HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAZARD MITIGATION PLAN HEPHZIBAH BLYTHE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~d Y/~d- aJ
City of Augusta, Georgia
and the cities of
Hephzibah & Blythe
Hazard Mitigation Plan
A Plan to Reduce the Impacts of Natural Hazards
City of Augusta
530 Greene Street
Augusta, GA 30911
706/821-1155
City of Blythe
294 Church Street
Blythe, GA 30805
706/592-6255
City of Hephzibah
2530 Highway 88
Hephzibah, GA 30815
706/592-4423
February 2006
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
City of Augusta, Georgia
and the cities of
Hephzibah & Blythe
Hazard Mitigation Plan
A Plan to Reduce the Impacts of Natural Hazards
City of Augusta
530 Greene Street
Augusta, GA 30911
706/821-1155
City of Blythe
294 Church Street
Blythe, GA 30805
706/592-6255
City of Hephzibah
2530 Highway 88
Hephzibah, GA 30815
706/592-4423
February 2006
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............. ... ...... ......... ... ............ ..... ........... ................ ..... ....... ....... ..... .......... .... 1-1
1.1 Purpose & Authority .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 The Planning Process... ........... ..... ....... ................ ................... ......... .......... ....... .......... 1-1
1.2.1 Planning Committee Participants ............. ....... ........................................... ..... 1-1
1.2.2 Step-by-Step Process. ... ..... ......... ............ ......... ............ ......... ............ ............... 1-2
1.2.3 Committee Meetings ... .............. ......... ..... ..................... ......... ..... ............ ......... 1-4
1.3 Organization of the Plan...... ..... ........ ....... ........ ..... ..................... ....... ......................... 1-4
1.4 The Planning Area .... ......... ....... ..................... ....... ................ ................ ........ ............. 1-5
1.4.1 Geography & Climate ..................................................................................... 1-6
1.4.2 Population & Economy ................................................................................... 1-6
1.4.3 Land Use & Growth ........................................................................................ 1-8
1.4.4 Building Inventory ........................................................................................ 1-11
1.4.5 Critical & Essential Facilities ....................................................................... 1-14
1.5 Hazard Summary ... .... ................ ..... .............. ......... ......... ....... ................. ......... ........ 1-15
1.5.1 Hazard History .............. ..... ............................. ....................... ....................... 1-17
1.5 .2 Weather-Related Deaths.... ... ......................... .... ................ ............................ 1-19
1.5.3 Losses Due to Major Disasters......................................................................1-19
1.5.4 Relative Ranking of Hazards ,....................................................................... 1-20
1.6 Mitigation Goal..... .................... ..... ............................. ..... ....... .............. ................... 1-21
1.7 Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations ..................... ............ ......... .................... ....... .... 1-24
1.8 Public Involvement... ............. ..... ............................ .... .................................. ........... 1-24
1.8.1 Public Meetings.... ....... ..... ......... .............. .................. .......................... .......... 1-24
1.8.2 Public Awareness of Flood Hazards .............................................................1-26
1.8.3 Communicating about Hazards ..................................................................... 1-28
1.9 Adoption, Implementation, Reporting, Evaluation & Revision .............................. 1-29
2. Natural Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities ................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Floods and Related Hazards.. ............... .... ................. .......................... ....................... 2-1
2.1.1 Events, Frequency & Probability ..................................................................2-11
2.1.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses ..............................................................2-11
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
-
Table of Contents .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1.3 Land Use and Development Trends.............................................................. 2-22
2.1.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ................................................................... 2-23
2.1.5 Summary: Exposure to Flood Hazards ........................................................2-23
2.2 Wind Hazards........................................................................................................... 2-24
2.2.1 Events, Frequency & Probability ..................................................................2-26
2.2.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses .............................................................. 2-30
2.2.3 Land Use and Development Trends.............................................................. 2-32
2.2.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ..... ..... ........ ..... .............. .......... ............ ... ..... 2-32
2.2.5 Summary: Wind Hazards .. ..... ....... .................... .................... ..... .... .............. 2-32
2.3 Severe Winter Storms .. .... ........... ..... ..... ......... ........ ..... .......... ................. .... ........ ...... 2-33
2.3.1 Events, Frequency & Probability .................................................................. 2-34
2.3.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses .............................................................. 2-34
2.3.3 Land Use and Development Trends.............................................................. 2-35
2.3.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ............... ........... .................... ..................... 2-35
2.3.5 Summary: Winter Storms...... .......... ........... ........ ..... ..... ............... ....... .......... 2-35
2.4 Drought................................................................................................................... 2-36
2.4.1 Events, Frequency & Probability .................................................................. 2-36
2.4.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses .............................................................. 2-38
2.4.3 Land Use and Development Trends .............................................................. 2-38
2.4.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ..... ........... ........... ............. ....... ....... ............. 2-38
2.4.5 Summary: Drought....................................................................................... 2-39
2.5 Urban Wildland Interface Fire .................................................................................2-39
2.5.1 Events, Frequency & Probability ..................................................................2-39
2.5.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses .............................................................. 2-41
2.5.3 Land Use and Development Trends.............................................................. 2-43
2.5.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ............................... ..... ... ................ ............ 2-44
2.5.5 Summary: Urban Wildland Interface Fire.................................................... 2-44
3. Technological Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability........................................................... 3-1
3.1 Hazardous Materials ........ .............. ............ ........... .... ................. ........ ............ ............ 3-1
3.1.1 Events, Frequency & Probability ....................................................................3-2
3.1.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses ................................................................3-2
3.1.3 Land Use and Development Trends................................................................ 3-5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.1.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences ..................................................................... 3-5
3.1.5 Summary: Hazardous Materials ...... ..... ........... ......................... ...................... 3-5
4. Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions ........................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Flood Hazards ......... ............. ................... ..... ..... ....... ............... ................................... 4-2
4.1.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options............................. 4-2
4.1.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use................................4-3
4.1.3 Existing Flood Mitigation Initiatives .............................................................. 4-3
4.1.4 Mitigation Actions .... ..... ...... .... ......... ....... ....... ........ ................ ..... ........... ........ 4-8
4.2 Wind Hazards.... .... ....... ....... ....... ...... .... ...... ........ .... ............................. ................ .....4-15
4.2.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options........................... 4-15
4.2.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use..............................4-15
4.2.3 Mitigation Actions. .... ... .............. ............ ............................ ..... ........... .......... 4-16
4.3 Winter Storms. ........ ....... ....... ....... ................... ..... ........ ........... ......... ..... .... ............... 4-17
4.3.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options........................... 4-17
4.3.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use ..............................4-17
4.3.3 Mitigation Action. ... .... ......... ......... ....................... .................. ............ ........... 4-17
4.4 Drought .......... ...... ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ .... ...... .... ....... ..... ......... ....... ...... 4-18
4.4.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options........................... 4-18
4.4.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use.............................. 4-18
4.4.3 Mitigation Action................... ...... ............ ............... .... ......... ......................... 4-18
4.5 Urban Wildland Interface Fire ..... .............. ............................. ................................. 4-19
4.5.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options........................... 4-19
4.5.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use ..............................4-19
4.5.3 Mitigation Action ....... ......... ......................................... ............ ......... .... ........ 4-19
5. Technological Hazard: Mitigation Actions ................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options............................. 5-1
5.1.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use................................ 5-1
5.1.3 Mitigation Actions .............. ...... ...... ..... ....... ...... ........... .............. ..................... 5-1
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
-
Table of Contents .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6. Capability to Address Hazards ......................................................................................6-1
6.1 Augusta's Government Structure...............................................................................6-1
6.2 How Augusta Plans and Grows ................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.1 Planning for the Future....................................................................................6-2
6.2.2 Regulating Development (General) ................................................................6-5
6.2.3 Building Permits and Inspections ...................................................................6-9
6.2.4 Regulating Flood Hazard Areas ....................................................................6-11
6.3 Augusta's Departments & Programs .......................................................................6-13
6.4 Augusta' s Post-Flood Actions ...................... ..... ....... ....................... ........................ 6-17
6.5 Augusta's Continued Compliance with the NFIP.................................................... 6-18
6.6 Comprehensive Plan: Short Term Work Program (2003-2007) .............................6-20
6.7 Augusta's Natural Resources .... ..... ............ ................. .......... .............. ....... .............. 6-24
6.8 City of Blythe........................................................................................................... 6-27
6.9 City of Hephzibah ... ............. ..... ............. ..... ....... ......... ........ ................... ....... ..... ...... 6-29
7. Executi ng the Plan ............ ........................................ ......... ............ ...... ............. ........... ...... ........ 7-1
7.1 Implementation.......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Evaluation & Progress Reports... .................... ....... ......... .......... ..... ..... ............... ........ 7-2
7.3 Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations........... ............. ............... ................... ............. .... 7-3
7.4 Plan Maintenance & Revision ............................................. ....... ....... .......... ........ ...... 7-3
8. Conclusion
.................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 References.................................................................................................................. 8-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendices
Appendix A - Documentation of Planning Process ................................................................... A-I
A-I. Notifications............................................................................................................. . A-I
A -2. Planning Committee Meeting Agendas.......... ....................... .................................... A-9
A-3. Resolutions of Adoption... ..... ......... ............... ......... ........ ..... ......... ..... ...................... A-13
Appendix B - Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment............................................................B-1
B-1. Background on HAZUS-MH@ ..................................................................................B-1
B-2. GEMA's Online Critical Facility Inventory ...............................................................B-2
Appendix C - Key Terms & Acronyms ......................................................................................C-1
Appendix D - Savannah River Public Facility Summary ...........................................................D-l
Figures
1-1 Vicinity Map: State of Georgia.......................................................................................... 1-5
1-2 Population Density, by Census Tract.................................................................................. 1-7
1-3 Existing Land Use (2005) ................................................................................................... 1-9
1-4 Augusta's Commission Districts...... ................. ................................................................ 1-11
1-5 Average Age of Structures, by Census Tract.................................................................... 1-14
1-6 Critical & Essential Facilities..............................................................;....... ..................... 1-16
2-1 Flood Hazard Areas in Augusta.......................................................................................... 2-3
2-2 Flood Hazard Areas in Hephzibah ..................................................................................... 2-4
2-3 NFIP Flood Insurance Policies in Augusta......................................................................... 2-7
2-4 Watersheds and High Hazard Dams ................................................................................. 2-10
2-5 Critical and Essential Facilities in Mapped Flood Hazard Areas ..................................... 2-16
2-6 Rainfall Affects Wastewater Treatment Costs.................................................................. 2-20
2-7 Hurricanes & Tropical Storm Tracks (1950-2003)........................................................... 2-27
2-8 Basic Wind Speed Map: Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. ....................... 2-28
2-9 Tornadoes in Georgia (1950-2002)... .................................... ............ ....... ......................... 2-29
2-10 Georgia Counties: Fire Danger Rating (example) ...........................................................2-40
2-11 Land Uses Exposed to Urban Wildland Interface Fire ..................................................... 2-41
2-12 Critical and Essential Facilities in Land Uses Exposed to
Urban Wildland Interface Fire... ......... ................................ .... .......... ....... ......... .......... ...... 2-43
3-1 Clusters of Hazardous Materials Sites, with 1.5-mile buffer.............................................. 3-2
3-2 Critical & Essential Facilities in HazMat Buffers ..............................................................3-3
3-3 Locations of Hazardous Materials (flood map) .................................................................. 3-4
4-1 USGS Savannah River Gage at Augusta ............................................................................ 4-4
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
-
Table of Contents .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tables
1-1 Past Population Trends (1980-2000) ............. ..................................................................... 1-7
1-2 Future Population Trends (2005-2025)............ .............. ........................... .......................... 1-8
1-3 Augusta: Current and Future Land Use ........................................................................... 1-10
1-4 Number of Land Parcels.. ....... ........ ......... ...................... ......................................... .......... 1-10
1-5 Augusta Area: Buildings and Estimated Values .............................................................. 1-12
1-6 Building Inventory, by Type of Construction................................................................... 1-13
1-7 Housing, by Year Built (as a percent of all housing)........................................................ 1-13
1-8 Housing Units in Augusta, Hephzibah & Blythe (2000) .................................................. 1-14
1-9 Critical and Other Facilities, by Jurisdiction (2005)......................................................... 1-15
1-10 Selected Recent Floods and Declared Disasters ............................................................... 1-17
1-11 Weather-Related Deaths and Injuries (1950-2003) .......................................................... 1-19
1-12 Relative Risk Ranking ............ ...................... .... .......... .... ...................... ..... ....................... 1-21
1-13 Linking Mitigation Goal & Actions............ ........................... ............................. .............. 1-23
1-14 Summary of Mitigation Actions ................. ...................................................................... 1-23
2-1 Waterways on Augusta's FIRM..... ......... .......... ................. .... ............... ................ ..............2-4
2-2 Estimates of Damage Potential: Rocky Creek (1998) .......................................................2-8
2-3 High Hazard Dams Affecting Augusta ............................................................................... 2-9
2-4 Floodplain Buildings, by Commission District ................................................................ 2-12
2-5 Vacant Parcels Affected by FEMA Flood Zones ............................................................. 2-12
2-6 Flood-Prone Roads............ .................... ......... ......... ......... .............. ....... ................. ........... 2-21
2-7 Tornadoes: The Fujita Scale ............................................................................................ 2-25
2-8 Tornadoes Reported to the National Weather Service (1950-2004)................................. 2-30
2-9 Historical Occurrence of Drought in Georgia................................................................... 2-37
4-1 Relative Risk Ranking. ......... .............. ........... .... .............. ................ ................................... 4-1
4-2 Floodplain Acquisition Grants (as of mid-2005) ................................................................ 4-3
6-1 Augusta: Permit & Inspection Activity (2001-2004).......................................................6-10
6-2 Selected Projects from Comprehensive Plan:
Short Term Work Program (2003-2007) ..........................................................................6-21
6-3 Status of Augusta's Greenspace (2003)............................................................................ 6-25
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose & Authority
The cities of Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah undertook development of this Hazard Mitigation
Plan ("the Plan") because of increasing awareness that natural hazards, especially flood hazards,
may affect many people and property in the area. The Plan is a requirement associated with
receipt of certain federal mitigation grant program funds.
The Augusta Emergency Management Agency and the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission were designated by the Mayor and the Augusta Commission to coordinate with
other appropriate departments and agencies, including the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah, to
facilitate the development of the Plan in conformance with state and federal guidelines.
The Plan is a "multi-jurisdictional" plan that was prepared pursuant to the Hazard Mitigation and
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs (44 CFR Parts 201 and 206), and the process outlined in
materials prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the Community Rating
System of the National Flood Insurance Program. Augusta's Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2004), has been incorporated into this Plan. That Plan was prepared pursuant to the Flood
Mitigation Assistance Program (44 CFR 78.6) and was supported by a planning grant provided
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administered by the Georgia
Emergency Management Agency (GEMA).
This Plan was supported by a planning grant provided by FEMA and administered by GEMA.
The City of Augusta appreciates the advice and encouragement of both agencies.
1.2 The Planning Process
1.2.1 Planning Committee Participants
During development of the Plan the formal Mitigation Planning Committee was composed of:
· Barbara Sims, Augusta Commission (District 3)
· Tommy Boyles, Augusta Commission (District 7)
· Councilman Donald Atkins, City of Hephzibah
· Mayor Tom Cobb, City of Blythe
. Frederick L. Russell, Augusta City Administrator
. Chief Howard Willis, Interim Fire ChieflEmergency Management Agency
· George Patty, Executive Director, Planning Commission
. Captain P.A. Williams, Sheriffs Department
· Terri L. Turner, Assistant Zoning & Development Administrator, Planning Commission
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
...
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The following Augusta departments and offices are tasked to support the Mitigation Planning
Committee:
. Planning Commission -
Floodplain Management
. License & Inspections
. Engineering &
Environmental Services -
City Engineer
. Public Services
Department
. Emergency Management
Agency/Fire Department
. Augusta Utilities
. Housing & Economic
Development
. Recreation & Parks
. Information Technology
. Finance Department
The following agencies were notified, invited to participate, and asked to review and comment
on the Plan:
. Georgia Emergency Management Agency
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, NFIP State Coordinating Office
. Georgia Department of Transportation
. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Region IV
. Natural Resources Conservation Service - Augusta
The Hazard Mitigation Plan was facilitated by Rebecca C. Quinn, CFM, ofRCQuinn
Consulting, Inc., Annapolis, MD. The hazard identification and risk assessment work was
performed by Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., Greenbelt, MD.
1.2.2 Step-by-Step Process
The overall mitigation planning process, summarized below, was facilitated by a mitigation
planning consultant:
. Get Organized. Augusta's Planning Commission and the Emergency Management
Agency were charged with coordinating a committee comprised of Augusta departments
that are responsible for permits, subdivision approvals, neighborhood and community
development, recreation, parks, utilities, and public works. The cities of Blythe and
Hephzibah participated.
. Coordinate. The following agencies were notified of the planning activity and invited to
participate:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- Georgia Emergency Management Agency, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (NFIP State
Coordinator), Georgia Department of Transportation.
- FEMA Region IV, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Savannah District, and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
· Identify Hazards. As part of background for the flood mitigation plan interviews were
conducted with City department representatives to understand how members of the
Committee perceive the impacts past events and how hazards are incorporated into
routine responsibilities (detailed notes on the interviews are on file in the Planning
Commission). Flood maps prepared by FEMA can be used to show flood-prone areas,
although some areas not shown are known problem areas. A number of dams are located
within the City and on waterways that drain though the City. Other hazards examined
include hurricanes/tropical storms, severe storms and high winds, drought, tornadoes,
winter storms and urban wildland interface fires. Hazardous materials are generally
confined to fixed facilities or within defined transportation corridors.
. Review How Hazards are Addressed. During interviews, the roles of each program
were described with respect to whether and how flood hazards are included in routine
functions. City departments and representatives of Blythe and Hephzibah contributed
descriptions of how other hazards are addressed.
. Assess Risks. For the purpose of this Plan, site-specific risk assessments were not
prepared. The available floodplain mapping is the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (panels
are dated February 1987, January 1995, and March 1999). The City's GIS uses the
digital version of the FIRM (Q3 Flood Data). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
developing new floodplain mapping for four watersheds and FEMA has indicated that
revision of the City's maps is a high priority under the Map Modernization Program
recently funded by the U.S. Congress. FEMA's loss estimation model (HAZUS-MH@)
was used to estimate losses and identify risks for other hazards.
. Create Goal Statement. The mitigation goal statement was established as part of the
flood mitigation planning process; it was confirmed during the multi-hazard mitigation
planning process.
. Review Mitigation Actions. A list of tentative mitigation actions was prepared based on
meetings and interviews as well as knowledge of successful actions implemented in other
communities. The list was distributed to staff and discussed at committee meetings.
Changes were made and a revised list was distributed for members to indicate priorities
(Drop, No Opinion, Low, Medium, High) based on their program's functions and
priorities; all rankings were composited to represent the consensus.
· Draft Action Plan. Information collected and notes from meeting discussions were
compiled into a format prescribed by GEMA. The draft was circulated to Mitigation
Planning Committee members and staff and electronic copies were provided to adjacent
communities and pertinent state and federal agencies.
· Hold Public Meetings. On February 2, 2005 a public meeting was held to introduce the
planning process to interested citizens. Three notices advising of the availability of the
Public Review Draft Plan were published in the Augusta Chronicle and on the City's
webpage. Prior to adoption, a public meeting to present the Draft Plan was held on
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
...
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
September 15,2005. Multiple public notices were published, the City webpage included
the announcement and the Draft Plan, and numerous flyers were posted in the City's
main office building. The public notices and notifications are in Appendix A-I. No
members of the public attended. One set of comments was received bye-mail,
specifically addressing concerns not directly related to natural hazard mitigation, but
addressing chemical companies in Augusta and surrounding counties, the transport of
chemicals, petroleum pipelines, Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters, citizen
involvement in the Local Emergency Planning Committee, and responding to the
concerns of special needs populations impacted by disasters.
. Adopt Plan. Copies of the resolutions of adoption are found in Appendix A-3.
1.2.3 Committee Meetings
Four meetings of the Mitigation Planning Committee were held (agendas and attendees are in
Appendix A-2; meeting minutes are on file with the Planning Commission):
. February 1, 2005. Overview of the mitigation planning process, discussion of hazard
identification and risk assessment and how hazards have affected the area in recent years.
· February 4, 2005. Reported on the public meeting and discussion of how agencies
handle hazards as part of their responsibilities (pre-event and post-event).
. April 28, 2005. Confirm the mitigation goal statement, review on-going mitigation
actions and actions identified in the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), and discuss
potential mitigation actions.
· September 16, 2005. Discuss mitigation actions (to be circulated for members to
indicate priorities for final ranking); designate lead agencies; discuss effectiveness
statements, barriers and limitations. Upon inclusion of revisions to address GEMA's
preliminary comments, the Committee anticipates forwarding the Plan for adoption by
the Augusta Commission, the councils of Blythe and Hephzibah, and forwarding to
GEMA and FEMA. Augusta and the cities will adopt the Plan in final form subsequent
to FEMA' s approval.
1.3 Organization of the Plan
This Plan is organized according to a template required by GEMA and prepared specifically to
satisfy the requirements ofFEMA's pre-disaster mitigation planning regulations. Some content
is required as part of the planning requirements ofFEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program. The general organization of the Plan addresses:
. Chapter 1 - Introduction. Provides an overview of the Plan, the areas included in the
Plan (Augusta, Blythe, and Hephzibah) and the process followed to produce the
document
· Chapter 2 - Natural Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities. This chapter includes
sections for the hazards examined: flooding, high winds (including tornadoes and severe
storms), winter storms, drought, and urban wildland interface fires. Each section profiles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
the hazard and past events, approximates the frequency of occurrences, inventories
exposed assets and estimates losses.
· Chapter 3 - Technological Hazard. An overview of hazardous materials is provided.
. Chapter 4 - Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions. For each hazard described in
Chapter 2 that is determined to have the potential for significant impact, this chapter
includes a brief description of how the hazard is addressed in existing policies and
regulations. In addition, a range of mitigation options is briefly described and proposed
mitigation actions that were determined by the Planning Committee to be high priority
for the next five years are described.
· Chapter 5 - Technological Hazard: Mitigation Action. An action related to the
intersection of flooding and hazardous materials is identified.
. Chapter 6 - Capability to Address Hazards. Provides an overview of how Augusta,
Blythe and Hephzibah deal with hazards in their development processes.
· Chapter 7 - Executing the Plan. Details steps involved in implementation, evaluation
and revision of the Plan.
. Chapter 8 - Conclusion.
1.4 The Planning Area
The planning area includes the City of Augusta and the cities Blythe and Hephzibah. In 1996,
the City of Augusta and Richmond County consolidated governments and is now known as the
City of Augusta, located in central
eastern Georgia (Figure 1-1). Fort
Gordon, a federal military
installation, is not included in the
planning area.
Augusta Richrrond County
State of Georgia
-t.
Augusta is a central city in the
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC
Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). Other counties in the
MSA are Columbia and McDuffie
in Georgia, and Aiken and
Edgefield in South Carolina.
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map: State of Georgia.
The total area is 210,029 acres (includes Blythe with 695 acres, Hephzibah with 11,976 acres,
and Fort Gordon with 44,286 acres). Today, the City of Augusta comprises 152,072 acres (the
former City was 13,108 acres and the former County was 139,964 acres).
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.4.1 Geography & Climate
The topography of the Augusta area consists chiefly of rolling hills, with occasional steep hills.
The soils within the watersheds and floodplains are composed of highly erodible, coarse sands.
Elevations of the terrain vary from approximately 110 feet in the swampy areas adjacent to the
Savannah River to a maximum of approximately 520 feet in the headwaters.
In the east portion of Georgia, large storms that produce flooding are usually of the frontal type,
lasting 2 to 4 days and affecting large areas. Summer thunderstorms with high rainfall intensities
may result in local flooding. The Augusta area is vulnerable to storms associated with hurricanes
and tropical storms that move through the area, primarily in late summer and early fall.
1.4.2 Population & Economy
Historically, Augusta's development was concentrated around the Savannah River and trading
routes. Modern transportation, especially railroads, spurred growth to the south and west. In the
twentieth century, the City annexed incorporated places and unincorporated areas. Rural patterns
characterized most of Richmond County and the City of Augusta until about the 1940s.
Suburban development began in earnest following World War II and continued to the present.
The character, age and condition of the housing stock reflect these trends and the expansion of
commercial and industrial facilities that accompanied that growth.
Augusta's population and household characteristics reflect those of an older city that has merged
with new suburbs (see Table 1-1). Although they are both small, the cities of Blythe and
Hephzibah have both seen dramatic population increases in the past 10 years. The 2000 U.S.
Census showed that compared to other counties in the immediate region and the rest of the state,
the overall growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was relatively low at 5.3 % (even slower than for
the period 1980-1990). The state as a whole has experienced a 26.4% growth in population.
Figure 1-2 shows population by census track; the smaller census tracts, in the vicinity ofthe
former city, indicate denser populations.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 1-1
Past Population Trends (1980-2000).
1980
1990
2000
Growth for
1990-2000
Unincorporated
Richmond County
City of Augusta 47,532 44,639
City of Hephzibah 1,452 2,466 3,880
City of Blythe 365 300 713
Combined 181,620 189,719 199,775
* Consolidation of City of Augusta and Richmond County occurred in 1996
132,280
142,314
195,182*
4.4%
57%
138%
5.3%
Total Population
_ <=685 0 5,994-7,763
o 685-2455 07,763-9,533
o 2,455 - 4,224 _ 9,533 - 11,302
o 4,244 - 5,994 0 County Boundary
Total Population
012
- -
6
8Miles
N
^
Figure 1-2 Population Density, by U.S. Census Tract (data from HAZUS)
Based on the results of the 2000 census, Augusta's household estimate is 72,307 (up from 67,752
in 1990). The number of households in Hephzibah and Blythe has increased by 552 and 139,
respectively. Projections of population growth for the next 20 years show an overall growth rate
of 10.3% (Table 1-2).
Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 1-2
Future Population Trends (2005-2025).
2005 2015 2025 Growth for
2005-2025
City of Augusta 199,084 208,856 219,642 10.3%
City of Hephzibah 3,953 4,148 4,263 7.8%
City of Blythe 743 769 810 9%
Combined 203,771 213,773 224,715 10.3%
The Augusta area has a diversified economy, with approximately 75% of employment in the
service, retail trade and manufacturing sectors. Manufacturing facilities produce textiles, paper
products, chemicals, transportation equipment, and food products. Retail is concentrated
downtown and in shopping centers on major roads, with some individual sites. The large
commercial Augusta Mall and Augusta Exchange draw customers from throughout the region.
Major employers in the service sector include health care and related facilities, educational
institutions, and service businesses. Eight hospitals and numerous ancillary facilities provide a
wide range of jobs. Major educational institutions providing employment include the Medical
College of Georgia, Paine College, Augusta State University, Augusta Technical College, and
the Richmond County Board of Education.
Fort Gordon is the home of the u.s. Army Signal Center, the world's largest training facility for
communications and electronics. The Fort accounts for employment of about 17,000 area
residents, 10,000 of whom live off base. The Savannah River Site, located in South Carolina, is
a key Department of Energy nuclear installation that draws employees from throughout the area,
including approximately 1,600 residents of Augusta.
1.4.3 Land Use & Growth
The Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan (2004)* describes Augusta's development
has having been influenced by major historic events, changes in the nation's economy,
advancements in transportation and communication systems, improvements in building practices,
and national trends in the growth of urban areas. Land use patterns also have been influenced by
damaging events. In its early history, periodic outbreaks of disease and flooding along the
Savannah River have made areas outside oflow-Iying downtown Augusta more desirable. The
. Available online at http://www.augustaga.gov/departments/planning_ zoning/comp --'plan. asp
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
March 1916 fire destroyed many downtown buildings and displaced residents of the Olde Town
neighborhood.
More recently, growth has spread outside of the old city as residential subdivisions were
developed in south and west Augusta in response to demand for newer housing. Suburban
shopping centers, malls and office complexes were built to serve the new residential areas and
provide more jobs. Figure 1-3 illustrates land use as of 2005 and Table 1-3 shows the
breakdown, by land use, for 2003 and projections for 2025.
LAND USE
~ JIOUILTllUll.
Moowll\CWo.
N_DU8TlWl.l
.... IOtAItBl8REIElUlBl'TUll
Il.IIM.L".IDI!!IfTW.
"' IIDI DElE Il.mDIi:.T1I\L
.... onCE
.. 'YILCII811TIITDIAl.
... lM.I8'O II."PlJ1l leOUlJ IIICJmO "ImLn&:
IIC '0 1l..-r1W
... "'1l....Il.IE=ICO..IlWa'O II
c:3 UU&l.EIO"Il'UIUI!IIlD
CITY BOUNDARIES
.. lLYn Ii<
.. 'OIl.TOORDOI
.. "9HZ'JAII
W+E
S
Figure 1-3. Existing Land Use (2005).
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
Table 1-4
Number of Land Parcels.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 1-3
Augusta: Current and Future Land Use.
Land Use 2003 2025 % Change
(acres) (acres)
Residential 52,052 59,886 +15%
Professional Office 635 985 +55%
Commercial 5,081 6,371 +25%
Industrial 9,203 11,174 +21%
Public/l nstitutional 8,467 8,869 +5%
Fort Gordon 44,286 44,286 0
Transportation, 11 ,520 11 ,770 +2%
communication, utilities
Park, recreation, 5,873 12,296 +109%
conservation
Agriculture 10,528 6,228 -41%
Forestry 18,708 15,902 -15%
Undeveloped, unused, 29,794 18,380 -38%
open water
Total 196,147 196,147
In terms of future development, over the next twenty
years, new residential development in Augusta is
expected to include a mix of housing types in a variety of settings. The majority of new units are
expected to be single-family detached units in conventional suburban subdivisions. Areas in
south Augusta and west of Augusta Mall are the most likely locations for both new site-built
units and manufactured housing units. Higher-density single-family residences and apartments
Source: Table L-2 from Comprehensive Plan
The total number of parcels of land changes regularly,
especially when subdivisions are created. However, as of
mid-2003, a total of75,281 parcels were platted in the
land records (and available in the City's computer
mapping). Table 1-4 shows the distribution of parcels by
Augusta's Commission District (see Figure 1-4). At this
time, limitations of the database do not allow
determination of the number of vacant parcels (vacant
parcels can be used to infer some characteristics of
growth potential).
11III
Commission
District
Total Parcels
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
Total
11 ,438
10,243
8,067
8,279
8,585
8,502
9,008
11,159
75,281
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I Commission Districts
c.g...
Commission Districts
COM"')IST
eJ1
c:J'
c:J3
c:J.
CJ'
eJ'
CJ1
eJ'
Figure 1-4. Augusta's Commission Districts
will be sited where land is in short supply and where proximity to employment and commercial
centers is important. InfiU residential development will continue in older neighborhoods and
additional downtown buildings will be converted to residential use.
The majority of new commercial development will be attracted to sites located in the suburbs
and transitional urban/rural areas. Sites on roads and intersections with high vehicle traffic
counts will continue to be especially attractive. Some of the new and expanded retail and
professional office development will be attracted to the revitalized downtown and inner city
neighborhoods.
New industrial development will be located in the Augusta Corporate Park and on other sites
suitably zoned and with good connections to the surface and air transportation networks, located
mostly in east and south Augusta.
1.4.4 Building Inventory
Building inventory information is based in part on the U.S. Census of2000 which in embedded
in FEMA's loss estimation model (HAZUS-MH@) and the Geographic Information System
(GIS) digital maps and data provided by Augusta. Appendix B-1 contains a brief description of
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
...
Chapter 1: Introduction .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAZUS-MH<E), a GIS-based program designed to provide planning-level information to help
communities estimate risks due to some natural hazards.
The GIS data from the City yields only building footprints, it is not connected to the database
used for tax assessment purposes and therefore does not yield detailed information on individual
structure age, building use, or type of construction. However, the characteristics ofthe building
inventory can be inferred from the U.S. Census of 2000, which is summarized in the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Some very general statements can be made about the vulnerability of buildings to damage due to
natural hazards, particularly those with wide-spread impacts such as wind and heavy snow loads.
Flood hazards have more narrowly defined impact areas. General statements regarding
vulnerability include:
· Residential buildings tend to be more susceptible to high winds and snow loads
· Older buildings that predate the building code may be more susceptible; and
. Manufactured housing is the most susceptible form of building.
For the Augusta area, Table 1-5 shows the distribution of the building inventory by building use
as reported by the Tax Assessor's Office (2004 Digest). The average dollar values are intended
only for comparison purposes. Table 1-6 shows that the majority of buildings in the area are
wood- framed construction.
Table 1-5
Augusta Area: Buildings and Estimated Values.
Number of Average Total Assessed
Building Use Value (40% of
Buildings+ Value Fair Market)
Residential 63,995 $22,150 $1,417,809,000
Commercial 12,769 $51,100 $652,826,000
Industrial 353 $103,600 $36,563,000
Agriculture 383 $21,600 $8,287,000
Religious 1,826* ) $51,600 $94,1,,79,000
Government 2,077* $112,400 $233,377,000
Educational 775* $53,300 $142,967,000
Historic 80 $76,600 $6,126,000
Residential Transitional 6 $14,000 $84,000
Totals 82,264 ----- $2,592,218,000
+ 2004 Digest, Augusta Tax Assessor's Office
* Include improved and unimproved/vacant parcels
~
t
.
t
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
It
t
.
It
.
t
.
t
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 1-6
Building Inventory, by Type of Construction.
Augusta,
Hephzibah &
Blythe
Wood 79%
Masonry 8%
Concrete <1 %
Steel 1 %
Manufactured housing 11 %
Source: U.S. Census 2000 embedded in HAZUS
F or residential structures in Augusta, Hephzibah and Blythe, Table 1-7 breaks down building age
and Figure 1-5 illustrates the average age of buildings in each census track. For the region as a
I
whole, most residential buildings were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Growth in the
Augusta area was most significant in the 1970s, while Hephzibah and Blythe saw the most
growth in the 1990s. Table 1-8 shows the distribution of housing by type (1-2 family,
multifamily, and manufactured housing units).
Table 1-7
Housing, by Year Built (as a percent of all housing).
Augusta Hephzibah Blythe Combined
Built 1999-2000 1.5% 3.2% 6.6% 1,244 1.5%
1990 to 1998 13.6% 28.9% 27.9% 11 ,406 13.8%
1980 to 1989 18.9% 25.2% 19.0% 15,616 19.0%
1970 to 1979 20.8% 21.7% 9.2% 17,140 20.8%
1960 to 1969 14.2% 9.5% 11.0% 13,764 16.7%
1950 to 1959 16.9% 5.7% 7.7% 11,589 14.1%
1940 to 1949 6.5% 0.7% 5.5% 5,300 6.4%
1939 or earlier 7.6% 5.1% 13.2% 6,253 7.6%
Housing Totals 80,646 1,393 273 82,312
Source: U.S. Census 2000 Summary, shown in the Comprehensive Plan
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
D <= 0 [jji) 345 - 460
D 0-115 D 460-575
D 115-230 D 575-690
D 230 - 345 D County Boundary
u
N
A
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
411
411
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
41
Age of Structures
o 1 2
. II
"'os
II
Figure 1-5. Average Age of Structures, by Census Tract
Table 1-8
Housing Units in Augusta, Hephzibah & Blythe (2000).
1-2 family dwelling units 56,436 68.6%
Multi-family dwelling units 18,299 22.2%
Manufactured housing units 7,580 9.2%
Total 82,312
Source: u.S. Census 2000 Summary, shown in the Comprehensive Plan
1.4.5 Critical & Essential Facilities
Critical and essential facilities are facilities that warrant special attention in preparing for a
disaster. They may provide important community services during and immediately after a
disaster event, depending on the nature and duration of an event. Critical facilities are involved
in response, such as police stations, fire/emergency medical services stations, and medical
centers/hospitals, schools, public buildings, utility networks, and certain transportation facilities.
In late 2004, the GEMA and the Georgia Department of Community Affairs provided basic data
on over 200 facilities in the Augusta, including "other points of interest," which also include
nil
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
parks, museums, and private schools. The State requested that additional data be collected and
reported using an online tool (see listing in Appendix B-2). The data collection forms are
retained by the Augusta Emergency Management Agency. Table 1-9 summarizes the number of
facilities, by type, and Figure 1-6 shows the locations. All data and figures related to critical
facilities are based on refined geocoded point data developed by Augusta GIS rather than the
online data and mapping tools provided by GEMA.
Table 1-9
Critical and Other Facilities*, by Jurisdiction (2005).
Facility Type Augusta Hephzibah Blythe Total
Airport 3 - - 3
Correctional 6 - - 6
Educational (public & private) 95 4 1 100
Emergency Services 3 - - 3
Fire Station 21 1 1 23
Landfill 1 - - 1
Law Enforcement 6 1 1 8
Library 5 - - 5
Medical 23 - - 23
Public Building 10 1 1 12
Waste Water Treatment Plant 2 1 - 2
Water System 2 2 4 8
Other (recreational) 31 1 - 32
Total 208 11 8 227
* Includes multiple buildings on single property/facilities
Sources: Comprehensive Plan; reported by owners; on file with Augusta OEM and GEMA
1.5 Hazard Summary
Between 1965 and early 2005, the State of Georgia experienced 23 natural hazard events that
were of sufficient magnitude that they were declared major disasters by the President: nine were
for tornadoes (some including flooding impacts); six for flood; four for winter storms; three
hurricane/tropical storms; and one dam failure. Of those declared events, only two flood
disasters included the Augusta area (and damage was sustained only in the City of Augusta).
Major disaster declarations are only one measure of a community's hazards and risks.
Hazards are distinct from risks (see selected Key Terms in Appendix C). A hazard is the natural
event that has the potential to cause damage or injury; risk is the potential losses associated with
a hazard. A hazard does not necessarily present a risk, for example, a waterway that rises out of
its banks to flood undeveloped areas does not cause damage and therefore it not a risk.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
..
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Critical Facilities
Located in
Augusta-Richmond
County
Legend
+ Airport - 3
Q Correctional - 6
l Educational - 100
.... Emergency Services - 3
X Fire Station - 23
tM\ Landfill - 1
* Law Enforcement - 8
III Library - 5
<> Medical - 23
o Other - 32
llll Public Building - 12
& WWTP-2
. Water System - 8
Ponds & Lakes
D City Boundaries
- Major Roads
F1' GO/WON
w..
.
I.....
o
'Miles
4
Figure 1-6. Critical & Essential Facilities.
The hazards considered in the Plan include flooding, tornadoes, urban wildland fire, hurricanes,
winter storms, drought, high winds, and hazardous materials. When these hazards are reviewed,
it becomes apparent that some events occur frequently and some are rare. Some hazards impact
large numbers of people to a limited degree (e.g., winter storms), while others may cause very
localized but very significant damage (e.g., tornadoes). Man-made or technological hazards are
addressed in other emergency plans, including hazardous materials, radiological incidents, and
terrorism.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.5.1 Hazard History
Numerous federal agencies maintain a variety of records regarding losses associated with natural
hazards. Unfortunately, no single source offers a definitive accounting of all losses. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency maintains records on federal expenditures associated with
declared major disasters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service collect data on losses during the course of some of their ongoing projects
and studies. Additionally, the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanographic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects and maintains certain data in summary format,
indicating injuries, deaths, and costs
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html). In the NCDC database,
the basis of the cost estimates is not identified and the reports are not independently verified.
