation is
strongly encouraged by FEMA as a first step for implementing and sustaining an effective hazard mitigation
program. It is therefore used as part of this capability assessment as a key indicator for measuring local
capability.
In order for a county or municipality to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt a local flood damage
prevention ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the
floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 236
2021
buildings be protected from damage by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood event, and that new development
in the floodplain not exacerbate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.
A key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once completed, the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices,
and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are an important source of information to educate residents,
government officials, and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community.
Table 6.3 provides NFIP policy and claim information for each participating jurisdiction in the Augusta-
Richmond County planning area.
Augusta-Richmond County and the City of Hephzibah participate in the NFIP and will continue to comply
with all required provisions of the program. The City of Blythe is not a participant in the NFIP because 99.9
percent of the City is outside the SFHA in the unshaded Zone X. Floodplain management is managed
through Augusta’s Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, zoning ordinances, building code restrictions, and the
county and municipal building inspection programs. The jurisdictions will coordinate with GEMA and FEMA
to develop maps and regulations related to Special Flood Hazard Areas within their jurisdictional boundaries
and, through a consistent monitoring process, will design and improve their floodplain management
program in a way that reduces the risk of flooding to people and property.
Community Rating System
An additional indicator of floodplain management capability is active participation in the Community Rating
System (CRS). The CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages communities to undertake defined
flood mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Each of the CRS
mitigation activities is assigned a point value. As a community earns points and reaches identified
thresholds, they can apply for an improved CRS class. Class ratings, which range from 9 to 1 and increase
on 500-point increments, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions. Every class improvement earns
an additional 5 percent discount for NFIP policyholders, with a starting discount of 5 percent for Class 9
communities and a maximum possible discount of 45 percent for Class 1 communities.
Community participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules
and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS
application process has been greatly simplified over the past several years, based on community comments
intended to make the CRS more user friendly, and extensive technical assistance available for communities
who request it. Augusta-Richmond County participates in the CRS. Table 6.3 also includes Augusta-
Richmond County’s CRS entry date and current CRS class.
Table 6.3 – NFIP Policy and Claim Information
Jurisdiction
Initial
FIRM
Date
CRS
Entry
CRS
Class
Current
Effective
Map
Date
NFIP
Policies
in Force
Insurance in
Force
Written
Premium
in Force
Closed
Losses
Total
Payments
Augusta-
Richmond County 03/4/80* 2018 7 11/15/19 809 $203,293,900 $499,361 396 $3,198,498.93
Hephzibah 06/25/76 - - 11/15/19 4 $1,252,000 $4,774 0 $0
Blythe - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - -813 $204,545,900 $504,135 396 $3,198,498.93
Source: FEMA NFIP Policy Statistics via FEMA CIS, June 2021
Note: City of Augusta joined NFIP in 1978 before city-county consolidation
The City of Blythe does not participate in the NFIP because of limited flood exposure.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 237
2021
6.2.2 Administrative and Technical Capability
The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies, and programs is
directly tied to its ability to direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability can
be evaluated by determining how mitigation-related activities are assigned to local departments and if there
are adequate personnel resources to complete these activities. The degree of intergovernmental
coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability for the implementation and
success of proposed mitigation activities.
Technical capability can generally be evaluated by assessing the level of knowledge and technical expertise
of local government employees, such as personnel skilled in using geographic information systems (GIS) to
analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability. The Local Capability Self-Assessment was used to
capture information on administrative and technical capability through the identification of available staff
and personnel resources.
Table 6.4 provides a summary of the Local Capability Self-Assessment results for the region regarding
relevant staff and personnel resources. A checkmark () indicates the presence of a staff member(s) in that
jurisdiction with the specified knowledge or skill, an asterisk (*) indicates an Augusta-Richmond County staff
member or resource provides the specified knowledge, skill, or data for the jurisdiction.
Note that in multiple instances, one individual staff member fills multiple roles listed below. In these cases,
these individuals may be overburdened during emergency events, disaster recovery, or planning process
updates. Certain communities might contract out services where there is no in-house capacity. Specific areas
for improvement might include employing additional planners with specific understanding of natural
hazards and land use practices to mitigate the impacts of hazards as well as expanding individual
communities’ GIS capabilities and databases to identify hazard prone areas and build community-specific,
detailed risk and vulnerability assessments.
Table 6.4 – Relevant Staff/Personnel/Data Resources
Au
g
u
s
t
a
Bl
y
t
h
e
He
p
h
z
i
b
a
h
Planner/Engineer with knowledge of land development/land management practices
Engineer/Professional trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Planner/Engineer with an understanding of natural hazards
Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community
Floodplain Manager
Emergency Manager
Personnel skilled in GIS
Land Surveyor
Grant Writer
Public Information Officer
Warning Systems
GIS data: flood zones/hazard areas * *
GIS data: critical facilities * *
GIS data: current and/or future land use
GIS data: building footprints * *
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 238
2021
6.2.3 Fiscal Capability
The ability of a local government to implement mitigation actions is often dependent on the amount of
money available. This may take the form of outside grant funding awards or locally based revenue and
financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some
cases, policies are tied primarily to staff time or administrative costs associated with the creation and
monitoring of a given program. In other cases, direct expenses are linked to an actual project such as the
acquisition of flood-prone houses, which can require a substantial commitment from local, state, and federal
funding sources.
The information collected from jurisdictions was used to capture information on fiscal capability through
the identification of locally available financial resources.
Table 6.5 provides a summary of the results for the planning area with regard to relevant fiscal resources. A
checkmark () indicates that the given fiscal resource has been previously used for hazard mitigation
purposes. A plus sign (+) indicates that the given fiscal resource is locally available for hazard mitigation
purposes (including match funds for state and federal mitigation grant funds). Jurisdictions with limited
fiscal capability should seek opportunities to hire grant writers or resource development staff, create local
funding sources such as stormwater utility fees, or seek alternate funding sources.
Table 6.5 – Relevant Fiscal Resources
Au
g
u
s
t
a
Bl
y
t
h
e
He
p
h
z
i
b
a
h
Community Development Block Grants
Capital Improvement Programming +
Special Purpose Taxes (or taxing districts) +
Water or sewer fees
Gas or electric utility fees
Stormwater utility fees
Development impact fees +
General obligation, revenue, and/or special tax bonds + +
Intergovernmental agreements or partnering arrangements + +
Withhold spending in hazard prone areas
Other general fund revenue
6.2.4 Education and Outreach Capability
This type of local capability refers to education and outreach programs and methods already in place that
could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Examples
include natural disaster or safety related school programs; participation in community programs such as
Firewise or StormReady; and activities conducted as part of hazard awareness campaigns such as a Severe
Weather Awareness Month. The following is a brief list of education and information programs within each
community:
• Augusta-Richmond County: Participates in StormReady Program; CodeRed emergency
notification program; Information and links about flood insurance, flood safety, property
protection, and more is posted on Augusta’s website and social media; Outreach efforts include
CRS outreach events and ongoing social media information and campaigns related to hazards.
• Blythe: Has a City website that could be expanded to with links to Augusta’s website or other
information on hazard risk and mitigation.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 239
2021
•Hephzibah:No City website; online presence through Hephzibah City Hall Facebook page, which
has been used to share Augusta EMA announcements and promote emergency notification sign
ups
Although this is not an exhaustive list, Augusta and incorporated jurisdictions have hazard and non-hazard
related educational and outreach capacity. The communities can further capitalize on their existing
capabilities, like school partnerships and non-profit agency relationships, and build new capability to
educate the larger community on hazard risk and mitigation options.
6.2.5 Political Capability
One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact
meaningful policies and projects designed to reduce the impact of future hazard events. Hazard mitigation
may not be a local priority, or it may conflict with or be seen as an impediment to other goals of the
community, such as growth and economic development. Therefore, the local political climate must be
considered in designing mitigation strategies, as it could be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in
accomplishing their adoption and implementation.
The current and future political climate for supporting and advancing future hazard mitigation strategies is
moderate in Augusta-Richmond County, the City of Blythe, and the City of Hephzibah. There are several
existing ordinances that address natural hazards or are related to hazard mitigation such as flood damage
prevention, soil erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, zoning, and subdivision.
Table 6.6 below summarizes the different government structures in each jurisdiction.
Table 6.6 – Jurisdictional Government Structure
Jurisdiction Government Structure
Augusta-Richmond County Mayor and a 10-member Board of Commissioners, elected by district
City of Blythe Mayor and 4-member City Council
City of Hephzibah 4-member Board of Commissioners and a Chairman
Conclusions on Local Capability
As previously discussed, one of the reasons for conducting a capability assessment is to examine local
capabilities to detect any existing gaps or weaknesses within ongoing government activities that could
hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. The
participating jurisdictions can use this capability assessment as part of the basis for new mitigation actions
to expand on and improve existing capabilities.
The overall capability to implement hazard mitigation actions varies among the participating jurisdictions.
Both Blythe and Hephzibah have limited fiscal capability while Augusta-Richmond County has more funding
resources available. For planning and regulatory capability, the jurisdictions range from limited to moderate
to high. A strength across all jurisdictions is the presence of recently updated comprehensive plans.
Similarly, all jurisdictions maintain a zoning and subdivision ordinance. However, in its comprehensive plan,
the City of Blythe notes it would like to update its zoning ordinance. It is recommended that the City update
its zoning ordinance to better match the goals outlined in its comprehensive plan. It is also recommended
that each jurisdiction consider how their existing plans and ordinances align with the goals and strategies
outlined in this Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, Augusta-Richmond County’s economic development,
redevelopment, and greenspace plans can strengthen the communities’ ability to prepare for and recover
from hazard events.
SECTION 6: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 240
2021
There is also some variation in the administrative and technical capability among the jurisdictions with
Augusta-Richmond County having greater staff and technical resources. Hepzibah has limited
administrative and technical capability, while Blythe has next to none. If possible, the smaller jurisdictions
might contract out services where there is no in-house capacity. For example, the jurisdictions could
outsource planners with specific understanding of natural hazards and land use practices to mitigate the
impacts of hazards.
Education and outreach capability is moderate for each jurisdiction, with most resources accessible on
Augusta-Richmond County’s website. Blythe and Hephzibah could create their own websites for community
specific information and direct residents to information listed on Augusta’s website. All three communities
can further increase their existing capabilities by forming school partnerships and find opportunities to
educate the larger community on hazard risk and mitigation options. Additional outreach strategies include
sharing information via radio programs and TV ads and posting information in churches and community
centers. Further, jurisdictions can curate education and outreach opportunities for the communities’ most
vulnerable residents (elderly, people living alone, non-English speakers, renters, etc.).
The conclusions of the Risk Assessment and Capability Assessment serve as the foundation for the
development of a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. All jurisdictions are capable of implementing
hazard mitigation efforts to varying degrees, and while capability may vary, political capability exists for all
three jurisdictions. Participating communities may refer to this assessment to identify gaps and
opportunities to improve local capability to implement mitigation projects.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION STRATEGY
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 241
2021
7 Mitigation Strategy
This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the Augusta-Richmond
County Hazard Mitigation Plan. It describes how the participating jurisdictions met Step 6: Set Goals, Step
7: Review Possible Activities, and Step 8: Draft an Action Plan from the 10-step planning process. This section
contains the following subsections:
•7.1 Introduction
•7.2 Goals and Objectives
•7.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Activities
•7.4 Plan Update Requirement
Table 7.1 – Section 7 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 8 – Mitigation Strategy Section 7 – Mitigation Strategy
8.1 Introduction 7.1 Introduction – This section was carried forward with minor revisions.
Discussion of action prioritization was moved to Section 7.3.
8.2 Mitigation Goals 7.2 Mitigation Goals – This section was updated to reflect the update of the
plan goals.
8.3 Identification and Analysis of
Mitigation Techniques
7.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Activities – This section was
revised to review mitigation alternatives and the prioritization process used
to evaluate and compare alternatives. A more detailed review of mitigation
alternatives is provided in Appendix D.
8.4 Selection of Mitigation
Techniques for Augusta-
Richmond County
8.5 Plan Update Requirement 7.4 Plan Update Requirement – This section was updated to include a
summary of all completed and deleted actions since the previous plan
update.
Introduction
Section 5 documents the hazards that threaten Augusta-Richmond County and the associated vulnerability
of structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities. Section 6 summarizes the capabilities of the participating
jurisdictions to implement mitigation projects. Based on this understanding of risks, vulnerabilities, and
capability, the HMPC must identify feasible mitigation actions to reduce exposure, vulnerability, and overall
risk.
The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide Augusta-Richmond County with goals to serve as guiding
principles for mitigation policy and project administration as well as an analysis of mitigation techniques
available to meet those goals. It is designed to be comprehensive, in that it includes a thorough review of
all possible mitigation alternatives and achieves multiple local objectives, strategic, such that proposed
actions are consistent with long-term planning goals, and functional, in order to facilitate implementation
of the identified actions.
The first step in designing the mitigation strategy is the identification of mitigation goals, which represent
board statements of intent that are achievable through the implementation of more specific mitigation
actions.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s
blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities,
policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION STRATEGY
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 242
2021
The second step involves the identification and analysis of available mitigation measures that could achieve
the identified goals. While an alternatives analysis was conducted by the HMPC in the development of this
plan, continuous evaluation and consideration of alternatives is a process to be sustained through the
implementation and maintenance of this plan. Alternative mitigation measures will continue to be
considered as future capabilities change and opportunities arise.
The third and final step of the mitigation strategy is the selection and prioritization of mitigation actions for
the participating jurisdictions. Selected actions are detailed in the Mitigation Action Plan provided in Section
8.
Mitigation Goals
The intent of goal setting is to guide the review of possible mitigation actions by defining broad statements
of intended outcomes. Goals are general guidelines that explain what is to be achieved. They are usually
broad-based, long-term policy type statements that represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits
that the plan is trying to achieve.
7.2.1 Goal Setting
At the third planning meeting, held on September 9, 2021, the HMPC reviewed and discussed the goals
from the 2017 Plan. A key consideration in evaluating these goals was to ensure that the goals of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan align with other community planning efforts such as comprehensive and land use plans.
These documents are important guides for future growth within the community, so the HMPC should strive
to achieve consistency in the plans’ goals.
The existing goals from the 2017 plan are as follows:
1. Minimize the losses of life, property, and other economic losses in Augusta-Richmond County and
the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah due to natural and technological hazards.
2. Increase resilience of building stock, critical infrastructure, and essential facilities (including shelters)
to the effects of natural and technological hazards.