Information about past occurrences of hazard events is gathered from research into available
anecdotal sources and sources of public data, including historical documents, newspapers,
reports, and Internet websites. Online data and maps accessed include the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States
(SHELDUS, http://nationalatlas.gov/sheldOm.html), and the Tornado Project
(http://www.tornadoproject.com).
Natural hazard events that exceed the ability of state and local governments to respond may be
declared major disasters and other events may be declared emergencies. Since 1965, the State of
Georgia has received more than 20 major disaster declarations for flood, winter storms,
tornadoes, high winds, heavy rains, hurricanes and one dam break.
Since 1965, Augusta area (Richmond County prior to consolidation) has been included in two
major disaster declarations, both for flooding. Other significant events are listed in Table 1-10.
Table 1-10. Selected Recent Floods and Declared Disasters.*
Date & Disaster (DR)
October, 1990
(DR 880)
Nature of Event
Flood: Flooding caused by convergence of Tropical Storms Klaus and Marco,
causing two days of rain, with amounts as much as 15" measured in places.
Estimates of damage exceeded $150 million.
Flood: Local rainfall exceeded 8.5 inches, producing flooding characterized as
the 1 DO-year flood.
Flood: Intense rain caused rapid local flooding of homes and numerous roads,
resulting in evacuations in the Hollywood Subdivision.
Flood: The Weather Bureau reported 4.2 inches in a 24-hour period.
October, 1990
August, 1992
August, 1994
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
11III
Table 1-10. Selected Recent Floods and Declared Disasters.*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Date & Disaster (DR) Nature of Event
September, 1995 Flood: 3.75 inches of rain, characterized as a 10-year storm, caused flooding,
resulting in evacuations of 12 families in the Hollywood Subdivision and traffic
accidents along Rocky Creek.
March, 1996 Flood: Thunderstorms in the Augusta area send several streams over their
banks and into homes, including the Hollywood Subdivision. The flash flooding
also closed several major highways which were under water. Rainfall amounts
of 2-4 inches occurred in a six to nine hour period over southern Columbia and
northern Richmond counties.
March, 1996 Severe Storms & Wind: 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, including 400 trees on a golf course. The
damaged area of homes was 1/4 by 1/2 mile in size.
December, 1997 Flood: Flash flooding along several creeks flooded several highways including
Richmond Hill Road.
March, 1998 Flood: Rae's Creek flooded low lying areas and approached some homes but
no flooding in homes was reported.
March, 1998 Flood and Winter Storm: More than 3-inches of rain fell on saturated ground,
(DR 1209) resulting in approximately 1 O-year flooding; residential and road flooding in the
Rocky Creek area.
September, 1998 Flood: EPD reported 8.5 inches of rain from Tropical Storm Earl over a 14-
hour period caused flash flooding along several streams. About 50 people
were evacuated from two subdivisions, several streets were closed, and one
shelter was opened to house 82 people.
June,2000 Flood: After a prolonged dry period, more than 3 to 5 inches of rain fell over
the area, flooding 1-20 and other streets, forcing sewage backups; and
inundating many homes along Rocky Creek, Rae's Creek and Crane Creek.
December, 2000 Tornado: An F-2 tornado intermittently touched down along a 2-mile path.
Extensive damage was done to the Timberridge Subdivision and to other
homes and mobile homes along its path. Eight people were injured, one
seriously. There were no deaths. [Begin 33019'N /81 o58W; end 33020'N /
81058'W]
May, 2002 Thunderstorm: Winds up to 70 miles per hour reportedly damaged trees and
golf ball sized hail was observed near Hephzibah
May, 2002 Flood: The Augusta Emergency Operations Center reported several streams
flooding with water covering roadways and stranding cars. Water was 3 to 4
feet deep in some areas.
July, 2003 Flood: Locally intense storms hit several watersheds, most significant damage
appears to be due to overflow and washout of ponds sustained by Alexander
Place Apartments, Brandywine Apartments, Iron Horse Apartments, Forest Hills
Racquet Club Apartments, Thornberry Apartments, and Arborside Apartments).
Numerous homes were surrounded by water or had flooded yards. About 30
roads were reported as flooded; one rescue was performed.
January, 2004 Ice Storm: Portions of Augusta were affected by a storm that deposited 0.25-
0.75 inch of ice in Lincoln, Columbia and McDuffie counties. Due to the amount
of debris, trash collections were delayed.
March,2004 Brush Fires: Fanned by unusually high winds and dry conditions, the Augusta
Fire Department responded to more than 18 brush fires, most thought to have
been started by embers from trash buming.
July, 2004 Heat: Cooling centers were opened at 7 locations although usage was light.
Chapter 1: Introduction.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
t
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 1-10. Selected Recent Floods and Declared Disasters.*
Date & Disaster (DR) Nature of Event
March, 2005 High Winds: Augusta Regional Airport reported winds of nearly 30 mps with
gusts of more than 40 mph. Downed power lines and tree limbs contributed to
traffic problems and accidents.
* Sources: NCDC Online (1950-2004; some data gaps and few descriptions); NWS Local
Climatological Data; City's 1998 Mitigation Plan; FEMA records (www.fema.gov), The Augusta Chronicle.
1.5.2 Weather-Related Deaths
The National Climatic Data Center, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, maintains records of reported weather events, including floods, tornados,
thunderstorm winds, severe winter storms, and lightning. The database extends back to 1950,
although more reports were made the last two decades. This is due to increased density of
observation stations and population increases which result in more people exposed to weather
events. The database is online at
http://www .ncdc.noaa.gov / oaf climate/ severeweather/ extremes.html (under "Local Storm
Events"). A summary of deaths and injuries in the State of Georgia and the Augusta area is
shown in Table 1-11.
Table 1-11
Weather-Related Deaths and Injuries (1950-2003).
State of Georgia Augusta Area
Hazard Deaths Injuries Deaths Injuries
Flood 29 16 0 0
T omado/winds 129 2,843 1 21
Lightning 14 146 0 1
1.5.3 Losses Due to Major Disasters
No definitive record exists of all losses - public and private - due to disasters for the Augusta
area. For the United States as a whole, estimates ofthe total public and private costs of natural
hazards range from $2 billion to over $6 billion per year. The costs of responding to and
recovering from events that do not rise to the level that prompts a Presidential disaster
declaration are borne entirely by citizens and local governments. In most declared major
disasters, the federal government reimburses 75% of the costs of cleanup and recovery, with the
remaining 25% covered by the state and affected local jurisdictions who are responsible for all or
a portion of costs associated with:
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
· Public assistance for debris removal, emergency works, roads and bridges, flood control
facilities, public buildings and equipment, public utilities, and parks and recreational
facilities;
· Assistance paid out for individual and family grants, emergency food and shelter, and
other assistance to individuals; and
. Funds set aside to support hazard mitigation grants.
Although detailed records from past declared disasters are not available, Augusta's staff report
that the City has received payments to pay for repair of public infrastructure and public
buildings; debris removal and staff overtime. GEMA reports that the City (and County prior to
consolidation) received public assistance funds totaling $3.7 million for the flood disaster in
October 1990. Damaging events that do not prompt a major disaster declaration also generate
debris. The City's direct costs to handle debris due the severe ice storms in January 2004 were
$322,364. These costs were borne fully by the City without reimbursement from the State or
FEMA. It is notable that these costs do not include foregone revenue due to waiving landfill
fees.
1.5.4 Relative Ranking of Hazards
Based on a variety of readily-available data, including records from recent years, local input, and
data from various State and Federal agencies, a statement can be made to characterize the
frequency of occurrence of each hazard reviewed (flooding, drought, hurricane/tropical storm,
high winds/severe storms, tornadoes, winter storms, wildfire/urban interface fire, hazardous
materials). These characterizations are not statistical statements of probability, but are general in
nature. They are simply derived by determining the average number of occurrences over a
period of record.
Chapter 2 summarizes information about selected natural hazards: flood (including tropical
systems and dam failure); high wind/severe storm (including tropical systems; tornado; winter
storm; drought; and urban wildland interface fire. Chapter 3 addresses hazards associated with
hazardous materials as they relate primarily to flood hazards. Appendix B-2 contains content
related to selected hazards that is made available by GEMA via its online Critical Facility
Inventory, along with a list of the facilities included.
Based on the summarized research, Table 1-12 shows that each hazard was assigned a relative
risk ranking oflow, moderate, or high. A relative risk ranking oflow does not imply that a
hazard with this ranking will not occur; it simply indicates that the hazard has not occurred or
has occurred very infrequently during the period of record, or is unlikely to cause significant
impact.
...
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
t
t
41
41
t
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
.b41
41
41
41
41
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
It
It
.
.
It
Table 1-12. Relative Risk Ranking.
Years Frequency Relative Relative
Hazard # Events of Risk
Record (#/year) Severity* Ranking**
Flood (including tropical 16 15 1/year Locally Severe High
systems and dam failure)
High Wind/Severe Storms :1:100 (thunder- 53 2/year Moderate to High
storms) Locally Severe
Hurricanerrropical Storm Moderate (Included in
(resulting in wind and flood 35 53 < 1/year Countywide Flood & High
damage) Wind)
Tornado 8 53 < 0.2/year Locally Severe (Included in
High Wind)
Winter Storm 8 24 < 0.3/year Moderate Moderate
Countywide
Drought 2 53 < 0.1/year Moderate Moderate
Countywide
Urban Wildland Interface 3,800 46 82 Moderate Moderate
Fire Locally severe
Hazardous Materials 0 30 N/A Minor Low
Incidents (weather-related)
* A qualitative statement; some hazards affect small areas with considerable damage to buildings,
others may affect the entire planning area with generally minor damage and impacts
** A qualitative statement based on a combination of frequency and relative severity
1.6 Mitigation Goal
State and federal guidance and regulations pertaining to mitigation planning require the
development of a mitigation goal statement that is consistent with other goals, mission
statements and vision statements. The Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed FEMA's
national mitigation goals, several examples of goal statements from other states and
communities, and the Georgia State Mitigation Goal. The committee also considered
information about natural hazards that may occur in the City and their potential consequences
and losses. The final mitigation goal statement is as follows:
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
DIll
Chapter 1: IntroduCtion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
tI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Mitigation Planning Committee discussed the value of making the goal statement broad to
allow for comprehensive interpretation of its phrasing, for example:
· "Protect health, safety, and welfare" is broad enough to include the concept of applying
development controls (permits) to avoid development in floodplains and, if avoidance is
not feasible, to build according to regulations that reduce the potential for damage. The
phrase is also broad enough to include undertaking projects intended to deal with specific
properties, such as administering grants for acquisition, protecting park buildings, or
working with others if a structural flood control project is deemed appropriate.
· The statement clearly distinguishes between new and existing development. The second
bullet is focused on new development while the third bullet is specific to dealing with
existing people and property that are exposed to flood hazards; in this statement
"property" includes private property and public property and infrastructure.
. The last bullet is distinctly different in that it is directly related to what citizens can do -
mitigation is a partnership. Citizens have obligations to comply with rules (for example,
to dispose of yard waste properly rather than dump in drainageways and to obtain
permits). Citizens have responsibilities to take reasonable preventive actions to protect
themselves and their property and to facilitate their own recovery. In this context,
"responsibilities" apply to safety (such as not driving through flooded roads); property
protection (such as modifying buildings or how flood-prone space is used); and financial
protection (buying flood insurance).
Table 1-13 shows how the mitigation actions summarized in Table 1-14 support the Mitigation
Goal. Details on the actions are found in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6. A number of actions support
more than one element of the goal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Element of Goal Statement
Table 1-13
Linking Mitigation Goal & Actions.
Actions Relating to Goal
Identifying hazards (especially flood and drainage problems)
A,E,F,R
Guiding development away from flood hazard areas to support
preservation of Greenspace and sensitive areas
Identifying and pursue mitigation measures to reduce exposure
of citizens and property to natural hazards
Increasing the public's awareness of their obligations and re-
sponsibilities for personal planning, preparedness and recovery
A, E, F, J
A,8,D,E,G,H,J,K,M,N,0,P,Q,R,S
C, H, I, J, K, L, 0, R
Table 1-14
Summary of Mitigation Actions.
Jurisdiction & Action Action Title
Augusta Action A Drainage and Stormwater Management
Augusta Action B Sewer Line Infiltration & Inflow
Augusta Action C Public Awareness Initiative
Augusta Action D Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Augusta Action E Flood Mitigation Staffing
Augusta Action F Flood Hazard Map Revisions and Updates
Augusta Action G Policies & Procedures for Flood Mitigation Projects
Augusta Action H Savannah River Flood Protection & Awareness
Augusta Action I Flood Warning
Augusta Action J NFIP Community Rating System
Augusta Action K Dam Safety
Multi-Jurisdictional Action L Severe Storm Awareness
Augusta Action M Public Tree Maintenance
Multi-Jurisdictional Action N Debris Management Plan
Augusta Action 0 Water Conservation Awareness
Augusta Action P Pre-Suppression Planning for City-Owned Lands
Augusta Action Q Subdivisions & Driveway Access for Fire Vehicles
Augusta Action R Environmental Safety and Flood Hazards
Augusta Action S Downtown Railroad Safety
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IIDI
1.7 Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations
Two separate municipalities, Blythe and Hephzibah, are located in Augusta, GA. They have
separate governing bodies and separate regulations that apply to development (see Chapter 6).
The Augusta Service Delivery Strategy, an agreement between Augusta and each of the cities,
designates the Augusta Emergency Management Agency as the coordinating agency for matters
related to emergency management that involve the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah.
For the hazards examined for this Plan only flood hazards are sufficiently location specific to be
separately identified in the cities. Hephzibah participates in the National Flood Insurance
Program and has a Flood Insurance Rate Map; Blythe does not have identified flood hazard
areas.
The likely impacts of the other hazards considered (high winds, severe winter storms, drought)
are not significantly affected by location. Wildland interface fires are influenced by location, but
the nature of landuse in and around Blythe and Hephzibah is similar to the rest of the Augusta
area that is exposed to wildland fire. Therefore, the hazards are expected to uniformly affect all
areas of Augusta, including the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah.
1.8 Public Involvement
1.8.1 Public Meetings
Consistent with the City's standard practice to inform and provide citizens the opportunity
comment, and to fulfill the public involvement requirements of the mitigation planning
programs, the City solicited input and notified and invited residents to review the Plan and attend
a public meeting. A letter advising that the City was initiating the planning process, including a
public meeting, was sent to selected state and federal government agencies, neighborhood
associations, and other interested and related organizations. The letter and list of contacts is
included in Appendix A-I. For the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), citizens who had
previously contacted the Planning Commission regarding flooding problems were notified.
On February 2,2005, a public meeting was held to introduce the planning process to interested
citizens. Notices of the meeting were published in the Augusta Chronicle (January 19, January
26, and February 2, 2005). Notices were posted on the City's webpage, at the City Commission
Chambers, on the front door of the Municipal Building, and on the front door of the Planning
Commission office (see Appendix A-I). In addition, Appendix A-I includes the list of contacts
that received direct notification. No members ofthe public attended.
lID
Chapter 1: Introduction .
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
.
41
41
.
41
41
41
.
41
41
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On September 15,2005, a public meeting was held to present the Public Review Draft Plan and
solicit comments on the proposed mitigation actions. A notice of the meeting hearing and
availability of the Public Review Draft Plan was published in the Augusta Chronicle on
September 1, September 8, and September 15. Notices were posted on the City's webpage, at
the City Commission Chambers, on the front door of the Municipal Building, and on the front
door of the Planning Commission office. No members ofthe public attended. One set of
comments was received bye-mail, raising the following points:
. Concern that the Plan does not fully address hazards due to chemicals and hazardous
materials and the need for alternate routes in some areas. [Response to such incidents is
addressed in other plans.]
. Important for Augusta to develop and promote a Volunteer Organizations Active in
Disaster group and more citizen involvement in the Local Emergency Planning
Committee, which should extend beyond "right to know" and sheltering issues. [These
matters are best addressed with the Augusta Emergency Management Agency that is
responsible for planning evacuations and immediate responses to incidents.]
. The concerns of populations with special needs are not addressed. [The Augusta
Emergency Management Agency encourages residents with special needs to register; a
form is posted on the agency's webpage.]
For the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), public meetings that were held on June 23 and 24,
2003, were advertised in The Augusta Chronicle, on the City's Comcast public access channel,
and by a number oflocal news media. Notices were posted at the City Commission Chambers,
the front door, of the Municipal Building, and the front door of the Planning Commission office.
Examples of comments received included:
. Past channel work and drainage maintenance has been negated by build-up of sediment.
. Several houses have been abandoned or have been vacant since the early 1990s due to
repetitive flooding.
. Georgia DOT work and big commercial developments have increased runoff and amount
of sediment in the channel.
. Lakes are filling with sediment, pushing water into yards more frequently; Dredge creeks
and Lake Olmstead (where bar of sand has built up).
. Need public access along Crane Creek and Rae's Creek so that citizens can monitor the
waterways
· Parts of the City are in great need of greater preservation of greenspace.
. Who makes decisions on buyouts? What are the criteria? Is a list of eligible property
owners maintained?
. Flood insurance is too expensive.
· Many waterways are clogged with sediment, causing them to overflow more frequently.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
lID
· Buyout more of the damaged homes and allow the land to be wet and greenspace.
. Improve drainage from roads to ditches; keep ditches cleaned of debris and heavy grass.
For the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), a public meeting was held on August 26, 2003.
Notice of the meeting was published in the August 14 edition of the Augusta Chronicle. Prior to
the meeting, copies of the Public Review Draft were made available to the public in the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission office, at the Main Branch of the Augusta-Richmond
County Public Library on Greene Street, and posted on the City's web page. A notification letter
was sent to adjacent communities, federal and state agencies, and neighborhood associations.
Despite these efforts, members of the public did not attend the meeting.
The near-final version of the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004) was reviewed at the
September 8,2003, meeting of the Engineering Services Committee of the Augusta Commission.
At its September 16, 2003 meeting, the Commission discussed the Plan and directed the Augusta
Emergency Management Agency, with support from the Planning Commission, to forward the
Plan to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency for appropriate action. The Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan, in final form, was presented for adoption during the February 17,2004 public
session of the Augusta Commission and adopted effective immediately.
The meetings of the Augusta Commission and the councils of Blythe and Hephzibah are public
meetings. Augusta publishes notices and agendas in the newspaper and on its webpage.
1.8.2 Public Awareness of Flood Hazards
The Augusta Chronicle, with region-wide distribution, has covered stories about storms,
hurricanes, flooding and drainage problems for years. Over 100 such stories were printed
between 1997 and 2003. Stories have focused on:
· Local flooding in numerous watersheds;
. Flood-prone roads and related incidents;
. The City's efforts to regulate flood-prone areas;
. Funding shortfalls to accomplish drainage projects;
· Federal flood insurance; and
· The City's plans and implementation of projects to buyout flood-damaged homes.
Even when media coverage of floods is extensive, many flood victims tend to discount the
likelihood that flooding will occur again. This tendency is attributed to a general lack of
understanding of probability (see Comparing Risks, below). All too often, people interpret the
..
Chapter 1: IntrodUCtion.
41
41
41
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
41
.
41
.
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
phrase "100-year storm" to mean that it only occurs once every 100 years, rather than that such
an event has a 1-in-100 chance of happening each year. FEMA reports that, based on insurance
statistics, a building in the floodplain is five times more likely to be damaged by flood than to
sustain major damage by fire.
The public becomes aware of local hazards in a number of ways, notable when an event has
occurred recently. For example, public awareness of flood hazards is enhanced during the
following activities:
· Buying property in a floodplain triggers the federal requirement to obtain flood insurance
when obtaining a federally insured and regulated mortgage. Federally insured and
regulated mortgage lenders are required to make homebuyers purchase flood insurance if
the building is located in a mapped flood hazard area. Buyers are supposed to be notified
well in advance of closing.
· Applying for permits may lead to a determination that the property or construction site is
within a mapped floodplain and therefore subject to Augusta's Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
· The City's Emergency Management Agency routinely coordinates with local media
through emails, telephone calls and facsimile transmissions. The agency can request a
"crawl line" on local television stations to alert the public of pending flood conditions.
· Flood warnings reach the public as regional warnings from the National Weather Service.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IIJI
ImI
Chapter 1: Introduction.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.8.3 Communicating about Hazards
The City of Augusta participates in the State's "Severe Storm Awareness Week" and informs
citizens about the importance of planning by endorsing the "Family Protection Day" and posting
on its web page FEMA's publication "A Citizens Guide to Preparedness."
The Augusta Emergency Management Agency uses its web page to encourage citizens to
participation in the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). This program trains
people to be better prepared to respond to emergency situations in their neighborhoods. When
emergencies occur, CERT members can give critical support to first responders, provide
immediate assistance to victims, and organize spontaneous volunteers at a disaster site. CERT
members can also help with non-emergency projects that help improve the safety of the
community. With citizens better prepared to take care ofthemselves and their neighbors during
a crisis, public safety officials will be able to focus their attention on the most critical, life
threatening situations.
The City's website features a special page for "Flood Plain Information." It identifies heavy rain
as the primary cause of flooding and points out that citizens can learn more by referencing the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA and on file with the Planning Commission.
Citizens are advised to heed warnings, to tune to media for alerts, and about basic family safety
and driver safety information. Warnings about turning off utilities and the hazards of entering
buildings after damage are outlined.
The web page explains flood insurance, with emphasis on the fact that property insurance
policies do not cover flood damage. The 30-day warning period is highlighted, and citizens are
advised not to wait until a flood warning is posted to seek financial protection.
The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission offers to check the official Flood
Insurance Rate Map and tell property owners if their land andlorbuildings are in a Special Flood
Hazard Area. Advice on the permit requirements for new construction and substantial
renovations or repairs of damage is offered.
The web page outlines a number of property protection measures to reduce flood damage,
including:
· Temporary (emergency) measures such include relocating possessions to the highest floor
and placing sandbags or similar barriers to keep water away from buildings;
· Retrofitting, more permanent means, include elevating existing buildings; and
· Floodproofing with wall coatings to make the building walls and floor watertight.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Web page viewers are advised to check with the Planning Commission before building on,
altering, re-grading or placing fill on property because a Flood Plain Development Permit may
be required. A separate section outlines the substantial improvement requirement and identifies
the License and Inspections Department as responsible for enforcement.
The importance of drainage systems maintenance is highlighted as an important flood prevention
effort that depends on citizen cooperation and assistance. Causes of drainage blockage are
described so that citizens understand that plugged drainage channels, catch basins, ditches,
detention ponds and drainage pipes cannot carry water.
Additional information is listed:
· Links to selected FEMA publications about disaster assistance and flood insurance;
· Insurance companies selling federal flood insurance;
. FEMA contact information for flood maps; and
. Frequently Asked Questions.
1.9 Adoption, Implementation, Reporting, Evaluation & Revision
Adoption. The Plan has been adopted by Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah (see Appendix A-3).
Augusta adopted it at the February 8, 2006, meeting of the Augusta Commission, Blythe adopted
it at the February 13,2006, meeting of the City Council, and Hephzibah adopted it at the April 3,
2006, meeting of the City Council.
Implementation. Throughout the mitigation planning process, the agencies that are involved in
managing hazards and implementing measures to minimize future risk considered a range of
mitigation actions. For each mitigation action determined to be "high priority," a lead agency is
identified and implementation is anticipated in the 5-year time frame ofthe plan. Each lead
agency is responsible for factoring the action into its work plan.
Reporting. As part of its responsibilities to coordinate matters related to emergency
management, the Augusta Emergency Management Agency is charged with monitoring and
preparing progress reports. Progress made on the mitigation action items will be noted in annual
reports. A meeting of appropriate representatives may be convened to discuss and determine
progress, and to identify obstacles to progress, if any.
Evaluation & Revision. Revisions that warrant changing the text of this Plan or incorporating
new information may be prompted by a number of circumstances, including identification of
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
lID
D!!I
Chapter 1: Introduction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
specific new mitigation projects, completion of several mitigation actions, or requirements to
qualify for specific funding. Minor revisions may be handled by addendum.
An evaluation may be undertaken after the occurrence of natural hazard events that cause
property damage to review the effects of such events. Based on those effects, adjustments to the
mitigation priorities may be made or additional event-specific actions may be identified.
Major comprehensive evaluation and revision of this Hazard Mitigation Plan will be considered
on a five-year cycle. Adopted in 2005, the Plan will enter its next review cycle sometime in
2009, with adoption of revisions anticipated in 2010. The Mitigation Planning Committee will
be convened to conduct the comprehensive evaluation and revision.
The City of Augusta will involve the public in the Plan maintenance process and during the
major comprehensive evaluation and revision in the same ways used during the original Plan
development. The public will be notified when the revision process is started and provided the
opportunity to review and comment on changes to the Plan and priority action items. It is
expected that a combination of informational public meetings, surveys and questionnaires, draft
documents posted on the web site, and public Commission meetings may be undertaken.
Damage and losses that are associated with hazards (including physical damage, indirect and
economic losses, and injuries and deaths) result when an event affects the areas where people
and improved property are located. After hazards are identified, then estimates of the degree to
which people and property are exposed (how "at-risk") can be prepared, especially if the hazards
can be characterized by areas on a map.
Preparation of a risk assessment involves four steps: hazard identification; hazard profile;
vulnerability assessment; and loss estimation. The risk assessment provides information on the
history of previous occurrences, the extent of areas affected, and the potential severity of hazard
events.
After the initial identification of natural hazards, a profile for each of the hazards was developed.
Each profile includes a description of the hazard, history of the past hazard events, and where
possible, a characterization of the frequency of occurrence based on about 50 years of records.
The natural hazards addressed include: floods and related hazards; high winds (hurricanes,
tornadoes, severe storms); winter storm; drought; and urban wildland interface fire. Appendix
B-2 contains content related to selected hazards that is made available by GEMA via its online
Critical Facility Inventory.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
Hazards found to be not significant for the purposes of this Plan include:
· Earthquake. Historical records of the u.s. Geological Survey indicate that seismic
activity has been felt in the Augusta area on several occasions since the early 1800s. The
infamous Charleston, SC, earthquake of 1881 caused more damage in Augusta than in
other parts of the state. Minor shaking has been felt on at least three other occasions
during the Twentieth Century. The most recent tremblors to be felt in Augusta occurred
in March 2003 (centered near Athens) and April 2004 (centered near Fort Payne, AL); no
damage was reported in Georgia. The Committee determined that the apparent
infrequency and small magnitude of seismic activity in the region offers insufficient
exposure and evidence that earthquakes pose significant risks in the area that are not
addressed through the state building code.
. Subsidence. Subsidence is characterized by a general and extensive lowering of the land
surface due to the removal of subsurface support, such as caused by extensive withdrawal
of ground water or oil products. Although very localized soil compaction has been
observed during droughts (see Section 2.4.2), these effects are not comparable to
subsidence and the Committee determined that there is no evidence of or exposure to
general subsidence.
. Landslide. The downward and outward movement of rock and soils from slopes is the
general description of a landslide. Such movements, including mudflows, mudslides,
debris flows and the like, generally occur where slopes are relatively steep and become
saturated due to prolonged rainfall. The Committee found that most of Augusta-
Richmond County has relatively gentle sloping lands and thus determined that there is
insufficient evidence that landslide hazards pose risks in the area.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006) 11II
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards,
Risks and Vulnerabilities
2.1 Floods and Related Hazards
Floods have been and continue to be the most frequent, destructive, and costly natural hazard
facing the State of Georgia. Most ofthe State's damage reported for major disasters is
associated with floods.
Since 1990, Augusta has been impacted by significant flood events, although not all qualified for
major disaster declarations. Localized flooding causes concern among citizens because it affects
homes, yards and streets.
The floodplain maps of the Augusta area have been prepared by FEMA in a basic digital format
known as "FEMA Q3 Flood Data." Using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) and
available data layers and databases, specific information about flood-prone buildings can be
developed. For this Plan, the City uses these maps and data as the best available data, rather than
the flood hazard map and report generated by GEMA's online tool for critical and essential
facilities (Appendix B-2). GIS is a computer software application that relates physical features
on the ground in mapping applications and analyses. The Augusta Information Technology
Department manages the GIS functions.
When rainfall runoff collects in rivers, creeks, and streams and exceeds the capacity of channels,
floodwaters overflow onto adjacent lands. Floods result from rain events, whether short and
intense or long and gentle. In recent years, most flooding in Augusta has been associated with
large regional storms, some that originate as hurricanes and tropical storms that subsequently
move inland. Flood hazards are categorized as follows:
. Flash floods not only occur suddenly, but also involve forceful flows that can destroy
buildings and bridges, uproot trees, and scour out new channels. Most flash flooding is
caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, repeated thunderstorms in a local area, or heavy
rains from hurricanes and tropical storms. Although flash flooding occurs often along
mountain streams, it is also common in urban areas, where much of the ground is covered
by impervious surfaces and drainageways are designed for smaller flows. Flood
Insurance Rate Maps typically show the 1 %-annual-chance (lOO-year) floodplain for
waterways with at least I square mile of drainage area. The flood hazard area for
waterways with less than one square mile of drainage area typically are not shown.
. Riverine floods are a function of precipitation levels and water runoff volumes, and
occur when water rises out of the banks of the waterway. Flooding along waterways that
drain larger watersheds often can be predicted in advance, especially where it takes 24
hours or more for the flood crest (maximum depth of flooding) to pass. In Augusta,
riverine flooding is caused by large rainfall systems and thunderstorm activity associated
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
with seasonal cold fronts. These systems can take as long as a day to pass, giving ample
opportunity for large amounts of rain to fall over large areas. The Flood Insurance Rate
Maps show the I %-annual-chance floodplains.
· Urban drainage flooding occurs where development has altered hydrology through
changes in the ground surface and modification of natural drainageways. Urbanization
increases the magnitude and frequency of floods by increasing impervious surfaces,
increasing the speed of drainage collection, reducing the carrying capacity of the land,
and, occasionally, overwhelming sewer systems. Localized urban flooding is not usually
shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps in areas with less than one square mile of
contributing drainage area.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) prepared by FEMA offer the best overview of flood
risks. FIRMs are used to regulate new development and to control the substantial improvement
and repair of substantially damaged buildings:
· Augusta's revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS), dated March 23, 1999, is a combination
ofFIS and maps prepared separately for the City of Augusta and Richmond County prior
to consolidation of governments in 1996.
· Hephzibah's FIRM, dated June 25, 1976, shows that the city is "minimally flood prone"
and flood hazard areas do not have flood elevations determined using engineering
methods.
· Blythe was found not to have flood hazards and a FIRM was not prepared.
Figure 2-1 * shows the extent of mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas in Augusta (i.e., the100-
year floodplain). At 58.77 square miles, the SFHA makes up nearly 25% of the total land area.
Much of the land predicted to flood is on the east side of the City and includes the extensive
wetlands of the Phiziny Swamp. Figure 2-2 shows the mapped floodplain in Hephzibah.
FEMA's maps show four types of flood zones:
· AE Zones along rivers and streams for which detailed engineering methods were used to
determine Base Flood Elevations. AE Zones (or AI-30 Zones) are shaded in gray.
Waterways that are mapped using detailed methods that result in designated floodways
are listed in Table 2-1.
· A Zones are "approximate" flood zones, where detailed information has not been
developed. Waterways that are shown with A Zones are listed in Table 2-1. Hephzibah's
flood zones are A Zones.
. B Zones and Shaded X Zones, which are areas of "moderate" flood hazard, typically
associated with the 500-year flood (or 0.2% annual chance).
. Maps included in this Plan are available for viewing at the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. The
scale required for hardcopy maps does not allow sufficient detail to show all of the elements described.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
t
t
.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
~
w
u.
~
?
8 I ~
.-6 w;Ow~C1i .u
:.~~ ~~~~~ i
~ ~~t~ZI~~~~ B
j~I.I~5DDDD ~
,Q
;;
z
1!
S
)1l
<"l
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
C':3
-
tI:l
;:3
00
;:3
<
.8
tI:l
C':3
~
<
"0
....
C':3
N
C':3
::c:
"0
o
o
G::
-
I
C'l
Q)
....
;:3
00
i.i:
..
/
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.
.
4
4
.
4
.
t
t
t
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· C Zones and Unshaded X Zones are areas of "minimal" flood hazard, typically
considered to be "out of the floodplain." Although local drainage problems and ponding
may still occur, these minor flood problems typically are not shown on the FIRM. It is
notable that many smaller streams are shown but do not have mapped flood hazard areas.
Hephzibah
FEMA Flood Zone
Legend
FEMA Flood Zone.
_ 1 OO-yr Flood Zone
D AUGUSTA
CJ HEPHZIBAH
\
1.....-
o 0.375 0.75
.
Source: National Flood Insurance Program FEMA-
Map provk1ed by: The Augusta.Richmond County GIS Department
Figure 2-2. Flood Hazard Areas in Hephzibah.
Table 2-1
Waterways on Augusta's FIRM.
Detailed Methods
Approximate Methods
Savannah River
Butler Creek and Tribs No.1, 2
Rocky Creek and Tribs No. 1-11
Little Spirit Creek
Rock Creek
Augusta Canal
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards. Risks, and Vulnerabilities
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
Table 2-1
Waterways on Augusta's FIRM.
Detailed Methods
Approximate Methods
Beaver Dam Ditch
Spirit Creek and Trib No.1
No Name Creek
Oates Creek and Trib No.1
Horsepen Branch
Crane Creek
Rae's Creek and Tribs. 1-3
McBean Creek
Savannah River. Discharges on the Savannah River are controlled by three flood control dams
that create the J. Strom Thurmond/Clarks Hill Reservoir, the Hartwell Reservoir, and the Richard
B. Russell Reservoir. The urban center of the City of Augusta is protected from Savannah River
flooding by the Augusta Levee. Development on the river side of the Levee remains exposed to
flood hazards, especially extreme flooding that occurs less frequently than the 1 %-annual chance
flood (lOO-year flood). The 1999 revision ofthe FEMA flood map lowered the predicted water
elevations for the lOO-year flood:
. Approximately 50 houses in the Water's Edge community (upstream of 13th Street) all
appear to be out ofthe 100-year floodplain, although the water level predicted for the
500-year flood is likely to be under the buildings.
· For the most part, the buildings on Prep Phillips/Riverfront Drive appear to be subject to
water depths ranging from 3 feet to 4 feet above the ground due to the 100-year flood.
Property owners include the City, the Augusta-Richmond County Port Authority, and
the Georgia Department of Transportation/Ports Authority. One or two privately-
owned buildings appear to be located on City-owned property.
. The 48+ townhouses on Riverfront Drive and River Bend Drive (Goodale Landing, just
east of Sand Bar Ferry Road) are all within the 100-year floodplain and the sites appear
to be subject to several feet of flooding.
· The vacant lots and improved lots with 12+ homes on Albeclauss (8 are in the
Floodway) appear to be subject to from 2-feet to 7-feet of water.
. On both sides of Sand Bar Ferry Road there are several clusters of buildings that appear
to be in areas where flood depths are likely to be 2- to 6-feet deep.
· Below the downstream limit of the Augusta Levee, at the confluence of Butler Creek at
New Savannah Bluff, the floodplain of the Savannah River is extensive, ranging from
5,000 to 10,000 feet wide. For the most part, there is little development in this area and
there are no NFIP flood insurance policies in-force.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
4
t
.
4
.
t
t
t
.
.
t
t
.
4
.
.
.
t
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
t
t
.
.
Urban Watersheds. The urban area of Augusta, including Butler Creek and northward,
encompasses the former City and surrounding areas. Much of the area is densely developed,
with the notable exception ofthe Phinizy Swamp on the eastern side. As shown on Figure 2-3,
most of the federal flood insurance policies are for buildings in the urban watersheds, with most
of them constructed before floodplain regulations were adopted.
Table 2-1 lists the urban waterways, all of which have been studied using detailed methods
(Rock Creek, upper reaches of other streams, and small tributaries were evaluated using
approximate methods). As part ofa study underway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see
Section 4.1.4), the FIRMs may be revised; preliminary results indicate that the areas subject to
flooding will increase in many places. Generally, the floodplains ofthese streams can be
described as follows:
. Rock Creek - 200-400 feet wide (restudied by the Corps of Engineers);
· Rae's Creek - 200-500 feet wide (restudied by the Corps of Engineers; City flood control
project);
. Crane Creek, a major tributary to Rae's Creek - 100-300 feet wide;
· Oates Creek - highly modified, 100-500 feet wide, with a number of ponding areas;
. Upper and Lower Rocky Creek - 100-200 feet wide and 500-2,000 feet wide,
respectively (restudied by the Corps of Engineers); and
· Butler Creek - 500-700 feet wide.
The Augusta Canal is a source of the City's potable water. It also is the "collector" into which
the other urban streams drain (except Butler Creek). From the Columbia County boundary, the
Canal and its floodplain parallel the Augusta Levee. At its juncture with Rae's Creek, a gate
allows flows to discharge to the Savannah River (the mechanical gate is closed if high water is
predicted on the River). The Canal is included in waterways that are being restudied by the
Corps of Engineers; preliminary maps indicate that areas prone to flooding are more extensive
than shown on the FIRM.
The extensive flood-prone areas are found on Augusta's east side are associated with Butler
Creek, Rocky Creek, and drainage from all streams in the urban district (former City). The area,
also known as Phinizy Swamp, is generally flat and is predicted to experience relatively shallow
flooding. There are few buildings that encroach into the floodplain, although a number of
industries were built on fill prior to adoption of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and
there are a number of active clay mining sites.
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
~
t
~
t
~
t
t
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'"
::;;
W
LL
~
Z g
8 I ~
! ~ w~wg~ _~c
. "3 :ECI):r:"N ;;:
i~.i ll~ <(5~~ZE
-g 11 ~ ~ ~ I ., ZI ~ ~ f? ~ "0
j..e~11155DDDD ~
~
z
..
~
<n
~
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
~
-
'"
=
bJ)
=
<
=
....
'"
~
:~
-
o
~
~
~
=
~
..
=
'"
=
-
"Cl
o
o
~
~
-
~
Z
~
I
M
~
..
=
bJ)
~
-
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
t
t
t
.
t
t
t
t
.
.
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
.
41
41
.
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
The Rocky Creek watershed was the focus on research conducted by the (former) Public Works
and Engineering Department in 1998, as supporting documentation for mitigation grant funds.
The estimates in Table 2-2 are based on newspaper accounts, local climatological reports, and
personal interviews. It is notable that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has independently
developed a preliminary estimate of average annual damages in Rocky Creek of$I,450,000 (not
including damage to industrial properties).
Table 2-2
Estimates of Damage Potential: Rocky Creek (1998)*.
Flood Estimated Number of Estimated Damages
Magnitude Affected Structures
5-year :1:20 residential $ 286,000
10-year :1:25 residential $ 357,500
:1:168 residential $2,402,00
50-year :1:10 commercial $1,484,000
:1:200 residential $2,860,000
100-year :1:20 commercial $3,2566.50
. Augusta EMA letter to GEMA, June 29, 1998.
Rural Watersheds. The southern half of Augusta, below Butler Creek, is rural in character with
dispersed development. As shown on Figure 2-3, few flood insurance policies are in-force in
this area, primarily because floodplains are relatively narrow and easily avoided. As of the end
of 2004, there are no flood insurance policies on buildings in Hephzibah.