3. Increase level of protection to local population and economy from the effects of natural and
technological hazards
4. Increase public awareness of the effects of natural and technological hazards.
5. Ensure local policies, ordinances, and plans support community safety and minimize hazard risks
due to growth decisions.
The following changes were proposed during the HMPC’s discussion:
•Remove Goal #1 because its intent is also covered by Goal #2 and Goal #3.
•Revise Goal #4 to specifically include awareness and outreach on hazard risk and preparedness.
•Add language about the need to make existing and future development more resilient.
•Consider a new goal focused on developing and expanding local capabilities to implement
mitigation.
In addition to revising the plan goals, the committee developed objectives to support the achievement of
each goal. The goals and objectives approved by the HMPC are presented below.
7.2.2 Resulting Goals & Objectives
Goal 1:Increase resilience of building stock, critical infrastructure, and essential facilities, including shelters.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The mitigation strategy section shall include a] description of mitigation goals
to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION STRATEGY
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 243
2021
-Objective 1.1: Promote retrofits and other property protection to strengthen and protect existing
structures from hazard impacts and reduce overall exposure to hazards.
-Objective 1.2: Ensure the continuity of operations of critical facilities and lifelines during hazard
events.
Goal 2:Increase level of protection to local population and economy from the effects of hazards.
-Objective 2.1: Ensure the local population is aware of local risks and can evacuate or take shelter
from hazard events.
-Objective 2.2: Reduce interruptions to the local economy by promoting property protection to
minimize hazard impacts and recovery delays for local business.
-Objective 2.3: Minimize the magnitude of potential hazard impacts through preventive activities.
Goal 3:Educate the public on the effects of hazards and ways to mitigate risk and improve preparedness.
-Objective 3.1: Implement hazard awareness campaigns to educate and prepare the public.
-Objective 3.2: Expand hazard warning and notification systems to ensure the public can take action
to protect themselves from hazard risks.
Goal 4: Ensure local policies, ordinances, and plans support community safety and minimize hazard risks
due to growth and support resilience of future development.
-Objective 4.1: Discourage new development in known hazard areas.
-Objective 4.2: Promote the adoption of policies, procedures, and programs that protect new and
existing development and prevent hazard risks from increasing as a result of development.
Goal 5: Expand local capabilities, including regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources, to
implement mitigation actions.
-Objective 5.1: Expand training opportunities and technical resources to support City staff and
partners in understanding hazard risks and implementing hazard mitigation techniques.
-Objective 5.2: Identify new funding sources, including dedicated local funding and outside grant
funds, to support project implementation.
-Objective 5.3: Integrate hazard mitigation into regular operational activities to capitalize on existing
regulatory, administrative, and technical resources.
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Activities
To identify and select mitigation projects, the HMPC targeted those hazards considered high and moderate
priorities for the planning area, based on the analysis provided in Section 5 Hazard Risk & Vulnerability
Assessment. All hazards profiled in Section 5 were determined based on the Priority Risk Index scores to
be high and moderate priority hazards.
Once it was determined which hazards warranted the development of specific mitigation actions, the HMPC
analyzed viable mitigation options that supported the identified goals and objectives. The HMPC was
provided with the following list of mitigation categories which are utilized as part of the CRS planning
process but are also applicable to multi-hazard mitigation.
•Prevention
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include a] section that identifies and
analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the
effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. All plans
approved by FEMA after October 1, 2008, must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP, and
continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION STRATEGY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 244
2021
• Property Protection
• Natural Resource Protection
• Emergency Services
•Structural Projects
•Public Information and Outreach
More detail on the range of mitigation alternatives considered by the HMPC are provided in Appendix C.
The HMPC was also provided with examples of potential mitigation actions for each of the above
categories. The HMPC was instructed to consider both future and existing buildings in evaluating possible
mitigation actions. The HMPC also considered which incomplete actions from the previous plan should be
continued in this action plan.
7.3.1 Prioritization Process
In the process of identifying continuing and new mitigation actions, the HMPC was provided with a set of
criteria to assist in deciding why one action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be
implemented than another. The considerations for action prioritization, modified from the FEMA STAPLEE
criteria. were as follows:
• Socially Acceptable: Is the action acceptable to the community? Does it have a greater impact
on a certain segment of the population? Are the benefits fair?
• Technically Feasible: Is the action technically feasibly? Is it a long-term solution to the
problem? Does it capitalize on existing planning mechanisms for implementation?
• Administrative Resources: Are there adequate staffing, funding and other capabilities to
implement the project? Is there adequate additional capability to ensure ongoing maintenance?
• Politically Supported: Will there be adequate political and public support for the project? Does
the project have a local champion to support implementation?
• Legally Allowable: Does the community have the legal authority to implement the action?
• Economically Sound: Can the action be funded locally? Will the action need to be funded by an
outside entity, and has that funding been secured? How much will the project cost? Can the
benefits be quantified, and do they outweigh the costs?
• Environmentally Sound: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Does the
action meet the community’s environmental goals? Does the action impact land, water,
endangered species, or other natural assets?
In accordance with the DMA requirements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit-cost
analysis in determining action priority, as reflected in the prioritization criteria above. For each action, the
HMPC considered the benefit-cost analysis in terms of:
• Ability of the action to address the problem
• Contribution of the action to save life or property
• Available technical and administrative resources for implementation
• Availability of funding and perceived cost-effectiveness
The consideration of these criteria helped to prioritize and refine mitigation actions but did not constitute
a full benefit-cost analysis. The cost-effectiveness of any mitigation alternative will be considered in greater
detail through performing benefit-cost project analyses when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for
eligible actions associated with this plan.
The point of contact for each jurisdiction helped to coordinate the prioritization process by reviewing each
action and working with the lead agency/department responsible to determine a subjective ranking of
SECTION 7: MITIGATION STRATEGY
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 245
2021
High, Medium, or Low priority based on the criteria above. The priority for each mitigation action is
provided in the Mitigation Action Plans in Section 8.
Plan Update Requirement
In keeping with FEMA requirements for plan updates, the HMPC evaluated mitigation actions identified in
the previous plan to determine their current implementation status, including if an action was completed
or, if not, whether it should be carried forward for future implementation or deleted from the mitigation
action plan. The results of this evaluation, including a summary of completed and deleted actions from the
2017 plan, are provided in Section 2.7 Documentation of Plan Progress.
The mitigation action plan in Section 8 presents only those actions currently being pursued for
implementation, including new actions and actions carried forward from the 2017 plan. Note that action
numbers have been updated for actions carried forward from the 2017 plan.
SECTION 8: MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 246
2021
8 Mitigation Action Plan
Table 8.1 – Section 8 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 9 – Mitigation Action Plan Section 8 – Mitigation Action Plan
9.1 Overview 8.1 Overview – Minor updates
9.2 Mitigation Action Plans
8.2 Mitigation Action Plans –Action plans were combined to better reflect
multi-jurisdictional efforts. Actions were updated to reflect progress
toward implementation, action revisions, and new mitigation actions.
Overview
This section provides the updated mitigation action plan, which was developed to present the HMPC’s
recommendations for how the participating communities can reduce the risk and vulnerability of people,
property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources to future disaster losses. Emphasis was placed
on both future and existing development.
Each mitigation action recommended for implementation is listed in the tables below along with detail on
the applicable jurisdictions, the hazards addressed, the goal and objective addressed, the priority rating, the
lead agency responsible for implementation, potential funding sources for the action, a projected
implementation timeline, and the 2021 implementation status for actions that were carried forward from
the 2017 plan.
Mitigation Action Plan
The mitigation actions proposed by each of the participating jurisdictions are listed in the mitigation action
plan in Table 8.3 below. Table 8.2 summarizes the total number of mitigation actions identified by each
jurisdiction. Individual mitigation action plans by jurisdiction are also provided in each jurisdiction’s annex.
Table 8.2 – Mitigation Action Summary
Jurisdiction Mitigation Action Count
Augusta-Richmond County 32
Blythe 12
Hephzibah 14
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include an] action plan describing how
the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local
jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized
according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 252
2021
9 Plan Implementation and Maintenance
This section outlines the process for adoption, implementation, monitoring, and maintenance of the plan.
This section contains the following subsections:
•9.1 Adoption
•9.2 Implementation and Integration
•9.3 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance
•9.4 Continued Public Involvement
Table 9.1 – Section 9 Summary of Updates
2017 Plan Section Number 2022 Plan Section and Description of Changes
Section 10 – Plan Maintenance Section 9 – Plan Implementation and Maintenance
9.1 Adoption – This section has been added to reference adoption of the
plan.
10.1 Monitoring and Evaluating the
Previous Plan
The information on monitoring and evaluating the previous plan has been
combined with discussion of future monitoring and maintenance in Section
9.3.
10.2 Implementation and Integration 9.2 Implementation and Integration – Minor updates
10.3 Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Enhancement
9.3 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance – The previous annual review
process has been updated to quarterly reviews for enhanced CRS Credits.
Detail has also been included on HMPC responsibilities and maintenance
criteria.
10.4 Continued Public Involvement 9.4 Continued Public Involvement – Minor updates
Adoption
The purpose of formally adopting this plan is to secure buy-in from all participating jurisdictions, raise
awareness of the plan, and formalize the plan’s implementation. The adoption of this plan completes
Planning Step 9 of the 10-step planning process: Adopt the Plan, in accordance with the requirements of
DMA 2000. Each participating jurisdiction will adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan by passing a resolution.
Copies of these adoption resolutions and FEMA’s approval letter will be provided in Appendix A.
Implementation and Integration
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning.
This is Planning Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This section provides an overview of the overall
strategy for plan implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring,
updating, and evaluating the plan. The section also discusses incorporating the plan into existing planning
mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement.
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally approved
by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County
Commissioner, Tribal Council).
Requirement §201.6(c)(4): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and
schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 253
2021
Responsibility for Implementation of Goals and Activities
Once adopted, the plan must be implemented to be effective. Each jurisdiction participating in this plan is
responsible for plan implementation within their jurisdiction. Every identified action in the mitigation action
plan is assigned to a specific lead individual, agency, or department, including elected officials, officials
appointed to head County or City departments, local staff, and partner or stakeholder organizations. While
this plan contains many worthwhile actions, each participating jurisdiction will need to work with the
assigned lead departments and agencies to decide which action(s) to undertake first. The priority assigned
to the actions in the planning process and funding availability will affect that decision. Low or no-cost
actions are often the easiest way to demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation. The
assigned implementation timeline provides a guide for plan participants to gage whether they are making
adequate progress toward timely completion.
During the reviews as described later in this section, the HMPC will assess progress on each of the goals
and activities in the plan. At that time, recommendations may be made to modify implementation timelines,
funding resources, and responsible entities. On a regular basis, the priority standing of various activities
may also be changed. Some activities that are found not to be feasible may be deleted from the plan
entirely and activities addressing problems unforeseen during plan development may be added.
Mitigation is most successful when it is integrated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of
government. Implementation will be accomplished by adhering to the schedules identified for each action
and through regular, thorough, and energetic efforts to network and highlight the multi-objective, win-win
benefits of mitigation. This effort is achieved through the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending
meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community.
Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities
that can be leveraged to implement some of the costlier recommended actions. This will include creating
and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding
does become available, the participating jurisdictions will be positioned to capitalize on the opportunity.
Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, state and federal
earmarked funds, benefit assessments, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support
multi-objective applications.
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The HMPC intends to support all participating municipalities in incorporating the findings and
recommendations of this hazard mitigation plan into other plans, such as a comprehensive plan, capital
improvements plan, or emergency operations plan. It will be the responsibility of the Augusta Emergency
Management Agency (EMA) and local HMPC representatives to determine and pursue opportunities for
integrating the requirements of this plan with other local planning documents. Augusta EMA and HMPC
representatives will provide a copy of this plan and ensure that the goals and strategies of new and updated
local planning documents for their jurisdictions or agencies are consistent with the goals and actions of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan and will not contribute to increased hazard vulnerability in the planning area.
Incorporating the hazard mitigation plan into existing planning mechanisms will build regulatory mitigation
capability and can support the implementation of mitigation action plans.
In cases where the municipalities are participants in a county-wide planning process, Augusta EMA will act
on behalf of the municipalities in advising for plan incorporation and integration. It should also be noted
that due to the small size of the municipalities, municipal representatives of the HMPC are often the same
person who participates in the update of other local planning documents. Therefore, these officials will carry
forward the knowledge gained from participating in the hazard mitigation planning process into these other
planning processes.
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 254
2021
Since the 2017 plan was adopted, each jurisdiction has worked to integrate the hazard mitigation plan into
other planning mechanisms where applicable and feasible. Specifically, the plan was integrated into reviews
and updates of floodplain management ordinance, the emergency operations plan, and capital
improvements planning. Additionally, the plan was amended to include an additional property protection
measure in the mitigation action plan, reflecting the HMPC’s recognition of changing priorities and new
opportunities to achieve the plan goals.
Methods for future integration may include:
•Monitoring other planning/program agendas;
•Attending other planning/program meetings;
•Participating in other planning processes; and
•Monitoring community budget meetings for other community program opportunities.
The HMPC will continue to integrate Hazard Mitigation Plan updates, including the information from this
plan update, into changes to capital improvement plans, future land use plans, stormwater management
plans, zoning ordinances, and other local planning and policy activities.
Other opportunities to integrate the requirements of this plan into other local planning mechanisms shall
continue to be identified through quarterly meetings of the HMPC and through the five-year review process
described herein. Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components
of this plan into other local planning mechanisms, the development and maintenance of this stand-alone
Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the HMPC to be the most effective and appropriate method to
implement local hazard mitigation actions at this time.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance
Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update
the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized.
Role of HMPC in Implementation, Monitoring and Maintenance
With adoption of this plan, each jurisdiction, in coordination with Augusta EMA, will be responsible for the
plan implementation and maintenance. As such, each jurisdiction agrees to continue its relationship with
the HMPC and:
•Act as a forum for mitigation issues;
•Disseminate mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;
•Pursue the implementation of high-priority, low/no-cost recommended actions;
•Ensure mitigation remains a consideration for community decision makers;
•Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community
implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists;
•Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan;
•Report on plan progress and recommended revisions to the local governing body; and
•Inform and solicit input from the public.
The HMPC’s primary duty moving forward is to see the plan successfully carried out and report to each local
governing body, Augusta EMA, GEMA, and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation
opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder
concerns about mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information
on local websites (and others as appropriate).
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 255
2021
Maintenance Schedule
Augusta EMA is responsible for initiating plan reviews. To monitor progress and evaluate the mitigation
strategies identified in the action plan in between plan updates, the EMA Deputy Director will reconvene
the HMPC to review this plan quarterly and following a hazard event.