Most of the streams shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been evaluated using
approximate methods to delineate the flood hazard area, including: Little Spirit Creek, McBean
Creek along the southern border, tributaries to Spirit Creek, and various other streams. The
extent of flood hazard areas is limited (watershed boundaries are shown on Figure 2-4):
· Upper Spirit Creek and Johnson Branch - 200-400 feet wide;
. Lower Spirit Creek - 600-800 feet wide;
. Little Spirit Creek and Boggy Branch - 200-600 feet wide;
. McBean Creek - 500-1,000 feet wide;
· Tributaries to McBean - 100-300 feet wide; and
· Many small streams and tributaries do not have mapped floodplains.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
t
t
t
.
t
t
.
t
t
t
.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Dams and Flooding. FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintain the National
Inventory of Dams (1998), a database of high and significant hazard dams. For the most part,
data is provided by state agencies responsible for regulation and inspection of dams or by the
Corps of Engineers. Figure 2-4 is based on that inventory and shows that seven high hazard
dams (and 3 significant hazard dams) are located in Augusta and one high hazard dam is located
outside the City in the upper portion of Spirit Creek. High hazard dams are those of specific
height or volume of impounded water that, if failure occurred, there would be a high likelihood
of loss of life and substantial property damage. Table 2-3 lists information on the high hazard
dams. There is no requirement for owners to develop emergency action or maintenance plans,
although high hazard dams are required to be brought up to state specifications to protect public
safety and property.
Table 2-3
High Hazard Dams Affecting Augusta.
Dam Name NID# Year Built Emergency
Owner Waterway Primary Purpose Action
Plan
Erin's Place Lake Dam 224 1965 Not required
(Helen Huffman Lake) Spirit Creek Recreation
Elijah Lightfoot, Jr.
Gordon Lake Dam 1722 1986 Not listed
Fort Gordon (DOD) Spirit Creek Recreation
Goshen Lake Dam 2111 1950 Not required
Goshen Plantation Country Spirit Creek Recreation
Club
Carroll's Lake Dam 2121 1969 Not required
Carroll Spirit Creek Recreation
Lake Aumond Dam 2129 (not listed) Not required
Augusta-Richmond County Rae's Creek Recreation
Richmond Vo-Tech 4940 1979 Not required
Detention Not listed Recreation
Augusta-Richmond County
Wrightsboro Rd Detention 5233 1992 Not required
Augusta-Richmond County Rae's Creek Flood Control
The Augusta Emergency Management Agency reports that the three Savannah River dams are
the only high hazard dams for which a response plan and inundation maps are on-file (updated
July 1994; DP 1130-2-16). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams, not shown in Figure 2-4,
are the Hartwell, Richard B. Russell, and J. Strom Thurmond. The Corps's document considered
several dam failure scenarios and predicts the arrival times ranging from 4.5 to 13 hours, and
peak flood elevations at various locations. The Corps' Savannah District operates the dams,
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
11IIII
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
t
t
t
.
.
t
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
4
.
.
.
.
.
t
4
t
.
4
.
.
4
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
4
.
t
t
t
.
4
4
monitors flood conditions, and notifies emergency management officials in downstream
jurisdictions if flooding is predicted. The Augusta Emergency Management Agency has
prepared an Emergency Evacuation Plan based on the Corps' report and maintains a response
plan for closing the levee openings.
In recent years, stormwater detention ponds have failed during storms that produce flooding
conditions. For this reason, and because the consequence of a dam or pond failure is
downstream flooding, such events are considered under the broader category of flood hazards
rather than as a separate hazard. Without the benefit of analyses of failures of the high hazard
dams shown on Figure 2-4, the impacts associated with such events cannot be estimated.
w+.
s
4
SMiles
Figure 2-4. Watersheds and High Hazard Dams.
Source: National Inventory of Dams (1998)
t
.
~
t
t
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
Flooding in the Augusta area results both from widespread and prolonged rainfall (e.g., from
large systems associated with hurricanes and tropical storms) or locally-intense downpours.
Augusta's more significant flooding events since 1990 are listed and described in Table 1-10.
That list indicates that sixteen damaging floods have occurred in nearly 15 years; thus the
frequency of flooding somewhere in the area is once per year.
2.1.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
Flood Risks - Buildings. Augusta's Information Technology Department coordinates and
maintains the Geographic Information System (GIS). The system allows staff in many
departments to access numerous digital map products and electronic data files. Among the data
and maps is a digital map of the floodplain prepared as an overlay for the property parcel maps
(derived from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps). Other GIS layers include county/city boundaries,
waterways and watershed boundaries, and ground contours and building footprints from aerial
photography data acquired in 2002, parcel boundaries, and National Wetlands Inventory data,
from which a wide variety of maps and analyses can be prepared.
There are a number of ways to characterize buildings and potential development that is subject to
flooding:
· Using GIS to compare the flood map with the locations of buildings yields an estimate
that 3,755 buildings (greater than 400 square feet in footprint) are located "in" the City's
mapped floodplains. It is important to recognize that this number underestimates the total
number of buildings that might experience flooding, as evidenced by recent flood damage
and the fact that nearly half of the buildings with flood insurance policies are shown to be
"out" of the mapped flood hazard area.
· GIS analysis did not identify any buildings located in Hephzibah's mapped floodplain
areas.
· U.S. Census data is used to develop a median value for residential buildings ($76,800),
yielding estimates ofthe total value of buildings that plot within the mapped floodplain
(Table 2-4). It is notable that there are several clusters of non-residential buildings; those
higher-values are not reflected in the table. Use of the median value to characterize risk
is not intended to imply that every flood-prone building is likely to be a "total loss" due
to flooding.
. Augusta GIS, using the flood hazard overlay to the property parcel data layer, determined
that about 1 ,049 undeveloped/vacant parcels of land in Augusta and Hephzibah are
wholly or partially affected by mapped floodplains (as ofmid-2005). The development
potential is, at least in part, a function of the available land subject to flooding (see Table
2-5).
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
· The addresses of buildings that have flood insurance policies and for which flood claims
have been filed, shown on Figure 2-3, can be used to identify buildings in mapped
floodplains (where lenders require insurance) and where flooding has occurred (where
owners are sufficiently concerned that they purchase flood insurance even if not
required). This characterization of flood risk is described in the following text.
Buildings "in"
the Floodplain*
381
1,646
283
28
178
44
735
460
3,755
t
.
t
.
t
.
t
.
.
t
~
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
Table 2-4
Floodplain Buildings, by Commission District.
Commission
District
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
Total
Estimate Value**
(millions)
$29.26
$126.41
$21.96
$2.15
$13.67
$3.38
$56.45
$35.33
$288.61
'Excludes buildings known to be flood-prone, but outside
the mapped floodplain.
"Assumes all residential; based on City-wide median
value of $76,800
Table 2-5
Vacant Parcels Affected by FEMA Flood Zones.
Percent FHA Augusta Hephzibah Totals
100%-75% 248 13 261
75%-50% 178 18 196
50%-25% 212 24 236
25%-0 291 65 356
Totals 929 120 1,049
NFIP Policies In-Force. Data available online from FEMA's National Flood Insurance
Program indicate that as of September 30, 2004, federal flood insurance policies were in-force on
961 buildings in Augusta (and none in Hephzibah). This represents a total face value of
insurable property of $118 million. The locations of buildings with flood insurance are shown
on Figure 2-3. The majority of insured buildings are located in Commission District 2 and
District 7.
IImI
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
~
.
.
.
.
.
a
t
.
t
t
a
.
t
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
t
.
It is notable that nearly half of the insured buildings geocode as being "out" of the floodplain.
For the most part, two factors prompt people to purchase flood insurance: when mortgage
lenders require it, and when actual flood damage makes it clear that a building is, indeed, located
in a flood-prone area. Thus, the number and distribution of flood insurance policies is one way
to characterize potential risk throughout the City. This is an indication of two important
conclusions:
. That many homeowners outside the mapped floodplain are aware of the flooding risks
throughout the area and have chosen to carry flood insurance even though it is not
required by mortgage lenders.
. Augusta's Flood Insurance Rate Maps do not reasonably reflect areas that experience
frequent flooding; this conclusion in part supports the City's expectation that revision of
its FIS and FIRMs is a high priority with the State and FEMA Region IV.
As shown on Figure 2-3, there are a number of clusters ofNFIP policies and claims, and a
number of areas without data points. A review of this map yields the following observations:
. The majority of policies are in the urban district (former City), especially along Rae's
Creek and Rocky Creek.
. Several clusters outside of the mapped floodplain warrant consideration, especially north
of Laney Walker Boulevard (east of Gordon Highway) and south of the Augusta Canal
(along Walton Way).
NFIP Claims Paid. Data available online from FEMA indicate that just over 300 claims were
paid between the end of 1978 and September 31, 2004. Just over half appear to have been paid
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
11II
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
t
.
~
t
t
.
~
.
.
41
t
41
.
4
.
41
41
41
.
.
4
t
.
41
.
t
.
41
41
.
t
41
41
41
41
.
41
.
41
41
.
t
.
4
for claims on properties that geocode as being "out" of the mapped floodplain. It appears that
the majority of these claims were for residential properties. The locations of properties that
received claim payments are shown Figure 2-3. Total amount of claims paid for building and
contents exceeds $2.9 million.
NFIP Repetitive Loss Properties. Figure 2-3 also shows the locations of "repetitive loss
properties" in Augusta. In recent years, FEMA has focused considerable attention on this subset
of insured buildings. These properties have received two or more claim payments of at least
$1,000 over a ten-year period. FEMA's database identifies 48 properties as "repetitive loss
properties." As with policies and claims, a large number of these properties geocode as being
"out" of the mapped floodplain. Augusta's floodplain buyout initiatives, funded in part with
FEMA mitigation grants, have removed some of these buildings and maintain the land as open
space.
The claims amounts attributed to the repetitive loss properties were not disclosed, therefore no
conclusions can be drawn regarding whether specific mitigation measures would be effective.
For example, a property that has received a number of claim payments not much higher than
$1,000 would be considered an unlikely candidate for mitigation using public funds. It may,
however, be an excellent candidate for damage-reduction actions taken by the owner.
Manufactured Housing. Manufactured housing units are known to be highly vulnerable to
flood damage. The same amount of water inside a site-built home causes considerably less
damage (as a percent of total value of the home). One cluster of manufactured homes and three
manufactured housing parks are affected by mapped flood hazards and some damage has been
reported in the local press:
· Some units along Kissingbower Road and Haynie Drive, north of Cherokee Plaza, are in
the floodplain fringe of Rocky Creek.
· Durand Trailer Court, south of Gordon Highway on Wylds Road just below the
confluence with Tributary No.7, was affected in June 2000. The City's GIS maps
indicate that one parcel of the property is marginally affected, but another parcel has
perhaps 10 units shown within the mapped floodplain.
· Gaskins Trailer Park, north of Gordon Highway on private roads (between Sibley Road
and Wheeless Road) was flooded by Tributary No.6 in June 2000. A newspaper account
indicated that some units were shifted off their foundations. Because the FEMA mapped
floodplain area was artificially terminated in this area, only 6-8 units are in the mapped
floodplain. However, it is apparent that many other units are similarly flood-prone.
· Gibbs Park, south ofWrightsboro Road near Maddox Drive, has a portion of the site
within the floodplain of Rae's Creek, but the units are shown as out.
t
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
Historic Resources. The Historic Preservation Commission, assisted by staff of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission, evaluates activities that impact historic properties.
There are no known reports of flood damage sustained by designated historic properties. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of its flood reduction study (see Section 4.1.4), identified
a small number of flood-prone historic structures in selected watersheds (other watersheds not
examined):
. Augusta Canal. In addition to the Canal itself, 13 National Register individually listed
buildings, 3 historic districts, and 12 archaeological sites have been identified. The
extent to which specific buildings are at-risk has not been determined.
. Rae's Creek. Fruitlands (Augusta National Golf Club) is the only listed property
affected; 7 archeological sites have been identified.
. Rocky Creek. No nationally listed properties are affected by flooding; 7 archaeological
sites may be in the floodplain, primarily where the creek merges with Phinizy Swamp.
. Phinizy Swamp. No nationally-listed properties, but there is a recognized high potential
for prehistoric and archeological resources in flood-prone areas.
Flood Risks - Public Properties. Using the City's database of 137 buildings and structures
owned by the City and the Richmond County Board of Education (and over 500 vacant parcels
of land owned by the City), it was determined that nine buildings are located in the floodplain.
Figure 2-5 was prepared using the geo-Iocation data collected for GEMA's online tool for critical
and essential facilities; this map differs somewhat from a similar figure in Appendix B-2,
because the City's geocoded point data are more refined and due to scale. For comparison with
the following description of public properties identified as being at some risk of flooding, only
two facilities were identified as at-risk using GEMA's tool (Fleming Athletic Office and The
Boathouse ).
Several City-owned buildings are located on the riverside of the Levee. Using only the digital
topography available in the GIS and the Base Flood Elevation (lOO-year), predicted flood depths
at these buildings ranges from 3.5-feet to as much as 8-feet. While most ofthe buildings would
be unlikely to sustain major damage at that depth, the actual damage may be more related to
velocity (which is not approximated). Contents damage may be more significant in terms of
financial impacts on the occupants. Some City-owned buildings are occupied by private entities.
Additional information and photographs of selected buildings along the Savannah River is in
Appendix D.
The Mitigation Planning Committee requested that certain departments determine if any facilities
were in the mapped floodplain (most City offices have access to the Geographic Information
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
t
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
41
41
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
.
t
41
41
.
t
411
41
.
41
41
411
411
41
.
t
.
41
.
.
.
.
System which includes a floodplain layer). This exercise not only identifies vulnerable facilities,
but ensures that facility managers are aware that specific buildings are not flood-prone.
Although not part of City government structure, the Richmond County Board of Education and
all telephone, electric and gas utility providers were included in the request:
· The Board of Education reported no public schools in the floodplain; one building has
experienced drainage problems.
· Georgia Power Company reported that no buildings or electric substations are in the
floodplain (other utilities did not respond).
Figure 2-5. Critical and Essential Facilities in Mapped Flood Hazard Areas.
City Buildings. A small number of City buildings and facilities have sustained limited damage
due to flooding in the past and, for the most part, are unlikely to experience significant future
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
damage. The following statements of potential flooding are based on the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and ground elevations interpolated from the City's topographic maps:
. The Traffic Engineering building, located on the river side of the Augusta Levee, may
have 3-5 feet of water during the 100-year flood.
. The Augusta Marina Store, also located on the river side of the Augusta Levee, may have
4-5 feet of water during the 100-year flood.
Public & Private Schools. Using data collected for GEMA's critical facilities inventory (see
Section 1.4.5 and Figure 2-5), a GIS analysis was prepared to determine whether mapped
floodplains affect school sites and/or school buildings:
. Nine public schools have at least a portion of the site affected; one building appears to be
within the floodplain (Jenkins-White Elementary).
. Nine private schools have at least a portion of the site affected; one building appears to be
within the floodplain (C.H. Terrell Academy).
Recreation & Parks Facilities. The Augusta Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for
numerous facilities throughout the City: 7 community centers, 15 neighborhood parks, a soccer
complex, skate park, BMX track, tennis center, and the municipal golf course. The Department
coordinates many programs, including: community athletics, aquatics, boating and fishing, after
school, and summer day camps.
The Department uses many factors when selecting sites for new park facilities, primarily
population and demand. The presence of mapped floodplain is a factor in site selection, although
acceptable ifthere is sufficient land for the facility. The Diamond Lakes Regional Park, built in
1997, includes wetlands and floodplain areas. The site plan required avoidance of the floodplain
and all improvements are on high ground.
With respect to floodplains and flood hazards, the Department reports the following:
. New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Park is owned by the Corps of Engineers and leased to
the City. The City is responsible for buildings, including maintenance and repair. The
entire 50-acre site is flat and has flooded 5-6 times since the initial lease. Damage to
grounds includes erosion and debrIs; costs incurred to clear debris and for stabilization.
Due to topography, there is no land outside the flood-prone area. The wood playground
equipment was damaged and removed; the replacement equipment will use flood-
resistant materials.
. City parkland on Lake Olmstead is flood-prone although the buildings are on high
ground. Damage due to the flood in 1990 included picnic tables and trails. The Master
Plan proposes new playground equipment in the floodplain that will use flood-resistant
materials.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
~
.
~
~
.
.
.
.
.
t
4
.
.
.
.
~
4
.
t
.
4
41
t
41
41
t
.
t
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
41
4
· Julian Smith pavilion, located above the Lake Olmstead floodplain, sustained water
damage in 1999; the 2000 flood caused less damage due to the way the water was
managed.
· The "Boat House" Community Center is on the bank of the Savannah River. Because the
main level of the building is elevated, it is not expected to be flooded during the 100-year
event. However, the lower level is more susceptible; it is used for boat storage and a
portion is finished space overlooking the river.
· Other parklands are located in flood-prone areas, but have not experienced flood-related
damage.
Flood Risks - Utilities. Augusta Utilities is responsible for the City's potable water and
wastewater treatment services. The department provides project management, construction
inspection and land acquisition services for water and wastewater projects associated with
commercial developments, some subdivisions, Georgia DOT projects, and the City's Capital
Improvement Program. To facilitate its workload, the department is establishing a computerized
maintenance management and work order system for both the wastewater collection system and
the water distribution system.
Potable Water Service. The Utility provides potable water to 67,500 customers (including 6,000
commercial/industrial users). The system includes 1,100 miles of water distribution lines. The
Raw Water Pumping Station withdraws water from the Savannah River to provide 75% of the
City's potable water. The remaining capacity is provided by the Highland Avenue Surface
Water Treatment Plant and three groundwater treatment plants. The City is phasing out
groundwater withdrawal due to available surface water capacity (groundwater sources will be
maintained for drought contingency). The New Tobacco Road Surface Water Treatment Plant is
expected to come online sometime after 2005.
Wastewater Service. The Utility provides wastewater collection and treatment services for
40,000 customers. The system includes 650 miles of wastewater collection lines; many more
miles of private lines feed the system. Treatment is provided at the Spirit Creek Plant and the
J.B. Messerly Plant where constructed wetlands at the Phinizy Swamp Nature Park provide
effluent treatment prior to discharge to Butler Creek.
Using the City's GIS, the Augusta Utilities Department compared the physical location of its
assets with the floodplain map and determined the following:
· Wastewater treatment plants: the City's two plants, JB Messerly and Spirit Creek, are not
within the floodplain.
~
t
t
~
t
.
.
~
t
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
t
.
.
.
t
t
.
t
t
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
,
.
. Sewage lift stations: the department is acquiring the GPS locations of the City's 24 lift
stations. At this time the specific location within mapped floodplains is undetermined;
however there is no record of flood damage or outages associated with flooding.
. Sewer manholes: 1,265 manholes plot within the mapped floodplain, an expected
outcome given that many sewer lines follow waterways to take advantage of gravity flow.
. Water wells: of the 24 wells, three are located close to areas delineated as approximate
floodplain (along Boggy Branch, a tributary to Little Spirit Creek).
. Water storage tanks: by the nature of their function, water tanks typically are located on
high ground; the City's 12 ground level and 13 elevated water tanks are not located
within the floodplain.
With respect to flooding and flood impacts, Augusta Utilities reports the following:
. The Department is responsible for operation and maintenance of the control gates for the
Augusta Canal and the Augusta/Savannah River Levee.
. The preferred construction method for water and sewer lines that run under creeks is jack
and bore; there are some aerial crossings mounted on bridges.
. Wastewater treatment flow volumes (and consequently treatment costs) increase during
storms and flooding due to infiltration through joints in the collectors and inflow through
manholes (Figure 2-6). It is estimated that 70% of the problem is on private property and
illegal connections of roof drains. Private property owners are responsible for installing
sewer lines from buildings to the right-of-way.
. Through the waste distribution system backflow prevention program the department
enforces current requirements for new construction.
. The department addresses backflow problems by educating the public and by planning
installations for residential customers and any non-residential customers that are to install
backflow devices.
. In 2004, three wet-weather overflows released a total of approximately 43,500 gallons;
despite more rainfall events in 2005, only one wet-weather overflow released 15,000
gallons.
Flood Risks - Roads. With respect to roads and flood risks there are two important aspects to
consider:
. Nationwide, flooded roads pose the greatest threat to people during floods - most of the
more than 200 people who die in floods each year are lost when they try to drive across
flooded roads.
. Flood-damaged roads require expenditures of local, state and federal funds for repair and
replacement, and traffic flow can be disrupted during the time required to design and
construct new crossings.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
ImI
5,
~
.
.
t
4
.
.
4
4
t
4
.
.
4
t
4
.
.
t
.
4
4
.
t
.
t
t
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
41
Messerly WPCP Flow Data Jan OS - Jun OS.xls
70
5
10
o , '" . . .
~ ~ S ~ Ii! ~ ~ ~ fa S~ i
-_!'fSSS!~S!lUl~~
Figure 2-6. Rainfall Affects Wastewater Treatment Costs
Based on the roads data contained in Augusta's GIS combined with the floodplain map layer
indicates that there is a total of 1,391 miles of road in Augusta: Interstate highways (43 mi),
state roads (85 mi), major county roads (196 mi), and other roads (1,067 mi). With 206 miles
falling within mapped flood hazard areas, approximately 15% of all roads in the City are subject
to some degree of flooding. This statement is not intended to imply that such flood-prone roads
are likely to be damaged or pose significant risk to the public. The City does not have a
definitive list of list of the more susceptible flood-prone roads. Table 2-6 was compiled from
three sources: press accounts; citizen reports; and the Flood Insurance Study (profile sheets).
The City owns and maintains the majority of road miles within its bounds. Factors that are
considered for upgrading roads include safety, traffic loads and capacity. While drainage is
rarely a primary factor that prompts an upgrade, drainage improvements often are included in
designs. State aid supports some road improvement projects, which may include drainage
improvements; this aid is sought on a project-by-project basis.
Various flood events have damaged roads throughout the City, primarily causing erosion. The
most significant recent damage includes:
· Willis Foreman Road on Spirit Creek washed out in June 1998;
· One lane of Frontage Road near Bobby Jones Expressway washed out in June 1998; and
· Barton Chapel Road at Glen Hills Road, damaged by Rocky Creek in July 1998.
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IIDI
~
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
t
~
.
t
t
.
t
,
.
Table 2-6. Flood-Prone Roads.
Flood-Prone Roads:
Press Accounts (2003)
Peach Orchard Rd Wheeler Rd Old Savannah Rd
Gordon Hwy Boy Scout Rd East Boundary
Bobby Jones Expwy Berckmans Rd Olive Rd
Walker St Milledgeville Rd Deans Bridge Rd
Walton Way (ponding) Wheeless Rd Meadowbrook Rd
Flood-Prone Roads:
Citizen Reports (2003)
Aumond @ Willow Cr Clark Dr Rozella Dr
Bobby Jones @ East Boundary Sheffield Circle
Wheeler Rd
Boy Scout Road East & West Vineland Weathers Terrace
Butler Place Gordon Hwy Wrightsboro Rd @ 1-520
Central Ave @ Daniel Ingleside Dr
Chelsea Dr Milledgeville Rd
Flood-Prone Roads:
Predicted Flood Depths, in feet (rounded up) from FIS
Spirit Creek Oates Creek
Goshen Rd 1 New Savannah Rd 2
Windsor Spring Rd 2 Boykin St 1
Willis Forman Rd 2 Grant Blvd 1
Birdwell Rd 5 Dyer St 1
Spirit Creek Tributary 1 Milledgeville Rd 1
Willis Forman Rd 12 Rae's Creek
Crane Creek Boy Scout Rd 3
Warren Rd (d/s 1-20) 1 Scotts Way 2
Pleasant Home Rd 3 Ramsgate Rd 1
Rocky Creek Courtside Dr 2
Barton Chapel Rd 4 Jackson Rd 2
Rocky Creek Tributaries Marks Church Rd 1
Nixon Rd (Trib 2) 1 Wrightsboro Rd 1
Lumpkin Rd (Trib 4) 2 Maddox Rd 1
Kings Grant Dr (Trib 4) 2
Durham Ct (Trib 4) 2
Virginia Ave (Trib 5) 1
Coleman Ave (Trib 5) 1
Peach Orchard (Trib 5) 1
Wylds Rd (Trib 7) 2
North Leg Rd (Trib 7) 1
Sharon Rd (Trib 7) 2
Barton Chapel Rd (Trib 8) 1
IIDI
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
~
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
t
4
.
.
4
.
~
.
41
41
.
4
.
t
t
41
t
.
41
41
.
.
.
.
41
41
41
4
.
.
.
41
.
41
41
When designing new state roads or upgrading existing roads, the Georgia Department of
Transportation considers the NFIP's floodplain and floodway requirements to evaluate the
impact of new and replacement structures. The Department inspects state bridges for structural
integrity and to determine if erosion is a risk, in which case stabilization measures are put into
place.
The City considers floodplain and floodway impacts in its planning and design for City roads.
Developers must satisfy the City's drainage criteria and other aspects of road designs in order for
the City to accept ownership.
When weather conditions suggest that road flooding is likely, the Augusta Emergency
Management Agency and other City personnel monitor access routes that are prone to ponding
and flooding and that are critical for fire and emergency medical response requirements, such as
Walton Way at 13th and 15th Streets.
Flood Risks - Local Drainage. Experience shows that many local drainage problems in
Augusta are not dramatic or life-threatening, yet contribute to the frequency of flooding, increase
maintenance costs, and are perceived to adversely affect the quality of life in some
neighborhoods. Many of these areas are not shown on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
One measure of the magnitude of this problem is the evidence that nearly half of flood insurance
policies in force on buildings appear to be outside of the mapped floodplain.
Many areas and streets experience accumulations of rainfall that are slow to drain away, which
may cause disruption of normal traffic, soil erosion, and water quality problems. Drainage
problems are associated with deteriorated culverts and undersized culverts (most older culverts
were probably sized using "rule of thumb" rather than sized for specific discharge conditions).
Areas that have experienced drainage problems include:
· Along Augusta Canal ponded water has affected City police cars
· Parking areas around the University Hospital experience more than a foot of ponded
water.
2.1.3 Land Use and Development Trends
In areas where most of the development is occurring and is projected to occur, current floodplain
management requirements are deemed adequate to prevent placing new buildings and
infrastructure in flood hazard areas. Infrastructure that may not be able to avoid floodplains,
such as roads and bridges and water and sewer lines, is required to be designed and constructed
to minimize the potential for flood damage. Chapter 6 includes additional details.
~
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
t
t
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
Redevelopment in the older areas is subject to floodplain management requirements. New
buildings built on the site of demolished buildings are treated as new construction and must meet
all code requirements. Additions to and renovation of older buildings that are located in mapped
flood hazard areas are subject to requirements to come into compliance under certain
circumstances (see Section 6.2.4).
2.1.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
The City of Blythe does not have mapped flood hazard areas; poor drainage results in standing
water in low areas (see Section 6.8)
The City of Hephzibah has a map of flood hazard areas that was prepared by the National Flood
Insurance Program (see Section 6.9). However, the GIS analysis indicates that no buildings are
located in the mapped floodplain; 120 parcels ofland are wholly or partially affected by mapped
floodplain (Table 2-5).
2.1.5 Summary: Exposure to Flood Hazards
Digital maps of the floodplain are used for flood hazard identification and assessments of risk.
The data, combined with the building footprints and other infrastructure asset information, allow
estimations of what is "at risk" only by identifying whether such assets are "in" or "out" of the
flood hazard area. No other characterization of flood risk can be made, i.e., depth of flooding or
whether houses are in the floodway or the flood fringe.
Because of frequency of damaging events and the number of at-risk buildings, the relative risk
ranking of flood hazards was determined to be "high" (see Table 1-12 for a summary of relative
risks). As an overall summary of vulnerability to flood hazards is difficult to frame briefly;
frequent flooding occurs in some low-lying locations every few years:
· 25% of the total land area is mapped as flood hazard area.
. More than 3,700 buildings are in mapped flood hazard areas.
· Potential for new development in flood hazard areas is characterized by 929 vacant
parcels in Augusta's floodplains and 120 vacant parcels in Hephzibah's floodplains.
. Four manufactured housing parks are shown as partially affected by flooding.
· A small number of individually listed historic structures appear to be subject to flooding.
· Nine public buildings have some exposure to flooding.
. Two schools (one public, one private) may have some flood risk, expected to affect the
sites.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
41
41
41
.
41
41
41
41
41
t
.
41
.
41
41
t
.
41
41
.
4
.
.
.
41
41
.
.
41
.
41
.
.
.
41
.
t
41
41
.
41
41
41
t
· Infiltration due to saturated ground into the wastewater collection system increases the
costs of treatment.
· Flood-prone roads are identified by citizen reports, press reports, and examination of
flood hazard mapping.
. Stormwater management ponds have failed during intense rainfall events, contributing to
downstream flooding.
2.2 Wind Hazards
Hurricanes & Tropical Storms. Hurricanes and tropical storms, as well as tropical depressions,
are all tropical cyclones defined as warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclones, originating
over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and closed surface wind
circulation about a well-defined center.
Hurricanes and tropical storms are classified using an intensity scale that is based on wind speed
and barometric pressure measurements. Along the coast, these storms usually last only one or
two tidal cycles, but have the potential to cause sustained flooding oflow-Iying coastal areas,
damaging high winds, and erosion conditions.
Most storms degrade to tropical storms or tropical depressions shortly after making landfall.
Resulting inland impacts include heavy rainfalls, riverine flooding, and high winds. Therefore,
hurricanes/tropical storms are not, by themselves, separate and distinct hazards (see Section 2.1
for flood hazards).
Tornadoes. A tornado is a relatively short-lived storm composed of an intense rotating column
of air, extending from a thunderstorm cloud system. Average winds in a tornado, although never
accurately measured, are thought to range between 100 and 200 miles per hour; extreme
tornadoes may have winds exceeding 300 miles per hour. The following definitions are used by
the NWS:
Tornado is a violently rotating column of air that is touching the ground. The Fujita Scale
classifies tornados by wind speed and degree of damage (Table 2-7)
Funnel cloud is a rapidly rotating column of air that does not touch the ground.
Downburst winds are strong downdrafts, initiated by a thunderstorm, which induce an
outburst of straight-line winds on or near the ground. They may last anywhere from a few
minutes in small-scale microbursts to periods of up to 20 minutes in larger, longer macro-
bursts. Wind speeds in downbursts can reach 150 miles per hour and therefore can result
in damages similar to tornado damages.
~
.
~
t
.
.
.
t
t
t
~
t
.
.
.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
It
It
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
t
t
.
~
.
It
.
t
t
Table 2-7. Tornadoes: The Fujita Scale.
Scale Wind Speeds Damage Percent of all
(miles per hour) Tornadoes
F-O 40 to 72 Some damage to chimneys, TV antennas, roof 29%
shingles, trees and windows
F-1 73 to 112 Automobiles overturned, carports destroyed, 40%
trees uprooted
F-2 113 to 157 Roofs blown off homes, sheds and outbuildings 24%
demolished, mobile homes overturned
Exterior walls and roofs blown off homes.
F-3 158 to 206 Metal buildings collapsed or are severely 6%
damaged. Forests and farmland flattened.
Few walls, if any, standing in well-built homes.
F-4 207 to 260 Large steel and concrete missiles thrown far 2%
distances.
Homes leveled with all debris removed.
F-5 261 to 318 Schools, motels and other larger structures Less than 1 %
have considerable damage with exterior walls
and roofs gone. Top stories demolished.
The typical tornado path averages four miles in length, but paths have reached up to 300 miles
long. Path widths average 300-400 yards, but severe tornadoes have cut swaths a mile or more
in width, or have formed groups of two or three funnels traveling together. On the average,
tornadoes move over land at speeds between 25 and 45 miles per hour, but speeds of up to 70
miles per hour have been reported. Tornadoes rarely linger more than a few minutes over a
single spot or more than 15-20 minutes in a 10-mile area, but their short periods of existence do
not limit the devastation. The destructive power of the tornado results primarily from its high
wind velocities, sudden changes in pressure, and windborne debris. Since tornadoes are
generally associated with severe storm systems, they are often accompanied by hail, torrential
rain and intense lightning. Depending on intensity, tornadoes can uproot trees, bring down
power lines and destroy buildings.
High Winds/Severe Storms. The term "severe storms" is used to describe weather events that
exhibit all or some of these characteristics: high winds, heavy rainfall, lightning, and hail.
Thunderstorms are convective storms produced when warm moist air is overrun by dry cool air.
As the warm air rises, thunderhead clouds form and generate strong winds, lightning, thunder,
hail and rain. Generally, thunderstorms form on warm-season afternoons and are local in effect.
Storms that form in association with a cold front or other regional-scaled atmospheric
disturbance can become severe, thereby producing strong winds, frequent lightning, hail,
downbursts and even tornadoes.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IIDI
Of the estimated 100,000 thunderstorms that occur each year in the U.S., only about 10% are
classified as severe (produces hail at least % inch in diameter, winds of at least 58 miles per hour,
or tornadoes).
Thunderstorms produce lightning - a greater threat to people than tornadoes. Lightning is
defined as a sudden and violent discharge of electricity from within a thunderstorm due to a
difference in electrical charges and represents a flow of electrical current from cloud-to-cloud or
cloud-to-ground. Nationally, lightning causes extensive damage to buildings and structures, kills
or injures people and livestock, starts many forest fires and wildfires, and disrupts
electromagnetic transmissions.
Hail accompanies some thunderstorms; in the U.S., hail causes nearly $1 billion in damage to
property and crops each year. Hailstorms are violent and spectacular phenomena of atmospheric
convection, always associated with heavy rain, gusty winds, thunderstorm, and lightning. Hail is
a product of strong convection and occurs only in connection with a thunderstorm where the high
velocity updrafts carry large raindrops into the upper atmosphere where the temperature is well
below the freezing point of water. Hail stones grow in size when the frozen droplet is repeatedly
blown into the higher elevations. The hailstone ascends as long as the updraft velocity is high
enough to hold the hailstone. As soon the size and weight of the hailstone overcomes the lifting
capacity of updraft, it begins to fall freely under the influence of gravity.
2.2.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
Figure 2-7 shows the tracks of hurricanes and tropical storms that passed over or within 65 miles
of Augusta between 1950 and 2003 (http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.htm).
In order to estimate the frequency of occurrence, the number of storms that have come close to
the Augusta area (35) is compared to the length of the period of record, the 53 years from 1950-
2003. Based on this record, on average 0.7 hurricanes or tropical storms occur somewhere in the
area each year (see Table 1-12). The recurrence interval based on this record is an estimate of
the amount of time, on average, during which one occurrence of a storm of a given magnitude
will take place. It is important to note that, in reality, a storm can occur multiple times during
one recurrence interval, and that the recurrence interval is only an estimated average time period.
For any given season, predictions of hurricane activity are prepared annually by the members of
the Colorado State University Hurricane Forecast Team. The forecasts include individual
monthly predictions of activity and seasonal and monthly U.S. hurricane landfall probabilities.
..
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
41
.
41
41
.
.
.
411
41
.
.
411
.
.
.
.
.
t
41
t
t
t
t
411
41
411
.
t
41
.
.
.
41
41
.
.
.
.
.c.
41
.
t
41
It
.
It
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
It
.
.
.
It
t
It
It
.
.
It
It
it
.
It
.
It
It
It
It
.
.
It
II
It
It
t
The predictions vary each year based on several atmospheric and oceanic factors and are
available at http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts.
,
G
;. ~/
'" T~9ee
35N %~
/$
/ $
10'lmi
Figure 2-7. Hurricanes & Tropical Storm Tracks (1950-2003).
High Wind Probability and Experience. Figure 2-8 shows the "basic wind speed" map from the
2003 International Building Code@. This map is used to design buildings to withstand
reasonably anticipated winds in order to minimize property damage. In the Augusta area, the
"design wind" speed is 100 miles per hour (3-second gust measured at 33 feet above the ground);
the State building code requires 80 miles per hour. A probability or recurrence interval is not
assigned to the design wind speed.
As reported to the National Weather Service, since 1950, there have been over 100
thunderstorms and high wind events affecting the Augusta area, resulting in nearly $80 million in
property damage and $50 million in crop damage
(http://www .ncdc.noaa. gov / oaf climate/ severeweather/ extremes.html). Of these, nearly 20
events included hail in excess of 1.5 inches in diameter. During this period, one storm was
reported to have notable lightning. Based on this record, on average two significant wind events
occur somewhere in the area each year.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IJJI
90(40)
140(63)
t
.
41
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The most damaging thunderstorm in the area occurred in March 1996, when an intense
microburst caused $2 million in damage to 25 homes in a small area of Goshen, just south of
Augusta. Nearly a thousand trees were damaged or destroyed, including 400 on a golf course.
liililllm Special Wind Region
100(45)
110(49)
120(54)
130(58)
Notes:
1. Values are nominal design 3-second gust wind
speeds In miles per hour (mls) at 33 It (10 m)
above ground for Exposure C category.
2. Unear Interpolation between wind contours Is
pennltted.
3. Islands and coastal areas outside the last
contour shall use the last wind speed contour
of the co..-I area.
4. Mountainous terrain. gorges, ocean
promontories, and special wind regions shall
be examined for unusual wind conditions.
Figure 2-8. Basic Wind Speed Map: Eastern Gulf of Mexico and
Southeastern U.S.
In May 2003, wind and hail in the Milledge area damaged county vehicles. A microburst in mid-
2003 damaged some buildings (primarily on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River).
Tornado Probability and Experience. The Georgia State Climatologist's office maintains
records on tornadoes and information on events that were reported between 1950 and 1995
(http://climate.engr.uga.edu/tornado/). Figure 2-9 is a graphical summary oftornadoes between
1950 and 2002. Tornadoes can occur in any month and at all hours ofthe day or night, although
nearly half of the State's tornadoes have hit during the months of March, April and May.
The National Weather Service maintains national data on deaths associated with tornados as a
function oflocation (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/locations.html). Fifteen years of data
reveal that nearly 70% of deaths during this period occurred in residential structures; of these
deaths, over 40% were in manufactured homes. Manufactured homes are more easily overturned
and destroyed due to their low wind resistance. In order to estimate the frequency of occurrence,
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
the number of tornado days (not
actual tornado incidents since
tornadoes that occurred close in
time on the same day are likely
the same tornado that has re-
formed, or a tornado that is part
of the same system) is compared
to the length of the period of
record (in this case 53 years,
from 1950 to 2003). The
recurrence interval is an estimate
of the amount of time, on
average, during which one
occurrence of a given category of
tornado will take place. It is
important to note that in reality,
tornadoes can occur multiple
times during one recurrence
interval, and that the recurrence
interval is only an estimated
average time between events.
Number of Tornadoes per Cou nty
1950 .2002
D 0 to 4
r'~;;1 5 to 9
L .......~ 10 to 14
11III15 to 19
_ 20 or more
Figure 2-9. Tornadoes in Georgia (1950 - 2002).
Since 1950, eight tornadoes were reported to have affected the Augusta area (Table 2-8),
resulting in property damage estimated at $3.1 million (NCDC). There is a moderate rate of
occurrence of tornadoes in the Augusta area, with one occurring on average every 6.6 years;
however the majority of past tornados were classified as F-O/F-l and little or no damage was
reported:
· The most devastating occurred in May 1978 and caused approximately $2.5 million in
property damage.