In keeping with the requirements of DMA 2000, Augusta EMA will submit a five-year written update to
GEMA and FEMA Region IV, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) require a
change to this schedule. Details on the annual reviews and five-year plan maintenance evaluation process
are provided below. With this plan update anticipated to be fully approved and adopted in 2022, the next
plan update for Augusta-Richmond County will be completed in 2027.
Maintenance Evaluation Process
The criteria recommended in 44 CFR 201 and 206 will be utilized in reviewing and updating the plan.
Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan,
including:
• Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions;
• Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions; and/or
• Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or further annexation).
Updates to this plan will:
• Consider the appropriateness of the goals for addressing current and expected conditions;
• Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation;
• Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective;
• Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective;
• Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked;
• Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks;
• Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities;
• Incorporate growth and development-related changes to infrastructure inventories; and
• Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
To best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation, the HMPC will follow the
following process:
• The HMPC representatives from each jurisdiction will be responsible for tracking and reporting on
their mitigation actions. Jurisdictional representatives should provide input on whether the action
as implemented met the defined objectives and/or is likely to reduce vulnerabilities.
• If the action does not meet identified objectives, the jurisdictional representatives will determine
what additional measures may be implemented and modify the plan accordingly.
• All monitoring and implementation information will be reported to the full HMPC, led by Augusta
EMA, during quarterly meetings. An annual plan maintenance report may be drafted as deemed
necessary.
During the five-year plan update process, changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions
that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria,
time frame, community priorities, and/or funding resources. Actions for which implementation has not yet
been pursued will also be reviewed during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility
of future implementation. Risk and vulnerability will also be re-evaluated based on current and expected
future conditions.
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 256
2021
Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submission to GEMA and FEMA Region IV, as is
appropriate and necessary, and as approved by local governing bodies. In keeping with the five-year update
process, the HMPC or similar committee will convene public meetings to solicit public input on the plan
and its routine maintenance and the final product will be adopted by local governing bodies.
Criteria for Quarterly Reviews in Preparation for Five-Year Update
To ensure regular monitoring and provide adequate information to support the five-year update evaluation
process discussed above, the HMPC will convene for quarterly reviews. More specifically, these quarterly
reviews will monitor changes to the following information:
•Community growth or change in the past quarter.
•The number of substantially damaged or substantially improved structures by flood zone.
•The renovations to public infrastructure including water, sewer, drainage, roads, bridges, gas lines,
and buildings.
•Natural hazard occurrences that required activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
and whether the event resulted in a presidential disaster declaration.
•Natural hazard occurrences that were not of a magnitude to warrant activation of the EOC or a
federal disaster declaration but were severe enough to cause damage in the community or
closure of businesses, schools, or public services.
•The dates of hazard events descriptions.
•Documented damages due to the event.
•Closures of places of employment or schools and the number of days closed.
•Road or bridge closures due to the hazard and the length of time closed.
•Assessment of the number of private and public buildings damaged and whether the damage was
minor, substantial, major, or if buildings were destroyed. The assessment will include residences,
mobile homes, commercial structures, industrial structures, and public buildings, such as schools
and public safety buildings.
The above information will support the HMPC in evaluating mitigation action outcomes and identifying
necessary changes for inclusion in the five-year update.
Continued Public Involvement
Public participation is an integral component to the mitigation planning process and will continue to be
essential to the overall success of the plan as it evolves and is implemented. The annual review process will
provide an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders, publicize success stories
from the plan implementation, and seek additional public comment.
In between annual reviews, other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation, and revision
process will also be made. HMPC meetings will be advertised on Augusta’s website and in municipal office
buildings. HMPC membership will continue to include willing local citizen and stakeholder volunteers.
Continued public and stakeholder involvement and input will also be sought through invitation to
designated committee meetings, website postings, and press releases to local media, similar to the process
used in the development of this plan. A copy of the plan will be kept in public libraries and on the Augusta
website to ensure public accessibility.
When the HMPC reconvenes for the five-year update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating
in the planning process—including those that joined the committee since the planning process began—to
update and revise the plan. In reconvening, the HMPC will be responsible for coordinating the activities
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the
community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
SECTION 9: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 257
2021
necessary to involve the greater public, including disseminating information through a variety of media
channels detailing the plan update process. As part of this effort, public meetings will be held and public
comments will be solicited on the plan update draft.
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 258
2022
Annex A Augusta-Richmond County
A.1 Community Profile
Geography
Augusta-Richmond County is located in the east central portion of Georgia, along the border of Georgia
and South Carolina, approximately 150 miles east of Atlanta on Interstate 20, and sits along the Savannah
River. The 324.2 square mile county is bordered by Columbia County to the north, Burke County to the
south, Jefferson and McDuffie counties to the west, and South Carolina to the east. In 1996, the City of
Augusta consolidated with Richmond County to form Augusta-Richmond County.
The cities of Blythe and Hephzibah are separate municipalities charted by the State of Georgia which are
also included in this Plan. Additionally, Fort Gordon occupies a large section of the western part of the
county and, although it is not an incorporated municipality, it is treated as a separate entity for the purposes
of this Plan.
Population and Demographics
Augusta-Richmond County has had minimal population growth over the past two decades. Overall
population density in the County increased from 618.6 persons per square mile in 2010 to 622.6 persons
per square mile in 2019. Trends suggest that this number is likely to continue growing over the next decade.
Table A.1 provides population counts and growth estimates for the County and the State.
Table A.1 – Population Counts 2010-2019
Jurisdiction 2000 Census
Population
2010 Census
Population
2019 ACS
Population Estimate
Total Change
2010-2019
% Change
2010-2019
Augusta 187,428 195,844 197,191 1,347 0.69%
Augusta-Richmond County 199,775 200,549 201,852 1,303 0.65%
Georgia 8,186,453 9,687,653 10,403,847 716,194 7.39%
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Housing
Table A.2 details housing unit counts and other statistics for Augusta-Richmond County. Overall, housing
unit estimates increased by 3 percent in Augusta-Richmond County. Just over 80 percent of the county’s
total units are occupied. Just under 50 percent of the housing units are renter occupied. Renters can be
particularly vulnerable to displacement if structures are damaged after a hazard event. Financial resources
for repairs and recovery are often limited for renters and landlords which can limit the housing stock and
displace households for extended periods of time.
Table A.2 – Housing Statistics 2010-2019
Housing Characteristics Augusta-
Richmond County
Housing Units (2010) 86,331
Housing Units (2019) 88,622
Housing Units Percent Change (2010-2019) 3%
Occupied Units, % (2019) 80.6
Owner-Occupied Units, % (2019) 52.6
Renter Occupied Units, % (2019) 47.4
Median Home Value (2019) $108,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Decennial Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 259
2022
Economy
The following tables present key economic and employment statistics for the County and the State. The
dominant employment sectors are educational services, and healthcare health care and social assistance
and retail trade.
Table A.3 – Economic Statistics, Augusta-Richmond County, 2019
Economic Characteristics Augusta-
Richmond County Georgia
Median Household Income $42,728 $58,700
Per Capita Income $22,787 $31,067
Unemployment Rate 9% 5.7%
% of Individuals Below Poverty Level 23% 13.3%
% Without Health Insurance 13%13.2%
Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes) 21.3 28.8
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Table A.4 – Employment Statistics, Augusta-Richmond County, 2019
Industry Augusta-
Richmond County Georgia
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.6%1.1%
Construction 5.2%6.7%
Manufacturing 9.7%10.7%
Wholesale trade 1.9%2.8%
Retail trade 13.4% 11.5%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.4%6.6%
Information 1.6%2.3%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 3.5%6.2%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 11.9% 12.3%
Educational services, and healthcare and social assistance 24.9% 20.7%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 11.8% 9.4%
Other services, except public administration 4.4%4.9%
Public administration 5.6%4.9%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Development Trends
The 2018 Augusta-Richmond County’s Comprehensive Plan provides a map of character areas that lays out
a vision and goals for unique subareas, districts, and neighborhoods. The character areas identified for
Augusta-Richmond County are summarized in Table A.5.
Table A.5 – Character Areas Augusta-Richmond County
Character Area Description Vision
Downtown
Central business district with a wide variety of
land uses (retail, office, entertainment,
government, open space, industrial and
institutional), high access for vehicles,
pedestrians and transit. Medium to high-
density residential development, and
commercial buildings with no front or side
setbacks.
Maintain and enhance historic character and
mix of land uses. Redevelopment will include
medium and high-density housing, additional
commercial and office development, new
civic, institutional, shopping, and
entertainment facilities
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 260
2022
Character Area Description Vision
Old Augusta
Residential neighborhoods within the old city
limits of Augusta. Single-family detached units
separate from other uses, few sidewalks, off-
street parking, driveways and commercial uses
at the edge of the neighborhood
Continue redevelopment in some
neighborhoods and maintain stability in
others. Redevelopment includes the removal
of deteriorated structures, the construction
and rehab of single-family housing, new
commercial, offices, shopping and
entertainment facilities
South Augusta
Suburban area with low-density subdivisions,
mostly single-family detached units, few
pedestrian amenities and limited transit service
Targeted neighborhoods will be revitalized
through code enforcement, removal of blight,
infrastructure improvements. Large
abandoned commercial properties will be
redeveloped into mixed-use facilities.
West Augusta
Suburban area in the northwestern part of the
city. Low- density residential subdivisions and
commercial development, are predominant in
the area. Transit service is limited.
Promote limited development of the
remaining vacant tracts while preserving the
single-family residential character that is
predominant in the area
East Augusta
Mix of natural resource areas, industrial uses
and limited residential and commercial land
uses.
Preserve the residential character and
revitalize targeted neighborhoods and
streets, implement new gateway and major
commercial node at the I-520 / Sand Bar
Ferry Rd.
Belair
Land uses and development patterns typical of
suburban developing areas, rural residential
areas and highway commercial corridors
Maintain suburban development with low
and medium- density residential
development in areas where already
established. Public facilities and services
expanded to meet demand of growing
population
South
Richmond
Rural residences, woodlands, surface water
resources, open space and agricultural uses
predominate, but some conventional suburban
residential development is taking place.
Maintain rural atmosphere with forest tracts,
open space, farms and creeks. Some
suburban and commercial development in
designated locations
Based on these designations, East Augusta and South Richmond Character Areas can serve a dual purpose
of hazard mitigation through natural resource protection and conservation of open space. The remaining
character areas are likely to experience development and thus increased exposure to risk.
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 261
2022
Figure A.1 – Character Areas, Augusta-Richmond County
Source: 2019 Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan
A.2 Risk Assessment
This section contains a summary of the County’s asset inventory as well as hazard profile and vulnerability
assessment for those hazards that are spatially defined and have variations in risk that could be evaluated
quantitatively on a jurisdictional level.
Asset Inventory
The following tables summarize the asset inventory for Augusta-Richmond County in order to estimate the
total physical exposure to hazards in this area. Table A.6 summarizes building exposure by occupancy type,
representing total property value at risk within the County’s unincorporated areas.
Table A.6 – Building Exposure by Occupancy Type
Occupancy Estimated
Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 6,327 $2,057,997,082 $2,057,997,082 $4,115,994,164
Education 331 $344,466,224 $344,466,224 $688,932,448
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 262
2022
Occupancy Estimated
Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Government 354 $127,787,341 $127,787,341 $255,574,682
Industrial 3,660 $941,866,928 $1,412,800,392 $2,354,667,320
Religious 624 $232,478,763 $232,478,763 $464,957,526
Residential 102,841 $94,464,767,309 $47,232,383,655 $141,697,150,964
Total 114,137 $98,169,363,647 $51,407,913,457 $149,577,277,104
Source: Augusta-Richmond County GIS
Table A.7 summarizes critical facilities and infrastructure in Augusta-Richmond County by facility type.
Critical facilities and infrastructure were identified by Augusta Emergency Management Agency (EMA) and
are maintained in GIS. These facilities were also uploaded to the Georgia Mitigation Information System
(GMIS). Critical facility and infrastructure locations are shown in Figure A.2.
Table A.7 – Critical Facility Summary
Facility Type Facility Count
Education 63
Emergency Services 35
Government 37
Medical 8
Tier II Reporting Facility 121
Utilities 134
Total 398
Source: Augusta-Richmond County parcel data; Augusta Emergency Management Agency
AN
N
E
X
A
:
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
-
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
26
3
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
.
2
–
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 264
2022
Risk Summary
Table A.8 summarizes the PRI scores for Augusta-Richmond County for all hazards evaluated in Section 5.
Table A.8 – PRI Results, Augusta-Richmond County
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Natural Hazards
Dam/Levee Failure Possible Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.6
Drought Highly Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 3.1
Earthquake Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.0
Extreme Heat Highly Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 3.3
Flood Highly Likely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours Less than 1 week 3.3
Hurricane & Tropical
Storm Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Severe Weather (Hail &
Lightning)Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Severe Winter Weather Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.7
Tornado Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.7
Wildfire Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Windstorm/Thunderstorm Highly Likely Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.6
Technological & Human Caused Hazards
Chemical Hazard Highly Likely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 3.3
Cyberterrorism Possible Limited Small Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.4
Infectious Disease Possible Critical Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 2.8
Nuclear Power Plant
Incident Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.9
The hazards included in this section are: Dam/Levee Failure, Flood, and Wildfire.
A.2.1 Dam/Levee Failure
Table A.9 details the 41 dams reported within Augusta-Richmond County and 13 dams within Fort Gordon
according to the Georgia Safe Dams Program November 2019 Inventory and the National Inventory of
Dams. Of these structures, 12 are rated as high hazard dams.
Table A.9 – Dam Inventory for Richmond County, GA
Dam Name NIDID Height
(ft.)
Storage
(ac-ft)Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Augusta-Richmond County
Aug. Canal Left Embkmnt + Structures
(Below + Bulkhead Structure) GA06398 16 1100
Local
Government Flood Control High
Augusta Canal Right Embankment GA06398 14 1100
Local
Government Recreation High
Augusta Golf Course Flood Control
Dam GA04946 38 23
Local
Government Recreation Low (II)
B.S.A. Camp Linwood Hayne Lower
Lake Dam GA04945 14 280 Private Recreation Low (II)
B.S.A. Camp Linwood Upper Lake Dam GA04942 29 49 Private Recreation Low (II)
Babcock Wilcox Lake Dam GA02123 26.6 85 Private Irrigation Low
Bennock Millpond Dam GA02119 17 867 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Broome Lake Dam GA02120 17 91 Private Other Low
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 265
2022
Dam Name NIDID Height
(ft.)
Storage
(ac-ft)Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Dorns Pond Dam GA04947 8 75 Private Recreation n/a
Ellis Pond Dam GA02110 15 299 Private Recreation Low (II)
Forest Hills Lake Dam GA05230 28 38 Private
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High (I)
Gordon Lake Dam GA01722 24.5 341 Federal
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High
Goshen Plantation Lake Dam GA02111 18 173 Private Flood Control High (I)
Hancock Millpond Dam GA02122 17 283 Private Recreation Low (II)
Highland Avenue WTP Pond Dam #1
East GA06403 30 110
Local
Government Recreation (I)
Highland Avenue WTP Pond Dam #2
West GA06404 30 135
Local
Government Recreation (I)
International Paper Augusta Mill
Sludge Ash Pond Dam GA07229 17.5 960 Not Listed Recreation (II)
Lake Aumond Dam GA02129 18 212
Local
Government Recreation High (I)
Lake Inez Dam GA02108 23 71 Private Other Low
Lake Olmstead Dam GA02130 10 490
Local
Government Recreation Low (II)
Lee Lake Dam GA05232 26 168 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Lombard's Mill Pond Dam GA02127 19 157.5 Private Recreation n/a
Mcdade Pond Dam GA00921 11 137.5 Private Recreation n/a
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam GA01703 70 11610 Federal Recreation Significant
Olin Pond Dam No. 2 GA04943 12 250 Private Irrigation Low
Richmond Co. Vo-Tech Retention Pond GA04940 42 137 State Recreation High (I)
Richmond Factory Pond Dam GA00922 16 406 Private Other (II)
Rocky Creek Regional Detention Pond
Dam GA06400 10 154
Local
Government Other Low (II)
Rosedale Pond Dam GA04941 25.2 237.6 Private Other n/a
Saul Pond Dam GA02250 12 102 Private Recreation Low
Storys Millpond Dam GA02112 14.3 157.5 Private Recreation Low
Tobacco Road WTP Dam GA05485 35 168
Local
Government Recreation High (I)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #1a GA02118 14 244 Private Other Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #1b GA02117 19 285 Private
Water Supply,
Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #2 GA02116 11 432 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #3 GA02115 10 230 Private
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #4 GA02114 12 300 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wastewater Treatment Pond Dam #5 GA02113 9 4650 Private Recreation Low (II)
Wildwood Pond Dam GA05231 13.8 280 Not Listed Recreation Low (II)
Woodlake Dam GA04944 15 85 Private Other Low
Wrightsboro Rd. Det. Dam GA05233 20 495 Not Listed Recreation High (I)
Fort Gordon
Big Beaver Pond GA10104 12 109 Federal Recreation Low
Big Beaver Pond Dam GA07164 12 109 Federal Other Low
Big Smoak Lake GA07162 9 59 Federal Other Low
Butler Reservoir GA01721 45 2619 Federal Recreation High
Clay Pit I GA07163 16 87 Federal Recreation Low
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 266
2022
Dam Name NIDID Height
(ft.)
Storage
(ac-ft)Owner Primary Purpose Hazard
Category
Gordon Lake Dam GA01722 24.5 341 Federal
Hydroelectric,
Water Supply High
Leitner Pond GA07166 9 112 Federal Irrigation Low
Lower Leitner Pond GA07165 8 89 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Rachel Lake I GA07161 9 52 Federal
Irrigation,
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Soil Erosion Lake GA01728 33 216 Federal Recreation
Significant
(II)
Union Mill GA00714 10 69 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low (II)
Upper Leitner GA07167 12 128 Federal Recreation Low
Upper Whittimore GA07160 8 50 Federal
Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Pond Low
Data was available to estimate property exposure to failure of Thurmond Dam and failure of the Augusta
Canal. Table A.10 and Table A.11 summarize property exposure to inundation from normal and maximum
failure scenarios of the Thurmond Dam. Table A.12 summarizes property exposure to flooding from failure
of the Augusta Levee. Table A.13 summarizes property exposure to flooding from failure of the Augusta
Canal.
Table A.10 – Property Exposure to Thurmond Dam Normal High Fail Flood
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 1,521 $576,678,783 $576,678,783 $1,153,357,566
Education 148 $70,909,289 $70,909,289 $141,818,578
Government 114 $98,046,892 $98,046,892 $196,093,784
Industrial 1,451 $340,659,250 $510,988,875 $851,648,125
Religious 169 $54,590,315 $54,590,315 $109,180,630
Residential 10,788 $432,944,491 $216,472,246 $649,416,737
Total 14,191 $1,573,829,020 $1,527,686,400 $3,101,515,420
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
Table A.11 – Property Exposure to Thurmond Dam Maximum High Fail Flood
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 1,970 $659,152,320 $659,152,320 $1,318,304,640
Education 165 $84,610,919 $84,610,919 $169,221,838
Government 135 $108,987,184 $108,987,184 $217,974,368
Industrial 1,731 $415,509,326 $623,263,989 $1,038,773,315
Religious 202 $63,868,806 $63,868,806 $127,737,612
Residential 14,553 $611,039,424 $305,519,712 $916,559,136
Total 18,756 $1,943,167,979 $1,845,402,930 $3,788,570,909
Source: USACE, Augusta GIS
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 267
2022
Table A.12 – Property Exposure to Augusta Levee Failure
Occupancy Estimated Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 455 $154,816,538 $154,816,538 $309,633,076
Education 11 $23,247,172 $23,247,172 $46,494,344
Government 61 $67,196,837 $67,196,837 $134,393,674
Industrial 705 $142,389,340 $213,584,010 $355,973,350
Religious 41 $22,004,828 $22,004,828 $44,009,656
Residential 2,004 $71,491,297 $35,745,649 $107,236,946
Total 3,277 $481,146,012 $516,595,034 $997,741,046
Source: Augusta Water Utilities Department, Augusta GIS
Table A.13 – Property Exposure to Augusta Canal Flooding
Occupancy Estimated Parcel
Count Exposed Structure Value Estimated Content
Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 266 $105,175,097 $105,175,097 $210,350,194
Education 15 $18,491,897 $18,491,897 $36,983,794
Government 10 $60,709,661 $60,709,661 $121,419,322
Industrial 120 $11,099,576 $16,649,364 $27,748,940
Religious 19 $7,466,243 $7,466,243 $14,932,486
Residential 229 $22,735,598 $11,367,799 $34,103,397
Total 659 $225,678,072 $219,860,061 $445,538,133
Source: Augusta Water Utilities Department, Augusta GIS
A.2.2 Flood
Table A.13 details the acreage of Augusta-Richmond County’s total area by flood zone on the effective
DFIRM. Per this assessment, over 15.7 percent of Augusta falls within the SFHA.
Table A.14 – Flood Zone Acreage in Augusta-Richmond County
Flood Zone Acreage Percent of Total (%)
A 7,007 3.3%
AE 14,772 7.0%
Floodway 11,291 5.4%
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 2,784 1.3%
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee 4,209 2.0%
Unshaded X 170,197 80.9%
Total 210,260 --
SFHA Total 33,070 15.7%
Source: FEMA Effective DFIRM
Figure A.3 reflects the effective mapped flood hazard zones for Augusta-Richmond County, and Figure A.4
and Figure A.5 display the depth of flooding estimated to occur in these areas during the 1%-annual-chance
flood event and the 0.2%-annual-chance flood event, respectively.
Table A.14 provides the estimated losses for the 1% annual chance flood event in Augusta-Richmond
County. The total damage estimate value is based on damages to the total of improved building value and
contents value. Land value is not included in any of the loss estimates as generally land is not subject to
loss from floods.
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 268
2022
Table A.15 – Estimated Building Damage and Content Loss for 1% Annual Chance Flood
Occupancy
Type
Total
Buildings
with Loss
Total Value
(Building &
Contents)
Estimated
Building Damage
Estimated
Content Loss
Estimated Total
Damage
Loss
Ratio
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Commercial 126 $17,130,095 $655,874 $2,049,480 $2,705,355 16%
Educational 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Government 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%
Industrial 3 $535,618 $635 $0 $635 0%
Religious 11 $3,308,824 $20,942 $197,274 $218,216 7%
Residential 766 $80,851,632 $1,698,319 $971,650 $2,669,969 3%
Total 906 $101,826,169 $2,375,770 $3,218,404 $5,594,174 5%
Source: Hazus 4.2; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
A count of people with high exposure to flooding was estimated based on the number of residential
building with loss and Augusta’s average household size estimate of 2.68 people per household. There are
approximately 2,053 people exposed to flood risk from the 1% annual chance flood event in Augusta-
Richmond County.
Critical facility exposure to flood by mapped flood zone is summarized in Table A.15. There are 13 critical
facilities in Augusta-Richmond County located in the SFHA. These facilities are listed in Table A.16 along
with their flood zone and estimated flood depth from the 1%-annual-chance flood and 0.2%-annual-
chance-flood, where available. Note that there is also one critical facility not listed here that is located in
Zone A in Fort Gordon.
Table A.16 – Critical Facilities Exposure to Flood
Flood Zone Facility Count Structure Value
A 2 $17,757
AE 7 $675,490
Floodway 4 $218,220
X Shaded 12 $5,126,100
Area With Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee 34 $15,825,240
X Unshaded 339 $482,590,742
Total 398 $504,453,549
SFHA Total 13 $911,467
Source: Hazus 4.2; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
Table A.17 – Critical Facilities Exposed to Special Flood Hazard Areas
Facility Type Facility Name Flood
Zone
1%-Annual
Chance Flood
Depth (NAVD FT)
0.2%-Annual
Chance Flood
Depth (NAVD FT)
Utilities Marina Floodway 6.5 15.1
Utilities Hyde Park AE 5.2 5.8
Tier II Reporting Industry PPB Augusta GA AE 2.7 3.2
Utilities Palmers AE 1.7 9.1
Utilities Goodale AE 1.4 7.9
Utilities Chaffee A 1.1 1.3
Tier II Reporting Industry GA, Augusta POP AE 0.9 1.1
Tier II Reporting Industry Southern Ionics - Augusta AE 0.7 N/A
Tier II Reporting Industry FPL Food, LLC - Main Plant Floodway 0.3 2.5
Tier II Reporting Industry United Rentals Branch L68/97B AE 0.3 1.9
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 269
2022
Facility Type Facility Name Flood
Zone
1%-Annual
Chance Flood
Depth (NAVD FT)
0.2%-Annual
Chance Flood
Depth (NAVD FT)
Utilities 110WW0001 Floodway N/A N/A
Tier II Reporting Industry New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Floodway N/A N/A
Utilities Valley Park A N/A N/A
Source: Hazus 4.2; Augusta-Richmond County GIS
AN
N
E
X
A
:
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
-
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
27
0
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
.
3
–
F
E
M
A
F
l
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
A
r
e
a
s
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
AN
N
E
X
A
:
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
-
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
27
1
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
.
4
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
1
%
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
-
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
E
v
e
n
t
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
AN
N
E
X
A
:
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
-
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
27
2
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
.
5
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
0
.
2
%
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
-
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
E
v
e
n
t
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 273
2022
A.2.3 Wildfire
Figure A.5 depicts the Wildland Urban Interface Risk Index (WUIRI), which shows a rating of the potential
impact of wildfire on homes and people. The WUIRI combines the WUI, which defines the locations where
wildfire may occur, and fire intensity, which defines the potential extent or magnitude of wildfire. This index
ranges from 0 to -9, where lower values are relatively more severe based on a combination of assets at risk
and susceptibility to fire at different intensity levels. For example, areas with high housing density and high
flame lengths are rated -9 while areas with low housing density and low flame lengths are rated -1.
Using the WUIRI data from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, a GIS analysis was performed to estimate
the exposure of buildings most at risk to loss due to wildfire. Table A.17 summarizes for Augusta-Richmond
County the number of buildings and their total value that fall within areas rated -5 or less on the WUIRI,
representing total exposure in areas of moderate to high wildfire risk.
Table A.18 – Building Counts and Values within WUIRI under -5, Augusta-Richmond County
Occupancy Parcels
Affected % of Total Structure Value Estimated
Content Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 n/a $0 $0 $0
Commercial 3,391 54.4% $963,561,040 $963,561,040 $1,927,122,080
Education 144 44.7% $222,085,107 $222,085,107 $444,170,214
Government 83 23.7% $12,932,270 $12,932,270 $25,864,540
Industrial 1,247 34.6% $272,717,579 $409,076,369 $681,793,948
Religious 355 60.6% $147,487,851 $147,487,851 $294,975,702
Residential 72,528 73.9% $6,303,360,036 $3,151,680,018 $9,455,040,054
Total 77,748 71.2% $7,922,143,883 $4,906,822,655 $12,828,966,538
Source: GIS Analysis, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
A count of people with high exposure to wildfire was estimated based on the number of residential buildings
exposed and Augusta’s average household size estimate of 2.68 people per household. There are
approximately 192,199 people exposed to wildfire risk in Augusta-Richmond County.
Table A.18 summarizes critical facility exposure to areas of moderate to high wildfire risk.
Table A.19 – Critical Facility Exposure within WUIRI under -5, Augusta-Richmond County
Facility Type Facility Count Structure Value
Education 24 $93,142,296
Emergency Services 20 $20,646,239
Government 13 $5,802,587
Medical 4 $34,306,931
Tier II Reporting Industries 37 $16,670,042
Utilities 92 $22,195,019
Other 0 $0
Total 190 $192,763,114
Source: GIS Analysis, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
AN
N
E
X
A
:
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
-
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
27
4
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
.
6
–
W
U
I
R
i
s
k
I
n
d
e
x
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 275
2022
A.3 Capability Assessment
A.3.1 Overall Capability
Details on the tools and resources in place and available to Augusta-Richmond County were provided by
the County’s HMPC representatives and are summarized in Section 6 Capability Assessment. Based on that
information, Augusta-Richmond County has high overall capability, with particularly strong planning and
regulatory and administrative capability. However, the County could strengthen its education and outreach
capability by sharing information via radio programs and TV Ads and posting information in churches and
community centers. Additionally, the county should curate education and outreach opportunities for the
communities’ most vulnerable residents (elderly, people living alone, non-English speakers, renters, etc.).
A.3.2 Floodplain Management
Augusta-Richmond County joined the NFIP through emergency entry in 1973 and has been a regular
participant in the NFIP since June 1980. Augusta-Richmond County participates in the Community Rating
System and is currently a Class 7 community. The following tables reflect NFIP policy and claims data for
the County categorized by structure type, flood zone, Pre-FIRM and Post-FIRM.