. The F-O tornado in May 1993 was short-lived, it touched down on Old Trail Road along
the Richmond-Columbia county line. One home and two cars were damaged by toppled
trees.
. In December of 2000, an F-2 tornado intermittently touched down along a 2-mile path,
causing extensive damage in the Timberidge Subdivision and to other homes and mobile
homes along its path. Eight people were injured, one seriously. There were no deaths.
. In June 200 I, in Hephzibah, W AGT TV and others reported a small tornado touchdown
at Point South Golf Course taking down several trees
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 2-8. Tornadoes Reported to the National Weather
Service (1950-2004).
Date Fujita Scale Deaths Injuries Property
Damage
August 17, 1954 F-1 0 0 $25,000
February 24, 1961 F-1 0 0 $25,000
May 8, 1978 F-1 0 0 $2.5 mill
April 23, 1983 F-O 0 0 $250,000
January 29, 1990 F-2 0 6 $250,000
May 19,1993 F-O 0 0 $50,000
December 17,2000 F-2 0 8 0
June 12, 2001 F-O 0 0 0
Source: NOAA, NCDC
2.2.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
By the time hurricanes and tropical storms move inland as far as the Augusta area, their effects
are usually heavy rainfall that produces drainage problems and flooding, and high winds.
Although there is no definitive source of damage records for all storms, the local offices of the
National Weather Service record reported deaths, injuries and damage (these records are not
independently verified).
High Wind Loss Estimation. High winds can damage roofs, ranging from loss of roofing
materials to total loss of the roof structure. A great deal of wind damage is due to wind-borne
debris which breaks windows and thus opens building envelopes to additional wind damage as
well as the entry of wind-drive rains which soak contents and interiors. Debris can inflict
injuries on people who have not sought shelter, or even in result death. High winds can dislodge
manufactured homes that are not adequately anchored, and bring down electric and telephone
lines and poles.
In general, older structures are expected to be more susceptible to wind damage in part because
their construction pre-dated building codes but also because older structures may not have been
maintained. The type of construction also influences the likelihood of damage, with shingled,
overhanging roofs (common on residences) more vulnerable to wind damage than are flat asphalt
roofs (common on nonresidential buildings).
Using HAZUS-MH, an analysis was performed to assess the relative vulnerability of structures
to high wind hazards. Tropical storms, thunderstorms, and tornadoes were the types of events
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
considered most probable to have a widespread effect on the county. Wind vulnerability of
structures is dependent on several factors including:
· Level of engineering design (code compliance);
· Quality of materials and construction;
. Structure exposure and height;
· Beneficial or adverse effects of nearby trees and structures;
· Age and condition; and
· Degree of rainfall or water penetration.
The high wind scenario was simulated for a Category 1 hurricane (where I-minute sustained
wind speeds range from 74-95 mph) that passes directly through or within close proximity of the
county. This scenario is reasonable because two storms ofthis magnitude have passed within 65
miles of Augusta between 1950 and 2003. It was assumed that all parts of the area are equally
likely to experience similar wind speeds.
The HAZUS analysis for this scenario analysis indicates that on the order of 50 buildings will
suffer minor damage and at least 1 building will incur moderate damage. It is highly unlikely
that any buildings would be completely destroyed. No households are expected to be displaced
due to the hurricane, and consequently, no one is expected to seek temporary shelter in public
shelters. The total economic loss is estimated at $2.8 million or approximately 0.02 percent of
the total replacement value of the entire building stock of the area.
Perhaps the more significant consequence of a high wind event that affects the whole area is due
to debris and the associated costs to manage and dispose of the material. HAZUS-MH projects
that as much as 331 tons of woody debris could be generated throughout the area, including
forested and undeveloped areas. Thus, it is important to qualify this estimate because a large
portion of the area is forested, and thus the amount of debris that would need to be cleared from
streets and developed areas after a storm is considerably less.
The costs of managing debris are not included in regular budgets. When events prompt massive
debris cleanup, staff from the Engineering, Environmental Services, Public Services, and
Recreation & Parks departments are diverted from other work, often causing delays. In recent
years, events with large quantities of debris have prompted the City to waive landfill fees, thus
reducing potential income.
Tornado Loss Estimation. There are no standard loss estimation models and tables for
tornadoes. Except for structures such as "safe rooms" that are engineered as refuges, buildings
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
IIDI
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
are not designed to resist the effects of tornadoes. Therefore, when buildings are in the path of a
tornado, it is expected that the damage will be total. Tornados are not location specific, that is,
within a geographic area as small as a county, there are no factors that suggest that tornados will
affect one area more than another.
Most estimates of likely tornado damage are based on distribution of older structures and
manufactured housing units. In Augusta, fewer than 10 percent of all buildings were built before
1940. Manufactured homes are particularly vulnerable to tornadoes and high winds.
Approximately 10 percent of the area's housing stock is manufactured homes. Of particular
importance are areas where over 25 percent of the total housing stock consists of manufactured
homes (southern part of Augusta, including around Blythe and Hephzibah, and areas close to
Fort Gordon).
2.2.3 Land Use and Development Trends
All new buildings must be designed and constructed to meet current building code requirements,
including wind loads. Manufactured homes are to be installed on permanent foundations with
tie-downs in compliance with engineered designs provided by the manufacturer. Accessory
buildings are required to be anchored; reroofing projects are subject to permit and code
compliance. It is not cost-effective to require buildings to withstand tornadic winds.
The effects of high winds and the exposure ofthe built-environment to high winds are not
influenced by land use and development trends.
2.2.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
There are no differences in exposure to high winds associated with jurisdictional boundaries
between Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah.
2.2.5 Summary: Wind Hazards
Most high winds accompany large storms such as hurricanes; the exception is microbursts.
Large storms are tracked and predicted with reasonable accuracy and advance warning. An
overall summary of vulnerability to wind-related hazards is relatively straightforward because
every building in the planning area is equally likely to be exposed to high winds. The most
significant consequence associated with high winds are due to downed trees, falling limbs,
accumulated woody debris on roads and private property, and power outages. Buildings are
damaged by falling tree limbs and may be destroyed by tornados; roof damage due to winds is
unusual. Primarily because of frequency (not the anticipated extent or severity of damage for
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
any single event), the relative risk ranking of wind hazards was determined to be "high" (see
Table 1-12 for a summary of relative risks).
2.3 Severe Winter Storms
Severe winter storms bring the threat of freezing rain, ice and snow accumulation. Heavy
accumulations of ice, especially when accompanied by high winds, can result in extensive
damage to trees and above-ground electric transmission lines. The most significant and
widespread effects are due to ice and snow covered roads which pose hazardous conditions for
traffic and can complicate response and recovery efforts. Building damage may result if snow
loads become significant.
Severe winter storms could result in the loss of utilities, expected increase in traffic accidents,
impassable roads, debris clean-up from downed trees and limbs, and short-term lost income and
productivity if normal commuting is hindered. Critical facilities are exposed to the effects of
severe winter storms, but vulnerability is a function of the potential disruption of services
(primarily electricity) and transportation systems.
Winter storms can vary in size and strength and include heavy snowstorms, blizzards, freezing
rain, sleet, ice storms and blowing and drifting snow conditions. Extremely cold temperatures
accompanied by strong winds can result in wind chills that cause bodily injury such as frostbite
and death. A variety of phenomena and conditions occur during winter storms. The National
Weather Service uses the following terminology:
. Heavy snowfall - the accumulation of six or more inches of snow in a 12-hour period or
eight or more inches in a 24-hour period.
· Blizzard - the occurrence of sustained wind speeds in excess of35 miles per hour
accompanied by heavy snowfall or large amounts of blowing or drifting snow.
· Ice storm - an occurrence where rain falls from warmer upper layers of the atmosphere to
the colder ground, freezing upon contact with the ground and exposed objects near the
ground.
· Freezing drizzle/freezing rain - the effect of drizzle or rain freezing upon impact on
objects that have a temperature of 320 Fahrenheit or below.
. Sleet - solid grains or pellets of ice formed by the freezing of raindrops or the refreezing
of largely melted snowflakes; this ice does not cling to surfaces.
· Wind chill - an apparent temperature that describes the combined effect of wind and low
air temperatures on exposed skin.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
II!I
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.3.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
The 2003 International Building Code@ includes a map of the United States showing "ground
snow loads" associated with the 2%-annual probability of being exceeded (50-year recurrence
interval). This information is used in design and construction so that buildings will withstand
reasonably anticipated snow loads in order to minimize property damage (reference: ASCE
2002). The City falls within the area where the "ground snow load" is five pounds per square
foot. In comparison, buildings and roofs in extreme northern Georgia must be designed to resist
twice that snow load.
Records maintained by the State Climatologist's office (http://climate.engr.uga.edu) indicate that
Augusta is in the region that usually receives less than 3-inches of snow per year. Although six
winter storms in Georgia have prompted federal disaster or emergency declarations between
1976 and 2000, none of those events affected Augusta. Online records available from the
National Climatic Data Center
(http://www .ncdc.noaa.gov / oaf climate/severeweather/ extremes.html) indicate that two recent
winter events affected the Augusta area, although the hardest hit areas were nearby counties.
The January 2002 storm was centered over Lincoln County north of Augusta and the January
2004 ice storm affected the Augusta area but was reported to be most severe in Lincoln,
Columbia, and McDuffie counties just north of Augusta. There is no evidence that these storms
should be characterized as "severe." The ice storm caused scattered power outages that affected
about 100,000 homes for several days.
Winter weather affects the Augusta area nearly every year although there is a low probability of
winter storms of such magnitude and severity that widespread property damage and power
outages will occur. For the state as a whole, it appears that major severe winter storms occur, on
average, every three years. For 24 years of record, eight winter storms have been noted in the
historical records suggesting a frequency of 0.3 storms per year.
2.3.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
All buildings and above ground utilities are exposed to the effects of winter storms. Because
most damage is associated ice accumulations that result in falling tree limbs and downed electric
lines, it is not feasible to estimate the cost of building damage. The License & Inspection
Department reported no known building damage due to heavy snow or ice loads. The Fire
Department indicates that the number of structure fires tends to increase when winter storms
cause power outages due to "creative" ways that people may attempt to warm their homes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Backup power is available for the jails, the 911 Center, the Court House and the newer fire
stations. Some older fire stations have emergency generators. City recreation facilities that are
designated as emergency shelters do not have backup power.
Severe winter storms, especially those with heavy icing, generate a lot of downed trees and
limbs, requiring cleanup of the resulting debris. The costs of managing debris are not included in
regular budgets. When events prompt massive debris cleanup, staff from the Engineering &
Environmental Services, Public Services, and Recreation & Parks departments are diverted from
other work, often causing delays in scheduled projects. In recent years, events with large
quantities of debris have prompted the City to waive landfill fees, thus reducing potential
income. The January 2004 ice storm cost the City $322,354 (excludes estimate oflost income
due to waiver of landfill fees).
Icing of roads and bridges affects traffic but is not considered a major factor in physical damage
to roads. A growing problem associated with periods of freezing weather is road icing due to
automatic outdoor sprinkler systems.
2.3.3 Land Use and Development Trends
All new buildings must be designed and constructed to meet current building code requirements,
including snow loads. The effects of winter storms are not influenced by land use and
development trends.
2.3.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
There are no differences in exposure to winter storms associated with jurisdictional boundaries
between Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah.
2.3.5 Summary: Winter Storms
Most winter storms are tracked and predicted with reasonable accuracy and advance warning.
When roads are covered with snow and ice, the traveling public is adversely affected. Other than
damage due to falling tree limbs, building damage due to severe winter storms is rare. An
overall summary of vulnerability to winter storms is relatively straightforward because every
building and above-ground utilities in the planning area are equally likely to be exposed. The
relative risk ranking of winter storms was determined to be "moderate" (see Table 1-12 for a
summary of relative risks).
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
...
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4 Drought
Drought is a condition of climatic dryness that is severe enough to reduce soil moisture and
water and snow levels below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and economic
systems. Drought is a complex physical and social process of widespread significance, although
rarely does a single period of drought affect an entire state. Despite all of the problems that
droughts have caused, as a hazard it has proven to be difficult to define and there is no
universally accepted definition. Unlike some hazard events such as floods, drought does not
have a clearly defined onset.
The most commonly used definitions of drought are based on meteorological, agricultural,
hydrological and socioeconomic effects:
Meteorological drought is defined by a period of substantially diminished precipitation
duration and/or intensity. This definition is usually expressed as an interval of time,
generally on the order of months or years, during which the actual moisture supply at a
given place consistently falls below the climatically appropriate (or normal) moisture
supply.
Agricultural drought occurs when there is inadequate soil moisture to meet the needs of a
particular crop at a particular time. Agricultural drought usually occurs after or during
meteorological drought, but before hydrological drought, and can also affect livestock and
other dry-land agricultural operations.
Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is
measured in terms of stream flow and as lake, reservoir and groundwater levels. There is
usually a delay between lack of rain and resultant reduction in measurable water in
streams, lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, hydrological measurements tend to lag other
drought indicators.
Socio-economic drought occurs when physical water shortages start to affect the health,
well-being, and quality of life of residents, or when restricted water supplies affect the
supply and demand of an economic product.
2.4.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
Table 2-9 lists some of the more extreme droughts in Georgia, only some of which affected the
Augusta area. Not listed is the June 2000 drought which affected several counties with total
estimated damage of $306 million. Information about drought status at any given time can be
viewed online at http://www.griffin.peachnet.edu/caes/drought/. Regional droughts appear to
occur, on average, every ten years.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 2-9. Historical Occurrence of Drought in Georgia. *
Date Area Affected Recurrence Remarks
Interval
1903-05 Statewide 25 to 50 Severe in places
1924-27 Altamaha, Chattahoochee, 25 to 80 One of the more severe
Coosa River Basins; north- droughts of this century
central part of state
1938-44 Statewide 10to>50 Regional drought
1950-57 Statewide 10to>25 Regional drought
1968-71 Southern, central, and 10to>25 Severity extremely variable
northwestern part of state
1980-82 Statewide 10 to 25 Low flow recurrence intervals
of main stem of Flint River>
50 years
1985-90 Northern and central parts <10 to 100 Regional drought
of State
1998- Most of the State <10 to 100 Regional drought
Present
* Source: Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy - 2000
Droughts result from prolonged periods of dry weather accompanied by extreme heat and usually
occur during the summer months (July and August) in the Augusta area when high pressure
systems settle over the area and dry prevailing winds come from the west and southwest. The
area is subject to periodic droughts that may impact the ability of the cities to meet all water
needs. In Section 1.4.3, Figure 1-3 shows land use and Table 1-3 indicates that about 5% of
Augusta is in agricultural use.
A significant drought affected counties in the area in 1986, contributing to three deaths and over
$300,000 in crop damage. The long heat spell and drought that affected the area in July 1992
saw record temperatures: 47 of 61 days reached 950 or higher, including 21 days with 1000 or
higher. In Georgia alone, crop losses exceeded $500 million.
The drought during the summer of 1998 saw reduction in the normal flows of the Savannah
River, the area's primary source of raw water. Lowered levels affected tourism and river usage,
prompting more river accidents (groundings and impacts with exposed snags). The State was
concerned with water quality due to higher concentrations of effluent from plants and factories
that withdraw water and return it to the river.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
..
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
The entire planning area is expected to experience drought conditions without variations.
Physical damage to buildings is not associated with droughts. Exterior plantings that depend on
periodic watering are at risk and such watering is restricted in the early phases of water
conservation.
Augusta Utilities currently has sufficient capacity to provide water to the current service area
with two surface water treatment plants (groundwater wells are being phased to backup status for
extreme drought events) and a new plant due to come online in 2005.
The License & Inspections Department reported that during prolonged dry periods some older
homes have experienced settling due to the falling water table which leads to local consolidation
and compaction of soils. Individual homeowners have had to employ engineers to determine
appropriate solutions that usually include reconstruction of foundations. Only about 20 homes
have experienced this problem in the past decade.
Prolonged drought conditions can increase the risk of urban wildland fires (see Section 2.5).
2.4.3 Land Use and Development Trends
Availability of water through the existing distribution system is a factor that influences new land
development activities. Augusta Utilities is planning a new water plant to serve the southern part
of the City; the Savannah River will be the source. This will likely stimulate additional
development. In areas not served by Augusta Utilities, lot sizes are larger to accommodate on-
site septic systems; lot sizes may range from 0.86 to 3.3 acres depending on soil types and
topography. Blythe reports that 1 acre lot sizes are required in areas on well and septic.
2.4.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
In terms of landscape impacts due to drought, there are no jurisdictional differences - the
planning area is uniformly affected. However:
. The City of Blythe provides water to its residents, relying on two wells. As of 2004,
Blythe's system is interconnected with Augusta Utilities for contingency service.
. The City ofHephzibah operates its own water pumping, treatment and distribution
system, obtaining all of its water supply from groundwater sources. Three elevated tanks
have a combined capacity of285,OOO gallons. The City worked with Augusta Utilities
and can connect to the regional water supply in emergencies; in a recent drought
Hephzibah supplied South Richmond County with approximately I millions gallons per
day.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.5 Summary: Drought
Sustained drought conditions can adversely affect agricultural and forestry interests, lead to loss
of horticultural and decorative plantings, and contribute to increased risk of wildland fires. An
overall summary of vulnerability to drought is relatively straightforward because drought is
assumed to uniformly affect the area and because most of the planning area is served by public
water delivered by Augusta Utilities. The relative risk ranking of droughts was determined to be
"moderate" (see Table 1-12 for a summary of relative risks).
2.5 Urban Wildland Interface Fire
A wildland fire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, such as brush,
marshes, grasslands or field lands, exposing and possibly consuming structures. They often
begin unnoticed in sparsely populated areas and may spread quickly. The risk of wildland fire,
and the nature fire behavior, is associated with a combination of several factors, notably stands
of timber and open areas of vegetative fuels, prolonged dry weather, sloping topography, and
development within the zone commonly referred to as the "urban-wildland interface." Within
this zone, buildings become additional fuel for fires and prompt fire-fighting efforts. The causes
of urban-wildland fires include lightning, human carelessness and arson.
Wildland fires can occur during any month of the year, and the season length and peak months
may vary appreciably from year to year. Generally, fires are more likely when seasonal
precipitation levels are low, ambient humidity is low, and vegetation is dry. The potential for
property damage increases as development continues to take place in the interface. In areas with
active forest-based economy, including tourism, extensive wildfires can have adverse economic
impacts. If burned-out woodlands, grasslands, and farmlands do not quickly revegetate,
increased erosion may contribute to reduced water quality or increased downstream flooding.
2.5.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
Data from the Georgia Forestry Commission indicates that over 3,800 incidents of forest or
brush fire (i.e., all non-structural fires) were reported in the Augusta area between 1957 and mid-
2004, with over 16,000 acres burned. In 1998, a large woods fire on Bobby Jones came close to
several houses.
These fires were attributed to various causes, including lightning, campfire, debris burning
(residential, agricultural fields, household garbage, construction land clearing, etc.), incendiary,
and the use of machines. With an average acreage per fire of just over 4 acres, the Planning
Committee considers that forest and wildland fires do not represent a major hazard to the built-
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
4.5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
environment - and the small areas affected also suggest effective response on behalf of local and
state agencies.
Although an average of about 80 incidents per year were reported, the general wildland fire risk
in the Augusta area is considered to be relatively low; very few occur in locations where
buildings could be threatened. Because the risk is seasonal and changes with many factors, the
Georgia Forestry Commission produces a Fire Danger Map each day using the National Fire
Danger Rating System that is based on weather data obtained from stations across the State. As
shown in Figure 2-10, on December 15, 2004 the risk in the Augusta area was rated as moderate.
The probability of wildland fires may be influenced by other events, such as drought or the
build-up of underbrush and fallen trees and limbs following severe wind storms or ice storms.
State law restricts outdoor burning between May I and September 31, except for certain
agricultural practices. The Commission and the Fire Department may issue warnings and tickets.
Forecast Fire Danger for Tomorrow
Produced at December 15, 2004130pm EST
..'.'
. . .
. .
5.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
112.5
fro
115
10
5: Ex1reme
4: Very High
3:Higtl
2: Moderate
1: Low
Figure 2-10. Georgia Counties: Fire Danger Rating.
http://weather.gfc.state.ga.us/Maps.aspx
11III
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.5.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
Table 1-3 on land use indicates that only about 10 percent of Augusta is zoned for forested land
use. When added to other categories of land use that likely are subject to wildland fires
(Public/institutional, Fort Gordon, park/recreation/conservation, agriculture and
undeveloped/unused), nearly 60% of the area could experience a non-structural type fire that
could be characterized as "wildland urban interface" fire; Fort Gordon accounts for nearly one-
third (see Figure 2-11). Approximately 2,200 structures are located in these land use zones and
thus have some risk in the event wildland fires are not controlled. The Georgia Forestry
Commission has indicated that nearly 60 percent of the Augusta area is forested lands.
legend
lAND USE
M AGRICULTURAL
ell PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL
ell FORESTRY
. PARKSIRECICONSER\ATION
C3 UNDEVElDP EDIUNUSED
W ALL OTHER LAND USES
CITY BOUNDARIES
. BLYTHE
. HEPHZlBAH
. FORT GORDON
W-+E
S
Figure 2-11. Land Uses Exposed to Urban Wildland Interface Fire.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
1.1II
It is unreasonable to approximate the characteristics of just 2,200 buildings by applying area-
wide percentages, although it is likely that most of the interface buildings are residential,
recreational, or used for farming and forestry purposes. More information about specific
properties in or near wooded areas would be necessary to estimate the potential damage and
losses associated with interface wildland fire (this level of detail is not available through the
City's GIS data layers). The more significant economic impact ofa large wildfire would be on
the forest-based industries; however, given the efficiency of fire suppression (based on small
acreage of the average fire), it is unlikely that any single fire would affect a large area.
Figure 2-12 was prepared using the reported locations of critical facilities (see Section 1.4.5),
fifteen facilities are located in areas where the land use suggests that wildland fires may occur
(forested, agricultural, conservation/recreational and undeveloped). While no single wildfire
incident would likely affect more than one of these facilities, the total value of these at-risk
critical and essential facilities is reported to be over $200 million:
. Richmond County Board of Education (transportation)
. Freedom Park Elementary
· Fort Gordon Fire Department
. Augusta Water Pump Station
· Riverwalk Marina
. Julian Smith Bar-B-Que Pit
. Sue Reynolds Park
. Augusta Aquatic Center
. Eastview Park
. Augusta Municipal Golf Course
. Dyess Park
. Augusta Fire Department (#16)
. Julian Smith Casino
. Warren Road Community Center
. Gracewood Park
The GEMA online tool described in Appendix B-2 uses a different methodology to characterize
urban wildland fire risk. The method, developed by the USDA Forest Service, was intended for
a state-wide analysis, but has been offered by GEMA as a source of data on wildfire risk.
Application of the GEMA online tool to the critical and essential facilities database yields 10
facilities that are located in areas identified as having a "moderate" wildfire risk (hazard score of
3). Those facilities are: Fleming Athletic Office; Merry Elementary School; National Hills
IIFII
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards. Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Figure 2-12. Critical and Essential Facilities in Land Uses Exposed
to Urban Wildland Interface Fire.
Elementary School; AFD- Engine Co #5; Richmond County Alter. & Opportunity Magnet
School; Jeff Maxwell Branch Library; Bernie Ward Community Center; Carrie Mays;
Westminster Schools Maintenance Shop; and Westminster Schools Prep School Gym. While no
single wildfire incident would likely affect more than one of these facilities, the total value of
these at-risk critical and essential facilities reported to be $12.4 million. Another 22 facilities are
noted as having a "low" risk.
2.5.3 Land Use and Development Trends
Development is moving outward from the urban areas, with considerable growth in the southern
part of Augusta, GA. There has been an increase in the number of subdivisions and single-
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
DIll
Chapter 2: Natural Hazards, Risks, and Vulnerabilities .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
family homes that are built in forested areas. This trend increases the likelihood that wildland
fires may affect buildings.
The Fire Department anticipates having to build new stations in the future in order to serve
increases in population and to maintain response times as more growth occurs. The Department
reviews subdivision plans primarily for the number and location of hydrants and to determine if
access roads have adequate width and turning radius for the newer, large apparatus. Some roads
in the rural part of the City and some driveways are very narrow for the current tanker trucks.
The Georgia Forestry Commission undertakes some preventive, pre-suppression work, including
plowing pre-defined fire breaks. Importantly, the Forestry Commission staff can work with local
governments and private land owners (fee based) to develop prevention plans to improve forest
health. The Forestry Commission views public education as an important part of its mission and
provides booths for local fairs and events and speakers for homeowner associations and schools.
2.5.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
Blythe and Hephzibah are surrounded by and include agricultural and forested lands. Therefore,
the risk of urban wildland interface fire is the same in the two cities as it is in similar land uses
elsewhere in Augusta.
2.5.5 Summary: Urban Wildland Interface Fire
An overall summary of vulnerability to urban wildland interface fire can be made by examining
the land use map for those land uses assumed to have a higher risk of such fires: over 60% of
Augusta's area and about 2,200 buildings are located in those land uses. Because any given
outbreak of wildland fire is suppressed rapidly, no single incident is likely to cause severe
damage. However, due to the relatively large numbers of such fires that occur each year, the
relative risk ranking of urban wildland interface fire was determined to be "moderate" (see Table
1-12 for a summary of relative risks).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 3: Technological Hazard,
Risk and Vulnerability
The Augusta Emergency Management Agency maintains and exercises response plans, including
responses to technological hazards and hazardous materials incidents. This Plan addresses only
hazardous materials as a hazard that intersects with flood hazards that can be mapped.
3.1 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are chemical substances, which, if released or misused, can pose threats to
the environment or to the health of people who are exposed to the materials. Chemicals of this
nature are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research, and the manufacture of some
consumer goods. Hazardous materials come be explosives, flammable and combustible
substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. Since their chemical properties vary
significantly, an incident could be obvious (e.g., airborne plume, spill on the ground, bad smell)
or not readily apparent (e.g., beneath the surface of the ground, no odor or color).
Hazardous material incidents are among the most common technological threats to public health
and the environment. Most incidents of release result from transportation accidents or accidents
in manufacturing facilities that use the materials. Hazardous materials are transported on
railroads, state roads, interstate highways, as well as local roads, during delivery. A hazardous
materials accident is usually a localized event and response is managed locally.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 establishes requirements
for Federal, State and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry regarding emergency
planning and "Community Right-to-Know" reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The
Act's provisions help increase the public's knowledge and access to information on chemicals
used at individual facilities and releases into the environment. States and communities, working
with facilities, can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and
the environment.
Reports on hazardous materials are prepared by handlers and submitted to and maintained by the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (staffed by the Augusta Emergency Management
Agency). Twenty-one facilities make or store sufficient quantities of chemicals to require
preparation of risk management plans mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A risk management plan is a detailed analysis of risk that includes a 5-year history of actual
incidents, the likely consequences of a "worst case" scenario, and strategies for improving safety.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
Legend
. HazMat Sites
II
II
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.1.1 Events, Frequency & Probability
Incidents involving releases of hazardous materials are not assigned a probability of recurrence
as are natural hazards. However, past data can be used to characterize the likelihood of future
incidents. The Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources is the state's lead agency in regulating public and private facilities that use hazardous
substances. The agency maintains a database of reported spill incidents and releases, which are
declining, probably because manufacturers, users, and transporters of hazardous materials are
becoming more aware of the financial and political costs of hazardous materials incidents.
In the City of Augusta, transportation of hazardous materials poses a daily threat, given that the
Railroad and U.S. Routes 20 and 520 that fUn through the City are major transportation routes.
3.1.2 Assets Exposed & Potential Losses
A general spatial analysis can be performed to estimate general impacts associated with
accidental releases of hazardous materials. In the Augusta area, sites with reported materials are
concentrated in four clusters (Figure 3-1). Using the GIS building footprints, the concentration
Hazardous Material Sitel
- Major Roads
1.5 mile Buffer II
_ Vulnerable Structures
D County Boundaryll
"
II
012
- -
6
SMiles
II
Figure 3-1. Clusters of Hazardous Materials Sites, with 1.5-Mile Buffer.
-
Chapter 3: Technological Hazard, Risk & Vulnerability .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of development (and thus number of people) located within a given distance around the sites can
be determined. The analysis takes into account only the geographic distribution of buildings
with respect to the manufacturers, users, and storage facilities, and does not characterize specific
types of hazardous materials and the potential effects should a release occur. Different types of
hazardous material have different potential impacts, and in all cases the total effects would be
influenced by weather and the efficiency of response and containment.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) develops standards for regulated
facilities that manufacture, use, store or are disposal sites for hazardous or potentially hazardous
materials and waste. According to these standards, the 1.5 mile radial distance was considered in
evaluating each of the clusters' potential influence on surrounding properties.
Considering the clusters of HazMat sites and applying a 1.5-mile radius, over 25% of all
buildings in Augusta are within areas broadly characterized as "potential impact areas." This
estimate is very high, given several simplifying assumptions made in the analysis, and certainly
does not
represent the
potential impact
of any single
incident.
Using the
reported
locations of the
critical facilities
(see Section
1.4.5), fifty-nine
are located in
areas delineated
by applying the
1.5-mile buffer
to clusters of
sites where
hazardous
materials are
used or stored
(see Figure 3-2).
Critical Facilities
Located in the
1.5 Mile Radius of
Hazardous Material
Locations
Legend
1.5 Mile Buffer
. Vulnerable Critical Facilities - 59
. Harzardous Maleriallocations
FT GORDON
Figure 3-2. Critical & Essential Facilities in HazMat Buffers.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
...
Chapter 3: Technological Hazard, Risk & Vulnerability .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Flood Risks - Hazardous Materials. Extensive flood-prone areas are found on Augusta's east
side and are associated with Butler Creek, Rocky Creek, and drainage from all streams in the
urban district (former City). The area, also known as Phinizy Swamp, is generally flat and is
predicted to experience relatively shallow flooding. Industries in the area are familiar with flood
hazards and containment areas (around chemical storage tanks) that are located in floodplain
areas are sized to protect against flooding up to the predicted level of the base flood (1 OO-year).
Figure 3-3 uses the best available location data for hazardous materials (which may be
represented by office address rather than physical location of material handling facility). Of the
156 locations, eleven plot as falling within the mapped flood hazard area. This determination
does not imply that such facilities are subject to flooding or transport offsite during a flood event.
Locations of
Hazadous Materials in
Augusta-Richmond County
Legend
Facilties with Hazardous Materials
Located in the Flood Zone - 11
X APAC-Southeast. Inc.
+ Avondale Mills Inc., Sibley Milt
o Augusta Transportation. Inc.
Eil FPL Food. LLC
* International Paper
8 Monsanto Company
* New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam
_ Nuco2 Inc. Augusta Depot
:ft Peridot Chemical Co
. Royster Clark Agribusiness
@ Rental Service Corporation #66
. Facilities with Hazardous Materials. 156
CJ Hazardous Facilities Parcel
_ FEMA Flood Zone'
c::l Political Boundaries
- Major Roads
Figure 3-3 Locations of Hazardous Materials (flood map).
Through the Local Emergency Planning Committee, the Augusta Emergency Management
Agency asked handlers about past impacts due to flooding - none were reported.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.1.3 Land Use and Development Trends
The Augusta Zoning Ordinance specifies that certain uses are prohibited in the Savannah River
Corridor Protection District (plus 100-foot buffer), including "handling areas for the receiving
and storage of hazardous wastes and disposal facilities for hazardous or solid wastes" (Sec. 25-
D-5).
Augusta's Groundwater Protection Standards (Title 8) requires that in certain significant
groundwater recharge areas:
. No land disposal of hazardous waste shall be permitted;
. The handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials shall take place on an
impermeable surface having spill and leak protection approved by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division; and
· New above-ground chemical or petroleum storage tanks larger than 660 gallons must
have secondary containment for 110 percent of tank volume or 110 percent of the largest
tanks in a cluster of tanks.
3.1.4 Multi-Jurisdictional Differences
Blythe reports that the only reported hazardous materials are those used by the City's water
department (Section 6.8).
Hephzibah reports that the only reported hazardous materials are those used by the City's water
department (Section 6.9).
3.1.5 Summary: Hazardous Materials
For the purposes of this Plan, the only technological hazards considered are those risks
associated with hazardous materials locations that are also subject to flood hazards. Although
many facilities in Augusta's industrial area use hazardous materials and the transport of materials
via highway and railroad poses considerable threat, a relative risk ranking of "low" was assigned
to the likelihood of a HazMat incident occurring coincident with flooding (see Table 1-12 for a
summary of relative risks).. This assessment in no way minimizes the seriousness of impacts
due to HazMat incidents, especially transportation-related incidents.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards
Mitigation Actions
Throughout the planning process, the Mitigation Planning Committee considered hazards, the
number of people and types of property that are exposed, and the development review process.
Table 4-1 summarizes the relative ranking of risk due to the hazards that are considered in this
Plan (from Table 1-12).
Table 4-1. Relative Risk Ranking.
Hazard
Relative Risk Ranking
Flood (including tropical systems and
dam failure)
High Wind/Severe Storms
High
High
Hurricanerrropical Storm (resulting in
wind and flood damage)
Tornado
(Included in Flood & High Wind)
(Included in High Wind)
Winter Storm
Moderate
Drought
Moderate
Urban Wildland Interface Fire
Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incidents
(weather-related)
Low
Based on these relative risk rankings and the Committee's understanding of how hazards are
addressed in ongoing processes related to development, several potential actions were identified,
circulated, reviewed, and prioritized. A list of tentative mitigation actions was distributed and
discussed at Committee meetings. Changes were made and a revised list was distributed for
members to indicate priorities (Drop, No Opinion, Low, Medium, High) based on their
program's functions and priorities; all rankings were composited to represent the consensus.
Factors that influenced prioritizing of actions included the Committee's review of available
information on flood hazards, other hazards, past hazard events, the number of people and types
of property exposed to those hazards, and the elements of the development approval process.
High priority was placed on those actions that are consistent with current City policies, those that
are technically feasible and have good anticipated political and social acceptance, and those that
can be achieved using existing authorities, budget levels, and staff. However, the Committee
noted that short-term constraints should not significantly influence long-term priorities, as those
priorities may support budgetary shifts and staff efforts.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Committee agreed that progress should be made on all identified actions within the 5-year
planning period, although it is recognized that many may not be completed in that timeframe, in
part due to their on-going nature.
For each mitigation action, the following are noted: designation of departments/offices to take
the lead and support roles, anticipated support by elected officials and the community at-large,
funding limitations and status, and a qualitative statement regarding cost effectiveness. In this
context, the "cost" of accomplishing the action was compared to the perceived "benefits,"
including community-wide safety. Because most actions are programmatic (as opposed to
projects), rigorous benefit-cost analyses were not prepared. If Augusta submits applications for
funding sources that require such analyses, the results will be used to help determine which
properties to prioritize for mitigation.
Medium priority actions and low priority actions are scheduled for further consideration when
the City undertakes the comprehensive review. Lead offices and other factors will be discussed
and documented during the Plan revision. At that time, it is expected that new actions will be
identified and a process to prioritize all remaining actions will be undertaken.
4.1 Flood Hazards
4.1.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options
Four categories of options are generally considered when addressing flood hazards:
. Programmatic actions that prevent exposing new development to flood risks and that
protect natural resources (land use, open space, regulations and codes, stormwater
management, drainage maintenance, wetlands protection, erosion and sediment
control).
. Property protection actions that address site-specific existing problems (acquisition,
elevation, retrofit, backflow prevention).
· Structural solutions (dams/ponds, levees/floodwalls, channel modification).
. Public information and emergency actions (outreach projects, web page content, library
materials, flood map determinations, flood warning).
As described in Chapter 6, Augusta addresses flood hazards through a number of existing
mechanisms, including some actions from each of the above-listed categories. Section 1.4.4
describes existing mitigation initiatives for which site-specific problems were examined to
identify feasible and cost-effective solutions, including drainage improvements and property
acquisition.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.1.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use
Chapter 6 contains a detailed overview of Augusta's capability to address hazards, including how
the City plans and grows and how different departments have been affected by and how they
handle hazards. Similarly, Sections 6.8 and 6.9 briefly describe the cities of Blythe and
Hephzibah and how hazards are addressed in normal city functions.
4.1.3 Existing Flood Mitigation Initiatives
Floodplain Acquisitions. Prompted by significant flooding in 1998, which resulted in
Presidential Declaration DR 1209, the City began to consider seeking federal grant funds to
acquire a number of flood-damaged homes. There were many more damaged homes than
available funding; for the most part the selection was driven by federal and state emphasis and
the limited amount of available funds.
The City's first federal grant for acquisition of flood-prone homes provided $618,928 from the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to cover 75% of eligible costs. The grant was awarded
through the Georgia Emergency Management Agency for the acquisition and removal of 12
substantially damaged and repetitive loss properties (8 were in FEMA's "repetitive loss target
group"). Although homes were located in several places (green circles on Figure 2-3) many
were concentrated in the Hollywood Subdivision. For this first grant, the. State provided 15%
and the City provided 10% towards the 25% non-federal match (Table 4-2).
Another flood in 2002, although not qualifying as a major disaster declaration, caused extensive
damage to homes in Augusta. As a result, the City applied for and received a grant to pursue
more floodplain acquisitions (Phase 2). Phase 3 was funded by a grant that was approved in late
August 2003, and Phase 4 was funded by a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant approved in 2004.
Table 4-2
Floodplain Acquisition Grants (as of mid-2005).
Federal &
State
Phase 1: Original
Application Approved 3/2001
(12 homes)
Phase 2: Approved 2/2003;
Dominion Way (4 homes)
Phase 3: Approved 4/2004
(6 homes)
Phase 4: Approved 4/2004
(13 homes and properties)
35 homes/properties
$618,928
$301,612
$303,509
$146,308
$1,370,357
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
Local Share Total Project
Cost
$68,770 $687,698
$33,512 $335,124
$33,729 $337,238
$48,769 $195,077
$184,780 $1,555,137
...
USGS 02197000 SRVRNNRH RIVER RT RUGUSTR, GR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As a condition of the mitigation grants, the acquired lands must be retained as open space. As
shown on Figure 2-3, these lots are in several locations, complicating re-use for recreational
purposes or other compatible open space purposes. The Hollywood area, where some homes
have been acquired and several others have been abandoned due to repetitive flood damage, may
be a suitable site for wetlands restoration. Ifbuildings can be removed from a large, contiguous
area, the land would likely revert to wetlands, given the frequency of flooding.
Augusta/Savannah River Levee. The Augusta/Savannah River Levee is about 11.5 miles long,
running from the high ground on the south side of Rae's Creek to the high ground at New
Savannah Bluff, just south of Butler Creek. There are 5 gate structures; 2 railroad crossings, 1
road crossing, 2 combined road/rail crossings, and several road ramps, and one section of sheet
pile wall.
Started in 1908 and completed between 1914 and 1916, the Flood of 1929 damaged certain
sections that were rebuilt to "stand up against greater floods." In 1936, the U.S. Congress
authorized improvements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which completed work in 1941.