Table A.20 – NFIP Policy and Claims Data by Structure Type
Structure Type Number of
Policies in Force
Total
Premium
Insurance in
Force
Number of Closed
Paid Losses
Total of Closed
Paid Losses
Single Family 705 $392,298 $173,838,500 329 $2,448,404.12
2-4 Family 14 $5,516 $2,401,900 29 $199,222.20
All Other Residential 43 $16,560 $9,505,000 9 $14,333.32
Non-Residential 47 $84,987 $17,548,500 29 $536,539.29
Total 809 $499,361 $203,293,900 396 $3,198,498.93
Source: FEMA Community Information System, accessed June 2021
Table A.21 – NFIP Policy and Claims Data by Flood Zone
Flood Zone Number of
Policies in Force
Total
Premium
Insurance in
Force
Number of Closed
Paid Losses
Total of Closed
Paid Losses
A01-30 & AE Zones 270 $248,038 $58,041,800 213 $1,854,271.16
A Zones 25 $22,900 $3,906,200 41 $157,879.33
V01-30 & VE Zones 0 $0 $0 0 $0
B, C & X Zone
Standard 142 $78,499 $40,443,900 81 $685,432.12
Preferred 372 $149,924 $100,902,000 62 $502,175.32
Total 809 $499,361 $203,293,900 397 $3,199,757.93
Source: FEMA Community Information System, accessed June 2021
Table A.22 – NFIP Policy and Claims Data Pre-FIRM
Flood Zone Number of
Policies in Force
Total
Premium
Insurance in
Force
Number of Closed
Paid Losses
Total of Closed
Paid Losses
A01-30 & AE Zones 142 $172,502 $25,225,200 164 $1,220,983.83
A Zones 15 $17,091 $2,400,100 27 $74,315.17
V01-30 & VE Zones 0 $0 $0 0 $0
B, C & X Zone 256 $113,764 $69,715,300 92 $660,391.38
Standard 77 $44,648 $21,148,300 59 $527,661.88
Preferred 179 $69,116 $48,567,000 34 $133,988.50
Total 413 $303,357 $97,340,600 283 $1,955,690.38
Source: FEMA Community Information System, accessed June 2021
ANNEX A: AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 276
2022
Table A.23 – NFIP Policy and Claims Data Post-FIRM
Flood Zone
Number of
Policies in
Force
Total Premium Insurance in
Force
Number of
Closed Paid
Losses
Total of Closed
Paid Losses
A01-30 & AE Zones 128 $75,536 $32,816,600 49 $633,287.33
A Zones 10 $5,809 $1,506,100 14 $83,564.16
V01-30 & VE Zones 0 $0 $0 0 $0
B, C & X Zone 258 $114,659 $71,630,600 50 $525,957.06
Standard 65 $33,851 $19,295,600 22 $157,770.24
Preferred 193 $80,808 $52,335,000 28 $368,186.82
Total 396 $196,004 $105,953,300 113 $1,242,808.55
Source: FEMA Community Information System, accessed June 2021
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 282
2022
Annex B City of Blythe
B.1 Community Profile
Geography
The City of Blythe is in western Augusta-Richmond County and partially located in Burke County. The City
is neighbored by Fort Gordon military base to the north, and the City of Hephzibah to the east. Blythe has
a total area of 2.86 square miles and an average population density of 240 people per square mile. Figure
B.1 on the following page provides a base map of the City of Blythe.
Population and Demographics
Table B.1 provides population counts and growth estimates for the City of Blythe as compared to Augusta-
Richmond County overall. Table B.2 provides demographic information for the City of Blythe as compared
to the County and State.
Table B.1 – Population Counts, Blythe, 2010-2019
Jurisdiction 2000 Census
Population
2010 Census
Population
2019 ACS
Population Estimate
Total Change
2010-2019
% Change
2010-2019
Blythe 718 721 688 -33 -4.6%
Augusta-Richmond County 199,775 200,549 201,852 1,303 0.65
Georgia 8,186,453 9,687,653 10,403,847 716,194 7.39
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Table B.2 – Demographics and Social Characteristics, Blythe, 2019
Demographic & Social Characteristics Blythe Augusta-
Richmond County
Georgia
Median Age 35.5 34.1 36.7
% of Population Under 5 years old 15.6% 6.8% 6.3%
% of population Over 65 years old 13.9% 13.5% 13.5%
% of Population Over 25 with high school diploma 82.2% 84.2% 87.2%
% of Population Over 25 with bachelor’s degree or higher 11.1% 21.4% 31.4%
% with Disability 16% 17% 12.4%
% Speak English less than "very well" 1% 1.9% 5.5%
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Housing
Table B.3 details key housing statistics for Blythe as compared to the County and the State. Mobile homes
make up almost 50 percent of the housing stock. Mobile home units can be more vulnerable to certain
hazards, such as tornadoes and windstorms, especially if they are not properly secured with tie downs.
Table B.3 – Housing Statistics, Blythe, 2019
Housing Characteristics Blythe Augusta-
Richmond County Georgia
Median Home Value $97,500 $108,000 $176,000
Average Household Size 2.88 2.65 2.75
Housing Occupancy Rate 82.7% 80.6% 87.8%
% of Housing Units with no Vehicles Available 2.2% 9.4% 6.5%
% of Housing Units that are mobile homes 49.8% 7.8% 9.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
AN
N
E
X
B
:
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
L
Y
T
H
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
28
3
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
B
.
1
–
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
l
y
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
M
a
p
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 284
2022
Economy
The following tables present key economic and employment statistics for Blythe as compared to the County
and the State. The dominant employment sectors are construction, retail trade, educational services,
healthcare and social assistance.
Table B.4 – Economic Statistics, Blythe, 2019
Economic Characteristics Blythe Augusta-
Richmond County
Georgia
Median Household Income $56,786 $42,728 $58,700
Per Capita Income $20,955 $22,787 $31,067
Unemployment Rate 2.8%9% 5.7%
% of Individuals Below Poverty Level 6.3% 23% 13.3%
% Without Health Insurance 15.1% 13% 13.2%
Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes)34.4 21.3 28.8
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000, Decennial Census 2010; American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates
Table B.5 – Employment Statistics, Blythe, 2019
Industry Blythe Augusta-
Richmond County
Georgia
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0%0.6% 1.1%
Construction 19.4%5.2% 6.7%
Manufacturing 12.6%9.7% 10.7%
Wholesale trade 1.6%1.9% 2.8%
Retail trade 18.4%13.4% 11.5%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 9.4%5.4% 6.6%
Information 1.6%1.6% 2.3%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 0.3%3.5% 6.2%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
6.8%11.9% 12.3%
Educational services, and healthcare and social assistance 17.1%24.9% 20.7%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food
services
3.5%11.8% 9.4%
Other services, except public administration 5.8%4.4% 4.9%
Public administration 3.5%5.6% 4.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Development Trends
According to the City of Blythe’s Comprehensive plan, planned growth areas in the City include the
Peripheral Corridor Development Character Area which is primarily confined in the northeastern part of the
city near the intersection of Church street and Georgia Highway 88. The area already contains a mix of
commercial developments and is designated for further development that will provide services aimed at
the traveling public and the daily needs of residents. There are no designated 100-year flood plans within
the city limits of Blythe, although several flood zones lie just outside the city limits. Any development near
neighboring floodplains could contribute to runoff and localized flooding. The city plans to limit
development and preserve its historic areas and natural resources. Part of the southern portion of the city
is designated as a groundwater recharge area where water passes through the ground to replenish
underground water sources. The City of Blythe plans to continually protect these areas so avoid
contamination of the water supply.
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 285
2022
The City of Blythe’s Character Areas from the city’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan are shown in Figure B.2. The
character areas identified for Blythe include the following:
Table B.6 – Character Areas, Blythe
Character Area Description Vision
Agricultural
Comprises the majority of incorporated
Blythe. It is largely defined by agricultural and
forestry uses – with low-density residential
uses scattered throughout.
Preserve the pastoral nature of existing open
space, encouraging the productive use of
naturally regenerative resources. Residential
development is at low densities on existing
parcels or large lots that preserve open space.
Rural Residential
Located primarily near the center of the City
and is dominated by low-density residential
development.
New recreational amenities and minor service
establishments
Peripheral
Corridor
Development
A mix of commercial developments along and
near the intersection of Church Street and
Georgia Highway 88.
Further commercial development that
Will provide services aimed at the traveling
public and the daily needs of the residents
Historic Village
Center
Several historic buildings that front the
streets, including storefront commercial and
institutional buildings and nearby historic
homes, all in a walkable setting.
Become a more charming neighborhood that
can give a renewed vitality and historic
feeling to this part of the City
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GAMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 286
2022
Figure B.2 – Character Areas, Blythe
Source: 2018 City of Blythe Comprehensive Plan
B.2 Risk Assessment
This section contains a summary of the City’s asset inventory as well as hazard profile and vulnerability
assessment for those hazards that are spatially defined and have variations in risk that could be evaluated
quantitatively on a jurisdictional level.
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 287
2022
Asset Inventory
The following tables summarize the asset inventory for Blythe in order to estimate the total physical
exposure to hazards in this area. Table B.7 summarizes building exposure by occupancy type, representing
total property value at risk within the City.
Table B.7 – Building Exposure by Occupancy Type, Blythe
Occupancy Estimated
Parcel Count Structure Value Estimated Content Value Total Value
Agriculture 0 $0 $0 $0
Commercial 11 $737,600 $737,600 $1,475,200
Education 2 $3,576,102 $3,576,102 $7,152,204
Government 1 $136,522 $136,522 $273,044
Industrial 1 $8,885 $13,328 $22,213
Religious 4 $767,179 $767,179 $1,534,358
Residential 720 $37,331,361 $18,665,681 $55,997,042
Total 739 $42,557,649 $23,896,411 $66,454,060
Source: Augusta-Richmond County GIS
Table B.8 summarizes critical facilities and infrastructure in the City of Blythe by facility type. Critical facilities
and infrastructure were identified by Augusta Emergency Management Agency (EMA) and are maintained
by Augusta-Richmond County in GIS. These facilities were also uploaded to the Georgia Mitigation
Information System (GMIS). Critical facility and infrastructure locations are shown in Figure B.3.
Table B.8 – Critical Facilities Summary, Blythe
Facility Type Facility Count
Education 1
Emergency Services 2
Government 4
Medical 0
Tier II Reporting Facility 0
Utilities 0
Total 7
Source: Augusta-Richmond County parcel data; Augusta Emergency Management Agency
AN
N
E
X
B
:
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
L
Y
T
H
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
28
8
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
B
.
3
–
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
B
l
y
t
h
e
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 289
2022
Risk Summary
Table B.9 summarizes the PRI score for Blythe for all hazards evaluated in Section 5. The PRI scores for
dam/levee failure, flood, severe weather, windstorm/thunderstorm, severe weather, and nuclear power plan
incident vary from the overall county score. The summary risk rating for dam/levee failure, flood, severe
weather, and nuclear power plant incident are lower for Blythe than for the county overall. The PRI score for
Windstorm/Thunderstorm is higher than the county score. The remaining summary risk classifications
remain consistent with the findings for the full planning area.
Table B.9 – PRI Results, Blythe
Hazard Probability Impact Spatial
Extent Warning Time Duration PRI
Score
Natural Hazards
Dam/Levee Failure Possible Minor Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.0
Drought Highly Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 3.1
Earthquake Possible Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.0
Extreme Heat Likely Limited Large 12 to 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Flood Unlikely Likely Minor Negligible 6 to 12 hours Less than 1 week 1.7
Hurricane & Tropical Storm Likely Critical Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Severe Weather (Hail &
Lightning) Highly Likely Minor Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.6
Severe Winter Weather Likely Limited Large More than 24 hrs Less than 1 week 2.7
Tornado Likely Critical Small Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.7
Wildfire Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 1 week 2.8
Windstorm/Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 6 hrs 2.9
Technological & Human Caused Hazards
Chemical Hazard Highly Likely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hrs Less than 24 hrs 3.3
Cyberterrorism Possible Limited Small Less than 6 hrs More than 1 week 2.4
Infectious Disease Possible Critical Large More than 24 hrs More than 1 week 2.8
Nuclear Power Plant Incident Unlikely Critical Moderate Less than 6 hours More than 1 week 2.6
The hazards included in this section are: Flood and Wildfire.
B.2.1 Flood
Table B.10 details the acreage of the City of Blythe’s total area by flood zone on the effective DFIRM. Per
this assessment, only 0.1 percent of the City’s total area falls within the mapped 1%-annual-chance
floodplains.
Table B.10 – Flood Zone Acreage, Blythe
Flood Zone Acreage Percent of Total (%)
A 2 0.1%
AE 0 0.0%
Floodway 0 0.0%
X Shaded 0 0.0%
Area With Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee 0 0.0%
Unshaded X 1,644 99.9%
Total 1,646 --
SFHA Total 2 0.1%
Source: FEMA Effective DFIRM
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 290
2022
The base map in Figure B.1 shows the flood hazard areas in and around Blythe. Figure B.4 reflects the depth
of flooding estimated to occur during the 1%-annual-chance flood and Figure B.5 displays the depth of
flooding estimated to occur during the 0.2%-annual-chance flood.
GIS analysis determined that there is no property exposure to the 1%-annual-chance flood event in Blythe,
and Hazus flood loss estimates confirmed that Blythe has no property risk to the 1%-annual-chance flood.
There are no critical facilities in Blythe located in the SFHA. Given this lack of exposure to flood risk, Blythe
does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
AN
N
E
X
B
:
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
L
Y
T
H
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
29
1
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
B
.
4
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
1
%
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
,
B
l
y
t
h
e
AN
N
E
X
B
:
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
L
Y
T
H
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
29
2
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
B
.
5
–
F
l
o
o
d
D
e
p
t
h
,
0
.
2
%
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
c
e
F
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
,
B
l
y
t
h
e
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 293
2022
B.2.2 Wildfire
Figure B.6 depicts the Wildland Urban Interface Risk Index (WUIRI), which shows a rating of the potential
impact of wildfire on homes and people. The WUIRI combines the WUI, which defines the locations where
wildfire may occur, and fire intensity, which defines the potential extent or magnitude of wildfire. As such,
the mapped WUIRI indicates that wildfire may occur throughout most of the jurisdictional limits of Blythe,
with the exception of the upper north corner, eastern edge, and a section of western-central Blythe. Fire
intensity may be greatest in two smalls areas of the City, near the border with Burke County and in northern
Blythe. The WUIRI index ranges from 0 to -9, where lower values are relatively more severe based on a
combination of assets at risk and susceptibility to fire at different intensity levels. For example, areas with
high housing density and high flame lengths are rated -9 while areas with low housing density and low
flame lengths are rated -1.
Using the WUIRI data from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, a GIS analysis was performed to estimate
the exposure of buildings most at risk to loss due to wildfire. Table B.11 summarizes for the City of Blythe
the number of buildings and their total value that fall within areas rated -5 or less on the WUIRI, representing
total exposure in areas of moderate to high wildfire risk.
Table B.11 – Building Counts and Values within WUIRI under -5, Blythe
Occupancy Parcels
Affected
% of
Total Structure Value Estimated
Content Value Total Value
Agricultural 0 n/a $0 $0 $0
Commercial 11 100.0% $737,600 $737,600 $1,475,200
Education 2 100.0% $3,576,102 $3,576,102 $7,152,204
Government 1 100.0% $136,522 $136,522 $273,044
Industrial 1 100.0% $8,885 $13,328 $22,213
Religious 4 100.0% $767,179 $767,179 $1,534,358
Residential 602 83.6% $28,655,459 $14,327,730 $42,983,189
Total 621 84.0% $33,881,747 $19,558,460 $53,440,207
Source: GIS Analysis, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment
AN
N
E
X
B
:
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
L
Y
T
H
E
Au
g
u
s
t
a
-
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
G
A
M
u
l
t
i
-
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
29
4
20
2
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
B
.
6
–
W
U
I
R
i
s
k
I
n
d
e
x
,
B
l
y
t
h
e
ANNEX B: CITY OF BLYTHE
Augusta-Richmond County, GA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 295
2022
B.3 Capability Assessment
B.3.1 Overall Capability
Details on the tools and resources in place and available to the City of Blythe were provided by the City’s
HMPC representatives and are summarized in Section 6, Capability Assessment. Based on that information,
the City has limited overall capability. The has limited administrative, technical, and financial capability,
however, it may be able to increase opportunities by working with neighboring jurisdictions. The City could
update its zoning ordinance to better match the goals outlined in its comprehensive plan and consider how
its existing plans and ordinances align with the goals and strategies outlined in this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
To increase administrative and technical capability, Blythe might contract out services where there is no in-
house capacity. For example, the city could outsource planners with specific understanding of natural
hazards and land use practices to mitigate the impacts of hazards. To better provide information to
residents, the city could form school partnerships and find opportunities to educate the larger community
on hazard risk and mitigation options. Additional outreach strategies include sharing information via radio
programs and TV ads and posting information in churches and community centers. The City should also
curate education and outreach opportunities for the communities’ most vulnerable residents (elderly,
people living alone, non-English speakers, renters, etc.).
B.3.2 Floodplain Management
The City of Blythe is not a participant in the NFIP because 99.9 percent of the City is outside the SFHA in
the unshaded Zone X.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Accept 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Department:Fire
Presenter:Andrew Jensen
Caption:Motion to accept the completed FY2022 RC Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update and to authorize the Mayor to execute the
appropriate documents. The project was funded and awarded by Hazard
Mitigation Plan Grant from GEMA in 2019.
Background:The Hazard Mitigation Plan forms the foundation for a community’s long-
term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster
damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. The planning process is as
important as the plan itself. It creates a framework for risk-based decision
making to reduce damages to lives, property, and the economy from future
disasters. State and local governments are required to develop and
maintain a hazard mitigation plan as a condition of receiving certain types
of hazard mitigation disaster assistance, emergency and non-emergency.
The requirements and procedures for state and local mitigation plans are
found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 44, Chapter 1,
Part 201 (44 CFR Part 201).
Analysis:An experienced consultant assists various Augusta departments and the
municipalities of Hephzibah and Blythe in gathering up-to-date
information in order to identify hazards, assess current risk hazards, and
aid the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to update and implement
the current Hazard Mitigation Plan. This will ensure that State and local
government requirements have been met so that Augusta can continue to
receive certain types of hazard mitigation disaster assistance.
Financial Impact:total approved cost is $60,000 with a federal share of $45,000, a state share
of $6,000, and a local share (in kind match/personnel time and its funding
from fund 101) of $9,000. Fund 220 is used; org key was created by
Finance upon approval and acceptance of grant.
Alternatives:None at this time
Recommendation:Approve the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and to authorize the Mayor to
execute the appropriate documents.
220039284
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Amendment of Inmates' Food Service Contract
Department:Richmond County Correctional Institution
Presenter:Evan Joseph
Caption:Motion to approve (3rd) and final amendment of the Inmates' Food
Services contract with Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.
Background:The City of Augusta entered into a contractual agreement with Aramark
Correctional Services on November 1, 2019 to operate the Food Services
at RCCI. The initial contract was for one (1) year with three (3) additional
one-year periods. Per Section 3(b) of the contract, the "meal prices shall be
increased on each anniversary of the effective date by an amount to be
mutually agreed upon".
Analysis:Annual increases are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The (CPI)
numbers for July 2022 is projected at (7.2%). It is also expected to
continue to increase. Therefore, amending the meal cost at this time is
beneficially to the city.
Financial Impact:Department can absorb the additional cost from its budget.
Alternatives:None Recommended
Recommendation:Approve amendment to the contact to include extension of the one (1)yr
term from the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
101033211-5317110 & 101033212-5317110
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Page 1 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
Engineering Wireless Services, LLC
2175 West 14th Street
Tempe, Arizona 85281
SERVICES AGREEMENT – TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Services Agreement (“SA”) is entered into 06/02/2022 (“Effective Date”), by and between Engineering Wireless
Services, LLC, with an address of 2175 W. 14th St., Tempe, AZ 85281 (“Contractor”) and Augusta, GA Government, with an address of
535 Telfair St. Bldg. 2000, Augusta, GA 30901, (“Customer”), collectively the “Parties.”
1. Project Identifier/Name: Augusta, GA Government
2. Project Point of Contact:
Contractor Customer
Name: Steven Beneduci Name: Gary Hewett
Office Phone: (480) 968-6000 Office Phone: (706) 821-2522
Mobile: (678) 936-1410 Mobile: (706) 821-2525
Email: steven.beneduci@engineeringwireless.com Email: Hewett@augustaga.gov
3. Services. Customer wishes to obtain the Contractor’s services to perform the following work. Detailed plans and specifications
to be attached to this SA.
Please see attached Exhibit A – Scope of Services and Fee Schedule
(“Services”).
The Services are to be performed at the following address:
Augusta, GA
(“Property”).
Contractor agrees to furnish the labor, materials, and supplies necessary to perform the Services in accordance with the terms
and conditions contained in this SA. Upon completion of the Services, Contractor will remove all materials, supplies, and other
debris.
4. Changes and/or Additions in Scope of Services. Customer may request reasonable changes to the Services described in Section 1. Any
changes or additions to the Services must be in writing and signed by both Contractor and Customer. Additions to services may include
construction permits, equipment rentals, etc. Customer agrees that any changes or additions to the Services may result in additional
Page 2 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
charges and extend the Construction Schedule described in Section 3. If such changes increase or decrease the amount due under
the Contract Documents, or in the time required for performance of the services, an equitable adjustment shall be negotiated
culminated by the issuance of a Contract Amendment. The Project Point of Contact also, may at any time, by issuing a Contract
Amendment, make changes in the details of the services. Contractor shall proceed with the performance of any changes in the
services so ordered by the Project Point of Contact unless Contractor believes that such order entitles him/her to a change in the fee
or time or both, in which event s/he shall give the Project Point of Contact written notice thereof within fifteen (15) days after the
receipt of the Contract Amendment, and Contractor shall not execute such amendments pending the receipt of an executed Notice
to Proceed instruction from Customer. Customer may, when changes are minor or when changes would result in relatively small
changes in the Fee or Contract Time, elect to postpone the issuance of a Contract Amendment until such time that a single
amendment of substantial importance can be issued incorporating several changes. In such cases, Customer shall indicate this intent
in a written notice to Contractor.
5. Changes in Fees. The Fee shall be changed only by a mutual agreement by the successful Proposer and Augusta and Augusta approval,
transmitted as a Contract Amendment. The successful Proposer shall, when required by Augusta, furnish to Augusta the method and
justification used in computing the change in fee as related to the services ordered.
6. Term. The term of this Contract shall be for two (2) years with an option to extend for three (3) additional one-year terms upon
mutual written agreement of the Parties. This Contract shall (i) terminate absolutely and without further obligation on the part of
Customer each and every December 31st, as required by OCGA § 36-60-13, as amended, unless terminated earlier in accordance with
the termination provisions of this Agreement; (ii) automatically renew on each January 1st, unless terminated in accordance with the
termination provisions of this Addendum; and (iii) terminate absolutely, with no further renewals, on __________, 2027 at 11:59 PM
7. Schedule. Contractor will complete the Services in accordance with the following schedule. Customer agrees that all dates are subject
to change if Customer requests any changes or additions to the Services. Completion date is further subject to weather conditions.
Start Date: TBD Per Project
Substantial ( %) Completion Date: TBD Per Project
Full Completion Date: TBD Per Project
8. Payment Schedule. Customer agrees to pay Contractor Invoices in 30 days from receipt of invoice based on the following
schedule per purchase order issued:
Materials: Invoiced 100% upon order
Equipment/Fees: Invoiced progressively throughout project lifecycle
Labor: Invoiced progressively throughout project lifecycle
Customer PO to be issued: Yes (If Yes, work will not proceed without receipt of Customer PO)
No (If No, this signed agreement will act as a Notice to Proceed with Services)
9. Representations. Contractor Representations will perform the Services in a workmanlike manner, in compliance with all
applicable laws, regulations, codes, restrictive covenants, and homeowners’ association requirements.
Customer Representations. Customer is the legal owner of the Property, or otherwise has authority to permit work upon the
Property. The requested Services are in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, codes, restrictive covenants, and
homeowners’ association requirements. Customer has the financial ability to pay Contractor for the Services.
10.Obligations. Contractor Obligations. Contractor will obtain, at its own cost, all necessary permits and approvals to perform the
Services. Contractor agrees to provide Customer lien waivers, lien releases, and/or acknowledgement of full payment upon
receipt of each payment laid out in the Payment Schedule in Section 4 above. Contractor will take all reasonable safety
precautions in performing the Services. Contractor will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and orders
Page 3 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
of public authorities for the safety of persons and property.
Customer Obligations. Customer will provide Contractor, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, reasonable access to the
Property for the purpose of performing the Services. Customer agrees to keep the Property clear of all known and potential
hazards.
11. Insurance. Contractor warrants it is adequately insured for injury to its employees and any others incurring loss or injury as a
result of the acts of Contractor or its employees and subcontractors. Without limiting the Contractor’s indemnification
obligations, the Contractor shall obtain, provide and maintain during the term of this Agreement, at its own expense, a policy
or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to Customer. Contractor shall also
require all of its sub-Contractors to obtain, provide, and maintain insurance which meets the same requirements contained
herein.
A. Prior to the commencement of the Services, the Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to Customer that it has
secured the following types and amounts of insurance:
(1) Workers’ compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of the Contractor, in a minimum amount
of $1 million per accident;
(2) Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual
liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If commercial
general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately
to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit;
(3) Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering “any auto” with a minimum limit of $1 million
combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(4) Technology Errors and Omission liability insurance appropriate to Contractor’s profession. Such insurance shall
be in an amount not less than $850,000 per claim, and shall be endorsed to include contractual liability.
B. The commercial general liability and automobile policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide
endorsements on forms approved by Customer to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (1) the City, its officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by
or on behalf of the Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the
insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects Customer, its officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess,
shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by Customer or its officials, officers, employees or agents shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and
shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
C. All policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms approved by Customer
to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (1) coverage shall not be canceled or reduced by either party except
after thirty (30) days prior notice has been given in writing to Customer; provided, however, in the case of non-payment of
premium, ten (10) days notice will be provided; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies,
including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to Customer, its officials, officers, employees and agents.
D. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance
shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Customer, its officials, officers, employees and
agents.
E. All Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than B+:VIII, licensed to do business in
Georgia, and satisfactory to Customer.
F. Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this
Agreement on forms satisfactory to Customer. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by Customer if requested. All
certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by Customer before work commences. Customer reserves the
right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
G. The Contractor shall include subcontracting Contractors, if any, as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate
certificates and endorsements for each sub-Contractor. It is understood that additional insureds are not possible on the
Page 4 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
Contractor’s errors and omissions professional liability policy. All coverage for each sub-Contractor shall be subject to the
requirements stated herein.
12. Subcontractors. Contractor may engage subcontractors to perform work at its discretion, provided that Contractor shall fully
pay any subcontractor and in all instances remain responsible for the proper completion of this Contract.
13. Events Beyond Contractor’s Control. Customer agrees that if the Contractor is unable to complete the Services by the
Completion Date because of reasons that were not caused by the Contractor (i.e., availability of necessary supplies, materials,
etc.) or because of events beyond the Contractor’s control (such as labor issues, fire, flood, acts of God, vandalism, etc.),
Contractor will not be deemed to have breached this Contract and the time for Contractor to complete the Services will be
extended by the amount of time reasonably necessary for Contractor to complete the Services and at a schedule agreeable to
the Parties. The time for Customer to pay Contractor for the Services will be extended in the same manner.
14. Liability Waiver. If Contractor, any of it’s employees, contractors, agents, or the like are injured in the course of performing
the Services, Customer is exempt from liability for those injuries to the fullest extent allowed by law.
15. Indemnification/ Hold Harmless. Contractor shall indemnify and hold customer harmless for any and all claims, suits, losses
and expenses, including attorneys’ fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of services, provided that such claims,
suits, damages, losses or expenses is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of
tangible property, including the loss of use resulting therefrom; and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent or willful act
or omission of the Contractor and anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contractor or anyone for whose acts any of them
may be liable.
16. Termination For Cause: Customer can terminate the Contract by giving written notice if: (a) Customer elects not to exercise
any of its option periods; (b) Contractor fails to perform based on the Contractor’s bankruptcy, lack or loss of skilled personnel,
or disregarding laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public body having jurisdiction. Should any single, multiple
or all of the above conditions occur, Customer has the authority to terminate the Contract with written notice Contractor.
Contractor is liable for any losses occurring as a result of not abiding by the terms of this Contract. Any termination of
Contractor’s services for cause will not affect any right of Customer against Contractor then existing or which may thereafter
occur. Any retention of payment of monies by Customer due Contractor will not release Contractor from compliance with the
Contract Documents
17. Termination For Convenience: Either party may voluntarily terminate this Contract at any time upon thirty (30) days advance
written notice to the other party of its intention to terminate. Upon such termination Contractor shall be entitled to payment
only as follows: (1) the actual cost of the work completed in conformity with this Agreement plus, (2 such other cost actually
incurred by Contractor as are permitted and approved by Customer. All notice correspondence shall be forwarded by certified
mail to the persons and locations as provided herein above.