Initially, the Levee was designed to have two-feet of freeboard under a design discharge of
550,000 cubic feet per
second (measured at the 5th
Street Bridge water level
gage, which is not
operational) .
The Clarks Hill Dam and
Lake project began
impounding water in
December 1951 and
continues to control the
Savannah River. Analyses in
the early '80s suggested the
Levee would overtop during
flows greater than 55,000 cfs,
which had a stage of30-feet
on the Butler Creek gage and 51.8-feet at the 5th Street gage. At the time, this was characterized
as the 0.2% annual chance flood (500-year). However, as shown in Figure 4-1, USGS
measurements at Gage 02197000 (Savannah River at Augusta), discharges on this well-regulated
river have exceeded 50,000 cfs only 5 times since 1950.
11II
200000
^'.m"~'
"- ~
~
~
~
'"
~<> ~
<> <> ~ ~ ~
<> ~! <> ~ ~ ~
~ <> ~ ~ <> <> ~ ~
<><> ~ ~ ~ ~ <><> ~ ~~
<> ~ <>
<>~ <> <> ~ ~
~~ <> <> 1 <> <> .<1
<>
"CI
C
"
t.l
"
"
l.. 150000
"
Q.
..)
"
"
...
~ 100000
"
t.l
C
'.-1
.
:I
~ 50000
...
"
..
"
l..
..)
<n
o
1950
1990
2000
1960 1970 1980
DRTES: 07/08/1941 ~o 06/14/2001
Figure 4-1. USGS Savannah River Gage at Augusta.
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The City of Augusta is the local sponsor and owns, operates, and maintains the Levee. The
Operations and Maintenance Manual, prepared in 1984 by the Corps of Engineers, acknowledges
that the effectiveness of the levee depends on people in three key ways, each is addressed in
detail: routine maintenance; inspection and periodic reporting; and operations and flood fight.
In conjunction with the Corps, the Augusta Emergency Management Agency prepared the
Emergency Levee Closure Plan (1999), which is exercised every two years (last exercise was in
2004). The exercise includes mobilization all City departments involved, deployment of a crane,
and the actual closure of at least one gate structure.
With respect to permanent development on the Levee, the Corps did not have the authority
(under then-current legislation) to approve permanent modifications. General criteria for
encroachments are set forth and a procedure is outlined, including a requirement that the City
Engineer certify that the design of any encroachment "does not affect the levee integrity or
impair his ability to operate or maintain the levee and perform flood fights."
Oates Creek Project. In 1986, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared the Oates Creek
Flood Control Project design. The project, constructed in the late 1980s, was expected to
provide an average annual flood damage reduction benefit of$1.78 million (1979 dollars). The
project was designed to carry discharges for the 10-year to 25-year floods and is expected to
reduce or eliminate flooding of218 homes by the 1 %-annual chance flood (lOO-year). The
channel improvement project modified the Oates Creek mainstream and Tributary No. 1 and
consisted of several components:
· Realignment of the waterway from its confluence with Beaver Dam Ditch upstream to
the New Savannah Road Bridge;
. Just over a mile of rectangular cross-section, concrete-lined channel, ranging from 30- to
40- feed wide;
· Over 6,600 feet of grass-lined channel with sloped sides and bottom widths of 10- to 60-
feet;
· A low earth levee on the south bank downstream of Central of Georgia Railroad crossing,
extending 1,800 feet long and ranging from 4- to 9-feet high; and
· Modifications to a bridge and utilities.
Richmond County was the original non-federal sponsor and project owner. As part of the
consolidation of governments, the City of Augusta became the project owner. The City, in
conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, inspects the project twice a year. Reportedly, "high
flood control efficiency" is achieved, but modifications are planned to reduce excessive annual
maintenance requirements and costs. To concentrate low flows and to minimize sediment
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
deposition, the bottom of the upper portion of earthen channel will be regraded and concrete pilot
channel will be constructed in the lower portion of earthen channel. Rip-rap will be placed on
channel slopes and at other locations to reduce erosion. Construction was expected to be
completed by the end of 2004.
Rae's Creek Improvements. Prompted by repeated flooding in the early 1990s, the City
undertook a $1.4 million stream improvement project on Rae's Creek. From Lake Olmstead
upstream to about Wrightsboro Road, the stream was cleaned and widened. To reduce
streambank erosion, riprap was placed on the banks.
Georgia DOT and Crane Creek Project. Georgia Department of Transportation is designing
two projects in the Crane Creek watershed that are anticipated to provide some flood relief,
although the degree of relief has not yet been determined due to on-going design factors:
· The I-20/Crane Creek project to prevent flooding ofInterstate 20 at Crane Creek; and
· The I-20/I-520 Interchange project with stormwater detention ponds
Two other DOT projects in Crane Creek are in the design phase; both will include stormwater
management measures to manage runoff increases associated with the project only:
· The Davis Road Widening project; and
. The Interstate 20 Widening project from Bel-Air Road to the Augusta Canal.
A significant flooding event occurred on June 20, 2000, when Crane Creek overtopped Interstate
20. Interstate 20 is a major hurricane evacuation route for this area of Georgia and South
Carolina. Many homes in the area were also flooded. These homes have had repetitive flood
losses and several were abandoned as a result of the June 20, 2000 flooding. In late spring of
2003, the concept for the final alternative and the environmental document were approved by the
Georgia Department of Transportation and FHW A.
The Georgia DOT project for the I-20/I-520 Interchange Reconstruction includes grade
separation of one nearby intersection (1-520 at Scott Nixon Memorial Drive), new loop ramps
that will be reconfigured to flyover ramps, and realignment of the other two loop ramps. The
new loop ramps and flyovers allow for construction of twelve stormwater detention ponds to
provide additional flood relief by staggering the peak release rates of stormwater flows along
Crane Creek. These ponds were designed beyond the Georgia Department of Transportation
guidelines for detention ponds to provide "over-detention" of the stormwater flows draining to
the ponds, although the degree to which the "over-detention" may reduce downstream flood
elevations will not be finalized until the final design phase is completed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Corps of Engineers: Flood Reduction Study. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah
District, initially looked at six watersheds in the City of Augusta. Four were selected for further
consideration and basic studies were completed in 2004: Rae's Creek; Augusta Canal; Phinizy
Ditch; and Rocky Creek (not selected were Beaver Dam Ditch and Butler Creek). As of early
2005, progress is slowed due to funding constraints; examination of flood reduction alternatives
will be undertaken only for the Rae's Creek and Rocky Creek areas.
As of late 2004, the Corps had requested additional funding in order to complete the feasibility
work to identify specific projects and those elements that do and do not qualify for funding. Any
project that is eligible for Corps funding will require a non-federal cost share. Effective projects
that do not qualify under the Corps' programs may be considered by the City. Alternatives that
will be considered include nonstructural measures (such as acquisition, elevation-in-place, and
floodproofing). A Corps expert consulted with the Corps Team in the Spring of2003, resulting
in an emphasis on nonstructural measures.
The hydrology and hydraulic analyses for both existing conditions and future conditions
(extrapolated from the 1995 Land Use Plan and the 1992 Comprehensive Plan) have been
completed. FEMA is represented on the team. The Corps' modeling meets FEMA
specifications and is expected to support FEMA's planned map revisions (scheduled to be
effective and ready for adoption in 2007). Detailed elevation data (ground, lowest floor) have
been collected by survey. Initial impacts indicate:
· Rocky Creek: average annual damages of $1 ,450,000 (not including industrial). Flood-
prone structures include approximately 1,000 homes (average value $30,000) and 200
commercial/industrial facilities.
· Rae's Creek: average annual damages of$I,480,000 (for only about half the number of
structures in Rocky Creek, reflecting higher home values). The confluence with Crane
Creek is a primary damage area. The upper reach was not analyzed in detail, in part
because of assumed flood reduction benefits associated with a Georgia DOT project.
Rae's Creek Hydrology Study (2001). In 2000, the City contracted for a study to examine four
known or potential problem areas along Rae's Creek between Jackson Road and Walton Way.
As of mid-2003, no specific actions have been implemented pending the outcome of the Corps of
Engineers' study. The report recommended:
. Repair existing spillway and construct additional emergency spillway capacity at Walton
Way/Lake Aumond.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Augusta Action A: Drainage and Stormwater Management.
Lead: Engineering Services
Lead Office
Support: Planning & Zoning
Priority High
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. To meet target flood elevations at West Lake Forest Drive and Heirs Pond, construction
additional outlet culvert at Heirs Pond and stabilize downstream banks to correct existing
slope erosion.
. Discontinue routine operation of gates on Heirs Pond and Lake Aumond because they do
not provide any peak flow reduction benefits for Forest Hills Racquet Club and
downstream areas; without measurable benefits, City personnel are placed at risk
unnecessarily while operating the gates.
. Widen Rae's Creek from the upstream end of Heirs Pond upstream to Jackson Road;
throughout this reach, remove block walls that obstruct and divert flows; replace
Courtside Drive with box beam bridge.
Augusta Action A: Drainage and
Stormwater Management. As evidenced
by the nature and number of drainage
improvement needs identified by the City,
the number and distribution of stormwater
management facilities, and citizen
complaints, the City's drainage system
infrastructure is stressed. To facilitate
identifying critical needs that may help minimize flooding:
· Implement central database for staffto record drainage and flooding problems (build on
existing software).
. Train staff of all departments that receive citizen calls to use the database to register
appropriate information to ensure quality data.
· Develop method to consider the database contents in setting priorities for drainage
projects and to support identification of flood mitigation opportunities.
. Formalize detention basin maintenance procedures and system to prioritize maintenance.
4.1.4 Mitigation Actions
Augusta Action B: Sewer Line
Infiltration & Inflow. Continue to
undertake projects to identify and resolve
infiltration and inflow. During wet weather
and flooding conditions, water infiltrates
into sewer lines and flows into the system
through submerged manhole covers,
Status & Funding
Notes
Planning is underway to acquire the
software and develop methods to help
prioritize projects.
For optimal implementation, additional
staff andlor funding are required. Long-
term benefit, short-term high costs.
Cost Effectiveness 1
Augusta Action B: Sewer Line Infiltration & Inflow.
Lead: Augusta Utilities
Lead Office
Support: -
Priority High
Status & Funding
Notes
Ongoing program funded through existing
capital improvement program
Long term effectiveness limited due to
extent of problems on private property
Cost Effectiveness
I Based on qualitative assessment of cost/effort and long-term benefits
-
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
increasing treatment costs. It is estimated that 70% of the problem is on private property and
includes illegal connections of roof drains. Section 2.1.2 describes increased treatment costs
associated with rain and flood events.
Augusta Action C: Public Awareness
Initiative. Mitigation is a partnership and
citizens are both obligated and responsible
for certain actions to help reduce exposure
to flooding and to improve the City's
ability to recover from flooding. To
increase public awareness and
responsibility, convene a work group (e.g.,
City departments, neighborhood associations, NRCS/SCS, Corps of Engineers, others) to prepare
and implement a multi-year plan for public awareness, which may include but is not limited to
such elements as:
Augusta Action C: Public Awareness Initiative.
Lead: Administrator's Office
Lead Office
Support: All Departments
Priority High
Implementing most elements within
Status & Funding existing budget; some elements will
Notes require additional funding, handout/mailer
developed during planning;
Cost Effectiveness Cost effective to encourage citizen action
· Encourage property owner purchase of flood insurance to provide financial protection
that helps personal recovery
· Encourage property owner purchase of flood insurance to increase options for post-flood
mitigation (because of Increased Cost of Compliance insurance coverage).
· Prepare articles for publication emphasizing what property owners can do to plan and
prepare for floods and to reduce losses (flooded road safety, low cost mitigation
measures, insurance, the automated 911 Message flood warning alerts).
· Coordinate with campaigns undertaken by the State (flood awareness, winter storm
awareness, etc.).
· Develop web-based materials; link to selected other sites (GEMA, FEMA, Red Cross,
Extension Service).
· Co-op with stormwater management initiative to distribute periodic mailing to property
owners along waterways to inform them of their responsibility to keep drainageways
clear (don't dump debris, yard clippings, tree limbs, etc.).
· Develop materials for the Planning Commission and License & Inspections to handout
with permits or mailings (tailored for homeowners, business owners, and owners of
vacant lands). Topics to include flood insurance, mitigation options, flood safety, permit
requirements, others.
· Improve consistency of communication to the public regarding flooding, prepare briefing
of basic information for City staff who field calls or meet with citizens groups.
· Establish a hotline for citizen reports of flooding and drainage problems.
· Request and sponsor periodic NFIP workshops provided by others (GADNR, FEMA) for
lenders, insurance agents, real estate professionals and others.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Priority
High
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. To facilitate preparation of Elevation Certificates and other uses, post database of
elevation benchmarks and reference marks on the City's webpage and notify local
surveyors and engineers of its availability.
. Research options to improve disclosure of flood hazards as part of the property transfer
process.
Augusta Action D: Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control. Based on experience
throughout the City, public comments, and
other factors, it appears that sedimentation
in waterways may be contributing to
drainage problems and flooding. While
streams naturally carry some sediment
during high water events, material that
washes off of construction sites can
contribute to excessive loading. The City
requires erosion control measures for certain land disturbing activities (see Section 6.2),
including its own projects, and certain activities are excluded.
· Due to the significant size and duration of four projects proposed by Georgia DOT for the
upper part of the Crane Creek basin, and the high visibility of downstream flooding,
request GDOT's continued attention to exemplary sediment and erosion control practices.
· Communicate with City crews and contractors that City projects are to be undertaken
with exemplary sediment and erosion control practices.
. Examine the feasibility of offering training for local contractors to reinforce proper
installation and maintenance of sediment control measures; seek cooperative partners,
including the District Soil Conservation Office, Georgia DOT, and GA Department of
Natural Resources.
Augusta Action D: Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.
Lead: Engineering Services (commercial;
site plans) and License & Inspections
Lead Office (single family homes)
Support: Soil Conservation; Planning &
Zoning
Status & Funding
Notes
For optimal implementation, additional
staff andlor funding are required,
especially to perform additional
inspections
Potential to reduce long-term channel
maintenance and enhance environment
Cost Effectiveness
· Increase frequency of inspections of sediment control measures and work with project
owner/contractor to maintain effective measures throughout construction.
. Continue cooperative efforts with Columbia County regarding installation and
maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures on active construction sites in the
upper portions of waterways that drain into Augusta, with particular attention to Crane
Creek, Rae's Creek, and Butler Creek).
!mil
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Augusta Action E: Flood Mitigation
Staffing. Seek new staff position to
coordinate the City's floodplain
management and mitigation efforts.
Functions would include: leadership for
implementation and tracking of priority
action items identified in the Plan; provide
staff review of permit applications for
floodplain development; function as the
City's Community Rating System Coordinator; develop flood mitigation policies and
procedures; apply for and administer mitigation grants; coordinate the City's interaction with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; coordinate multi-year effort to revise FIRMs; coordinate the
Flood Damage Assessment Team (with L&I) for substantial damage determinations; serve as
liaison with press and the public on matters related to flooding.
Augusta Action F: Flood Hazard Map
Revisions and Updates. The FEMA flood
maps are used in several ways, and the uses
are increasing. The maps are used to
determine which lands are subject to the
provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance, to identify "at risk" buildings
and infrastructure, to delineate those
portions of properties that may be
considered for Greenspace, to guide development to less hazardous areas,
to identify property owners for public awareness initiatives, and for other purposes. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has prepared revised floodplain models and draft maps for four
waterways and FEMA Region IV has indicated that preparing a new, digital flood map for
Augusta is a high priority. To facilitate the City's floodplain management efforts:
· Pursue City-wide revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, building on the City's new
digital topography and work underway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare
flood studies as part of the Flood Reduction Study (including Rocky Creek, Rae's Creek,
Crane Creek, Augusta Canal and Phinizy Swamp), and including other studies and
identified watersheds.
Augusta Action E: Flood Mitigation Staffing.
Lead: Planning & Zoning
Lead Office Support: Emergency Management,
License & Inspections
Priority
Medium
Status & Funding
Notes
Concern regarding overall progress unless
leadership role is created; not within
existing budget
Cost effective to invest in damage
reduction over the long term; increases
likelihood of grant funding
Cost Effectiveness
Augusta Action F: Flood Hazard Map Revisions and
Updates.
Lead Office
Lead: Planning & Zoning
Support: Engineering Services,
Information Technology
Medium
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
Generally within existing budget; City to
provide topography; GIS effort to
incorporate City-specific annotations may
exceed available staff time.
Cost Effectiveness
Low cost, high benefit.
· Communicate to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and FEMA Region IV the
importance of receiving revised maps in the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map format.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11III
Status & Funding
Notes
For optimal implementation, additional
staff and/or funding are required.
Improves likelihood of qualifying for
funding to implement projects.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. When available for local use, annotate digital map with the "lower floodway fringe"
delineation to facilitate awareness of and application of the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance and to more clearly identify areas targeted for Greenspace purposes.
. Incorporate the new flood maps into the City's GIS.
. Develop a database of property owners for use in public awareness activities.
Augusta Action G: Policies &
Procedures for Flood Mitigation
Projects. As of mid-2004, based on the Q3
digital flood data, it is estimated that 61
buildings are located within floodways (not
all waterways have mapped floodways),
and about 50 separate properties have
received multiple NFIP flood insurance
claim payments (about 13 of these properties have been acquired, along with 11 other
properties). Augusta will continue to mitigate future flood damage of older buildings in high-
risk problem areas by undertaking the following:
· Develop Flood Mitigation Project Policies and Procedures Manual.
· Establish systematic method for using and prioritizing funds, including a mechanism to
account for changes in priorities as a function of several variables (such as the funding
agency's priorities, recent flooding, degree of damage, damage history, predicted depth
of flooding, existing drainage problems, sewer infiltration, proximity to other public open
space/Greenspace, etc.).
. Gather data on buildings in FEMA-mapped floodways and repetitive loss areas to have
available in the post-flood period; use to target efforts for recovery, permitting, and grant
application development.
. Obtain FEMA' s Residential Substantial Damage Estimator software and maintain ability
to use it to facilitate damage estimates and substantial damage determinations.
. Develop policy on abandoned homes in SFHA (donations, condemn, demolish, HUD
funds).
Augusta Action G: Policies & Procedures for Flood
Mitigation Projects.
Lead Office
Lead: Planning & Zoning
Support: Committee of other departments
Medium
Priority
Cost Effectiveness
. Examine the Corps' database of buildings in the SFHA and pre-identify those most likely
to sustain significant damage if floods equivalent to the SFHA or greater occur, i.e., those
predicted to have more than 2-feet of water above the lowest floor. Use the identified list
to target post-flood inspections.
. Maintain awareness of different sources of mitigation funding (pre-disaster, post-disaster,
CDBG/HOME, NFIP flood insurance claims payments, etc).
. Continue to seek mitigation grant funds to implement mitigation in high priority actions.
. Explore with GDOT whether, as part of its environmental enhancement and wetlands
mitigation requirements, funding could support additional buyouts areas where the
...
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
frequency of flooding indicates the hydrology would support allowing areas to return to
wetland functions.
. Include consideration of flood mitigation opportunities in the City's identification of
projects for which ISTEA applications will be prepared, which may include projects to
preserve floodway greenspace or floodplain buyouts in areas where detention is required
or wetlands are desirable.
Augusta Action H: Savannah River
Flood Protection & Awareness. Although
there is a very low probability that flood
levels on the Savannah River would prompt
closure of the 8 breaches in the Levee, the
consequences of such flooding would be
catastrophic. Residential and non-
residential uses exist on the riverside of the
levee (some on City-owned land) and may
be subject to damage at different floodwater levels. Section 2.1.2 summarizes apparent risk
(using the Base Flood Elevation (lOO-year) information shown on FEMA's map). To enhance
protection and awareness:
· Convene a City work group to review and revise the Emergency Levee Closure Plan (see
Section 4.1.3).
. For City-owned property on the riverside of the Levee that is leased to private entities,
examine lease conditions with respect to adequate advisory language to protect the City.
Consider whether lessees should be notified of the risk of flooding; that the City
periodically conduct a levee closing exercise; and that certain conditions of flooding
predicted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may prompt the City to require
evacuation. Other topics for consideration: the availability of flood insurance to cover
losses (for both structure and contents); the requirement to obtain permits for building
improvements, additions, and repair of damage; termination of leases under certain
circumstances (e.g., if buildings are substantially damaged by any cause (e.g., flood or
fire); etc.
· Notify owners of private property on the river side of the Levee about the risk of
flooding, levee closing procedures, requirement to evacuate, availability of flood
insurance, and the requirement to obtain permits.
· Continue to exercise the Emergency Levee Closure Plan every two years.
Augusta Action H: Savannah River Flood Protection &
Awareness.
Lead Office
Lead: Emergency Management, Public
Services
Support: Departments with role in Levee
Closure
Priority
Medium
Status & Funding
Notes
Within existing budget and staff
Cost Effectiveness
Unknown (very low probability, high
consequence)
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
all
Augusta Action I: Flood Warning.
Augusta's watersheds are relatively small
and tend to respond rapidly to heavy
rainfall, making it difficult to use the
traditional door-to-door notification to
adequately warn residents to evacuate. For
the same reason, placing barricades or
stationing City personnel at flood-prone
roads is problematic, especially in the upper reaches of watersheds. To enhance flood safety:
. Use GIS and flood maps to identify buildings within flood hazard areas and develop
phone groups for automated, generalized flood warning announcements through 911
Message; exercise the announcement system periodically.
· Explore whether the automated rain gages that may be installed by Augusta Utilities as
part of watershed assessments can be used to augment the City's preparations during
times when flooding is likely.
· Improve the list of flood-prone roads; evaluate whether the most frequently flooded areas
warrant signs to alert the traveling public.
Augusta Action J: NFIP Community
Rating System. Based on current digital
flood maps, approximately 4,000 buildings
may be located in Augusta's floodplains,
yet fewer than 15% are covered by flood
insurance (other buildings that are
"outside" of the mapped floodplain also are
insured). On questionnaires, a number of
citizens indicated flood insurance is "too expensive." The NFIP Community Rating System
credits communities for sound floodplain management practices that exceed federal minimum
requirements and results in discounts on flood insurance premiums. To encourage the purchase
of flood insurance and to save citizens money, pursue a Class 8 or higher in the Community
Rating System. One measure of the benefits of joining the CRS is suggested by considering that
existing policyholders pay about $394,000 in annual premium on 901 policies; a 5% discount
would save about $19,000; a 10% discount would save about $38,000.
11II
Augusta Action I: Flood Warning.
Lead: Emergency Management Agency
Lead Office Support: Information Technology,
Engineering Services, Augusta Utilities
Priority Medium
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Status & Funding
Notes
Exploring grant funds to support gages;
implementation with existing budget
Low investment, potential significant
benefits to improve response
Cost Effectiveness
Augusta Action J: NFIP Community Rating System.
Lead: Planning & Zoning
Lead Office Support: License & Inspections,
Engineering Services
Priority
Medium
Status & Funding
Notes
For optimal implementation, additional
staff is required
Savings for citizens; City costs for staff &
documentation
Cost Effectiveness
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Augusta Action K: Dam Safety. For
State-designated Category I dams that are
located in the City or on waterways that
drain through the City (Table 2-3), estimate
potential impacts and determine if the
downstream risks are sufficient to contact
owners to encourage their development of
limited emergency action plan procedures, and periodic inspections, that are coordinated with the
City.
Augusta Action K: Dam Safety.
Lead: Emergency Management
Lead Office
Support: Public Services
Priority Low
Status & Funding
Notes
Within existing budget and staff
Cost Effectiveness
Effective, given number of past damage
events
4.2 Wind Hazards
4.2.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options
Mitigation options to address potential damage due to winds include structural (e.g.,
strengthening critical facilities), programmatic (e.g., requirements related to design and
construction of buildings, public safety and information), and non-structural (e.g., efficiently
handling debris). Despite the relative ranking of "high" (due to frequency of wind events rather
than degree of past damage), the Mitigation Planning Committee determined that building-
specific retrofits were inappropriate and unnecessary.
4.2.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use
Current building code requirements administered by Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah that are
related to resisting certain wind conditions apply to new construction, installation of
manufactured homes, and some work on existing buildings such as reroofing and additions.
There is no evidence to suggest that the code requirements are inadequate. Application of the
building code continues to be the best mitigation against damage to new buildings and structures
(for damage other than direct impacts from tornadoes).
Public projects and construction projects that are undertaken by Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah
must comply with current building codes, including:
. New buildings and critical facilities (such as the new Fire Station #15 on Flowing
Wells Road);
· Work on existing buildings and critical facilities (such as recent renovation of a Fire
Station); and
. Rehabilitation and reconstruction housing projects managed by Housing & Economic
Development.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11III
The entire planning area is exposed to the same potential wind conditions; there are no land use
or zoning elements that are directly related to wind hazards.
4.2.3 Mitigation Actions
Multi-Jurisdictional Action L: Severe
Storm Awareness. Continue public
outreach on severe storm and tornado risks;
encourage families to prepare Disaster Supply
Kits; encourage people with special medical
needs to notify Augusta Emergency
Management Agency. Convene a working
group of representatives from Augusta, Blythe, Hephzibah, and members of the public, including
nonprofit and neighborhood organizations and others, to look at outreach efforts and materials
provided by the National Weather Service, FEMA, the American Red Cross, and others and
determine whether changes are appropriate. Expand use of Augusta's web site to make
information readily available to the public.
Augusta Action M: Public Tree
Maintenance. Continue tree maintenance on
city streets and city-owned property (reduce
debris, impacts of falling).
Multi-Jurisdictional Action N:
Debris Management Plan.
Work with the cities, Georgia Forestry
Commission, power companies, and other
entities to develop a Debris Management
Plan. Note: FEMA has a guidebook for
developing debris management strategies and
examples from other jurisdictions are
available.
-
Lead Office
Multi-Jurisdictional Action L: Severe Storm Awareness
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
Cost Effectiveness
Lead: Augusta Emergency Management
Support: City of Hephzibah, City of Blythe
High
Within existing budget; changes to existing
outreach may require additional funding
Ongoing (already determined effective use
of resources)
Augusta Action M: Public Tree Maintenance
Lead: Public ServiceslTrees & Landscape
Lead Office
Support: Recreation & Parks
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
Cost Effectiveness
High
Within existing budget and staff
Ongoing (already determined effective use
of resources)
Multi-Jurisdictional Action N: Debris Management Plan
Lead: Public ServiceslTrees & Landscape
Lead Office Support: Recreation & Parks; City of
Hephzibah; City of Blythe; Georgia
Forestry Commission; Power Companies
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
Cost Effectiveness
High
Within existing budget and staff
Expected to reduce cleanup and landfill
costs; more efficient use of personnel
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.3 Winter Storms
4.3.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options
Other than ice on roads and bridges. which limits traffic and may contribute to accidents, the
most significant damage due to winter storms is tree damage, downed power lines, and an
increase in structure fires when occupants employ unsafe methods to stay warm.
The power companies respond to downed lines. As part of Augusta's response activities,
emergency transportation assistance may be coordinated by the Emergency Management
Agency.
Public education about preparing for cold weather and power outages can address the most
significant impacts of winter storms. Messages should explain safe use of heaters and the
importance of turning off automatic outdoor watering systems to prevent road icing.
4.3.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use
Within budget constraints, Augusta maintains and trims City trees to improve tree health and to
minimize damage during storms.
All new buildings must be designed and constructed to meet current building code requirements,
including snow loads. New and renovated public buildings must meet current building code
requirements for snow loads.
The effects of winter storms are not influenced by land use and development trends.
The Augusta Emergency Management Agency posts storm awareness materials on its web page
and distributes materials to citizens.
4.3.3 Mitigation Action
Multi-Jurisdictional Action L: Severe Storm Awareness. (See Above)
Augusta Action M: Public Tree Maintenance. (See Above)
Multi-Jurisdictional Action N: Debris Management Plan. (See Above)
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
High
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.4 Drought
4.4.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options
Other than the effects of drought on crops, landscaping, street trees, and forested areas, drought
rarely causes physical property damage. Since the early 1990s about 20 older homes have
sustained foundation damage due to settling associated with falling water table and soil
consolidation; current foundation requirements appear to adequately guard against this problem.
Public education and water conservation, along with imposed water use restrictions, can address
the most significant impacts of drought.
4.4.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use
The City prepared the Augusta Water Conservation Plan pursuant to State and federal rules for
outdoor water use. The purpose of the Plan is to conserve the available water supply and to
protect the integrity of water supply facilities. The Plan places emphasis on domestic water use,
sanitation, and fire protection, and protection of public health, welfare, and safety. To minimize
the adverse impacts of water supply shortage or other water supply emergency conditions, the
Plan calls for restrictions on water use as a function of drought conditions and available supplies.
Certain non-essential uses are regulated and may be curtailed during times of water shortage or
other emergency water supply conditions. Violators may be assessed penalties. Augusta
Utilities sends notices to its 66,000 customers about water restrictions.
The Georgia Forestry Commission and the Augusta Fire Department restrict outside burning
with particular attention during prolonged periods of rainfall deficit.
The availability of water is a significant factor that influences development. Land use and
development patterns show that most growth occurs in areas served by City water.
4.4.3 Mitigation Action
Augusta Action 0: Water Conservation
Awareness. Augusta Utilities to continue
implementation of the Water Conservation
Plan; continue to comment on proposed
development site and landscaping plans;
continue to report on and encourage
conservation in The H20 Newsletter and to
highlight water conservation tips on its web
Augusta Action 0: Water Conservation Awareness.
Lead: Augusta Utilities; Hephzibah
Lead Office Support: Augusta Trees & Landscaping;
County Extension Service; Georgia
Natural Resources
Within existing budget
Cost Effectiveness
Ongoing (already determined effective use
of resources)
-
Chapter 4: Natural Hazards: Mitigation Actions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
page. The City ofHephzibah will continue to follow and implement the State's water
conservation guidelines.
4.5 Urban Wildland Interface Fire
4.5.1 Identification & Analysis of Range of Mitigation Options
Many communities in the Western U.S. adopt regulations that require property owners to
maintain separation between buildings and forest interfaces and some building codes in those
communities specify fire-resistant roofing materials. Given the low occurrence of wildland
interface fires, such measures are not appropriate for the Augusta area.
Public education about outdoor fire risks - especially during periods of drought - can address the
most significant impacts of urban wildland interface fires (most of which are started by
carelessness). The Georgia Forestry Commission undertakes a variety of activities to educate the
public about outdoor burning and risks of forest and wildland interface fires.
4.5.2 Existing Policies, Regulations, Ordinances & Land Use
The Augusta Fire Department's capability to suppress wildland fires is an important factor that
prevents small fires from growing into large fires. In 2004, the department purchased wildland
fire fighting protective clothing.
When regional conditions warrant it, the State may impose bans on outdoor burning. In addition,
Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibah all have the authority to impose burn bans independent of
whether the State restricts such activities.
Augusta does not have specific provisions in land use regulations and ordinances related to
minimizing the effects of urban wildland interface fires. However, as growth extends south into
forested areas, it will be important that fire suppression capability be increased to maintain
adequate response time.
4.5.3 Mitigation Action
Augusta Action P: Pre-Suppression
Planning for City-Owned Lands. Re-
quest assistance from the Georgia Forestry
Commission to evaluate fire risks on City-
owned parks and greenspace to develop
prevention plans to improve forest health.
Augusta Action P: Pre-Suppression Planning for City-
Owned Lands.
Lead Office
Lead: Administrator's Office; Trees &
Landscape; Recreation & Parks
Support: Georgia Forestry Commission
High
Priority
Status & Funding
Notes
Within existing budget and staff
Cost Effectiveness
Effective due to availability of state
resources and assistance
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
ImI
----- -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Augusta Action S: Downtown Railroad Augusta Action 5: Downtown Railroad Safety. .
Safety. Continue to pursue activities Lead: Planning Commission; Emergency .
(engineering, land acquisition, etc.) related Lead Office Management .
Support: LEPC, Georgia DOT, railroad
to relocating NS Railroad mainline off of companies .
6th Street right-of-way. This action is Priority Low .
contained in the Augusta-Richmond County Status & Funding Ongoing .
Notes
Comprehensive Plan. Cost Effectiveness Improved public health and safety .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- Chapter 5: Technological Hazard: Mitigation Actions . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 6: Capability to
Address Hazards
Section 6.1 is an overview of Augusta's capability to address hazards as set forth in existing
ordinances and agency responsibilities. Section 6.8 and Section 6.9 are overviews of Blythe and
Hephzibah, respectively.
6.1 Augusta's Government Structure
In 1996, the City of Augusta and Richmond County consolidated to form one government -
Augusta, GA. The consolidated government consists of the Mayor and the Augusta
Commission. The Commission is composed often members: eight members are elected by
district; two members are elected by "super district" (each composed of half the districts).
Figure 1-2 illustrates the district boundaries.
The Augusta Commission is authorized by Home Rule Provision of the Constitution of the State
of Georgia of 1983 to: establish planning commissions; provide for the preparation and
amendment of overall plans for the orderly growth and development of municipalities and
counties; provide for the regulation of structures on mapped streets, public building sites, and
public open spaces; repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
The City's daily operations are handled by the City Administrator who reports to the
Commission and oversees the Operations Portfolio. Two Deputy Administrators oversee the
operations in the Public Safety Portfolio and the Administrative Services Portfolio. The City
employs 2,600 people. The departments and offices included in the three portfolios:
. Administration Portfolio. Board of Elections; Extension Service; Finance; Human
Relations; Human Resources; Information Technology; Law; Library; Purchasing; Tax
Assessor; Tax Commissioner
. Operations Portfolio. Augusta Regional Airport; Housing & Economic Development;
License & Inspections; Planning & Zoning; Engineering Services, Public Services, Solid
Waste, Recreation & Parks; Special Events; Soil Conservation; Transit; Utilities
. Public Safety Portfolio. 911; Animal Control; Fire; RCCI; Civil Magistrate Court;
Clerk of Superior Court; Coroner; District Attorney; Emergency Management; Forestry;
Jury Clerk; Juvenile Court; Marshal; Probate Court; Sheriff; Solicitor-State Court; State
Court; Superior Court
The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, a 12-member appointed body, was
created and organized under the Home Rule Provision to "make such careful and comprehensive
surveys and studies of existing conditions and probable future developments and to prepare such
plans for physical, social and economic growth as will best promote the public health, safety,
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
morals, convenience, prosperity, or the general welfare as well as efficiency and economy in the
development of" the City.
The Planning Commission is a recommending body - it makes written recommendation to the
Augusta Commission on matters such as rezoning petitions, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations amendments, and Final Plat approvals. In particular, the Planning Commission has
the power and duty to:
. Prepare a Master Plan (Comprehensive Plan) or parts thereof for the development of
Augusta;
· Prepare and recommend for adoption a Zoning Ordinance and map or maps; and
· Prepare and recommend for adoption regulations for the subdivision of land within its
political jurisdiction.
The Planning Commission employs a staff of administrative personnel, professional planners,
and technical support personnel who are charged with certain planning and development review
functions, including:
· Coordinating the City's established process for the review of applications and plans by
various City departments and agencies to ensure conformance with all applicable
development documents. The process recognizes all types of development: subdivisions;
small subdivisions; site developments; and single lot developments.
· Preparing transportation plans, maintaining an information bank, developing the
Greenspace program, coordinating activities that impact historic resources, and pursuing
grants.
6.2 How Augusta Plans and Grows
City of Augusta department directors and others were interviewed to gain an understanding of
awareness of hazards and how they are addressed, and to gather information about damage
associated with past hazard events. Notes from the interviews are on file in the Planning
Commission. Ordinances, plans, studies, and other documents were reviewed to identify specific
provisions pertinent to flood hazards (detailed report on file with the Planning Commission).
6.2.1 Planning for the Future
The City of Augusta uses the comprehensive planning process and land use zoning procedures to
set the stage for its future. These documents, prepared according to state requirements and
subject to extensive public review, establish policies that guide development and redevelopment.
Augusta's development documents are available online at
http://www . augustaga.gov/departments/planning_ zoning/dev _ docs. asp.
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comprehensive Plan (February 2004). Augusta's 2004 Comprehensive Plan is a long-range
plan for managing and guiding development over a 20-year period. It examines existing
conditions affecting development, enumerates the needs and goals for the future, and spells out
the strategy for addressing the needs and achieving the goals. The Plan serves as the basis for
local decision-making and a general resource for information about the present and future
condition of the City.
The three-step process outlined by the State was followed and included: conduct inventory and
assessment; develop a statement of needs and goals; and develop an implementation strategy.
Meetings where held with major stakeholders (neighborhood associations, development
organizations, realtors, builders, utilities, environmental organizations, the school board, and
interested private citizens) and numerous public meetings were held throughout the process.
The planning elements addressed are: population; housing; economic development;
transportation; community facilities and services; historic resources, natural resources and
greenspace; and land use. The Implementation Strategy is outlined, listing goals, needs and
strategies for each plan element. The Short Term Work Program identifies specific projects,
including estimated cost and responsible entities, to be undertaken from 2003-2007. Selected
goals, objectives and strategies that are pertinent to reducing flood hazards include:
· Promote a land use pattern that accommodates growth and revitalization while protecting
established residential areas and natural resources, by accommodating additional
residential, commercial and industrial development in the areas designated on the Future
Land Use Map.
. Provide public facilities and services that meet the needs of residents and businesses,
enhance the quality of life, and protect natural resources, by:
- Making improvements to roads and bridges that enhance safety, reduce congestion and respond to
expected growth patterns.
- Providing and maintaining recreation and park facilities that meet the needs of residents and visitors,
contribute to economic development, and help protect natural resources.
- Making the Greenspace Plan an integral part of the City's Land Use Plan.
· Protect natural resources and use them as appropriate to provide recreation opportunities,
educate the public and increase tourism, by:
- Preserving and enhancing water quality in the Savannah River and along creeks and tributaries
- Protecting floodplains and wetlands
- Reducing soil erosion
- Reducing non-point source pollution of groundwater and surface water sources
- Assessing the health of local watersheds and develop procedures to maintain the water quality in the
Savannah River and local creeks and tributaries
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
11II
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A Short Term Work Program is established for 2003-2007, with an update of the Plan due in
2008. Projects identified in the program (some dependent on inclusion in future phases of
SPLOST) that have bearing on natural hazards and exposure to risk (see Section 6.6).
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (revised August 3, 2004). The Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance, consisting of maps and regulations, was originally adopted in 1963 (the former City
began to zone in the 1930s). The most recent amendments were approved in August 2004 (S8-1-
1). The Ordinance sets forth the legal uses of land within each of the various districts, which are
illustrated on the official Zoning Map. Generally, land uses are categorized as agricultural,
residential, professional, commercial, or industrial. Augusta utilizes a "pyramidal" zoning
system, where, with some exceptions, land uses permitted in more restrictive zones are also
permitted in less restrictive zones.
The purpose ofthe Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is to promote health, safety, morals and
the general welfare of the people of Augusta. It is intended to guide and accomplish coordinated,
adjusted, and harmonious development to meet a variety of goals. Among those goals are
drainage, adequate public utilities, recreation, conservation and development of the State's
natural resources, and lessening traffic and other hazards to life, limb, and health.
Provisions specific to managing floodplains are included in the following:
. Planned Development Riverfront Zone, along the Savannah River, is recognized as an
economic, historic and visual resource that also is of critical and sensitive concern. A
wide variety of uses are permitted, including residential uses. The Ordinance provides
for the orderly and aesthetic development or redevelopment, including oversight by the
Riverfront Development Review Board:
- Applications for development in the zone must provide for public access to any areas designated as
floodplain;
- The floodway of the Savannah River and access easement must be dedicated to the Augusta
Commission; and
- Buildings and site planning are to comply with the Floodplain Ordinance.
. Savannah River Corridor Protection District, defined as all areas within 100-feet
horizontally from the river bank, is to remain in undisturbed vegetative buffer.
· Manufactured Home Regulations, specifically those pertaining to Manufactured Home
Parks, specify that no park "shall be so located as to be subjected to hazards of flood,
poor soil conditions, poor drainage, or other hazardous conditions."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.2.2 Regulating Development (General)
The City of Augusta has developed a set of coordinated documents that pertain to the regulation
of land uses and development in order to protect against the potential negative impacts of
converting land from its natural state to urban land uses. Negative impacts include poorly
constructed streets, water systems and sewers, soil erosion, flooding, and reduction of property
value are only a few examples of the health, safety and welfare issues that compel the regulation
of development.
Augusta's Development Regulations Guide provides an overview of the various regulatory
documents that have been adopted by the City. Along with an easy-to-read overview, it is made
available to the public on the City's web page, along all of the Development Documents.
The Quarterly Subdivision Review Committee is charged with conducting periodic review of the
City's development documents and considering resolution of issues and regulation changes
related to development (including development other than subdivisions). The committee
includes members of the public (developers and property owners) who are appointed by the
Augusta Commission, the Soil Conservation Service, and City staff representing departments
that have a role in regulating and guiding development (Planning & Zoning, License &
Inspections, Public Works, Augusta Utilities, Fire, Health).
Provisions of Development Documents that pertain to managing flood hazard areas are
summarized below. The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and related materials is
summarized in Section 6.2. Because they related to managing natural resources, three
documents are summarized in Section 6.7: Greenspace Program, Tree Ordinance, and
Groundwater Recharge Area Protection Ordinance.
Land Subdivision Regulations. The Land Subdivision Regulations (adopted by reference at ~8-
3-1) regulate the subdivision of land by providing a process for the approval of plats and by
providing general infrastructure construction standards. The former City first adopted
subdivision rules in the 1950s, while Richmond County's rules dated to 1971. The stated
purposes of the current regulations include, among others: to protect natural, economic and
scenic resources; to encourage public open spaces; to ensure proper consideration of drainage; to
promote a safe and healthy environment and control the spread of blight; and to encourage wise
development in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Planning Commission coordinates the City's subdivision reviews, including coordination
with state agencies. The City Engineer inspects and approves certain required improvements
before the City accepts easements, improvements, and dedications.
Extensive and detailed specifications for Site Plans and Final Plats are listed and include
information necessary to review drainage and floodplain impacts. With respect to managing
flood hazards, applicants are required to:
· Show the outline of the 100-year floodplain boundary and notes; a note is required if the
property is not affected by the floodplain.
· Note on each lot to identify the minimum finished floor elevation that must be 3-feet
above the base flood elevation; this requirement also applies to those lots that are
impinged by the floodplain but the building footprint is not within the hazard area.
Site Plan Regulations. These regulations (adopted by reference at S8-8-1) require Site Plan
approval for construction or expanding a structure (other than a single family home and certain
other exempted activities). The Site Plan is an accurately scaled plan and supporting
documentation that illustrates the existing conditions and the details of proposed developments.
Procedures for Site Plan approvals are outlined and the Planning Commission coordinates
reviews by all appropriate City offices. The requirements for Site Plans are specified. With
respect to managing flood hazards, applicants are required to:
. Define the acreage of all on-site and off-site drainage areas contributing flow through the
site.
· Specify the stormwater management plan, including hydrology studies.
· Show the outline of the 100-year floodplain boundary and notes; a note is required if the
property is not affected by the floodplain.
· Note on each lot to identify the minimum finished floor elevation that must be 3-feet
above the base flood elevation; administratively, this requirement is applied to sites that
are impinged by the floodplain but the building footprint is not within the hazard area.
Storm water Management. The Stormwater Management Ordinance (adopted by reference at
S5-1-1) is administered by the Engineering & Environmental Services Department. It provides
minimum requirements regarding the design and construction of public/private stormwater
management facilities. Provisions outline the acquisition, design, standards and guidelines,
operation and maintenance, and inspection of stormwater management facilities. Water quality
controls are required of all developments. Facilities are:
· Privately-owned and maintained, if serving single lot developments or
commercial/industrial development; or
. City-owned and maintained, if accepted by the City (primarily in subdivisions).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Storm water Management Plan Technical Manual. Adopted by reference at g5-6-1, the
Stormwater Management Plan Technical Manual establishes minimum requirements for the
design and construction of individual and collective stormwater management systems. It is
written to provide engineers, developers, land planners, and others with the technical information
necessary to design and construct stormwater management systems that minimize the increase in
volume and intensity of stormwater due to development activity. This is necessary to protect
adjacent property owners, public infrastructure, and waterways when land is developed.
A stormwater management plan required for Site Plans (single lot) and subdivision Development
Plans. Certain exemptions are allowed in the urban district, where there will be no increase in
runoff, if the site is less than 1 acre and the increase in runoff is less than 1 cfs for the 50-year
storm. Hydrology/hydraulics reports are required to establish the pre- and post-development
rainfall-runoff relationships. The analyses are required to consider the 2-, 5-, 25-, 50-, and 100-
year return frequency storms (and use of the 24-hour storm is required if the drainage area is
more than 100 acres). Design specifics:
· Storm drains are designed for the 25-year return frequency storm and applicants must
evaluate the "overall storm drainage system in the event of a 100-year return frequency
storm. "
· Open channels are designed for the 25-year return frequency storm; additional capacity
may be required if damage to surrounding properties could occur; erosion protection may
be required.
· Culverts are designed for the 25-year return frequency storm; backwater elevations are
not to rise higher than 6-inches below the shoulder of the roadway; minimum velocities
are specified to minimize sediment build-up.
· Detention basins are generally required and designs must manage post-development
runoff at pre-development rates for the 2-, 5-, 25- and 50-year return frequency storms;
provision for conveying the 100-year flood flows is required, and ~etention facilities not
allowed in the FEMA-mapped floodplain
Special Basin Restrictions. Due to past damage to property and infrastructure, additional
stormwater management facility design considerations are required in: Rae's Creek; Rocky
Creek; and Rock Creek basins. The requirements include:
· For sites less than 10 acres, no fill or detention facilities in the floodplain;
· Stormwater management is required for all developments; and
· Release of stormwater associated with the 50-year frequency storm shall be limited to
90% of the pre-developed rates.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Street and Road Design Technical Manual. The Technical Manual (adopted by reference at g7-
3-60) establishes minimum requirements for the design and construction of streets, roads, and
appurtenant structures, including drainage, culverts and bridges. It provides engineers,
developers, land planners, and others with the technical information necessary to design and
construct streets and roads within subdivisions and in some cases within individual commercial
or industrial sites. For major works, the Georgia Department of Transportation Standards &
Specifications are referenced.
Soil Erosion/Sediment Control Ordinance. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance (adopted by reference at g7-3-31) provides minimum guidelines for measures and
practices as applied to development, including street and utility installations, drainage facilities
and other temporary and permanent improvements. "Land disturbing activities" include
clearing, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting, and filling (certain other activities and
types of projects are exempt). Appropriate measures per Best Management Practices are to be
installed to prevent or control erosion and sedimentation pollution during all stages of any land-
disturbing activity.
Individual sediment and erosion control plans are to be prepared in accordance with the Manual
for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, prepared by the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources. Plan content includes delineation of waterways, drainage, wetlands, and 100-year
floodplains. The City is designated as the Issuing Authority, and Soil Conservation provides the
technical review of plans.
Grading Ordinance. Adopted by reference at g7-3-40, the Grading Ordinance regulates
excavation, filling, and grading activities to address erosion and sediment deposition that causes
pollution and damage to domestic, agricultural, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other resource
uses. Grading plans and permits are required, except for specifically exempted activities. For
site activities involving land disturbances greater than 1.1 acres, the developer must show
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
grading provisions and a separate Grading Permit is required. Plan requirements are specified;
designers must show the outline of the 100-year floodplain boundary and notes or a note that the
property is not affected by the floodplain.
Utilities Department Design Standards. Sections specify design and construction standards for
potable water distribution systems (including fire hydrants and fire lines) and for sanitary sewer
system construction. Plan submittals must show, among other requirements, creek crossing
details and backflow prevention devices. The requirement for backflow prevention devices is
coordinated with the Site Plan Regulations and Subdivision Regulations.
6.2.3 Building Permits and Inspections
The License and Inspections Department administers and enforces codes related to building
construction, property maintenance, business licenses and alcohol licenses. The current building
code is the 2003 International Building Code and the 2003 International Residential Code, both
adopted by the State under the cover of the Standard Building Code. Although the code contains
building-specific provisions for flood resistance that are consistent with the NFIP, the City relies
on the Floodplain Management Ordinance.
In 1998, the City received a Building Code Effectiveness Grading System evaluation by the
Insurance Services Organization, Inc. The evaluation examines codes, staffing, training, and
inspections, and the results affects property insurance rates. The City received a Class 6 for
commercial/industrial construction and a Class 6 for 1- and 2-family residential construction.
The department includes 13 professional staff who perform plans reviews and inspections. All
staff meet or exceed State requirements for certification in their trade/specialty, either through
the model code organization or the Georgia State Construction Licensing Board and most staff
hold multiple certifications. To maintain qualifications, staff attend training offered by the
International Code Council (includes SBCCI), Georgia Power, Georgia Natural Gas, the Soil
Conservation Service, and commercial providers.
The number of permits issued and inspections conducted in 2001 through 2004 are summarized
in Table 6-1. In recent years, very few permits have been issued for buildings located in the
mapped flood hazard areas. Processing of such permits includes these steps:
· Standard intake procedures includes a GIS check to identify several factors that are
maintained in the related databases, including whether any portion of the property is
located in the floodplain, which prompts a requirement that applicants first obtain
approval from the Planning Commission.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
,j)
II!!I
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. The standard intake procedures apply to applications for work in existing buildings; if
determined to be in a floodplain, Planning Commission approval is required before a
building permit is processed.
. For all building permits issued in floodplains, the Department reiterates the floodplain
elevation requirement and the requirement to submit Elevation Certificates. Builders
typically shoot elevations when foundations are finished and the Elevation Certificate
must be submitted prior to release of the Certificate of Occupancy.
. If field inspectors see any work for which they do not have a permit file (whether in or
out of the floodplain), they investigate the activity using office and computer resources;
citations are issued for working without permits
Augusta addresses wind and snow load hazards through the building code and land use
regulations:
. The building code requires all new construction to be designed and constructed for 80
mile per hour wind loads. This level of protection has been part of the building code
since 1994; thus buildings constructed after that date are expected to be resistant to
wind damage.
. The building code requires all new construction to be designed and constructed for 5
pounds per square foot snow load. This level of protection has been part of the
building code since 1994; thus buildings constructed after that date are expected to be
resistant to roof damage from winter storms.
. Section 3402.1, #1 of the Georgia Amendments to the 2000 Standard Building Code
specifies that the right to a nonconforming use terminates if a structure becomes
substandard under any applicable ordinance and the cost of placing it in lawful
conformance exceeds fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost of the structure on the
date that it was determined to be substandard.
Table 6-1. Augusta: Permit & Inspection Activity (2001-2004).
Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar
Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004
New single-family, detached 356 460 584 716
New single-family, attached 161 100 68 80
Multi-family (2 or more) 22 30 7 7
Non-residential (all types) 75 68 105 75
Residential (additions, alterations, repairs) 1,930 2,261 2,493 2,679
Non-residential (addn's, alt's, repairs) 415 425 423 314
Demolition 200 222 196 277
Relocation 1 1 1 0
Other (mechanical, plumbing, electrical) 6,005 5,891 6,941 7,346
Mobile home (permanent/temporary) 298 267 223 230
All inspections (charged fee) 6,119 6,597 7,453 8,034
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.2.4 Regulating Flood Hazard Areas
The City of Augusta administers a coordinated set of regulations and ordinances that combine to
comprehensively regulate flood hazard areas to minimize exposure of people and property.
If the License & Inspections Department determines that the parcels are affected by the mapped
floodplain, applications are transferred to the Planning Commission for issuance of a floodplain
approval. It is notable that the City processes as "floodplain" all applications for parcels that are
touched by mapped floodplain areas, even if the proposed development is not "in" the flood
hazard area. Regulated work includes buildings, additions to existing buildings, pipelines, utility
work, grading, placement of signs, etc.
The purpose of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (adopted by reference at 98-1-1) is to
provide regulations for land development and construction in flood prone areas. The Ordinance
is accompanied by the Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps that delineate
areas susceptible to flooding during the 100-year and 500-year design floods. For the most part,
the maps are based studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The maps are the basis for determining
which areas are regulated, what development can occur on a specific lot or tract, and what
protective or remedial measure should be taken to support development. The Planning
Commission administers the Ordinance and the maps are available to the. public in its office.
Anyone who proposes to construct a structure, or to grade, fill or develop in a flood-prone area is
required to obtain a Flood Development Permit before initiating any work. Applicants are
required to disclose existing topography site and proposed structures, grading, drainage facilities,
and contours. Depending on the nature of the project, the permit may be obtained as part of a
Site Plan, subdivision Development Plan, or as a separate permit. An Elevation Certificate must
be filed for each building to document that the lowest floor is no lower then required by the
Ordinance before a Certificate of Occupancy is approved by the License and Inspections
Department.
The Ordinance is amended periodically to conform to new Federal regulations, to correct
deficiencies, and to address new issues. The maps may be revised by FEMA if substantial
modification to a drainage basin or a waterway occurs, and site-specific map amendments may
be approved by FEMA on the basis of engineering data supplied by a property owner. Variances
may be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals, but are rarely granted due to the criteria
outlined in Federal regulations.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A statement of findings of fact that, along with the statement of purpose, sets the framework for
the City's regulation of flood hazard areas:
· The flood hazard areas of Augusta, Georgia are subject to periodic inundation which
results in loss oflife and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood relief and protection,
and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
. These flood losses are caused by the occupancy of flood hazard areas of uses vulnerable
to floods, which are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed, or otherwise unprotected from
flood damages, and by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains causing
increases in flood heights and velocities.
The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is largely consistent with the regulations of the
National Flood Insurance Program, with several notable exceptions that exceed the minimum
federal requirements. Those exceptions, listed below, facilitate the City's objective of guiding
development away from flood hazard areas:
· Floodway Fringe. Dividing the area that is landward of the floodway, yet within the
floodplain, into the "lower floodway fringe" and the "upper floodway fringe" is a unique
and effective provision. It allows the City to regulate the areas adjacent to mapped
floodways as floodways, recognizing that such areas are artificially delineated on a map
without fun recognition of the likelihood that floodwaters will be fast flowing and
relatively deeper.
. Cumulative Substantial Improvement. The Ordinance specifies that any combination
of repairs, reconstruction, alteration, or improvements to a building that take place during
a five-year period count towards the 50% of market value trigger for substantial
improvement.
. Unmapped Flood Hazard Areas. Areas known to have flooded historically or that are
defined by engineering practices but not yet incorporated into the Flood Insurance Study
are included in the area regulated.
· Freeboard above Base Flood Elevation. The lowest floors (including basement) of new
construction (including manufactured homes) and substantial improvements are required
to be elevated no lower than three feet above the base flood elevation shown on the
FIRM.
. Elevation Certificates. Procedurally, the City applies the requirement to submit
surveyed evidence that the lowest floor is at or above the required elevation on all
buildings if any portion of the lot is touched by the mapped flood hazard area.
. Large Tracts. Tracts of land that have more 1 acre that is within the mapped floodplain
are regulated as if the floodplain is floodway, effectively providing a land use tool to
guide development activities away from low areas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Equivalent Floodways in A Zones. For flood hazard areas for which base flood
elevations have not been determined (A Zones), the Ordinance, in effect, defines a
floodway. As measured from the top of the stream bank, the area that is "equal to five (5)
times the width of the stream or twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater" is treated as a
floodway.
Flood Hazard Area Development Permit Application Form & Information. The Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission has developed a form to summarize the information
that is required to be shown on plans. It specifically requires elevations in relation to mean sea
level and advises the following are information is required:
· Elevation of lowest floor (including basement) of all structures;
· Elevation of the floodproofing measures used for non-residential structures;
· A certificate that floodproofing designs meet the Ordinance requirements; and
· Description of watercourse alterations.
A 5-page information handout (dated July 2000) is provided to applicants for floodplain
development. It includes a brief background on flooding in Augusta, flood warning and flood
safety, flood insurance, property protection measures, permit requirements, substantial
improvement requirements, drainage system maintenance advice, a brief statement regarding the
natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, and references for more information on flooding.
Substantial Damage/Improvement Packet (undated). The packet was prepared in 2000 after a
flood that caused considerable damage and prompted an awareness of the importance of having
materials to provide property owners. It is used by the Flood Assessment Team (see Section 6.4)
and includes:
. Notice to property owners to provide the information about the "50% rule" (pertaining to
substantial improvement and repair of substantial damage);
· Application for review (so that a determination can be made as to whether a Development
Permit and/or a building permit are required);
· Affidavits for the Owner and the Contractor; and
. List of items required and worksheet for estimating the cost of
reconstruction/improvements.
6.3 Augusta's Departments & Programs
Augusta Emergency Management Agency. The City's Emergency Management Agency is
responsible for preparing and coordinating all emergency support functions to prevent, minimize
and repair injury and damage resulting from emergencies and disasters, whether natural or man-
made. Hazards that are addressed include: structural fire; police/public safety services; medical
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
11II
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
and health services; rescue; warning services; communications; defense from radiological,
chemical and special weapons; and other functions related to civilian protection.
Due to the types and quantities used by local industries and the presence of major transportation
routes and railroads, the most significant threat to the citizens of Augusta is exposure to
hazardous materials. The Emergency Management Agency coordinates the Local Emergency
Planning Committee, which is very active and primarily focused on "community right to know"
regarding hazardous materials and chemical accidents. The committee consists of 24
representatives from the City, community groups, and local industries. It sponsors community
meetings, open houses, industry tours, shelter-in-place training, and risk management seminars.
Augusta enjoys significant industry-to-industry cooperation, with hazardous materials handlers
cooperating on a notification system and citizen education and outreach.
The EMA also coordinates the Community Awareness Emergency Response (CAER) which
started in 1984 when Richmond County's hazardous materials program began. The quarterly
meetings focus on communications between citizens and industry and are well-attended.
EMA's current initiatives include:
. Improving public education and information on all hazards, including flood, hurricanes,
tornadoes, heat and hazardous materials. This accomplished through numerous
presentations to citizens groups, neighborhood associations, church groups, and tours of
the 911 Communications Center. A pending proposal will create a short-term grant-
funded position to establish the outreach initiative.
. Developing the "911 Message" system through Calling Post, Inc., a computerized, auto-
alert system that can be set up with groups of numbers for specific purposes or specific
geographic areas. EMA can tailor messages for each incident or area alerted. The
system has the capability to examine call logs to determine if the message was received
live, by recording, or not answered.
Public Works and Engineering Functions. The Augusta Public Works & Engineering
Department was reorganized into three departments in March 2005: the Engineering and
Environmental Services Department, the Public Services Department, and the Solid Waste
Department. Funding for major projects undertaken by either Public Services or Engineering
and Environmental Services is largely derived from a 1 % sales tax that provides for citywide
capital projects, including roads, drainage, parks, fire stations, and other public buildings. The
Capital Improvement Program is revised every 5 years based on pre-determined priorities and
documented needs. At present, the Engineering and Environmental Services Department
represents the City on the Corps of Engineers' Flood Reduction Study (see Section 4.1.4).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Engineering and Environmental Services Department includes four sections:
. County Engineering reviews proposals for privately developed roads, drainage and
stormwater management designs, and is responsible for subdivision plan reviews,
subdivision inspection, utility permits and inspection, and erosion control.
· Preconstruction Engineering manages certain capital projects.
. Environmental Engineering is responsible for National Pollution Discharge Elimination
permits, underground storage tanks, environmental permitting, and Brownfields.
· Traffic Engineering manages the City's traffic infrastructure.
Public Services Department is made up of three divisions:
· Maintenance Division is responsible for right-of-way maintenance, paving, vacant lot
cleanings, community cleanups, drainage maintenance (storm drains, ditches,
detention/retention ponds).
· Trees and Landscape Division develops programs to enhance sound management and
stewardship, provides in-house fire control training, supports fire prevention programs
(schools, civic clubs and private organizations), and advises residents on shade trees.
. Facilities Management Division is responsible for maintenance of City buildings and
construction new of City buildings.
Solid Waste Department is an enterprise fund and is responsible for composting, landfill
operations, and recycling.
The three departments are coordinating establishment of a database-driven system to maintain a
wide variety of records and work orders. Referred to as the "GBA system," installation began in
2003. A component of the system will be designed to centralize recording of citizen complaints
regardless of the office that fields a call. The system will facilitate documentation of repetitive
complaints, repetitive repairs and document costs. One benefit will be to help prioritize the
benefits and costs of drainage improvements or other modifications.
Maintenance of Lake Olmstead and Lake Aumond is among the Maintenance Division's
responsibilities. As funding allows, work includes vegetation maintenance and dredging,
although the latter is a very expensive endeavor. Both lakes are "flow through" and do not have
operable inlet and outlet structures. Many years ago, flooding washed out Walton Way at Lake
Aumond; the reconstruction was accomplished to function as a dam and emergency spillway.
As identified in agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, among the City Engineer's
responsibilities is inspection of certain flood control works, including the Augusta Levee and
Oates Creek Flood Control Projects. These inspections are conducted with the U.S. Army Corps
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11III
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of Engineers. Modifications to the Oates Creek project will be managed by the Preconstruction
Engineering Section.
Inspection and maintenance of the stormwater system, especially drainage ditches and the 250+
detention basins that are in City ownership, are major Public Services responsibilities. The
basins are those associated with subdivisions (basins on single lot developments generally stay in
private ownership) and those constructed by the City. Maintenance is necessary to ensure proper
functioning to provide the appropriate management of runoff. The City's Wrightsboro facility
on Rae's Creek was developed to help reduce existing drainage problems.
Flooding has damaged several privately-owned ponds:
. A pond on Horsepen Branch (tributary to Spirit Creek) that was located above Sand
Ridge Subdivision failed in May 2003, most likely due to deterioration of the spillway
pIpe.
. Harrison Sears pond, on Horsepen Branch (tributary to Spirit Creek) has been damaged
by high water more than once.
· Located on Spirit Creek above Peach Orchard Road, Richmond Factory Pond failed in
1990 and was rebuilt.
· A stormwater pond at Arbor Place on a tributary to Rock Creek, was damaged by
torrential rainfall and contributed to downstream damage.
Housing and Neighborhood Development. The Department's mission is to provide decent
housing, suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low and
moderate-income persons and neighborhoods. Among its current goals are the following:
. Develop and implement comprehensive neighborhood revitalization strategies for
distressed areas;
. Collaborate with community housing development organizations; and
· Provide technical and financial assistance and information to entrepreneurs and small
business owners.
The City of Augusta is a HUD entitlement jurisdiction that receives and administers federal
funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Annual allocations are
$2.9 million in Community Development Block Grants, $1.4 million in HOME Investment
Partnerships Programs, and $100,000 in Emergency Shelter grants. These programs support:
· Housing rehabilitation and home repairs required to bring clearly substandard homes into
compliance with building codes;
· Private non-profit organizations and other developers that build new housing and
renovate existing housing for low- and moderate-income persons
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Demolition and rebuild for households occupying severely deteriorated units.
· Demolition and clearance of deteriorated structures, with vacated lots made available for
construction of affordable housing.
The Augusta-Richmond County Extension Service. The Extension Service is a unit of the
University of Georgia's College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences that offers a number
of programs in order to:
· Respond to citizen needs and interests in agriculture, the environment, families, and 4-H;
. Promote conservation of natural resources; and
. Promote increased agricultural profitability and pest management practices.
On the Cooperative Extension Service's homepage (http://www.ces.uga.edu) a number of
publications related to disasters are available, primarily dealing with emotional reactions and
adjustments.
6.4 Augusta's Post-Flood Actions
In response to flooding in 2000, the City created the Flood Damage Assessment Team. The
Team is composed of staff from the Planning Commission, License & Inspections, Emergency
Management, and a representative of the Construction Advisory Board. It is responsible for
assessing flood damage and making substantial damage determinations.
The Public Services Department inspects reported drainage problems, stormwater management
facilities, and road culverts affected by flooding.
The Augusta Utilities Department manages increased wastewater inflows associated with
increased infiltration and inflows due to rainfall and high water events. Reports of outages or
damage to water lines or sewer lines are investigated and repairs are made, as appropriate.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
11III
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Emergency Management Agency coordinates with the Georgia Emergency Management
Agency after major events; GEMA coordinates state personnel if required to assist with
preliminary damage assessments.
6.5 Augusta's Continued Compliance with the NFIP
The City of Augusta is firmly committed to continued compliance with the NFIP as evidenced
by the commitment to regulating development and redevelopment, by adoption of provisions that
exceed the minimum NFIP requirements, and by active pursuit of mitigation opportunities.
The City of Augusta satisfied requirements for initial participation and joined the NFIP in 1978;
Richmond County joined in 1980. The effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the basis for
delineation of the minimum flood hazard area for the purposes of regulating development. The
maps have been revised a number of times to reflect more detailed information and changes to
the floodplain,
Regulations Review. A review of the City's floodplain regulations and subdivision standards
was prepared and City staff were interviewed. The review, on file with the Planning
Commission, was performed to ensure continued compliance with the NFIP and to identify
opportunities to clarify regulatory language. The regulations are consistent with the NFIP. A
number of opportunities for improved consistency and clarification were identified.
Community Assistance Visit -1990. The NFIP State Coordinating Office (Georgia DNR) met
with staff of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. Staff were described as
having "a fair understanding" of the NFIP and federal regulations. The resulting report
identified some concerns and the City undertook follow-up immediately:
· No problems with the Floodplain Management Ordinance;
· Minor concerns with administrative and enforcement procedures;
. Minor concerns with flood maps;
· Serious concerns with NFIP Biennial Report data; and
. Potential violations were identified: field reconnaissance identified a number of
structures that were built in the floodplain and copies of Development Permits and
Elevation Certificates for nine buildings were requested.
Community Assistance Visit - 2000. The NFIP State Coordinating Office (Georgia DNR) and a
FEMA Region IV representative met with staff ofthe Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission. Due, in part, to mid-year flooding, the Floodplain Management Ordinance and
certain procedures were modified. The report acknowledged the merits of adopting more
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
restrictive ordinance provisions, establishing a Flood Damage Assessment Team to assess
damage and make substantial damage determinations, and providing Flood Information Packets
to residents (see also Section 6.4). The report outlined additional results:
. Recommendation that, in addition to requiring floodplain boundaries be delineated on
Site Plans, that the preparer note the map panel number and date.
· Possible encroachment offill into a floodway (subsequent investigation indicated it is not
in the floodway).
. Height of foundation openingslflood vents higher than 12" above grade (subsequent
investigation indicated the non-conforming openings are on the same side as the
crawlspace door which has sufficient open area).
· Elevation Certificates required for buildings in the floodplain and errors in flood zone
designations on some certificates (corrected elevation certificates were provided).
In response to the report, the City conveyed to all engineers and land surveyors a requirement
that all Plot Plans, Site Plans, Development Plans, Final Plats, and all other plats submitted for
approval must have a note regarding flood hazard areas, including identification of the map panel
number and date. This requirement requires the note is to be placed on all documents, even if
there is no floodplain affecting the site or if the building footprint is out of the floodplain. The
requirement was subsequently incorporated into the appropriate ordinances.
The Community Rating System. The City has identified a number of its actions that may qualify
for credit under the NFIP's Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is intended to recognize
and encourage management of flood hazard areas above the minimum requirements of the NFIP.
Discounts on the cost of federal flood insurance are provided to those citizens who reside within
recognized communities. The City of Augusta anticipates considering applying for the CRS.
Nationwide, the average NFIP premium for $100,000 in coverage property in A Zones and AE
Zones is on the order of $500. Thus, in communities with a 5% CRS discount, policyholders
see, on average, annual savings of$25. The cost of the average B, C, and X Zone policy is $150;
thus policyholder savings in these zones outside of the 100-year floodplain would be only $7.50
per year. Regardless of the CRS discount available in A and AE Zones, which goes up in 5-
percent increments, the discount on B, C, and X Zones is capped at 5%.
For Augusta residents, cost savings due to the CRS discount can be estimated. Because nearly
half of policies appear to be on buildings that are "out" of the mapped floodplain, for the purpose
of this estimate a CRS discount of only 5% is assumed to apply to all policies. The total
premium paid is approximately $397,000; thus a 5% discount would yield a total savings for
property owners of about $19,800 each year.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An independent report identifying possible points based on the City's current program, as well as
a number of reasonable and feasible additional activities that may qualify for CRS points, is on
file with the Planning Commission. The following are the key opportunities:
. Floodplain Management Ordinance requires the lowest floor, including basement, to be
elevated at least 3-feet above the Base Flood Elevation.
. The requirement that lowest floors be at least 3- feet above the BFE is imposed on
buildings located on lots that touch the floodplain even if the building is "out"
. The City regulates a portion of the flood fringe as floodway.
. Stormwater management for most new development in Rae's Creek, Rocky Creek, and
Rock Creek watersheds is required to meet higher standards to provide over-
management.
. Significant efforts related to drainage maintenance and improvements are underway.
. 22 homes have been acquired and demolished (or are in the process of being acquired and
demolished) to provide open space.
. Significant public information efforts provide opportunities to continue to reach out to
residents about flood hazards, mitigating damage, and flood insurance.
. The City prepared a Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004 (precursor to and incorporated
into this Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addresses other flood hazards and other
significant natural hazards).
. Efforts are made to expand the Greenspace program through fee simple acquisition of
streamside areas and easement donations.
6.6 Comprehensive Plan: Short Term Work Program (2003-2007)
The Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2004, establishes a Short Term
Work Program for 2003-2007. Table 6-2 shows selected projects, some dependent on inclusion
in future phases of SPLOST, that have bearing on hazards (the table is annotated to indicate the
pertinent hazard).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 6-2. Selected Projects from Comprehensive Plan: Short Term Work Program
(2003-2007).
[Hazards addressed noted on left: M = Multi-Hazard (especially code compliance with wind, flood, snow
load requirements), F = Floodillrainage, WF = Wildland Fire, HM = HazMat]
CO') '<t It) CD ,... Estimated Funding
Project 0 0 0 0 0 Responsibility
0 0 0 0 0 Cost Source
N N N N N
LAND USE I GROWTH MANAGEMENT
F Address growth management City Commission,
issues through use of the Georgia . . . . . Planning Staff Time City
Quality Growth Partnership's Smart Commission
Growth Toolkit
HOUSING
M Continue to implement . . . . . Augusta Housing
modernization projects at Housing Authority (AHA) $24,470,785 HUD
Authority sites
M Rehabilitate 275 housing units for Housing & Economic HUD,
. . . . . $6,475,000 Program
low income homeowners Development (HED) Income
M Rehabilitate 150 housing units for HUD,
. . . . . HED $2,250,000 Program
low income renters Income
M Complete emergency repairs on HUD,
75 housing units occupied by low . . . . . HED $375,000 Program
income households Income
M Demolish 50 dilapidated housing . . . . . $2,283,000 HUD
units and rebuild new units on site for HED
low income homeowners
M Implement new and renovated Various,
housing projects in inner-city target . . . . . City, CHDOs, N/A including
area per the Target Area Master Plan Private Developers local housing
(2003) trust fund
F Use the Augusta Land Bank to
acquire tax delinquent and abandoned . . . . . Land Bank Authority, N/A Bond funds,
properties per Target Area Master Plan Law Department CDBG, City
(2003)
GREENSPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
F Continue to participate in the Central Savannah State, City,
Georgia Greenspace Program and . . . . . River Land Trust, N/A Private
protection of environmentally sensitive City Sector
lands as open space
F Develop a greenway along the river Central Savannah State, City,
levee linking downtown to Phinizy . . . . . River Land Trust, $1,560,259 Private
Swamp Nature Park. Link to Augusta City Sector
Canal and North AUQusta trails.
. . City $5,000,000 SPLOST
F Develop Butler Creek Greenway' Phase V
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11III
Table 6-2. Selected Projects from Comprehensive Plan: Short Term Work Program
(2003-2007).
[Hazards addressed noted on left: M = Multi-Hazard (especially code compliance with wind, flood, snow
load requirements), F = FloodlDrainage, WF = Wildland Fire, HM = HazMat]
F Implement recommendations for APW&E,
community outreach, long-term stream AUD, Augusta State, City,
monitoring, & sewer system . . . . . Watershed $500,000 Private
maintenance & procedural Roundtable, Sector, Non-
improvements contained in the Augusta Consultant, Planning profits
Watershed Assessment Report (Jan. Commission
2003)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
M Select site, design and construct a SPLOST
. . . . . City, Court Officials $74 M Phases II, IV,
new Judicial Center &V
M Select site, design & construct new . . . . City $20 M SPLOST
municipal administrative buildinq " Phase V
M Select site, design & construct new SPLOST
main branch of Augusta Regional . . . . City $15 M Phases IV &
Library V, Private
M Design & construct new facility for SPLOST
Public Works and Utilities Departments . . . APW&E, AUD $19.5 M Phase V,
Bonds
M Complete construction of new . APW&E $2.080 M SPLOST
animal control center
M Design & construct new building . . . GSA, City $20M Federal
for federal agencies, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, U.S. Attomev, etc.
M Design & construct new regional City, Private, Other SPLOST
. . . . $89.7 M Phase V,
coliseum" Local Governments State, Private
M Select site, design and construct . . . . . City, CVB $20 M SPLOST
new exhibit hall and trade center" Phase V
M Select site, design & construct new . . . . . City, Arts Council $55.0 M Public,
oerformino arts center" Private
M Design & construct new pod at the . . City, Sheriffs $4.5M SPLOST
Phinizv Road Jail " Department Phase V
M, WF Complete construction of . . Fire Department $6.6M SPLOST
5 new fire stations at various locations Phase IV
M Complete construction of . Recreation and $1.2 M SPLOST
Brookfield Park Parks Department Phase IV
M Complete construction of Sand . . Recreation and $1.08 M SPLOST
Hills Park Parks Department Phase IV
M Complete design and construction . . Recreation and $5.8M SPLOST
of library and community center at Parks Department Phase IV
Diamond Lakes Park
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 6-2. Selected Projects from Comprehensive Plan: Short Term Work Program
(2003-2007).
[Hazards addressed noted on left: M = Multi-Hazard (especially code compliance with wind, flood, snow
load requirements), F = Flood/Drainage, WF = Wildland Fire, HM = HazMat]
M Upgrade existing parks as detailed . . . . . Recreation and SPLOST
in the Recreation and Parks Capital Parks Department N/A Phase V
Improvements Plan. .
F ARC drainage improvements, . . APW&E $1,458,750 SPLOST
Phase I Phase III
F ARC drainage improvements, . . $84,100 SPLOST
Phase II APW&E Phase III
F Bungalow Rd. drainage . . APW&E $2,131,780 SPLOST
improvements Phase III
F Engineer and complete East . . APW&E $1,167,000 SPLOST
Boundary St. drainage improvements Phase IV
F Green Meadows drainage . . APW&E $200,000 Local
improvements
M Phinizy Rd. Jail - install lightning . APW&E $250,000 SPLOST
protection eauipment Phase IV
F Raes Creek, Sec. III drainage . . $880,000 SPLOST
improvements - Lake Olmstead to APW&E Phases I & II
Berckmans Rd.
F Complete Regional Flood Control APW&E, US Army SPLOST
. $1,637,649 Phases I &
Feasibility Study Corps of Engineers III
F Skinner Mill Rd. culvert extension . APW&E $156,100 SPLOST
Phase II
F Travis Rd./Plantation Rd. drainage . . APW&E $2,361,000 SPLOST
improvements Phase III
F Woodlake drainage improvements . . APW&E $939,000 SPLOST
Phase III
M Complete Phase II public school . . . . . $162 million Sales Tax
construction, renovation and expansion RCBOE
oroiects.
TRANSPORTATION
HM Activities (engineering,land Federal,
SPLOST
acquisition, etc.) related to relocating . . . . . City, North Augusta, 70,000,000 Phase V,
NS Railroad mainline off of 6th Street Railroads South
right-of-way. . Carolina
F Acquire right-of-way and complete . . . $9,047,000 FHWA,
drainage improvements on 1-20 @ GDOT GDOT
Crane Creek
. contingent upon being included on the SPLOST Phase V project list
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11III
IIDI
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.7 Augusta's Natural Resources
The importance of protecting natural resources is recognized in several of the City's
Development Documents, including the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance that set the framework for long-term development. Regulations pertaining to specific
proposals for land development require that wetlands, waterways and sensitive areas be
delineated. This serves dual purposes: to encourage avoidance of those areas, and to more
readily allow City staff to review potential impacts. Activity proposed within wetland areas
must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the authority of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Sediment and erosion control plans are required for most developments.
Natural resources are recognized and certain protections are provided in other regulations:
. Land Subdivision Regulations:
- Individual sewerage disposal systems (if applicable) are to be designed per current Health Department
regulations.
- Delineation of wetlands per the National Inventory of Wetlands and, if subject to federal permit
requirements, certain other submittals.
. Site Plan Regulations:
- Delineation of wetlands per the National Wetlands Inventory.
- Descriptive note describing permanent or temporary best management practices used to impact or target
water quality.
Greenspace Program. The purpose of Augusta's Greenspace Program Plan is the permanent
protection of undeveloped greenspace. It sets forth policies and specific proposals for long-term
and short-term greenspace preservation and recognizes that funds for that purpose may come
from several sources. The ultimate goal is the preservation of20% ofthe City's land area
(including approximately 20,000 acres of flood-prone lands). The most environmentally
sensitive lands are targeted: floodplains of the Savannah River, major tributaries, and Phinizy
Swamp; and land along the Augusta Canal. The plan received broad public support as evidenced
by input received at public meetings. The Central Savannah River Land Trust monitors the
City's Greenspace Program and lands.
Since November 2000, nearly 800 acres have been permanently protected. These acquisitions,
supported in part by a state grant of $1.2 million, move the City towards a continuous greenbelt
around the developed areas, beginning at the Columbia County line (and connecting to that
county's trail system), and extending along the Levee to Phinizy Swamp and linking along
Butler Creek to Fort Gordon. Table 6-3 identifies all Greenspace parcels, including those owned
by the City and those owned by others that may not yet fully qualify under the State's definition.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The City proposes several mechanisms to expand greenspace, including: revisions to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to promote greenspace in developments; a greenspace
element in the Comprehensive Plan; pursuit of donations of land; fee simple purchase or
placement of conservation easements on compatible land; and placement of conservation
easements over certain City-owned properties. Barriers to achieving the goal are identified: lack
of funding; insufficient tax incentives to encourage donations; and long-term maintenance
concerns with taking title to a myriad of scattered tracts.