18. Prohibition on Contingent Fees. Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit
or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee,
excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by Contractor for the
purpose of securing business and that Contractor has not received any non-Client fee related to this Contract without the prior
written consent of Customer. For breach or violation of this warranty, Customer shall have the right to terminate this Contract
pursuant to this Section or at its discretion to deduct from the Contract, the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage or contingent fee.
19. Independent Contractor. The relationship of Contractor to Customer is that of independent contractor and not that of
partner, member, joint venturer, employee or agent. Nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed as creating any
agency, partnership, joint venture or other form of joint enterprise, employment or fiduciary relationship between the
Parties. This Contract shall not be construed to make either Party the agent or legal representative of the other
Party for any purpose whatsoever, and neither Party is granted any right or authority to assume or create any obligations
for, on behalf of, or in the name of the other Party. Each Party agrees that it will neither represent, nor allow itself to be held
out as an agent of, or partner or joint venturer with the other Party.
20. Entire Agreement. This document reflects the entire agreement between the Parties and reflects a complete understanding
of the Parties with respect to the subject matter. This Contract supersedes all prior written and oral representations. The Contract
may not be amended, altered or supplemented except in writing signed by both Contractor and Customer.
Page 5 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
21. Modification Requires Legislative Approval . This Contract may only be modified by a written amendment signed by an
authorized representative of each Party. Contractor acknowledges that this Contract and any changes to it by amendment,
modification, change order or other similar document may have required or may require the legislative authorization of the
Board of Commissioners and approval of the Mayor. Under Georgia law, Contractor is deemed to possess knowledge
concerning Customer's ability to assume contractual obligations and the consequences of Contractor’s provision of goods or
services to Customer under an unauthorized contract, amendment, modification, change order or other similar document,
including the possibility that Contractor may be precluded from recovering payment for such unauthorized goods or services.
Accordingly, Contractor agrees that if it provides goods or services to Customer under a contract that has not received proper
legislative authorization or if Contractor provides goods or services to Customer in excess of the any contractually authorized
goods or services, as required by Augusta, Georgia's Charter and Code, Customer may withhold payment for any unauthorized
goods or services provided by Contractor. Service Provider assumes all risk of non-payment for the provision of any
unauthorized goods or services to Customer, and it waives all claims to payment or to other remedies for the provision of any
unauthorized goods or services to Customer, however characterized, including, without limitation, all remedies at law or
equity." This acknowledgement shall be a mandatory provision in all Augusta, Georgia contracts for goods and services, except
revenue producing contracts. Notwithstanding the forgoing, Customer shall provide Contractor a certified copy of the
legislative authorization from the Board of Commissioners for this Contract, and any amendment, change order, modification,
addition of deliverables, or similar document. Customer further acknowledges that Contractor shall not commence any work
that is contained in any this Contract or any amendment, change order, modification, addition of deliverables, or similar
document, until it has received said certified copy of the legislative authorization, and that Contractor shall not be liable under
this Agreement, or under law or equity, for any delays which are due to its not timely receiving said legislative authorization.
22. Dispute Resolution and Legal Fees. In the event of a dispute arising out of this Contract that cannot be resolved by mutual
agreement, the Parties agree to engage in mediation. If the matter cannot be resolved through mediation, and legal action
ensues, each party shall be responsible for its own legal fees, including, but not limited to its attorneys’ fees.
23. Georgia Open Records Act. Contractor acknowledges that this Contract and certain documentation that the Customer may
receive may be subject to the Georgia Open Records Act (OCGA §50-18-70, et seq.) (hereinafter the “Act”). Contractor shall
cooperate in a commercially reasonable manner in responding to such requests and shall make relevant non-exempt records
that may be in its possession as defined in, and which are subject to the Act, available for inspection and copying as required
under the Act. Confidential and Proprietary documentation and/or information that the Customer may receive from the
Contractor shall be marked as such and shall attach an affidavit attesting to the confidential and proprietary nature of the
documentation and/or information, and shall be subject to the relevant exclusions pursuant to the Act.
24. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, claims, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing to the persons and
addresses stated herein above. Any notice, request, demand, claim, or other communication hereunder shall be deemed duly
given when (i) if delivered personally, upon delivered personally to the recipient. Any Party may change the address to which
notices, requests, demands, claims, and other communications hereunder are to be delivered by giving the other Parties notice
in the manner herein set forth.
25. Assignment. Neither Party may assign any of its rights or duties under this Contract without the prior written consent of the
other Party, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, except that either Party may assign to an affiliate of such Party or
to successor entity in the event of its dissolution, acquisition, sale of substantially all of its assets, merger or other change in
legal status. This Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors and permitted assigns of
the Parties. Contractor shall not assign the whole or any part of this Contract or any monies due or to become due hereunder
without written consent of Customer. In case Contractor assigns all or any part of any monies due or to become due under
this Contract, the instrument of assignment shall contain a clause substantially to the effect that it is agreed that the right of
the assignee in and to any monies due or to become due to Contractor shall be subject to prior liens of all persons, firms, and
corporations for services rendered or materials supplied for the performance of the services called for in this Contract.
26. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents shall be comprised of RFP 22-186, Contractor’s Response to RFP 22-186, and
this Contract and its schedules, exhibits, and attachments. If there is any conflict between a terms in the Contract Documents,
the Order of precedence shall be as follows: (a) RFP 22-186, (b) Contractor’s Response to RFP 22-186, and then (c) this Contract
and its schedules, exhibits, and attachments.
27. Legal and Binding Contract. This Contract is legal and binding between the Parties as stated above. This Contract may be
entered into and is legal and binding both in the United States. The Parties each represent that they have the authority to enter
into this Contract.
28. Severability. If any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining
Page 6 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If the Court finds that any provision of this Contract is invalid or
unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed
to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited.
29. Waiver. The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation of
that party’s right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every provision of this Contract.
30. Applicable Law. The validity and interpretation of this Contract and each clause and part thereof shall be governed by the
law of the State of Georgia without reference to principles of conflict of laws. Any legal suit, action or proceeding arising out
of or related to this Contract or the matters contemplated hereunder shall be instituted exclusively in the federal or state
courts located in Richmond County, Georgia. Each Party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any
such suit, action or proceeding and waives any objection based on improper venue or forum non conveniens. This section shall
survive the termination of this Contract.
BY SIGNING BELOW, CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT CUSTOMER IS
SATISFIED WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. CUSTOMER SHOULD NOT SIGN THIS CONTRACT IF THERE
ARE ANY BLANK SPACES. CUSTOMER IS ENTITLED TO A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT.
The Parties agree to the terms and conditions set forth above as demonstrated by their signatures as follows:
“CONTRACTOR”
Signed:
By: William Kenneth Clark, CEO and Owner
Date: 06/02/2022
“CUSTOMER”
Signed:
By:
Date:
Page 7 of 8
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
Exhibit A
Scope of Services and Fee Schedule
1. Installation of BDA systems into Augusta structures to provide/extend radio coverage throughout for
interoperability with or for Public Safety Elements during routine and emergency communications.
Additionally, maintain, modify, or supplement current BDAs in place.
2. Integration with Augusta’s simulcast radio system.
3. Full scope of implementation services, including initiation, planning, analysis, configuration, testing, training,
project management, and interface development if necessary.
4. Specifications and pricing for the frequently recommended hardware.
5. The maintenance and modification of current BDA systems to provide sufficient radio coverage to support
day-to-day operations.
6. The installation of new BDA systems to provide sufficient radio coverage to support day-to-day operations.
7. The vendor must provide an updated copy of building schematics, including BDA, internal and end external
antenna locations, and all cable runs within the structure.
8. Meet the following technical requirements:
a. Equipment must meet all FCC guidelines and requirements.
b. A minimum Digital Audio Quality (DAQ) of 3.4, in 90% of buildings inhabitable space.
c. Solutions should be able to archive historical data to troubleshoot and identify system shortfalls
within the structure.
d. Equipment must support the 800MHz frequency spectrum.
e. External antennas must sustain a Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) below 1.5.
f. All external cable/antenna connections must be completely waterproof.
g. All transmission lines must ensure that source impedance must be equal to load impedance.
h. System programming is limited to the Augusta’s FCC authorized and licensed frequencies.
9. Augusta certifies that no production work shall take place unless it is through mutual consent with the vendor
and recorded in writing. Augusta IT Department will request a work order quote for the services to be
provided.
10. Prior to the issue of payment for services rendered, coverage testing must be completed. The testing team
must be comprised of both vendor and designated Augusta IT personnel.
11. Prior to the issue of payment for services rendered, system performance must be verified by the using
customer to ensure the system performance meets their needs.
Page 5 of 5
Proprietary Information – Engineering Wireless Services, LLC Contracts Management Department.
Services Agreement version: EWS2020
FEE SCHEDULE
The fee proposal is a simple document, no longer than two (2) pages in length, that describes the pricing
model and provides a final price subject to any changes that might occur during contract negotiation.
The proposal should provide a cost breakdown by category.
Augusta is requesting individual flat hourly costs for Engineering, Remediation/Maintenance, and
Installation services. Below are the definitions of each.
Also include your equipment manufacturers/vendors of preference and your proposed percentage off
of list price (i.e., the standard discount you will offer for any equipment Augusta purchases through
you). Note: Augusta reserves the right to purchase hardware from our own sources.
Fee proposals should use the format below (all items are required):
Item Proposed Fee
Engineering Services Fee
Definition: The design and manufacture of complex projects. Investigation and
documentation of existing problems. Recommending solutions for remediation.
$ 150 per hour
Remediation/Maintenance Services Fee
Definition: The adjustment/installation of additional hardware components
necessary for complete structure coverage. Inspections of and repairs to existing
infrastructure.
$ 125 per hour
Installation Services Fee
Definition: The physical placement of hardware and ancillary components of BDA
systems, cable installation, etc.
$ 110 per hour
Preferred Hardware Manufacturers/Vendors
List your preferred equipment manufacturers/vendors. You must list at least one,
but you may list as many as needed.
[List preferred
manufacturers/vendors]
Westell Technologies, Inc
Standard Equipment Discount 10% % off of list price
Request for Proposals
Request for Proposals will be received at this office until Wednesday, March 23, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m. via ZOOM Meeting ID: 822
5096 2876; Passcode: 952942 for furnishing:
RFP Item # 22-186 Bi-Directional Antenna Vendor Solution for Augusta, GA – Information Technology Department
RFPs will be received by: The Augusta Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of:
Geri A. Sams, Director
Augusta Procurement Department
535 Telfair Street - Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30901
RFP documents may be viewed on the Augusta Georgia web site under the Procurement Department ARCbid. RFP documents may
be obtained at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 535 Telfair Street – Room 605, Augusta, GA 30901 (706-
821-2422).
All questions must be submitted in writing by fax to 706 821-2811 or by email to procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov to the
office of the Procurement Department by Friday, March 11, 2022 @ 5:00 P.M. No RFP will be accepted by fax or email, all must
be received by mail or hand delivered.
No RFP may be withdrawn for a period of 90 days after bids have been opened, pending the execution of contract with the
successful bidder(s).
Request for proposals (RFP) and specifications. An RFP shall be issued by the Procurement Office and shall include specifications
prepared in accordance with Article 4 (Product Specifications), and all contractual terms and conditions, applicable to the
procurement. All specific requirements contained in the request for proposal including, but not limited to, the number of copies
needed, the timing of the submission, the required financial data, and any other requirements designated by the Procurement
Department are considered material conditions of the bid which are not waivable or modifiable by the Procurement Director.
All requests to waive or modify any such material condition shall be submitted through the Procurement Director to the
appropriate committee of the Augusta, Georgia Commission for approval by the Augusta, Georgia Commission. Please mark RFP
number on the outside of the envelope.
GEORGIA E-Verify and Public Contracts: The Georgia E-Verify law requires contractors and all sub-contractors on Georgia public
contract (contracts with a government agency) for the physical performance of services over $2,499 in value to enroll in E-Verify,
regardless of the number of employees. They may be exempt from this requirement if they have no employees and do not plan
to hire employees for the purpose of completing any part of the public contract. Certain professions are also exempt. All requests
for proposals issued by a city must include the contractor affidavit as part of the requirement for their bid to be considered.
Proponents are cautioned that acquisition of RFP documents through any source other than the office of the Procurement
Department is not advisable. Acquisition of RFP documents from unauthorized sources places the proponent at the risk of receiving
incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base their qualifications.
Correspondence must be submitted via mail, fax or email as follows:
Augusta Procurement Department
Attn: Geri A. Sams, Director of Procurement
535 Telfair Street, Room 605
Augusta, GA 30901
Fax: 706-821-2811 or Email: procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov
GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director
Publish:
Augusta Chronicle February 17, 24, 2022 and March 3, 10, 2022
Metro Courier February 17, 2022
Revised: 3/22/21
OFFICIAL
VENDORS Attachment
"B"
E-Verify
Number
SAVE
Form
Addendum
1 Original 7 Copies Fee
Proposal
Bear Communications Inc.
1510 Huber Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Yes 1215347 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Engineering Wireless
Services, LLC
2175 W. 14th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281
Yes 1606199 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mobile Communications
America, Inc.
100 Dunbar Street, Suite 304
Spartanburg, SC 29304
Yes 1211667 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hyperion, Inc.
11480 Commerce Park Drive
Suite 120
Reston, VA 20191
Yes 342107 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
RFP Opening - RFP Item #22-186
Bi-Directional Antenna Vendor Solution for Augusta, GA
– Information Technology Department
RFP Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 18
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar): 2
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar): 243
Georgia Procurement Registry: 2494
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 0
Page 1 of 1
Bear Communications Inc.
1510 Huber Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Engineering Wireless
Services, LLC
2175 W. 14th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281
Mobile Communications
America, Inc.
100 Dunbar Street, Suite 304
Spartanburg, SC 29304
Hyperion, Inc.
11480 Commerce Park Drive
Suite 120
Reston, VA 20191
Bear Communications Inc.
1510 Huber Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Engineering Wireless
Services, LLC
2175 W. 14th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281
Mobile Communications
America, Inc.
100 Dunbar Street, Suite 304
Spartanburg, SC 29304
Hyperion, Inc.