Table 6-3
Status of Augusta's Greenspace (2003).
City Ownership (permanently protected) Other Ownership (not yet permanently protected)
Greenspace Site Size Greenspace Site Size
(acres) (acres)
Phinizy Swamp Nature Park 234.0 Phinizy Swamp wetlands mitigation site (owned 1,540
Butler Creek - Boy Scout Tract 75.0 by GDOT and leased to GADNR via a 50-year
Butler Creek - Parham Tract 3.5 management agreement).
Butler Creek - Sibley Tract 50.0 Several City-owned parcels between downtown 479:t
Butler Creek - Spence Tract 25.5 and New Savannah Lock and Dam (some
parcels may be needed for future development;
surveys are required for further delineation).
Butler Creek - Woodlake 120 Spirit Creek Educational Forest (owned by the 570
Subdivision Georgia Forestry Commission).
Rae's Creek - above golf course 4 Phinizy Swamp near New Savannah Lock and 616:t
Spirit Creek - S Specialties Tract 36.0 Dam (within 1,500 acres owned by the City,
including sewerage treatment facilities and the
Phinizy Swamp Nature Park).
Savannah River Islands 10.0
Savannah River/Augusta Canal 215.0
The Greenspace Plan describes the City's physical characteristics, rapid growth areas,
population, and future land use. Areas that are significant natural areas that are protected and
additional proposed areas for greenspace protection are described:
. Properties located on or adjacent to the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal are a
mixture of floodplains and other buffer lands.
· Phinizy Swamp was created by ancient shifts in the Savannah River; some of it is farmed,
some has been or is being mined, most has been timbered. It includes natural areas that
are unique and most of it is within the floodplain.
· Butler Creek has seen aggressive pursuit of easements and fee simple acquisition of
floodplain and buffer areas; this area will continue to be the City's first priority.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
lID
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Rae's Creek flows through a heavily urbanized area. The cost of land and easements has
proven an obstacle to acquiring greenspace, even floodplain areas. The upper reach, in
the Bel-Air area, where there is less existing development is a high priority.
. Rock Creek, Rocky Creek, Spirit Creek and McBean Creek are lower priority, but the
City will encourage donations of easements and property, especially where there are
significant environmental resources or opportunity to achieve connectivity with other
public areas.
The Augusta Greenspace Plan details provisions of the City's Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance that "make it very difficult to develop property lying within the 100-year floodplains."
In part, it is anticipated that these restrictions will help to encourage owners to grant easements
or to make donations to the City or the Savannah River Land Trust (thereby qualifying for tax
benefits). These provisions serve to temporarily protect the floodplain as Greenspace:
. Limitations on grading; no fill to be brought into the floodplain;
· Lower floodway fringe to be treated as floodway;
. Stringent "no rise" certification requirements; and
. Three-foot freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation.
Tree Ordinance. The Tree Ordinance (adopted by reference at 98-4-1) provides standards for
the protection of public trees, designates landmark trees, and provides landscaping standards for
the development of private property (except single-family residential development). Where a
Site Plan is required, a Landscape Plan must include a landscape element, a tree protection
element, and a tree establishment element. The Tree Ordinance Illustrated Guide gives technical
specifications for developing landscape plans and other purposes. The Landscape Plan is
reviewed by the staff of the Planning Commission along with the rest of the Site Plan and it is
subject to administrative approval by the staff or approval by the Augusta Tree Commission.
Groundwater Recharge Area Protection. The purpose of the Groundwater Recharge Area
Protection Ordinance (codified as 98-6-1) is to manage land use within certain defined areas to
ensure that the threat of groundwater pollution is minimized. The Ordinance sets standards that
apply to waste disposal facilities, agricultural impoundments, hazardous material handling
facilities, waste water basins, stormwater basins, wastewater spray and sludge operations, and
homes or other land uses served by septic tank/drain systems. Minimum lot sizes are specified if
septic tanks are used, based on pollution susceptibility, soil group, and slope, and are
considerably larger than if public sewerage is available.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.8 City of Blythe
Overview. The history of Blythe is an important factor to the city's residents. Beginning as a
farming community in the early 1800s, it grew when the railroad was built in 1881. The current
city, incorporated in 1920, includes about 116 households (730 residents) within its 2.84 square
miles of area (2005 estimate). Located in the southwest corner of Augusta, GA, Blythe is
essentially a residential community for nearby employment centers, including Fort Gordon. The
city is partially in Burke County.
Blythe is governed by a Mayor/Council form of government; the mayor and four council
members are elected. The City Council appoints the Planning Commission and the Building
Inspector; there are two departments: Police and Waterworks.
The City's Comprehensive Plan outlines goals related to economic development, community
facilities, housing, natural and historic resources, and land use. Some of those goals are related
indirectly to reducing the impacts of natural hazards:
· Sound housing: related to building new residential areas to meet accepted standards;
requiring new manufactured homes to meet 1976 HUD codes; removing buildings that
present a public safety hazard.
· Natural resources: related to discouraging development of land that is mapped has
having severe environmental limitations for intensive development.
· Land use: related to siting development in areas that can be economically served by
existing public facilities and enacting a zoning ordinance.
Many older buildings are present in Blythe. The city views historic preservation as a positive
influence and discourages destruction of buildings that are viable for occupancy. Public
buildings that have some historical significance include:
. Blythe Community Center
. Blythe City Hall
. Clark Memorial Library
. Hayes Grocery
. Palmer Reese Building
· Farmers Bank
· Blythe Baptist Church
. Blythe United Methodist Church
. Railroad Fertilizer Shed
. Old Store
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
Development & Services. Blythe is primarily a residential farming community that desires to
maintain this character. It does not experience significant development activity, largely due to its
rural location. Soils and drainage limitations influence development which may be subject to
regulatory requirements associated with wetlands. Areas shown on the generalized wetlands
map are subject to approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The City lies completely within a significant aquifer recharge area and development must follow
guidelines established by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to limit exposure of
subsurface waters to excessive pollution and/or contamination. Protection standards apply to
certain activities such storage of agricultural chemicals, hazardous waste handling and disposal,
chemical and petroleum storage tanks, on-site septic fields, and manufactured home parks.
Activities that require a building permit must conform to the State Building Code and permits are
issued after approval by the City's Building Inspector and the Planning Commission. In 2003,
28 building permits were issued; 37 permits were issued in 2004. The Subdivision Ordinance
requires conformance with the Augusta-Richmond County technical manual for streets and road
design. Manufactured houses must be affixed to a permanent foundation and anchored to the
ground to withstand wind loads per the State Building Code.
Under the Service Delivery Agreement, Augusta provides fire protection, emergency medical
and 911 services; Augusta Public Works maintains roads and drainage ditches. The State,
through a separate fund, handles resurfacing of City streets and roads.
The City provides water to its residents, tapping two wells and a 150,000 gallon storage tank.
All buildings have on-site septic systems.
The Blythe Elementary School serves grades Pre-K through 5 and is the only school in the area.
Located at Church Street, the school has 21 classrooms, a media center, a music room, gym, and
a cafeteria.
Hazards in Blythe. Natural hazards that are described in Chapter 2 that are uniform throughout
the planning area, including Blythe, are wind hazards, severe winter storms, drought and urban
wildland fire.
There are no FEMA-mapped floodplains in Blythe, but some low areas are subject to standing
water after prolonged rainfalls which may affect septic fields. Two ditches provide drainage;
one was enlarged to relieve some standing water problems.
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The severe ice storms in the 2003/2004 winter caused tree and limb damage and some areas were
without power for two days. Emergency generators are available for the City Hall and Fire
Department.
High winds overturned a manufactured home nearby, outside the City limits.
After power outages in the January 2004 ice storm the City worked with Augusta Utilities and
now can connect to the regional water supply in emergencies.
Notices regarding water conservation were sent to water users during the last drought.
Debris generated by storms is handled cooperatively with the City of Augusta. In recent storms
there were no additional charges if woody debris was cut to size and stacked in the City road
right-of-way.
The only known hazardous materials within the City's boundaries are those used by the
Waterworks Department.
6.9 City of Hephzibah
Overview. The Hephzibah area was originally inhabited by the Uchees Indian tribe, one of the
minor tribes of the Creeks. The first land grants were made in the mid-1700s. The first
community, organized around the Hephzibah Baptist Association, initially was named
Brothersville for three brothers of the Anderson family who built homes in the early 1800s.
The City, chartered by the General Assembly in 1870, is located in the southern part of
Richmond County. Hephzibah is essentially a residential community for nearby employment
centers, including Fort Gordon. The City's 2005 estimated population of 4,200 includes about
1,700 households.
Hephzibah is governed by a City Commission form of government; its five commissioners are
elected. The City's work is performed by eight departments: Fire, Police, Finance, Planning &
Zoning, Cemetery, Water & Sewer, Building & Grounds, and Streets.
The Hephzibah Planning Commission is charged with the duties and responsibilities set forth in
State statute, including the responsibility to develop comprehensive planning and zoning
ordinances to promote health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the people ofthe city.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IIDI
IIlIII
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Commission is responsible for regulating development, subdivisions and land uses, and
issuing building permits for construction.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (March 7, 1994) outlines goals related to economic
development, community facilities, housing, natural and historic resources, and land use. Some
of those goals are related indirectly to reducing the impacts of natural hazards:
. Sound housing: related to enforcement of subdivision regulations and the zoning
ordinance to ensure that new residential areas will be built within accepted standards for
streets, sewers, water lines, and lot size for septic systems; requiring new manufactured
homes to meet 1976 HUD codes; consider requiring blackflow-preventer check valves on
water supply lines for new mobile homes and new housing; enforcement of regulations
governing setup, underpinning, and skirting of newly located mobile homes, including
those in existing nonconforming parks.
· Natural resources: related to discouraging development ofland that is mapped having
severe environmental limitations for intensive development.
. Land use: related to siting development in areas that can be economically served by
existing public facilities and enforcing the zoning ordinance.
Many older buildings are present in Hephzibah. The city views historic preservation as a
positive influence and discourages destruction of buildings that are viable for occupancy.
Approximately 50 properties have been identified as historic, most located in the center of the
City. Eight original buildings exist from the City's early period:
· Absalom Rhodes' home
. Edmund Murphey's home
. The Henderson home
. The Ashley home
. The Clark home (Friendship Hall)
. Rev. Delph's home
. The Walker home
. Carriage Factory Building
Hephzibah has grown significantly since 1980 when it retained its original boundaries defined by
a circle with a radius of 1 mile. In 1990 the City encompassed 13.0 square miles; by 2000,
annexations had increased the area to 19.51 square miles. The area is characterized by broad
ridge tops and hillsides; most of the City is drained by Little Spirit Creek, McBean Creek, and
New Hope Branch. The dominant land use is agriculture (approximately 50% in 1990), followed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
by undeveloped (27%) and residential (16%). The Comprehensive Plan anticipated slight future
increases in residential and commercial land uses.
Development & Services. Development in Hephzibah is not constrained by soil types, with the
dominant type being well-drained with a sandy surface. Along waterways, floodplain soils do
not drain well. Areas shown on the generalized wetlands map, primarily along tributaries to
Little Spirit and McBean Creeks, are subject to approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Activities that require a building permit must conform to the State Building code and permits are
issued after approval by the City's Building Inspector and the Planning commission. In 2003,27
building permits were issued and 25 permits were issued in 2004. The Subdivision Ordinance
requires conformance with the Augusta-Richmond County technical manual for streets and road
design. Manufactured houses must be affixed to a permanent foundation and anchored to the
ground to withstand wind loads per the State Building Code.
Under the Service Delivery Agreement, Augusta provides emergency medical and 911 services;
Augusta Public Works maintains county roads and drainage ditches in Hephzibah. The State,
through a separate fund, handles resurfacing of City streets and roads.
The City operates its own water pumping, treatment and distribution system, obtaining all of its
water supply from groundwater sources. Three elevated tanks have a combined capacity of
285,000 gallons. As of mid-2005, there are 1315 water meters installed throughout the City.
The City also operates a small sewage treatment and disposal system, serving only one
residential subdivision and two public schools. The remainder of the City is served by individual
on-site septic systems. Several private waste management companies provide solid waste
collection and disposal services.
The Hephzibah Fire Department includes both full-time paid personnel and volunteers. In
addition to fire trucks, on smaller rescue vehicle is used for access to rural areas. The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that the City's ability to respond to fires in the future may
become more difficult as the population and areas served increase.
Hazards in Hephzibah. Natural hazards that are described in Chapter 2 that are uniform
throughout the planning area, including Hephzibah, are wind hazards, sever winter storms,
drought and urban wild land fire.
Hephzibah's Flood Insurance Rate Map, dated June 25, 1976, shows that the city is "minimally
flood prone" and flood hazard areas do not have flood elevations determined using engineering
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
..
Chapter 6: Capability to Address Hazards .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
methods (refer to Figure 2-2). However, the GIS analysis indicates that no buildings are located
in the mapped floodplain; 120 parcels of land are wholly or partially affected by mapped
floodplain (Table 2-5).
The severe ice storms in the 2003/2004 winter caused tree and limb damage and some areas were
without power for two days. Emergency generators are available for public safety use.
The City follows the State guidelines for water conservation. The City worked with Augusta
Utilities and can connect to the regional water supply in emergencies because, during the last
drought, Augusta needed additional resources and the City supplied South Richmond County
with approximately 1 millions gallons per day.
The only known hazardous materials within the City's boundaries are those used by the
Waterworks Department (chlorine is housed at wells and the treatment plant).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 7: Executing the Plan
7.1 Implementation
Distribution. Upon adoption, the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be posted on the Planning
Commission's web site and notices of its availability will be distributed to the following:
. The federal and state agencies that were notified and invited to participate in Plan
development;
. Adjacent counties and cities;
. Citizens who attended public meetings (if contact information provided); and
· The organizations, agencies, and elected officials who received notices of public
meetings.
Authority and Responsibility. Each action is assigned a lead agency (and support agency in
some instances); each lead agency has the authority and is responsible for factoring the action
into its work plan and schedule over the indicated time period. The lead agencies will report on
progress or obstacles to pursuing actions (see Section 7.2).
Prioritizing Actions (not for grant funding). Most of the mitigation actions identified in this
Plan are administrative or programmatic in nature, including addressing how hazards are
incorporated into local processes, public awareness and warning, flood map revisions, sediment
control on construction sites, staffing, water conservation, debris management, and refining what
is known about flood risks at locations where hazardous materials are handled. The priorities
designated are recommended by the Committee and are largely based on whether actions are on-
going or can be incorporated into current workloads, budgets and staffing. In effect, this
assessment is similar to balancing the benefits of an action with its costs of implementation
(although a formal analysis of that comparison was not performed). Each lead agency is
responsible for determining priorities within the framework of their overall responsibilities.
Methodologiesfor Prioritization (for grant funding). This Plan does not pre-identify projects
that involve mitigation of hazards on private property because many factors must be considered
when defining such projects, notably, recent damage experience, the interests of owners, and the
availability of the non-federal cost share which cannot be projected due to the local budget
process. Augusta Action G, Policies and Procedures for Flood Mitigation Projects, calls for
establishment of a systematic method for using and prioritizing use of funds. For projects that
may qualify for grant funds administered by State and Federal agencies, the following factors
will be considered when developing site-specific projects and prioritizing them for submission:
· Exposure to hazard and frequency, probability and magnitude of future damage;
. Past damage;
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
...
. Eligibility as defined by potential funding source;
. Interest of affected citizens and property owners;
· Estimate of project costs and benefits using FEMA's flood insurance claims histories
and/or Benefit: Cost Modules where applicable; and
. Availability of non-federal cost share.
Incorporating Mitigation in Other Plans. Chapter 6 describes how Augusta, Blythe and
Hephzibah address hazards as part of their current planning mechanisms and processes,
including land development, Greenspace, infrastructure design, and public outreach. The
development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan did not reveal any significant gaps in how hazards
are addressed in existing land planning mechanisms and processes.
Certain types of site-specific projects (such as flood mitigation projects that have been
undertaken by Augusta) must be identified in the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax
(SPLOST) plan. When projects and potential funding sources are identified, amendments to
SPLOST will be recommended.
The Short Term Work Plan (2003-2007) that is included in the Augusta-Richmond County
Comprehensive Plan (2004) identifies a number of capital projects that have bearing on natural
hazards, including drainage projects. During the next revision of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Planning Commission will review the Hazard Mitigation Plan to determine if any mitigation
action is appropriately included in the Short Term Work Plan.
7.2 Evaluation & Progress Reports
The Augusta Planning Commission and the Augusta Emergency Management Agency are
charged with monitoring this Plan and mitigation activities and preparing annual progress
reports. A meeting may be held, or the mayors of Blythe and Hephzibah and the agencies that
are assigned lead functions may be contacted and asked to report on the status of
implementation, including obstacles to progress and recommended solutions. The reports will be
compiled into a single document and submitted to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency.
In addition to the annual report, a meeting will be convened after damage-causing natural hazard
events to review the effects of such events. Based on evaluation of those effects, adjustments to
the mitigation actions and priorities may be made or additional event-specific actions may be
identified (especially if funds to support projects become available).
..
Chapter 7: Executing the Plan .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7.3 Multi-J urisdictional Considerations
Blythe and Hephzibah will be included in all communications related to executing the Plan.
They will be responsible for reporting on any damage due to the occurrence of a hazard event
and for reporting any actions taken to reduce future damage and risk.
7.4 Plan Maintenance & Revision
Revisions that warrant changing the text or incorporating new information may be prompted by a
number of other circumstances, including identification of specific new mitigation projects,
completion of several mitigation actions, or to satisfy requirements to qualify for specific
funding. Minor revisions may be handled by addenda.
Major comprehensive review of and revisions to this Plan will be considered on a five-year
cycle. Because the Plan is adopted in 2005, it will enter the next evaluation and review cycle
sometime in 2009, with adoption of revisions anticipated in 2010. The Mitigation Planning
Committee will be convened to conduct the comprehensive evaluation and revision. At that
time, natural hazard events that have occurred will be incorporated and the risk assessment will
be updated if such events indicate new or altered exposures.
Particular attention will be given to progress made on the mitigation actions. Actions that have
not been completed and additional actions will be re-prioritized and examined in terms of
feasibility given authorities, staff resources, goals, and budget limitations that will need to be
taken into account at the time.
The public will be involved during the major comprehensive review to the Plan in the same ways
used during the original Plan development (see Appendix A-I). The public will be notified when
the revision process is started and provided the opportunity to review and comment on changes
to the Plan and the priority action items. It is expected that a combination of informational
public meetings, surveys and questionnaires, draft documents posted on the web site, and/or
public meetings may be undertaken.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 8: Conclusion
8.1 Summary
It is inevitable that hazard events will affect the Augusta area - but it is not inevitable that severe
damage and threats to life and safety will always result. By understanding the potential for
future damage, by identifying actions that can reduce the effects of hazards, and by taking action,
the area's citizens, economy, and infrastructure will be better protected.
Augusta, Georgia, undertook development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan because of increasing
awareness that flood hazards and other hazards may affect many people and properties in the
area. The Plan is a requirement associated with receipt of certain federal mitigation grant
program funds administered by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
The Plan was prepared by City staff representing the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission, License & Inspections, Engineering & Environmental Services, Public Services,
Emergency Management, the Fire Department, Augusta Utilities, Housing & Economic
Development, Recreation & Parks, Information Technology, and the Finance Department. The
cities of Blythe and Hephzibah were informed of the planning process, participated in a session
on the background and planning process, and contributed text pertinent to their jurisdictions.
State and federal agencies were notified and invited to attend.
The most significant natural hazard to affect the planning area was determined to be flooding.
Flood events have occurred with increased frequency and severity in recent years. Although not
generally resulting in damage to buildings, drainage problems often result in water on major
roads and present risks to the traveling public. Flood hazard areas are found along all
waterways, including the Savannah River and urban streams. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers operates flood controls on the Savannah River, but there remains a low probability of
significant flooding. Downtown Augusta is protected by the Augusta Levee which provides
protection along the Savannah River from the boundary with Columbia County downstream to
the New Savannah Lock and Dam. The urban streams where flooding has caused the most
damage include Rae's Creek, Crane Creek, Rock Creek, Augusta Canal, Rocky Creek, and Oates
Creek. In the rural parts of the City, less development has encroached into floodplains. The City
has some expansive flood-prone areas on the City's eastern side, notably the Phinizy Swamp and
below the Savannah Lock and Dam where the Savannah River floodplain is no longer modified
by the Levee.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Hazards other than flooding that affect the area to some degree include high winds (hurricanes,
tornadoes), drought, winter storms, and wildland fires. Although some of these hazards may
affect the entire area (hurricane winds, drought, winter storms), their potential to cause property
damage is not significant. Tornadoes and wildland fires may have locally severe impacts, but
their potential overall impact to the planning area are not significant.
This Plan sets the stage for long-term disaster resistance through identification of actions that
will, over time, reduce the exposure of people and property to natural hazards. Sections of the
Plan:
. Provide overviews of the hazards that threaten the planning area,
. Characterize the people and property that are exposed to some risk,
. Outline the planning process,
· Describe how hazards are recognized in the normal processes and functions of the cities,
and
. Identify priority mitigation action items.
To address the identified hazards and impacts on citizens, public safety, costs, and the area's
infrastructure, 19 actions are identified. The area will benefit as progress is made toward the
mitigation goal over the next 5-10 years. The priority actions are related to:
· Drainage and stormwater management
. Flood warning
. Public awareness initiative
. Flood hazard map revisions and updates
. Flood mitigation projects
. Soil erosion and sediment control
. Flood mitigation staffing
. NFIP Community Rating System
. Sewer line infiltration & inflow
. Savannah River flood protection & awareness
. Dam safety
. Access to development in rural areas for wildfire control
· Reduction in wildfire risks on City-owned lands
. Public tree maintenance
. Water conservation awareness
..
Chapter 8: Conclusion .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· Coordinated plan to manage debris
. Environmental (HazMat) safety
· Downtown railroad safety (HazMat)
8.2 References
44 CFR Part 201. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as
amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
44 CFR Part 206. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as
amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of2000). Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.
44 CFR 78.6. National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (as amended). Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2002. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (SEI/ASCE 7-02). Reston, VA.
Augusta Development Documents. Online at
http://www .augustaga.gov / departments/planning_ zoning/ default.htrn (accessed September
2005).
Augusta Emergency Management Agency. 1999. Emergency Levee Closure Plan. Available at
the Augusta Emergency Management Agency.
Augusta Emergency Management Agency. Emergency Evacuation Plan for Dam Failure on the
Savannah River. April 2003. Available at the Augusta Emergency Management Agency.
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission and Augusta Emergency Management
Agency. 2004. Augusta Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Augusta-Richmond County Hazard Mitigation Plan. 1998.
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. 2003. Augusta-Richmond County
Comprehensive Plan (Adopted by the Augusta Commission on February 17,2004). Available
online: http://www.augustaga.gov/departments/planning zoning/dev docs.asp (accessed
September 2005).
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
11II
Chapter 8: Conclusion .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. 2004. Augusta Water Conservation Plan.
Blythe, City of. City of Blythe Comprehensive Plan.
Centers for Disease Control. Flood-Related Mortality - Georgia, July 4-14, 1994. MMWR
1994; 43(29); 526-530. Online at
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032058.htm (accessed July 2003).
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental
Service. Online at http://www.ces.uga.edu (accessed August 2003).
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Risk Assessment.
Washington, DC. Online at http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/ft_rnhira.htm.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (various panel dates). Washington, DC. [Available for public review at the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission]
Georgia Emergency Management Agency. Georgia Hazard Mitigation Strategy (2000).
Atlanta, GA.
Georgia Forestry Commission. Fire Danger Rating maps online at http://weather.gfc.state.ga.us.
Georgia State Climatologist. Online at http://climate.engr.uga.edu.
Georgia State Building Code. 2003. Online at
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/GaCode/Title08 . pdf.
Lott, Neal. September 1993. The Summer of 1993: Flooding in the Midwest and Drought in the
Southeast. Published online at http://nndc.noaa.gov.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Online at
http://www .ncdc.noaa.gov / oaf climate/severeweather/ extremes.html.
National Flood Insurance Policy & Claims Statistics. Accessed March 15, 2005, online at
http://www . fema.gov /nfip/pcstat.shtm.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center (U.S.
Local Storm Reports). Accessed January 2005, online at
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov / oaf climate/severeweather/ extremes.html.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center (Hurricane &
Tropical Storms). Accessed January 2005, online at
http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov Ihurricanes/viewer.htm.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Savannah River Flood Emergency Plan (DP 1130-2-16).
Revised July 1994. Copy on file with the Augusta Emergency Management Agency.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendices
Appendix A - Documentation of Planning Process
A-I. Notifications
A-2. Planning Committee Meeting Agendas
A-3. Resolutions of Adoption
Appendix B - Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment
B-1. Background on HAZUS-MH@
B-2. GEMA's Online Critical Facility Inventory
Appendix C - Key Terms & Acronyms
Appendix D - Savannah River Public Facility Summary
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~.
Appendix A:
Documentation of Planning Process
A-1 Notifications
The following were mailed a notification that Augusta was initiating the planning process to
develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan to include the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah and advised
about the Planning Committee's meetings and two public meetings (see mailings, newspaper
notices, and posted notices below):
. Georgia State Agencies: Georgia Emergency Management Agency; Department of
Natural Resources, Department of Transportation
. Augusta Regional Airport & Daniel Field Airport
· University Hospital, Medical College of Georgia, St. Joseph Hospital, VA Medical
Center
· Augusta State University, Augusta Technical College, Paine College
. Savannah District Corps of Engineers
· Brier Creek Soil & Water District
· Local Emergency Planning Committee (DSM Chemicals, Ft Gordon, Proctor and
Gamble, Impact Safety, General Chemical, Ruetgers, Solvay Polymers, PCS
Nitrogen, Olin Chemical, Rural Metro, Public Health, Augusta Canal Authority)
· Forty-five neighborhood associations:
Aragon Park Bethlehem Area Comm. Bethlehem Neigh. Assoc
Bell Terrace Assoc. Berckman Hills Assoc. Barton Chapel Neigh. Assoc.
Barton Village Assoc. Barton Chapel-Sharon Rd Bell Terrace Assoc.
Bellair Hills Assoc. Neigh. Assoc. Brookfield Assoc.
East Augusta Neigh Assoc. Breeze Hill Neigh. Assoc. Forest Hills Neigh. Assoc.
Glendale Neigh. Assoc Fairington Neigh. Assoc Goshen Neigh. Assoc.
Glenn Hills Neigh. Assoc. Glendale Neigh. Assoc. Harrisburt Neigh. Assoc
Hyde Park & Aragon Park Green Meadows Neigh. Assoc. Kissingbower Neigh Assoc.
Laney-Walker Neigh. Assoc. Hillwood Neigh. Assoc. National Hills Neigh. Assoc.
aide Town Neigh. Assoc. Ga Extension Service Ravenwood Neigh. Assoc.
Ridge Forest Neigh. Assoc. Montclair Neigh. Assoc. Sand Hills Neigh. Assoc.
Sandhills Neigh. Assoc. Pepperridge Neigh. Assoc. South Nellieville Neigh. Assoc.
Turpin Hills Neighborhood Sand Ridge Comm. Neigh. Assoc. Wood lake Neigh. Assoc.
Walton Acres Neigh. Assoc. Summerville Neigh. Assoc. Virginia Subdivision Assoc.
Pinnacle Place Neigh. Assoc. Turpin Hills Neighborhood Sand Hills Neighborhood
Old Town Neigh. Assoc. Walton Acres Neigh. Assoc.
Fairington Neigh. Assoc.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
-"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.~
Notice of Public Meeting"
Hazard Mitigation Plan for Augusta, Blythe, and Hephzibah
A public meeting will be held February 2,2005, at 6 p.m., in Room 803, of
the Municipal Building (530 Greene Street), to present an overview of a
planning process recently started by the City of Augusta and the cities of
Blythe and Hephzibah. The process will lead to a plan of action to reduce
the long-term impacts of natural hazards. Members of the public are.
encouraged to attend.
Review copies of the City's Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan and a draft
report of hazards and their impacts are available at the following locations:
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission (525 Telfair Street),
Blythe City Hall (294 Church Street), and Hephzibah City Hall (2538
Highway 88).
.. Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
w,_~w~..w".-. , ""~. _H__.
-_.._--
.j\ugasta~
~~~1JrOniCk ,.~~
6B1Metro *
... . ..
Nation & World17 A Nation & World17 A
Wednesday, February 2;2~QSY;
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Thursday,January 27,2005
.. ..._-~ .
H Notice 01 Public Meetmg .
NOtic80fPublic~ Huan:t Mitigation Plan for Augusta, Btythe, and
Notice of PobIlc-Meeting Hazard Mitigation =~ugusta,. Btythe,and H_aII. .
A public meetll"Jg will be held February 2..
Hazard MItigation Plan for Augus1a, Blythe, . A pUblic meeting will be held February 2, 2005. at 6 p.m.,Jn Room 802 of the MunK:lpaJ
and Hephzlbah. 200s:. at 6 p.m., in Room 802 of the Municipal BUilding (530 GreeM Street), to pr6sent art
~~~cp;r:.~;~~~~~e:::,ee~~c~l' Buiiding (530 Gr&ene Street), to pr8sent an overview 01 a plannir.g process recently started
OvefVtew of a pJannlng process re<:$ntfy started :-. b~d~e~%~~~:~r=~~i~~~~g
~:=~~~ ~~~~g~~s~~t~ ~~e~~~~~::C:::i~::::~~~= of action to reduce the long-term impacts of
started by the City of Augusta and the cities ot-aetiop to reduce the Iong~term impacts 01 natural hazards. Members of 'the publtc ar~
of Biytheand Hephzibah. Tho process will nlltural hllUlrds. Members of the public are encouraged to attend..
lead to 8. plan 01 action to reduce the encoor&ged to attend. Revl~ copies of theClty's Flood Hazard
long. term impacts 01 natural hazards. -Review caples of the CitY'S FloOd Hazard Ml1:lgatlon Plan and a draft report of hazard.
Members of the public are encouraged 10. Mttlgation Plan and a draft report of hazards and tneit Impacts are availabte at the foUowtng
8~ew copies of the CI:l';S Flood f.tazard and tl1eil' impacts are bailable at the following locations; AuguSla-Rlchmo!ld County Plan.;
lot:ation,: Aug4,Sta-Rlchmond County Plan- ning Commissloh (525 Telfalf Street~, BIyttte-'
Mitigation Plan and Ii dra report of haz- nihg Commission (525 Telfair Stree~), Blythe City Hall (294 Church S1), and Hephzibah CitX
ardsarrdthe-lr impaCt$ ~ avallablaat the:_ ~gr (~{294 c;n.rch St), and HephZ!bah City Hal' (2530 Hwy 88). .
followlnglocatfons: Augusta-Richmond Jan. 27, Feb. 2.. 2005 Adv ti 609__~
County Planning Comm)ssion (525 Telfair Jan. 27. Fe7:12005 . Am :It 6099830
Street), B/ytf1e City Hall (294 Church 51), and
_"all City Hall (2530 Hwy 88),
Jan. 20. 2005 AdY " 6099480
.
.
.
.
. -
. . Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IMPORTANT IN FORMA TION
REGARDING
AUGUSTA'S HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Management Agency and the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission have started the planning process to develop a Hazard Mitigation
Plan in accordance with guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA).The Hazard Mitigation Plan will include
the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah. Last year FEMA approved the Augusta Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan; the Hazard Mitigation Plan will build on that effort and look at other natural
ha7..ards.
During the mitigation planning process we wilIleam more about natural hazards in our area and
what we can do now to minimize future damage and threats to our citizens. To prepare the plan,
we have organized a working committee of staff; including representatives from B1)1he and
Hephzibah. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee will be coordinated through the Emergency
Management Agency and the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee 'will meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, February I, 2005 in
Room 802 of the Municipal Building.
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, we are holding a public meeting to introduce the hazard
mitigation concept, overview hazards and event history, and to request information to help
identifY issues and public concerns. The meeting will be in Room 803 of the Municipal Building,
530 Greene Street, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
We invite you to review the Augusta Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan and the draft report that
looks at other hazards (drought, hurricane/tropical stonn, high windslsevere storms, tornadoes,
winter stonns, wildfire/urban interface fire, hazardous materials, and shoreline erosion). You can
access these documents online at http://ww}Y.;mg.1!s.tlJ,g1tgQX by going to the Planning & Zoning
puIl-do\\on. Copies can be reviewed in the following offices:
· Augusta~Richmond County Planning Commission,
· (M-F, 9am to 4pm, Monday through Friday).
· Blythe City Hall, 294 Church Street, Blythe.
· HephzibahCity Hall, 2530 Hwy 88, Hephzibah.
The draft plan will be made available to you and the public fOl
is forwarded to the Augusta Commi'lsion and the City Councr
Please send an e-mail to Lois Schmidt (lschmidt@augustaga.
of future meetings. If you have additional questions, please c
Development Adminil.irator, Augusta-Richmond County PI
1796 between the hours of8:30.a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday 1
.. Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Notice of Public Meeting
Hazard Mitigation Plan for Augusta, Blythe, and Hephzibah
A public meeting will be held September 15, 2005, at 6 p.m., in the
Municipal Building, Room 803, 530 Greene Street, to review the City's
draft Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan may be reviewed by downloading
from http://www .augustaga.gov / departments/planning zoninglhome.asp.
Review copies are available at the following locations: Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission (525 Telfair Street), Blythe City Hall (294
Church Street), and Hephzibah City Hall (2538 Highway 88). Members of
the public are encouraged to attend.
Citizens have the opportunity to comment on the Plan and the proposed
actions that are intended to reduce exposure to natural hazards. Comments
will be accepted until September 22, 2005, and may be faxed to 410/267-
5977 or mailed to RCQuinn Consulting, 153 Prince George St #2,
Annapolis, MD, 21401.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)_
..
..
Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
REGARDING
AUGUSTA'S HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Augusta-Richmond County Emergency Management Agency and the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission are continuing the planning process to develop a Hazard Mitigation
Plan in accordance with guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA). The Hazard Mitigation Plan will include
the cities of Blythe and HephzIbah. Last year FEMA approved the Augusta Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan; the Hazard Mitigation Plan is building on that effort and look at other natural
hazards.
During the mitigation planning process we are learning more about natural hazards in our area and
what we can do now to minimize future damage and threats to our citizens. To prepare the plan,
we have organized a working committee of staff, including representatives from Blythe and
HephzIbah. The Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee is being coordinated through the Emergency
Management Agency and the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, September] 6, 2005 in
Room 802 of the Municipal Building to continue this planning process.
On Thursday, September 15,2005, we are holding a public meeting to present the draft Hazard
Mitigation Plan to the public. The meeting will be in Room 803 of the Municipal Building, 530
Greene Street, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
We invite you to review the draft Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan. You can access this
document online at b!!P:!!w.}y~Y"{\Jlgll..~lJgUQl by going to the Planning & Zoning pull-down.
Copies can be reviewed in the following offices:
. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission, 520 Telfair Street
. (M-F, 9am to 4pm, Monday through Friday).
Blythe City Hall, 294 Church Street, Blythe.
. Hephzibah City Hall, 2530 Hwy 88, Hephzibah.
The draft Hazard Mitigation Plan is being made available to you and the public for comment
before the final document is forwarded to the Augusta Commission and the City Councils of
Blythe and Hephzibah.
If you have additional questions, please call Terri Turner, Assistant Zoning & Development
Administrator, Augusta-Richmond County Planning CommiS!?i.<m.J:t1.(106) 82l::l126betw.eenthL..m m...
hours of8:30.a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
.. Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A-2 Planning Committee Meeting Agendas
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING #1
AUGUSTA, BLYTHE & HEPHZIBAH
February 1,2005, 9am to 11:30am
Room 802 Municipal Building
1. Introduce committee members
2. Overview of mitigation planning [Note that this committee was reconvened from the
planning committee that prepared the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan]
3. Hazard events that occurred in 2004
4. Review hazard identification & risk assessment (see below)
5. Review of mitigation goal (from Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan)
6. Review capability assessment and process to update
7. Preview public meeting (Wednesday, February 2)
8. What's next?
a. Follow up interviews to expand the capability assessment
b. 2nd Meeting, Friday February 4: Report on mitigation actions from Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan; review at-risk assessments, review capability for mitigation,
consider acceptability of goal statement, initiate discussion of mitigation actions.
Please Read in Advance:
Draft Mitigation HIRA Chpts 1 and 4
Flood Mitigation Plan
ATTENDEES
Terri Turner, Plannin Commission
Lori Videtto, Public W orkslEn ineerin
Rick Acree, Public Services/Fac
Michele Pearman, IT/GIS
Joe Holley, Augusta Utilities
Fred Russell, Ci Administrator
Teresa Smith, Public Works
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
ami
Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING #2
AUGUSTA, BLYTHE & HEPHZIBAH
February 4, 2005, 9am to 11 :30am
Room 802 Municipal Building
1. Report on public meeting
2. Status of capability assessments
3. Initiate discussion of actions for hazards other than flood
4. What's next?
a. Finalize hazard id & risk assessment
b. Finalize capability assessments
ATTENDEES
Terri Turner, Plannin Commission
Christo her James, Fire De t
Rick Acree, Public Services/Facilities
Michele Pearman, IT/GIS
Geor e Pa , Plannin Commission
Fred Russell, Ci Administrator
Robert Oliver, Public Works
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING #3
AUGUSTA, BLYTHE & HEPHZIBAH
April 28, 2005, 9am to 11 :30am
Room 802 Municipal Building
1. Questions on the Draft Plan
2. Review Concept of Actions (programmatic vs projects)
3. Discussion of actions for hazards other than flood
4. What's next?
a. Complete pending text in Draft Plan
b. Circulate notes on actions and finalize text
c. Public meeting
d. Finalize plan, recommend adoption
ATTENDEES April 28, 2005)
Terri Turner, Planning Commission
Teresa Smith, Public Works
P.A. Williams, Sheriffs Office
Christopher James, Fire Dept
John Pearson, Sr, GA Forestry
Rick Acree, Public Services/Facilities
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
11III
Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING #4
AUGUSTA, BLYTHE & HEPHZIBAH
September 16, 2005
Room 802 Municipal Building
1. Review status of preliminary review by GEMA
2. Report on public meeting & comments
3. Review proposed actions (non-flood_, designate lead agencies, identify barriers
4. Discussed need for pertinent agencies to report on status of flood actions per Flood
Hazard Mitigation Plan
5. Agree to circulate actions for each department to indicate priorities to determine
overall recommended ranking
6. Discuss approval of Plan and forwarding it with a recommendation for adoption by
the Augusta Commission and the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah
7. What's next?
. Address GEMA comments
. Complete GEMA's online critical facilities data
. Finalize the plan & submit to GEMA/FEMA
. Adoption
Se tember 16, 2005
Fred Russell, Ci Administrator
Mike Greene, Public Services
Butch Wilhelm, Sheriff s Office
Je Delau her, Au usta Utilities
Chief Howard Willis, Fire/EMA
Bill Yates, IT -GIS
Comm
Guest: Scott Sherman, GEMA
Guest: David Brown, Veterans Admin MC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A-3. Resolutions of Adoption
RESOLtITION
WHEREAs the City of Augusta, Georgia, has experienced flooding that resulted in public safety
hazards, damage to private and public property, and public and private expenditures for clean up
and recovery; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Augusta, Blythe. and Hephzibah each. may experience losses due to
. other natural hazards such as wind, severe winter storm, drought, urban wildIandinterfacefrre
and exposure to hazardous materials related tp natural h~ds;imd .
WHEREAS, the Robel} T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as amended
by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 require local jurisdit:tionS to. adopt. a mitigation.. plan in
order to be eligible for post-disaster and pre-disaster grants to implement certain .mitigation
projects; and
-<.
WHEREAS the National Flood Insurance Reform.Act of 1994 and the Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2004 require local jurisdictions to adopt a mitigation plan in order to be eligible for grants
to implementcertain flood mitigation projects; and .
WHEREAS the planning process supported. by the GeoJ:gia Emergency Management Agency .
. and required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency offers the opportunity to consider
natural hazards and risks, and to identifY mitigation actions to reduce future impacts of such
hazards; and
WHEREAS the State of Georgia has provided federal mitigation funds to support the
development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan; and.
WHEREAS the City of Augusta adopted Ii Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan on February 17, 2004;
and
WHEREAS the Hazard Mitigation Plan for Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibal;1 has been developed
by the Mitigation Planning Committee and supersedes Augusta's Flood HazarilMitigation Plan;
and. . .
WHEREAS the Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies Irtitigation actions that, over. time, will help
minimize and reduce safety threats, reduce the costs ofrnitura1 hazard events, and reduce damage
to priva!7 and public property; and
WHEREAS a public meeting was held on February 2, 2005, to introduce the planning concept
and to solicit questions and comments; and a public meeting was held on September 15,2005, to
present the Draft Plan and request comment; and .
WHEREAS the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted to the. Georgia Emergency
Management Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review; final
approval will be withheld until the Plan is adopted. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Augusta Commission that:
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
11II
all
1. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is. hereby adopted as an official document of the City of.
Augusta,. Georgia. .'
2.Th.e City departments identified in .the Plan are hereby directed to pursue
implementation of the recommended priority activities that are assigned to their
agencies. . . .
3. Any action identified.in the Plan that cannot be pursued within existing budgets sha1I
be subject to and contingent upon budget approval, if required, which shall be attbe
discretion of the Augusta Commission, and this resolution shall not be interprc::ted so
as to mandate any such appropriations.
4. 'TheAu~EmergencyManagement Agency, with support by the Augu,sta-
Richmond 'County Planning Commission, is designated to coordirnite' witho1her
offices and the cities of Blythe and HephzIbah and . shall periodically report on the
activities, accomplishments, and progress, and shall prepare and submit reportS to the
Georgia Emergency Manag!m1ent Agency, as required.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PA~ED.AND ADOPTED by the Conunission of Augusta, Georgia, this
~../H'Mif~: 2006: . .
~ "I-h day of
Date
Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAZARDOUS MITIGATION PLAN RESOLUTtON
AUGUSTA, BLYTHE AND HtPHZIBAH
1Itf~;~1<(:;~~
.':..:
.." ..
WHEREAS; the cities of Augusta, Blythe and Hq,hzibah each may experience losses due to
natural hazards that result in public safety hazards, damage to private and public property, and public
and private expenditures for clean up and recovery; and
WHEREAS, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as atnended
by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 require local jUrisdictions to adopt a mitigation plan in order to
be eligible for post-disaster and pre-disaster Wants to implement certain mitigation projects; and
WHEREAS, the planning process supported by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency
~d required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency offers the opportunity to consider natural
hazards and risks, and to identify mitigation actions to reduce future impacts of such hazards; and
WHEREAS, the State of Georgia has provided federal mitigation funds to support the
development of a hazard mitigatioI) plan; and .
WHEREAS, the Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies multi-jurisdictional mitigation actions that,
over time, will help minimize and reduce safety threats, reduce the costs of natur81 hazard events, and
reduce damage to private and public property; and
.
WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on February 2. 2005, to introduce the planning concept
and to solicit questions and comments; and a public meeting was held on September 15,2005, to
present the Draft Plan and request comment; and .
WH:ER:EAs, the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been submitted to the Georgia Emergency
Management A~ncy and the Federw Emergency Management Agency for final review; final approval
will be withheld until the Plan is adopted. .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY TIm.GOVElWING AuTHORITY OF TIm CITY OF
BLYTHE, GEORGIA THAT: . . . ,
'1.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted as an official document of the City of
Blythe, Georgia.
The City will cooperate with the City of Augusta to pursue implementation of the
recommended multi-jurisdictional activities and to periodically report on progress. , '
Any action identified in the plan that cannot be pursued within existing budgets shall be
subject to and contingent upon budget approval and this resolution shall not be
interpreted to m~ any such approval '
~~~~~~;~::
f.~~~~
2.
3.
PASSED AND ADOPTEDBY THEMA YOR AND Cm COUNCIL OF BL YTIffi. GEORGIA
'TIllS 13TIlDAYOFFEBRUARY2006, '. '. .
'..~~'.~: ":.,...;
.See signatures on page 2 .
,.".. .....
:r(~;;
~.'.
...);~:;~~~~;~~~~~i~iJ:,~&!;:~t;~~Ji<(;;~<
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
lIB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~~.Wk
MAYOR,ThoD18$ C. Cob~"
. . &
~ -.
'. ." "~J<'~
MAYOR ,_. ~D.uyMPri~ '--'..
~1ff{~~~!tJf"<~';.
"" "~t.~~~~;(~i~{'f: ;...~i~~"J>.:'?~/J~f~\;~t~1:?'!":~~:
Not in Attendance
COUNCn.WOMAN, "JerryW: Reeves
~J~Gray...
..
Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION
VfflEREASthecities',()f~~gllSta,Blythe'.andHephzibah~chtnfly~x~~n~J~esduf:;
t('natural hazards tbat,result in ,public safety hazards, dama~e ,to ,pnvateandpublic'
pr9Perty, and public and private expenditures for clean up,andrecovery;anq
WHEREAS ,the, RobertT. stafford Disaster ReHef and Emergency Assistan~'Actas'
amended b; the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000requirelQealjunsdietioIlS to. ad9Pta
rtlitigation plan in orclerf() be eligible for post-:disaster and P~<iisaster"grants .~() ",
implement certain mitigation projects; and
~REASthepl~ngproc~supported" by' the(1e~gia,5Il1~~?y~na~emet1t
Agency and required bytheFedernl Em~geney ManagementA.gencyofiers,the
opportunity. to con~idernatural hazardlland' risks, and, ~ojdentitY,' Il1itigation ,~tio~ (()
redU'cefuture impacts of suell hazards;' amI
WHEREAS ,the State of Georglaihasprovided fedemt mitigation funds 'toSUi'Portthe
developmenfo(a hazardmirlgationplan; and
WHElUiASthe ,Hazard,MitigatiQl1 Plan for Augusta, Blythe and Hephzibahhash(le1j,
developed by the Mitigation Planning Committee; and
VVlIEREAS, th~l:lazarf.( Mitig!JtionPlan identifies multi-jurisdictional mitigatiQn~ctions
that, over time, will. help minimize and reduce. safety threats, reduce thec~()f.hatnml
hazard events, and reduce damage to private and public property; and
WHEREASa..public ,fueeUngWas ,held on February 2, 200?, to 'intrQ<luce"tltePlanning
concept and to solicit questions and comments; and a public meeting:washeldon
September 15, 2005,topresentthe DiaflPlan and request comment; and
WHEREAS, the Hazard.M;itigationPlanhas. beensubmittedto,it11eGeorgiaErnergcncy
Management Agency and ,thc..Federal Emergency Management Agency for , final ,review;
final approyalWill bewithheJduntilthe Plan is adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. Chairman of the Conunissioniliat
1. The HaiardMitigatio" Plan is hereby adopted as an official docu.rnentofth~
City ofHephzibah, Georgia.
2. The City will cooperate with the City of Augusta to pursue implementation of
the recommended multi-jurisdictional activities and to periodically report on
progress.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
IlIII
~JjjJT
\!il1#t1liic1i ... 1Z, 0-;";",, ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
3, Any action identifiedinthePlanthatcarinotbe pumied witbinexisnngbu<l9ets
shall. b7 subject.. to and con.tupOn btldget.approvaIandthi~....resQlution:
shall notbe.interpt"t;:ted So as m l11attdate anysllch ~Vllt
PASSED ANDADOWED by theeommfs.sionofHephzibaJl.Georgia. this3rddayof
April, 2006. .
ATTEST:
~!4~
City Clerk
11IIII Appendix A: Documentation of Planning Process .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix B:
Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment
B-1 Background on HAZUS-MH@
Hazards U.S., known as HAZUS-MH@, is a nationally-applicable, standardized methodology and
software program that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods,
and hurricane winds. HAZUS-MH@was developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) under contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS,
www.nibs.org). NIBS maintains committees of wind, flood, earthquake and software experts to
provide technical oversight and guidance to HAZUS-MH@ development. Additional background
on the program is at http://www.nibs.org/hazusweb/.
Loss estimates produced by the software are based on current scientific and engineering
knowledge of the effects of hurricane winds, floods, and earthquakes. Estimating losses is
essential to decision-making at all levels of government, providing a basis for developing
mitigation plans and policies, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery planning.
HAZUS-MH@ takes into account various impacts of a hazard event such as:
· Physical damage: damage to residential and commercial buildings, schools, critical
facilities, and infrastructure;
. Economic loss: lost jobs, business interruptions, repair and reconstruction costs; and
. Social impacts:. impacts to people, including requirements for shelters and medical aid.
HAZUS-MH@ uses state-of-the-art geographic information system (GIS) software to map and
display hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and
infrastructure. It also allows users to estimate the impacts of hurricane winds, floods, and
earthquakes on populations. Level 1 analyses use default data about people and building stock
are taken from national databases, notably a combination of U.S. Census data from 1990 and
information provided by the Dun and Bradstreet Corporation (Arlington, Virginia) in 1996.
The default data includes information about the percentages of different types of buildings within
a planning area (wood, unreinforced masonry, reinforced masonry, manufactured housing, and
others) and the level of engineering design (non-engineered, partially engineered, or fully
engineered). Also included are replacement values for various classifications of buildings based
on R.S. Means cost estimating values (in 1994 dollars) with and regional cost modifiers.
Data produced by Levell analyses should be used only for indicative/informative purposes and
should not be viewed literally for analytical purposes. For analytical purposes, a Level 2
analysis should be undertaken with specific local information keyed in to replace the default
data. It should be noted that HAZUS-MH@ is considered one of many planning tools used by
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
...
Appendix B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
states and local governments. Other tools should be considered in developing the hazard
analysis and risk assessment for local communities. In some cases, other tools and
methodologies may be more useful.
B-2 GEMA's Online Critical Facility Inventory
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Critical Facilities Inventory is a password-protected interoperable web
application developed by the University of Georgia at the request of GEMA. As described
online at https://www.itos.uga.edu/projects.html.this secure application allows representatives
from disparate locations to collect and review data relative to Critical Facilities. These data are
seamlessly matched with other GIS data sets, including hazard data to allow for mapping and
spatial analysis. GEMA Representatives, focused on providing quality data for facilities, need no
knowledge of GIS in order to create maps or reports as a bi-product of the system. This
application eliminates data redundancy and ensures that all users are working with the most
current collection of information.
GEMA identified a number of public and private facilities that appear to be characteristic of
"critical facilities." The Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission was charged with
requesting certain data from the owners and operators of those facilities. During that process, a
number of additional public facilities were identified and added to the database (listed below).
The online tool utilizes basic hazard identification information, as defined and shown below. For
the two hazards that are mappable (flood and wildland interface fire), the Augusta Hazard
Mitigation Plan is based on more detailed GIS layers used by the Augusta Information
Technology-Geographic Information System. Specifically, the database of critical facilities was
geocoded and used with the City's flood hazard map layer and land use layers to determine
which facilities appear to be at-risk.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Locations of facilities included in GEMA's inventory
Hazard Scores (GEMA online description)
Flood Hazard Scores L...I ..........
~ @ Hazard Score...
o .c:7 .. land Slide ....
~.c:7Ii1f1. . ........
..,.,...
.2
.3
.4
.
o .c:7 SLOSH
D.c:7 Seismic
DdWildfire
The flood hazard scores are derived from the FEMA Q3 "Zone" values.
The Q3 layer is derived from the FEMA paper flood insurance rate maps.
Although the resolution is 1 :24,000, which has an allowable error of 40
feet, FEMA recommends using 250 feet as the potential error. This layer
cannot be used for a legal flood determination.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
EIII
Appendix B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hazard Scores (GEMA online description)
Wildfire Risk Scores
The Wildfire Risk Layer was based on the USDA Forest Service, RMRS
Fire Sciences Laboratory "Wildland Fire Risk to Flammable Structures,
V 1.0" map. Although this data was not intended for use at a detail
greater than state-wide analysis, it has been included as the best available
data on wildfire risk. The scores are based on the risk value from the
original layer. The horizontal positional accuracy is unknown for this
layer.
o
~EJ
. ..... DC". Land
D .6 Flood
D d SLOSH
nb Seismic
...~~-...........
.jm
.2.....
.3.
..4
.0.
o C::> Wind
~.-'_:',I.I...~'.J_
4 Moderate
3 Low
2 Very Low
1 No Houses
7 Agriculture
8 Water
9 City
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
Hazard Scores (GEMA online description)
Wind Hazard Scores
The Wind Hazard Scores are based on the 2000 International Building Code,
figure 1609 contours showing 3 second gust wind speeds with a 50 year return
interval. The Northwest portion of the state scored an additional point for the
250 mph community tornado shelter design zone according to FEMA
publications.
2
1
90 to 99 mph (or
ZONE IV
< 90 m h
This score is also given to an area with
Zone IV of the "Design Wind Speed Map
for Community Shelters," representing an
area exposed to 250 mph winds. This area is
the Northwestern corner of the state.
..
u................
~ @HazelldScpre '.
...... D. b L~nd slicle
..' DaFloCld
Db SLOSH
. D Sseismic...............
D '=.Wildfire .' .
~1~1/
....2
.3
.4
.5
D
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r.71-._~,I.I.;;;.--.J;.-;
Appendix B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Aep Jad$)
lSOJ aJelds!O
a
'"
ro
Ii)
o
o
N
Q;
.0
E
<ll
u
<ll
o
'0
lI)
~
o
o
I-
<ll
.~
C
o
lI)
~
'0
ttl
LL
ro
~
(5
lI)
<l:
z
w
C>
E
2
LL
JeaA
aOleA aJelda~
~
i
...
a
~
~
...
a
~
($)
aOjeA aJelda~
tyf
a
...
M
'"
a
a
("lJ 'bs)
'fiP18 )0 az!s
a
a
a
~
l=--
t
I UO!P!ps!.IO[
/luawwaA"9
~
"
.2
'"
"
o
U
to
o <ll
00)
N ttl
C c.
5:N
cd:.
o X
:';:;:.0
.~ @
:'!:a.
zc.
-0<(
ro
N
ttl
I
ttl
(;j
:::l
0)
:::l
<(
pJe
all
aJO:>S
pJeZeH oOO~
fouednJJQ
(Aep Jad$)
lS0) a)elds!o
anle^ leuo!pun~'
-_.-
JeaA
anle^ 51ua1uOJ
anle^ 51ua1uOJ
to
o
o
N
Q;
.0
E
a>
u
a>
o
'0
C/)
~
<5
o
I-
a>
.~
C
o
C/)
a>
@
'0
<1l
LL
(ij
~
(5
C/)
<l:
~
ill
<.9
E
o
iL
JeaA
anle^ a)elda~
($)
anw^ a)elda~
I
I, (':ij 'bs)
'oPIS JO az!s
o
apISuo)
lSIH
UO!1elndod
alqeJauln^
~'".
iI:I!lpe~
1Ue)JodwI
iI:I!lpe~ 1ewzeH
SSOl
le!1Ua10d 40lH
wa1sAs aU!lam
----...-
iI:I!lpe~
uO!1e)JodsueJl
~_.~-,_.-
iI:I!lpe~ le!1uass,
uO!1d!1:JSao
aJnpnJ1S
JO aweN
adAl
UO!PIPS!1nr
1UaWUJaA09
"'..__.~-~..
...---
.;'
'---6
'"
'"
v
v
o
:<l
~
~
~
'"
'"
:ri
I
...,
'"
~r
~
~
'"
'"
'"
N
N
v
I ..
"---1
10.2 ~.,g
~~ItX
o~
I;.
~~f
1~U
'"
~~
~,x
~
ill
-- ..--
5~
J:W
"
'"
h-~
! .. 8
i ~;X "5
1
'"
~8
5j;X
~
ill
fg
c.c
~,x
..
ill
~ nT'n- ~
g ~ 8 g E 8 ~ _~
.~U~r
I
1T8~
~ .c
~,x
E
..
ill
vt' v
o 0
o 0
N. N
~~~'
....;- 00'
v _
'" "'
~ ~
~
o
m
'S(
~
l'l 8
~;X
E
..
ill
..
E
..
ill
.-a --a
0:
'"
~
v
~
'" '"
~-~-r?-~~
~~8~,,8
~!AI~!A
I
.. ..
E E
.. ..
ijJ ill
b
~
~
~
o
;1;
s
'"
'"
N
v
o
:<l
~
~
5'~8
o 0
o 0
,.,~ o.D
v ...,
~ ~I
~ ~i
,
i
~I
I
-en
'"
&1
I
~
",'
'"
v
5\
~
'"
s< ---xtx
If'~
u
-0 <LI '5 ClJ
-i.c :~':2
p ~,x p
.. .. ..
iIi iD w
-~~-l~ -he.
c c ~ c c 8 c c ~ c c ~
g5i~5~~5tg,~5~
..___~..~ u r ~ u r ~ u r ~ u r
<>
~
5!
i
...,
N
'"
'"
W'Ci-N"
--orow -0
o
'"
~
~
a
N
'"
'"
.,;
'"
rl--
~,x
E
..
ill
v
'"
v
v
o
o
N
E:
~
'"
o
v
",'
v
~~
~,x
E
..
ill
.c
..,x
E
..
ill
~~-'-:g
o "
E 0
-5u
i2
<0 N
o a>
00>
N <1l
<:: Q.
~cf
<::(1)
o x
=:0
.2> ~
~a.
~Q.
u<l:
m
N
<1l
I
<1l
en
::>
0>
::>
<l:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
al
2
~
..
J:
.
.
. tOC')
. o Q)
00>
N '"
<:: a.
. ,UO:>$ pJezeH '" N
a:
3~HOlIM <:: cO
. o x
"Jo:>$ ""'5
pJezeH 000 .~ a5
. :!::a.
:20.
kluedn):>{) 1il "E<(
. '"
N
'"
I
. (Aep J"d$) '"
~sOJ ,,)eldslO Ci)
,-~ :J
. 0>
:J
<(
I
.
.
.
.
.
. to
0
. 0 Je"^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N "nle^ ")eld,,~
Q;
. .0
E ~
Q) '"
u '"
. Q) a .,-
0 ($) ~
'0 "nle^ ")eld,,~
. Ul
~
. 0
0
l-
. Q) (":y .bs) ::l N ;;'
.s N
"6P18 JO "Z!S "'. '" '"
c 8i M
..
. 0
Ul
Q)
~
. "13
<Il
u.
. ro
~
. (5
Ul
<J:
. :2
UJ
CJ
. E
e
u.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Uo~diJ:>S"O
. "Jnpn.qs
JO"WeN
.
. "dAL
.
. UO!P!psiJn[
~uawuJa^o9
. ",-.,."",,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
.
.
.
.
<0 '<t .
0 a>
0 .
N 0>
<tl
e 0.
8 <5 <tl .
a: ";J~
elD
0 o x .
~~
~~
:2:0. .
S1 M U<(
on ro
N .
<tl
J:
(Aep Jad$) <tl .
150J aJelds!o (jj
::>
0> .
::>
<(
. .
I .
!
t
.
.
anle^ SjualuoJ .
LO .
0 .
0 Jea^ g ". ".
N 0 0
Q; anle^ aJelda~ :'l :'l :'l
.n .
E ~ 0
a> 0
u 5 .
a> a ".- ~
0 ($) ~ <X>
"-
...
0 anle^ aJelda~ .
l/)
~
(5 .
0
f-
a> (oy obs) '" en M 8i N .
:;:: '" 0
.!: '" <X>
C .fiPIS ,0 a,!s Ii vi :::!" en- r..:
'" '" ".
0 .
l/)
a>
~
.13 .
<tl
u..
m .
~
<3 .
l/)
<l:
:2: .
UJ
(9
E .
0
u: .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
adA.L .
g~~ B .
E 5 t~ E
UO!p!pspnr ti u ig'ti .
lUaWwa^09 ii fa:
L._,___ .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
'"
0'
L__
1__(Aep Jad$)
f="'.
~
:<:
:;;
~
anle^ ~U<llUOJ
<>
<>
<>
'"
"
...
M
M
...
M
M
...
Ii)
o
o
N
Q;
.0
E
Q)
u
Q)
o
'0
Ul
~
o
o
I-
Q)
,~
c:
o
Ul
~
"1"3
ro
LL
ro
u
:;::;
(5
Ul
<J:
:2
UJ
C>
E
e
LL
JeaA
anle^ a)eldal:l
~
"
en
~
..-
~
..-
<>
:<:
~
~
..- ..-
:t:
<> <>
ef !
...
'"
<>
<>
'"
~
~-
-~
~
~
"-
g
:t"
;;;
($)
anle^ a)ejdal:l
<>
<>
~
en i
;;:: I
~
..-
'"
..-
~
~
~
("lj 'bs)
'13P18 )0 az!s
en
~
:$
'" <>
'"
'" '"
ti i
<>
rt
00
<>
<>
<>
M-
<>
<>
'"
",-
<>
al
N
I-~
!
I adA.l
f---.-.-.- I -S! g 5
! UO!P!psun[ 1.. go ~ 8
I ~uawwa^09 << '"
.._--"""""'''''''''''''''~.
CDll'>
o Q)
00>
N ro
c a.
ro _
O:";J
cCO
o x
~:o
.~ffi
:=::0.
:2 a.
'E<(
ro
N
ro
J:
ro
Cii
::l
0>
::l
<(
~
...
..-
~
~
g
;;;
'"
"
'"
..--
.
.
to to .
0 a> .
0 Cl
N <Il
I:: a.
(5 <Il .
a:: ~~
I:: CO
'0- o X .
:';::;:0
.~ a5
~a. .
::;:a.
1:l<{
ro .
N
<Il
I
(Aep Jad$) <Il .
"50] a3elds!o (jj
:J
I Cl .
I :J
~ <{
le^ leUO!pUn~ .
.
.. .
0
~
'~ iI" .
o 0
0' o 0
~ o M .
~ ~
...
LO .
0 g I .
0 JeaA ~ .. .. ~ ~ I .. N ~ ~
N 0 0 ~ 0
anle^ a3ejdal:l ~ ~ 0
Q; N ~ N
I .
.0 i
E ,
~ """''''gr'w~' -1 -~ g' 0
a> N 0
U en ~I ~ 0 .
a> N en ci ui" ~
0 ($) al ~ N .. '" 2 a 2
;l; ...
'0 anle^ a3eldal:l I: ... .
(/)
~
0 .
0
I-
a> (":Y "bs) N 0 0 &3 .... 0 0
g ~ g '" g s ~ .
"S .. 0 ~ '" 0
"fiP18 JO az!s .... ",' ~ ~ '"
c :!; ui" r;; ..' oJ ui"
0 .
(/)
a>
~ .
"13
<Il
u..
Iii .
u
:;:;
(5 .
'"
<t:
::;: .
ill
0
E .
e
u.. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
uol"dp:>Sa(] .
aJrQ:mJ"S .
JO aweN
.
adAl .
?7 .
g 5 o "
UO!P!pspn[ "5U ~8 .
"uawwaA09 a: a:
.
.
.
.
.
. <0 I"-
0 0>
. 0 OJ
N III
c: a.
. III N
a:
c: r:D
. ""'.."'........'.5 0 0 X
:;::;:0
.~ a5
. :=:c..
8 :2;0.
... '" "E<(
[8 0
~- '"
. III
N
III
:r:
. (Aep Jad$) III
l50J a)eldslO iil
:J
. OJ
:J
~' <(
. anle^ leuo!pun~ ~
.
.
.
. anle^ !4UaluOJ
. il)
. 0
0 JeaA ~ g ~ ... ... ... ~
N 0 0 g
anle^ a)elda}j ~ 0 ~ 0
Q; N N N
. .n
E '~! 0 ." a,
0> g 0 0 0 M " ;;;
. 0 0 0 0 '" ~
0> M ~ .; ;f ci ,,- ::i ~
0 ($) 0 ~
'" ~ ~
'0 anle^ a)elda}j a ~ ~
. en
~
. (5
0
t-
O> ('y"bs) 0 " ~ '" M ~ ~-
. N ...
~ '" M '" fri
"OPI8 )0 aZiS '" ~' ",- ",- g
c: ;(; ~ ::; ::;
. 0
en
0>
~
. .13
III
LL
. OJ
g
. <5
en
<l:
. :2;
w
'-'
. E
e
LL
. i ,
. !
'---
.
.
.
. ):/
.
. uo!<d!-l)5ao 1r
;~tX ~
. aJnpnJlS 3: (lJ ~ .-
JO aweN .-= ~:E- m
. ~...=.. o~
0..0 0.0
..c:l ..c:l
uo.. uo..
. acLil on ."
.c .c
0> 0>
:;: :;:
. #.,."""
I UOIPIPspnr
.
luawwaA09
. L.
.
.
.
.
(!) <Xl .
0 Q)
0 Ol .
N CIl
c5 c:5 e c.
CIl .
a:<i
e(O
l::l """"""'""C:l d" o x .
:+=:0
.~ ~
===0.. .
:2c.
-0<(
ro .
N
CIl
I
(Aep Jad$) CIl .
lSO:) a)elds!o u;
:J
Ol .
:J
<(
anle^ leuop:>un .
.
JeaA b; " .
'"
anle^ 5lUaluO:) ~ ~
0 ~ ::; .
0
~ o' ",'
~ .,- .
anle^ 5lualuO:) a t{ a
if) .
0 .
0 JeaA b; .,- " ~ .,- ~ ~ ~
N ~ '" 0
anle^ a)elda~ ~ '" 0
Q; N
.a .
E '"
Q) i N :]; 0
() M '" .
Q) ~ N 0 0 ai ai
0 ($) 1'l 0 .,- g; ::;
'" 0
'0 ~ * ~' M a
anle^ a)elda~ ;f,
(/) ... .
~
(5 .
0
I-
0 8 N g
Q) (":y "bs) M ~ 0 N ~ .
.S: '" :;;: '"
"5P18 )0 az!s ,,' ~ 0 .n ~ Ii
<= '" ~ .,-' ~
0 '"
(/) .
~
'13 .
CIl
u-
rn .
~
<5 .
(/)
<c
:2 .
w
C>
E .
e
u-
.
.
.
.
.
~ )( .
.
UO!ldp:lSao .
aJrq:m.qs .
JO aweN
.
adA.l .
.
UO!P!pspn[ .
luawuJa^~
--I .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 1O
. 0
0
N
Q;
. .n
E
Q)
. u
Q)
0
'0
. rJ)
~
. (5
0
l-
. Q)
.S:
C
. 0
rJ)
Q)
~
. 'u
co
LL
. ro
u
:;:::
. 8
rJ)
<t:
. ::;;
w
<.9
. E
0
. U:::
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Aep J~$)
lSOJ a)eldslO
nle^ leuoIPun
JeaA
anle^ Sjua~uOJ
anle^ Sjua~uOJ
JeaA
anle^ a)eldall
($)
anje^ a)eldall
("1,1 'bs)
'OPI8 )0 az!s
uo~elndod
alqeJaUln^
A:i!lpe~
W"llodWI
A:illpe~ ~ewzeH
ssol
le~ua~od 40lH
uo~d!J:JSa(]
aJnpnJ~S
JO aweN
~Al.
UOIPIPS!Jn[
8&:;;~
l'i't5 &
'2 ~
'"
I
" ~ 0 0 'i-i
M '" 0
'" '" ", o'
~ g;: " g
~
" a ~
:. I I
""""""'<1-<-
" ! " ~ " ~ ~ i ~
~ '" '" 0 0 '" 0 0 i 0 I
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
N N i
! ITl
i
~ -fijO',-"'-r 0
'" M ~ 0
~~ M u-) :f 0
on '" 0
~} I ~~ 0 " N
M- ~ ~ ~ .i
:. ~ ~ ;;<,
N " N ~ 0 0 on
N :1; '" 0 0 N co
co 0 0 N
en ~ co en " Ii ~ N
~ N '" 0 0
~ " ~ '" CO
; 5 c
::J E 6
!~U
)(
~ -g~~~ 1
~:~ ~ I
J:-6&i
<(
j
~ I
~ I
I
",'i:!cl
~ 5 c ,.....
::J E ::J ...
"'.c 8
Jii I
-1
C
5 5
g'~ 8
<(ji:
ii1~
::J E 6
~~u
<00>
o Q)
00)
N CO
c a.
CO
C[N
cOO
.Q X
--:0
.~fi5
~o.
::;;a.
,,<(
ro
N
CO
I
CO
(jj
:>
0)
:>
<(
(Aep Jad$)
lSOJ ,,)elds!o
"nle^ Sju<ljuOJ
I
-fO'.8
'" a
M a
r-.~: o~
~ a
I j
M
a
~
U1
o
o
N
Q;
.0
E
Q)
(.)
Q)
o
'0
en
~
"0
o
I-
Q)
,S
C
o
en
Q)
~
'(3
<1l
LL
m
(.)
:;::;
(5
en
<l:
2
UJ
l?
E
o
U:
~:rl ~
'" a
M a
'" -
~ ~
le"^
"nle^ ,,)eld"l:l
N
a
~
..
a
a
N~
~
M
a
~
~
a
~
,
.._,,,,.,..,.,..,.~,
o~ V"
~'Il' ~,
'" "-
~ l a
'~
o
~
~
'"
..
N'
g}i
...
a
g
o
:;:
",'
~i
1
~I--~~
i ;
~I
'"
~
a
a
~
a
..
($)
"nle^ ,,)eld"l:l
!
1
--/---,-
I
-;-
I
~I
(":y 'bs)
. fiPI8 )0 "'!S
;1; a a '" '" a
'" ~ ;::::
.. N 1;1 a
~' ~ r;f ~ '"
",' N
)(
<ldA.L
~-ri~' 0 j ,n g~i
g~8g~8g~8
or:( i:2 r- i:2 .:r. ri
i
<0 oq
o~
o Q)
NO)
c: <1l
<1l 0-
0:: -
N
c: '
0(0
~.?:S
0)"0
:e ai
20-
"E~
<1l
N
<1l
I
<1l
U;
OJ
0)
OJ
<(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
1
-1
I
I
~
~
~
~
i
-0
'"
~
~
I
!
-.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. LO
0
. 0
N
Q;
. .n
E
Q)
()
. Q)
0
'0
. (/)
-e
. (5
0
I-
Q)
. .~
c
0
. (/)
~
. '0
ro
LL
. (ij
~
. (5
(/)
<l:
. :?:
UJ
C)
. E
e
LL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Aep Jad$)
150J a)elds!o
anle^ leuo!pun~
0-1--
0", 0
~~ ~
anle^ ~ualuOJ
...
g i
, N I
(O.I-.~+,"",,-
~! i!
~r
~
'"
q i ~
;;1; I !
"'I I
l---i
I ,
~d ~d
o 0 I.
N N
l
JeaA
anle^ a)elda~
...
~
~
~
...
'"
g)
~~
'"
($)
anle^ a)elda~
M
a
"-
M
N
i
("1) 'bs)
'6P18 JO az!s
o
o
...
m
...
'"
o
;;:-
"'
~
~
N
o
"'
'i
o
o
...
sf
~-!
uOlld!JJSaO
aJnpnJ1S
JO aweN
adA.L
UO!P!ps!Jn[
luawuJa^o~
to It)
0 ~
0 Q)
N Cl
<> C ro
ro 0.
0: N
c r:b
o~ 0 :a; .25
Cl"O
;e a5
:?:o.
"E~
ro
N
ro
I
ro
iil
::l
Cl
::l
<(
01
~-I
i
x-l
.
.
<0<0 .
o~ .
0 a>
N 01
C ro
6 ro c. .
0::: -
N
C 0
""""''''5 i5' oeo .
~ .~
01"'0
,- C
"" a> .
::2;c.
0 "E~
on
ro .
N
ro
I
(Aep Jad$) ro .
,sOJ a)elds!o u;
:J
01 .
:J
I <(
lan,e^ feuo!pun~ .
.
0 .
~
~ .
.
LO .
0 ... ... .
0 JeaA ~ ... ... ... ~ g
N ~ 0 0 0 0
anle^ a)elda~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~
Q) N N
.n .
E 0
a> ($) I 0 0 on ~ 0
u 0 ~I " N .
a> ..0 ~ 0- ",-
0 [;; ... ~ ...
0 anfe^ a)elda~ . ~ d .
<n
~ i
"0 .
0
I-
a> (.y'bs) '" 0 a: .
,~ '6PI8 )0 az!s :1 on '"
c: " oJ
0 .
<n
a>
~ .
'0
ro
lL
n; .
~
(5 .
<n
<c
::2; .
l1J
C) .
E
0
U: .
x .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
E g .
0 &
adA.l ~ ~ 2 .
"ii1 ~ J9
.<: VI
VI VI
... ~ 5 c .
~ g c ~ ~ 5 '0
:J E 5 :J E 5 ~ .
UO!P!pspn[ !~U ~~u ~~u
~uaWUJ;:Mo9 ~
g
:I: .
.
.
.
.
.
. <01"-
o ~
o Q)
. NO)
c: '"
'" 0.
n: .
N
. c: '
om
~ .2$
. 0)"0
:e ffi
::;::0.
. "E~
'"
N
'"
. I
'"
Ci5
. :J
0)
:J
. <t:
.
. "-
~
. 8"'-
. ,lnle^ s:jualuOJ ~~
'"
. if)
. 0
0 JeaA ~
N
Q; anle^ a)elda~
. .0
E
Q)
. u
Q)
0 ($)
. '0 anle^ a)elda~
(/)
~
. (5
0
fo-
. Q) (':Y 'bs)
.5
C 'fiPIS ,0 az!s
. 0
(/)
~
. '13
S!.
. ro
u
:;:;
. 8
(/)
<l:
. ::;::
UJ
CJ
. E
0
. Lt
.
.
.
.
.
.
. uopd!Josaa
. aJnpn.llS
JO aweN
.
. adAl
.
. Uo!plps!Jn[
luawUJa^09
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix C:
Key Terms & Acronyms
For the most part, terms used in the Plan have the meanings that are commonly associated with
them:
. Critical/Essential Facilities are critical to the health and welfare of the population,
especially during and following hazard events. Critical facilities include shelters, police
and fire stations, schools, childcare/senior care centers, hospitals, emergency operations
centers, and government buildings. The term includes building that, if damaged, would
create secondary adverse effects, such as hazardous materials facilities, vulnerable
facilities, housing for special needs populations.
. Disaster means the occurrence of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss oflife or
property, or such severe economic or social disruption that supplemental disaster relief
assistance is necessary for the affected politicaljurisdiction(s) to recover and to alleviate
the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the federal
government's efforts to plan for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of
natural and man-made hazards.
. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to show Special Flood Hazard Areas; this map is the basis for regulating
development.
. Floodplain. See "Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)" below.
· Hazard is defined as the natural or technological phenomenon, event, or physical
condition that has the potential to cause property damage, infrastructure damage, other
physical losses, and injuries and fatalities.
· Mitigation is defined as actions taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to life and
property from hazards. Mitigation actions are intended to reduce the need for emergency
response - as opposed to improving the ability to respond.
· National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), located within FEMA, is charged with
preparing FIRMs, developing regulations to guide development, and providing insurance
for flood damage.
· Risk is defined as the potential losses associated with a hazard. Ideally, risk is defined in
terms of expected probability and frequency of the hazard occurring, people and property
exposed, and potential consequences.
. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or Floodplain is the area adjoining a river, stream,
shoreline, or other body of water that is subject to partial or complete inundation. The
SFHA is the area predicted to flood during the 1 % annual chance flood, commonly called
the" 1 OO-year" flood.
The following acronyms are used:
· CRS - Community Rating System (NFIP)
. DOT - Georgia Department of Transportation
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
. FEMA - u.s. Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management
Agency
. FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map
. FIS - Flood Insurance Study
. FMA - Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA)
· GEMA - Georgia Emergency Management Agency
. GIS - Geographic Information System
. HMGP - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (FEMA)
. NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA)
· PDM - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (FEMA)
· SFHA - Special Flood Hazard Area
..
Appendix C: Key Terms & Acronyms .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix D:
Savannah River Public Facility Summary
BFE-
Ground Ground
Photo # TAXID Elev* BFE Elev Description
Marina Store 1,2 037-4-001-03-1 130 135 5' Built in 1994; current brick
building (low damage potential
except for contents); building
valued at $107,160. No EC on
file
Boathouse 3,4,5,6, 048-3-071-00-0 130 134 4' City-owned; old building
Community Center 7 elevated several feet above
(main building, d grade; lower level is boat
open pavilion, storage and useable area
small building) overlooking water (windows)
Boat Storage 8,9 048-0-001-03-0 130 133.5 3.5' City-owned. Land ($242k);
building ($98k), PreFab
structural steel, built 1955
Welding (large 10, 11, 048-0-001-05-0 130 133.5 3.5' Owned by Modern Welding.
bldg, brick office) 12 Land value $284k; building
values $786k. Office building
1846 sf, built 1975; no
specifics on large building.
Unknown 13 Storage tank (on separate
parcel?)
Richmond 14,15, 048-0-001-01-0 125-130 133.5 8-3.5' City-owned land ($1.09 mill)
(main building, 16,17, and buildings. Richmond
small bldgs, 18 Bonded buildings ($899k).
vacant at rd) Wood/steel combined; built
1963
GA Ports Authority building,
1000 sf, $94k, PreFab
Structural steel, built 1955
Traffic 19,20 062-0-008-00-0 125-130 133.5 8-3.5' City-owned. Masonry load
Engineering bearing; footprint 7,500 sf;
built in 1951. Land value
$777k; building value $124k
Raw Water 21 - 153 (new 140.5 above Up-river from Riverwalk
Pumping Station elevation
will be
143)
*Ground Elevation based on gross contour from GIS.
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..
mil
Appendix D: Savannah River Public Facility Summary .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo 2. Restroom portion of Marina
Building
Photo 6. Downstream of Community Center
Photo 3. Boathouse Community Center
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo 7 Pavilion Downstream Community
Center
Photo 9: Boat Storage
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
Photo 12. Modern Welding Office building
..
Photo 13. Parcel between Modern & Vacant
BId
Photo 14. Vacant Building
Photo 15. Downstream of Vacant Building
mill
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo 16. Richmond Warehouse
Photo 17. Richmond Warehouse
Photo 18. Richmond Warehouse
(downstream)
Appendix D: Savannah River Public Facility Summary .
---
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo 20. Augusta Traffic Engineering
Photo 21. Raw Water Pumping
Station
. Augusta Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2006)
..