11480 Commerce Park Drive
Suite 120
Reston, VA 20191
Evaluation Criteria Ranking Points
1. Completeness of Response
• Package submitted by the deadline
• Package is complete (includes requested information
as required per this solicitation)
• Attachment B is complete, signed and notarized
N/A Pass/Fail PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
2. Qualifications & Experience (0-5)15 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0
3. Organization & Approach (0-5)20 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 60.0
4.Scope of Services
• Experience with Audit Services for Consolidated
Governments
• Experience with Audit Services for Governments
whose assets exceed $400 million
• Experience with Audit Services for Governments
whose revenues exceed $200 million
• Qualifications Staff (CPA, Audit Certified, etc.)
• Audit Approach including timeliness of audit
• Quality of written reports
• Experience with issuance of Debt Instruments
(0-5)20 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0
5. References (0-5)5 0.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 0.0 22.5 22.5 20.0
6. Financial Stability (0-5)5 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 15.0 15.0 22.5 15.0
Within Richmond County 5 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Within CSRA 5 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Within Georgia 5 4 5 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Within SE United States (includes AL, TN, NC, SC, FL) 5 2 5 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
• All Others 5 1 5 5 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0
20.5 27 26.5 24.5 260.0 307.5 280.0 265.0
8. Presentation by Team (0-5)10 0 0 0 0
9. Q&A Response to Panel Questions (0-5)5 0 0 0 0
Lowest Fees 5 10 5 0 0 0 50
Second 5 6 5 0 0 30 0
Third 5 4 5 0 20 0 0
Forth 5 2 0 0 0 0
Fifth 5 1 0 0 0 0
Total Phase 2 - (Total Maximum Ranking 15
- Maximum Weighted Total Possible 125) 0 5 5 5 0 20 30 50
20.5 32.0 31.5 29.5 260.0 327.5 310.0 315.0
Evaluator: Cumulative Evaluation Sheet Date: 4/13/2022
Procurement DepartmentRepresentative:____Nancy Williams______________________________________
Procurement Department Completion Date: 4/13/2022
Phase 2 (Option - Numbers 8-9) (Vendors May Not Receive Less Than a 3 Ranking in Any Category to be Considered for Award)
Total Cumulative Score
(Maximum point is 500)
Total (Total Possible Score 500) Total (May not Receive Less Than a 3 Ranking in Any Category
10. Cost/Fee Proposal Consideration (only choose 1 line according to dollar value of the
proposal in relation to all fee proposals - enter the point value for the one line only) Cost/Fee Proposal Consideration
Internal Use Only
Evaluation Sheet - RFP Item #22-186 Bi-Directional Antenna Vendor Solution for Augusta, GA – Information Technology Department
RFP Evaluation Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m. via ZOOM
7. Proximity to Area (only choose 1 line according to location of the company - enter the ranking value for the one line only)
Phase 1 Total - (Total Maximum Ranking 30 -
Maximum Weighted Total Possible 375)
Vendors
Phase 1
Scale 0 (Low) to 5 (High)
Ranking of 0-5 (Enter a number value between 0 and 5)
Weighted Scores
ISG, LLC
5274 PALMERO CT, STE 300
BUFORD GA 30518
FIRE CENTRAL SOLUTIONS
9313 OLD KINGS RD S
JACKSONVILLE FL 32257
COASTAL EMPIRE FIRE &
SECURITY
2431 HABERSHAM ST
SAVANNAH GA 31401
BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC
1510 HUBER ST NW
ATLANTA GA 30318
ALTELIX, LLC
1201 CLINT MOORE
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
MYERS ENGINEERING INT’L. INC.
5425 N W 24TH STREET
UNITS #201-203
MARGATE, FL 33063
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES
750 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AORORA, IL 60504
TELECO
430 WOODRUFF ROAD #300
GREENVILLE, SC 29607
TELECO
606 S. MILITARY TRAIL
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
BEARCOM
4009 DISTRIBUTION DRIVE, #200
GARLAND, TX 75041
SOUTHWEST ANTENNAS
10939 TECHNOLOGY PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
DCH SYSTEMS INC.
626 CENTRAL AVE. STE 2
EAST ORANGE, NJ 07018
RADIOWAVES, INC.
50 HIGH STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01862
APW SOLUTIONS
9418 SOUTH 670
WEST SANDY, UT 84070
HARRIS COMMUNICATIONS
1722 HERLONG VILLAGE DRIVE
ROCK HILL, SC 29732
DIAMOND ANTENNA
312 SWANSON DRIVE SUITE B
LAWRENCEVILLE, GA 30043
STATE SYSTEMS
1861 VANDERHORN DRIVE
MEMPHIS, TN 38134
HIGH RISE SECURITY SYSTEMS
15W278 N. FRONTAGE RD.
BURR RIDGE, IL 60527
TAMEKA ALLEN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT
MATTIE SUE STEVENS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT
PHYLLIS JOHNSON
COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT
RFP ITEM #22-186
BI-DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA VENDOR
SOLUTION FOR AUGUSTA, GA –
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT.
DUE: WED., MARCH 23, 2022 @ 11:00 A.M.
RFP ITEM #22-186
BI-DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA VENDOR
SOLUTION FOR AUGUSTA, GA –
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT.
MAILED: 2/18/22
1
FYI: Process Regarding Request for Proposals
Sec. 1-10-51. Request for proposals.
Request for proposals shall be handled in the same manner as the bid process as
described above for solicitation and awarding of contracts for goods or services with
the following exceptions:
(a) Only the names of the vendors making offers shall be disclosed at the proposal
opening.
(b) Content of the proposals submitted by competing persons shall not be
disclosed during the process of the negotiations.
(c) Proposals shall be open for public inspection only after the award is made.
(d) Proprietary or confidential information, marked as such in each proposal, shall
not be disclosed without the written consent of the offeror.
(e) Discussions may be conducted with responsible persons submitting a proposal
determined to have a reasonable chance of being selected for the award. These
discussions may be held for the purpose of clarification to assure a full
understanding of the solicitation requirement and responsiveness thereto.
(f) Revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the
purpose of obtaining the best and final offers.
(g) In conducting discussions with the persons submitting the proposals, there
shall be no disclosure of any information derived from the other persons
submitting proposals.
Sec. 1-10-52. Sealed proposals.
(a) Conditions for use. In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(c)(1)(C), the
competitive sealed proposals method may be utilized when it is determined in
writing to be the most advantageous to Augusta, Georgia, taking into
consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. The
evaluation factors in the request for proposals shall be the basis on which the
award decision is made when the sealed proposal method is used. Augusta,
Georgia is not restricted from using alternative procurement methods for
2
obtaining the best value on any procurement, such as Construction
Management at Risk, Design/Build, etc.
(b) Request for proposals. Competitive sealed proposals shall be solicited through
a request for proposals (RFP).
(c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the request for proposals shall be
given in the same manner as provided in section 1-10- 50(c)(Public Notice
and Bidder's List); provided the normal period of time between notice and
receipt of proposals minimally shall be fifteen (15) calendar days.
(d) Pre-proposal conference. A pre-proposal conference may be scheduled at
least five (5) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, and notice shall
be handled in a manner similar to section 1-10-50(c)-Public Notice and
Bidder's List. No information provided at such pre-proposal conference shall
be binding upon Augusta, Georgia unless provided in writing to all offerors.
(e) Receipt of proposals. Proposals will be received at the time and place
designated in the request for proposals, complete with bidder qualification and
technical information. No late proposals shall be accepted. Price information
shall be separated from the proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only
after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked.
The names of the offerors will be identified at the proposal acceptance;
however, no proposal will be handled so as to permit disclosure of the detailed
contents of the response until after award of contract. A record of all responses
shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes.
(f) Public inspection. The responses will be open for public inspection only after
contract award. Proprietary or confidential information marked as such in
each proposal will not be disclosed without written consent of the offeror.
(g) Evaluation and selection. The request for proposals shall state the relative
importance of price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the
context of proposal evaluation and contract award. (Pricing proposals will not
be opened until the proposals have been reviewed and ranked). Such
evaluation factors may include, but not be limited to:
(1) The ability, capacity, and skill of the offeror to perform the contract or
3
provide the services required;
(2) The capability of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the
service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or
interference;
(3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and
efficiency of the offeror;
(4) The quality of performance on previous contracts;
(5) The previous and existing compliance by the offeror with laws and
ordinances relating to the contract or services;
(6) The sufficiency of the financial resources of the offeror relating to his
ability to perform the contract;
(7) The quality, availability, and adaptability of the supplies or services to
the particular use required; and
(8) Price.
(h) Selection committee. A selection committee, minimally consisting of
representatives of the procurement office, the using agency, and the
Administrator's office or his designee shall convene for the purpose of
evaluating the proposals.
(i) Preliminary negotiations. Discussions with the offerors and technical
revisions to the proposals may occur. Discussions may be conducted with the
responsible offerors who submit proposals for the purpose of clarification and
to assure full understanding of, and conformance to, the solicitation
requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect
to any opportunity for discussions and revision of proposals and such
revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to award for the purpose
of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no
disclosure of information derived from proposals submitted by competing
offerors.
(j) From the date proposals are received by the Procurement Director through the
date of contract award, no offeror shall make any substitutions, deletions,
4
additions or other changes in the configuration or structure of the offeror’s
teams or members of the offeror’s team.
(k) Final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee shall rank the
technical proposals, open and consider the pricing proposals submitted by
each offeror. Award shall be made or recommended for award through the
Augusta, Georgia Administrator, to the most responsible and responsive
offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to Augusta,
Georgia, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in
the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the
evaluation. The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis on
which the award is made/recommended. The contract shall be awarded or let
in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section and the other
applicable sections of this chapter.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Award RFP Item # 22-186 to Engineering Wireless Services, EWS, LLC.
Department:Information Technology
Presenter:Mr. Gary Hewett, Deputy CIO
Caption:Award RFP Item # 22-186 to Engineering Wireless Services, EWS, LLC.
Background:Information Technology and Procurement published RFP Item #11-186 to
solicit bids to work on Augusta’s P25 Land Mobile Radio System, LMRS,
and Bi-Directional Antenna, BDA, systems. The focus of this RFP is to
improve radio coverage within buildings, remediation of radio related
issues, and improve Public Safety.
Analysis:Information Technology and Procurement formed a selection committee to
evaluate all proposals. The selection committee followed the scoring
process, identified within the RFP, and selected Engineering Wireless
Services, EWS, LLC as the vendor of choice for these services. EWS, LLC
has the expertise and experience necessary to perform these engineering,
remediation/maintenance, and installation services. EWS met all
requirement identified within this RFP.
Financial Impact:The selected proposal is based on an hourly rate plus materials. Funds for
Augusta’s P25 Land Mobile Radio System related projects are available
within Information Technology’s radio budget. Funds for departmental
projects are available within each department requesting services.
Alternatives:NA
Recommendation:Award RFP Item # 22-186 to Engineering Wireless Services, EWS, LLC.
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
The selected proposal is based on an hourly rate plus materials. Funds for
Augusta’s P25 Land Mobile Radio System related projects are available
within Information Technology’s radio budget. Funds for departmental
projects are available within each department requesting services.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Procurement.
Information Technology.
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Public Safety Committee Meeting Commission Chamber - 611412022
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Hons. Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor; Clarke, Chairman; D.
Williams, Vice Chairman; B. Williams and Garrett, members.
PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Motion to accept CACJ FY23 Grant Award for State Court DUI and Veterans ltem
Accountability Court Programs in the amount of $170,186.00 to provide Action:
services to participants who qualiff for entry into the treatment court program. Approved
Motions
Motion
- ----- Motion Text'r'ype
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vto,io, Passes
4-0.
Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commissioner
Bobby williams Dennis williams Passes
2. Motion to approve the Augusta Fire Department's fund balance as the funding ltem
source for repairs to Med 4 Ambulance. Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion Motion Textrype
Motion to. aDDrove.APProve vtotion Passes
4-0.
3. Motion to approve Augusta-Richmond County FY23 Capacity Agreement for Item
State Inmates being housed at the Richmond County Correctional Institution. Action:
Approved
Commissioner Commissioner
Bobby Williams Dennis williams Passes
Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
4_0.
4. Motion to approve the minutes of the Public Safety Committee held on May Item31,2022. Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
5. Motion to approve the amendment of the Animal Control ordinance to ltem
eliminate the registration requirements and associated fees, repeal conflicting Action:
ordinances, and for other purposes. Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
Motions
Motion- """" Motion Textr ype
Motion to approve
. and to waive theAoorovesecond reading.
Motion Passes 4-0.
6. Motion to approve the FY2023
award for the Adult Felony
$348,623.00.
Motion Text Made By Seconded By
Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commissioner
Motion Passes Bobby Williams Dennis Williams
Motion Text Made By Seconded By
Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commissioner
Motion Passes Bobby Williams Dennis Williams
4-0.
Motion
Result
Passes
Motion
Result
Passes
Made By seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commissioner
Brandon Garrett Bobby Williams Passes
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council grant Item
Drug Court Program in the amount of Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
Motion Text
Motion to
approve.
Made By
Commissioner
Bobby Williams
Seconded By
Commissioner
Dennis Williams
Motion
Result
Passes
Motion Passes
4-0.
7. Motion to approve the FY2023 Criminal Justice Council grant award for Item
Mental Health Court Program in the amount of $147,685.00. Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
4-0.
8. Motion to approve the FY2023 Criminal Justice Coordinating Council grant Item
award for Veterans Court Program in the amount of $83, 613.00. Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
4-0.
9. Motion to approve the purchase of SCBA air packs as a sole source from Item
Vallen for the Augusta Fire Department. Action:
Approved
Motions
Motion
Type
Approve
4-0.
10. Motion to instruct the Administrator to take current Gold Cross MOU and Item
meet with Gold Cross representatives to formulate terms and directives of an Action:
agreed upon contract. (Requested by Commissioner Brandon Garrett) None
Motions
Motion Text Made By Seconded By
Motion to
approve. Commissioner Commissioner
Motion Passes Bobby Williams Dennis Williams
Motion Text Made By Seconded By
Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commissioner
Motion Passes Bobby Williams Dennis Williams
Motion
Result
Passes
Motion
Result
Passes
Motion Text Made By
Motion to
approve. Commissioner
Motion Passes Bobby Williams
seconded By f."riil
Commissioner
Dennis williams Passes
Motion Motion Text Made Seconded MotionType By By Result
Unanimous consent is not given to
add this item to the agenda.
www.auqustaga.gov
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Minutes
Department:
Presenter:
Caption:Motion to approve the minutes of the Public Safety Committee held on
June 14, 2022.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Public Safety Committee Meeting
7/12/2022 1:05 PM
Monique Braswell
Department:
Presenter:
Caption:Ms. Monique Braswell regarding Gold Cross and 911 dispatch and service.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available in
the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: