Upload
ferzian
View
25
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
hira ontario
Citation preview
Hazard Iden fica on and Risk Assessment
Workbook
Emergency Management Ontario 2012
Table of Contents
Sec on Page Number
Introduc on 3
The HIRA Process 4
Step One: Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet 5
Step Two: Risk Assessment ‐ Frequency 6
Frequency Worksheet 7
Risk Assessment ‐ Consequence 8
Consequence Variables 9
Consequence Worksheet 12
Total Consequence 13
Total Consequence Worksheet 14
Changing Risk 15
Changing Risk Worksheet 16
Step Three: Risk Analysis 17
Risk Analysis Worksheet 18
Priori za on Worksheet 19
Step Four: Monitor and Review 20
Next Steps: Vulnerable Groups and Mi ga on Ac ons
21
Vulnerable Groups Worksheet 22
Poten al Mi ga on Ac ons Worksheet 23
2
Why Should I Have a HIRA?
One of the core challenges faced by emer‐gency managers is how to prevent, mi ‐gate, prepare, respond and recover from different types of hazards. Several ques‐ons must be asked when faced with this
challenge:
What hazards exist in or near my community? How frequently do these hazards occur? How much damage can they cause? Which hazards pose the greatest threat? This Hazard Iden fica on and Risk Assessment (HIRA) workbook can help guide you in answering these ques ons. A HIRA can: Help you to prepare for the worst and/or most likely hazards. Save me by isola ng any hazards which can not affect your community. Allows for the crea on of emergency plans, exercises and training based on
the most likely and/or highest risk scenarios. Helps your program to become proac ve rather than just reac ve. What is a HIRA? A HIRA is a risk assessment tool that can be used to assess which hazards pose the greatest risk in terms of how likely they are to occur and how great their po‐ten al impact may be. It is not intended to be used as a predic on tool to deter‐mine which hazard will cause the next emergency.
Introduc on
3
There are four steps to create and maintain a HIRA:
The HIRA Process
4
1) Hazard Iden fica on ‐ In this step the hazards that could impact your commu‐nity are separated from those that can not. This requires a review of all hazards and their causes to determine whether they may be a threat to your community. This may require the consulta on of the scien fic community, historical records and government agencies. 2) Risk Assessment ‐ In this step the level of risk for each hazard is examined. This may involve speaking with hazard experts, researching past occurrences and possible scenarios. The likelihood of the hazard occurring and the poten al im‐pacts of the hazard on people, property, the environment, business and finance and cri cal infrastructure should be examined. 3) Risk Analysis ‐ The informa on collected in the risk assessment step will be analyzed in this step. The desired outcome of the risk analysis is the ranking of the hazards. This highlights the hazards that should be considered a current pri‐ority for your emergency management program. 4) Monitor and Review ‐ It is important to remember that a HIRA is an ongoing process and hazards and their associated risks must be monitored and reviewed.
The list below is a star ng point in iden fying hazards. Check all that apply.
Step One: Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet
Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Agricultural and Food Emergency Building/Structural Collapse ‐ Farm Animal Disease Cri cal Infrastructure Failure ‐ Food Emergency Dam Failure ‐ Plant Disease and Pest Infesta on Energy Emergency (Supply) Drinking Water Emergency Explosion/Fire Drought/Low Water Hazardous Materials Incident/Spills Earthquake ‐ Fixed Site Incident Erosion ‐ Transporta on Incident Extreme Temperatures Human‐Made Space Object Crash ‐ Heat Wave Mine Emergency ‐ Cold Wave Nuclear Facility Emergency Flood Oil/Natural Gas Emergency ‐ Riverine Flood Radiological Emergency ‐ Seiche Transporta on Emergency ‐ Storm Surge ‐ Air Emergency ‐ Urban Flood ‐ Marine Emergency Fog ‐ Rail Emergency Forest/Wildland Fire ‐ Road Emergency Freezing Rain Human‐Caused Hazards Geomagne c Storm Civil Disorder Hail Cyber A ack Human Health Emergency Sabotage ‐ Epidemic Special Event ‐ Pandemic Terrorism/CBRNE Hurricane War and Interna onal Emergency Land Subsidence Other: Landslide Other: Lightning Other: Natural Space Object Crash Other: Snowstorm/Blizzard Other: Tornado Other: Windstorm Other:
Table 1. Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet
5
How likely is it that your community could be impacted by the hazards you iden ‐fied in the previous step? The sources used for your hazard iden fica on can also be used for assessing the frequency and magnitude. Once you have collected informa on on the frequency of each of the hazards, they can be grouped into the categories below:
Example: The hazards for the imaginary community of Trillium were iden fied as being floods, explosions and earthquakes. The Trillium historical record shows that there have been floods every year. The Fire Chief said that explosions happen every five years or so. A local professor said that there has not been a strong earthquake in the history of the area, but one may be possible. The frequency
Step Two: Risk Assessment ‐ Frequency
Frequency Category Percent Chance Descrip on
1 Rare Less than a 1% chance of oc‐currence in any year.
Hazards with return periods >100 years.
2 Very Unlikely Between a 1‐ 2% chance of occurrence in any year.
Occurs every 50 – 100 years and includes hazards that have not occurred but are reported to be more likely to occur in the near future.
3 Unlikely Between a 2 – 10% chance of occurrence in any year.
Occurs every 20 – 50 years
4 Probable Between a 10 – 50% chance of occurrence in any year.
Occurs every 5 – 20 years
5 Likely Between a 50 – 100% chance of occurrence in any year.
Occurs >5 years.
6 Almost Certain 100% chance of occurrence in any year.
The hazard occurs annually.
Hazard Category Frequency
Flood Almost Certain
6
Explosion Likely 5
Earthquake Rare 1
Notes
Flooding from ice break‐up in the spring occurs annually. Urban flooding during heavy rain also occurs in some areas during the summer.
Explosions occur within the community at least once every five years.
Trillium is in a stable geologic area and has not experienced an earthquake in >100 years.
Table 2. Frequency
6
Hazard Category Frequency Notes
Table 3. Frequency Worksheet
Use the work sheet below to record the frequency of the hazards that could affect your com‐munity. Print addi onal sheets if needed.
7
Risk Assessment ‐ Consequence
Consequence is divided into six categories based on recommended prac ces: Social Impacts ‐ The direct nega ve consequences of a hazard on the physical health of people. Property Damage ‐ The direct nega ve consequences of a hazard on buildings, structures and other forms of property, such as crops. Cri cal Infrastructure Service Disrup ons/Impact ‐ The nega ve consequences of a hazard on the interdependent, interac ve, interconnected networks of ins ‐tu ons, services, systems and processes that meet vital human needs, sustain the economy, protect public safety and security, and maintain con nuity of and confidence in government. Environmental Damage ‐ The nega ve consequences of a hazard on the environ‐ment, including the soil, water, air and/or plants and animals. Business/Financial Impact ‐ The nega ve economic consequences of a hazard. Psychosocial Impacts ‐ The nega ve response of community or a subset of the community to a hazard caused by their percep on of risk. This includes human responses such as self‐evacua on, mass panic and other poten al undesirable responses. The total consequence value can be obtained by adding the values obtained from each of the sub variables. Note: The social impacts sub variable is further divided into the fatality rate, injury rate and evacua on rate. Since human impacts are o en the most ‘jarring’ result of an emergency and have an unquan fiable im‐pact on the community, social impact was inten onally weighted higher than the other sub variables.
8
The consequence categories in this HIRA methodology are a scale of impact, ra‐ther than a priori za on. The same value in two categories does not mean that the consequences of the two are equal and interchangeable.
Consequence Variables
Fatali es
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in fatali es within the community.
1 Minor Could result in fewer than five fatali es with‐in the community.
2 Moderate Could result in 5 – 10 fatali es within the community.
3 Severe Could result in 10 – 50 fatali es within the community.
4 Catastrophic Could result in +50 fatali es within the com‐munity.
Injuries
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in injuries within the com‐munity.
1 Minor Could injure fewer than 25 people within community.
2 Moderate Could injure 25 – 100 people within the com‐munity.
3 Severe Could injure +100 people within the commu‐nity.
Evacua on
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in an evacua on shelter‐in‐place orders, or people stranded.
1 Minor Could result in fewer than 100 people being evacuated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded.
2 Moderate Could result in 100 ‐ 500 people being evacu‐ated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded.
3 Severe Could result in more than 500 people being evacuated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded.
Table 4. Social Impacts, including fatali es, injuries and evacua on.
9
Consequence Variables
Table 5. Property Damage
Property Damage
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in property damage within the community.
1 Minor Could cause minor and mostly cosme c damage.
2 Moderate Localized severe damage (a few buildings de‐stroyed).
3 Severe Widespread severe damage (many buildings de‐stroyed).
Table 6. Cri cal Infrastructure Failure/Service Impact (CI)
Cri cal Infrastructure Service Impact (CI)
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to disrupt cri cal infrastructure ser‐vices.
1 Minor Could disrupt 1 cri cal infrastructure service.
2 Moderate Could disrupt 2 – 3 cri cal infrastructure services.
3 Severe Could disrupt more than 3 cri cal infrastructure services.
Table 7. Environmental Damage
Environmental Damage
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in environmental damage.
1 Minor Could cause localized and reversible damage. Quick clean up possible.
2 Moderate Could cause major but reversible damage. Full clean up difficult.
3 Severe Could cause severe and irreversible environmen‐tal damage. Full clean up not possible.
10
Consequence Variables
Table 8. Business/Financial Impact
Business/Financial Impact
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to disrupt business/financial ac vi es.
1 Moderate Could result in losses for a few businesses.
2 Severe Could result in losses for an industry.
Table 9. Psychosocial Impact
Psychosocial Impact
Consequence Category Descrip on
0 None Not likely to result in significant psychosocial im‐pacts.
1 Moderate Significant psychosocial impacts including limited panic, hoarding, self evacua on and long‐term psy‐chosocial impacts.
2 Severe Widespread psychosocial impacts, e.g. mass panic, widespread hoarding and self‐evacua on and long‐term psychological impacts.
To calculate the consequence for floods in Trillium, the emergency manager used historic accounts, insurance reports and scien fic informa on. This informa on showed that flooding in Trillium is likely to result in an evacua on of approxi‐mately 200 people and that severe property damage was to be expected. The emergency manager also found that during many past floods, roads were not ac‐cessible, several businesses had to be closed and there was isolated environmen‐tal damage due to erosion along the bank of the river. Therefore, the magnitude worksheet sec on for floods would look like:
Example:
Social Impacts
Property Damage
Cri cal Infrastructure
Impact
Environmental Damage
Business/Financial Impact
Psycho‐social Impact
Sub‐variable Total
2 3 1 2 1 0 9
11
Hazard
Fatali
es
Injuries
Evacua
on
Property
Dam
age
CI Impact
Environmental
Dam
age
Business/
Finan
cial
Impact
Psycho‐
social
Impact
Total
Table 10. Consequence Worksheet
12
Total Consequence
Once the consequence values have been added up, they are put into groups as shown in the table below. This gives equal weight to Consequence and Frequency.
Sub variable Total Consequence Descrip on
1 ‐ 4 1 Minor
5‐ 6 2 Slight
7‐ 8 3 Moderate
9 ‐ 10 4 Severe
11 ‐ 12 5 Very Severe
+13 6 Catastrophic
Example: The emergency manager of Trillium calculated a total of 9 for floods as shown on page 10. According to the ta‐ble, this would mean that flood has a consequence of 4 which is described as ‘severe’.
Table 11. Total Consequence
13
Hazard Sub Variable Total
Consequence Total
Description
Table 12. Total Consequence Worksheet
14
Changing Risk
The frequency and consequence can be influenced by factors such as mi ga on ac ons and climate change. Changing Risk helps to account for these changes.
Changing Risk = Change in Frequency + Change in Vulnerability
15
Change in Frequency 1. Is the number of non‐emergency occurrences of the hazard increasing? 2. Is human ac vity (e.g. popula on growth, change of drainage pa erns) likely to lead to more interac on with the hazard or an increase in frequency? 3. Is there an environmental reason (e.g. climate change) why the frequency of this hazard may increase? 4. Are human factors such as business, financial, interna onal prac ces more likely to increase the risk?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to two or more, then the change in frequency = 2 If the answer is ‘yes’ to one or fewer then the change in frequency = 1
Change in Vulnerability 1. Is a large number of the popula on vulnerable or is the number of people vul‐nerable to this hazard increasing? 2. Does cri cal infrastructure reliance or a ‘just‐on‐ me’ delivery system (e.g. stores not keeping a supply of food and relying on frequent shipments) make the popula on more vulnerable? 3. Are response agencies not aware of, prac ced and prepared to response to this hazard? 4. Are no preven on/mi ga on measures currently in use for this hazard?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to two or more, then the change in vulnerability = 2 If the answer is ‘yes’ to one or fewer then the change in vulnerability = 1
Table 13. Changing Risk Worksheet
16
Hazard
Chan
ge in
Frequency
Total
Chan
ge in
Frequency
Chan
ge in
Vulnerability
Total Chan
ge in
Vulnerability
Chan
ging Risk
Total
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Step Three: Risk Analysis
Once you have completed the Frequency, Magnitude and Changing Risk Work Sheets, you can now begin to priori ze your hazards by using the HIRA equa on:
Risk = Frequency * Consequence * Changing Risk
Example: The Emergency Manager of Trillium found a frequency value of 6, a total conse‐quence value of 4 and a changing risk value of 4 for floods. These numbers were entered into the equa on and mul plied together. The result was:
Flood Risk = 6*4*4 = 96
17
Hazard Frequency Magnitude Changing Risk Risk Total
Table 14. Risk Analysis Worksheet
18
Table 15. Priori za on Worksheet
Once you have calculated the risk for the hazards, you may wish to group them based on their level of risk using the table below. This is par cularly useful if you have several hazards with the same risk values.
Level of Risk Descrip on
< 10 Very Low
11 ‐ 20 Low
21 ‐ 30 Moderate
31 ‐ 40 High
41 ‐ 50 Very High
>50 Extreme
Enter your hazards into the work sheet below according to their risk which you calculated from the Risk Analysis Worksheet.
Level of Risk
Description Hazards
>50 Extreme
41 - 50 Very High
31 - 40 High
21 - 30 Moderate
11 - 20 Low
<10 Very Low
19
Step Four: Monitor and Review
Hazards and risks may change over me so it is important to review your HIRA annually. Date of Current HIRA:____________________ Date of Next Revision:____________________ Signature:_______________________________
20
Vulnerable Groups Some people may be more vulnerable to certain haz‐ards than others due to many different reasons such as disabili es, economic status and health and are there‐fore more likely to suffer from the nega ve impacts of a hazard. These groups may be more vulnerable to a hazard due to an inability to self‐evacuate or to take the proper safety precau ons, suscep ble to a hazard due to their health, or a lack of access to warnings or other reasons that increase their vulnerability to a spe‐cific hazard. Not all people who iden fy themselves as belong to one of these groups may be at an increased risk during the occurrence of a hazard, it will depend on the individual’s specific situa on.
It is important to consider vulnerable groups once the hazards have been iden fied. As‐sessing vulnerability is a key considera on in planning and it can assist in mi ga on ac on decision‐making. Mi ga on Ac ons Mi ga on is defined as “ac ons taken to reduce the adverse impacts of an emer‐gency or disaster” (EMO, 2011). A HIRA is only one part of a comprehensive emergency management program. Once the risk for each of the hazards is known, it is vital that a empts be made to reduce their risks, beginning with the hazards iden fied as having extreme and very high levels of risk.
Next Steps: Vulnerable Groups and Mi ga on Ac ons
21
Hazard Possible Vulnerable Groups Plans to Reduce Vulnerability
Table 15. Vulnerable Groups Worksheet
22
Table 16. Poten al Mi ga on Ac ons Worksheet Hazard
Acon
Priority
Esmated
Timelin
e
Esmat‐
ed Cost
Funding
Sources
Notes
23
2012
24
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 53
SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & RISK
ASSESSMENT
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 54
2.1 HIRA OVERVIEW & HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY
The State of Ohio is prone to many natural and manmade hazards. Ohio has experienced thousands of hazard events, resulting in millions of dollars in losses and casualties, and 44 Presidential disaster declarations. In 2003 as part of an overall effort to reduce future exposure to damages and meet the planning requirements of the DMA 2000, the State of Ohio began the development of the initial Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA). The HIRA has been subsequently reviewed and approved for the 2008 plan update.
A HIRA is a systematic way to identify and analyze hazards to determine their scope, impact and the vulnerability of the built environment to such hazards.
This section will cover 6 separate requirements of the 44 CFR 201.4 (identifying hazards, profiling hazard events, assessing vulnerability by jurisdiction, estimating potential losses by jurisdiction, assessing vulnerability of state facilities, and estimating potential losses of state facilities). The first four of the six requirements are integrated into each hazard for which is detailed. The last two (state facility vulnerability assessment and loss estimation) is discussed in this section. The following will provide a more in-depth explanation of these six elements and describe the steps taken to ensure the element was met.
Identifying hazards
The 44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(i) requires the risk assessment shall include an overview of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the state. This section of the plan presents a list of potential hazards that may likely impact the state. Due to the states northern geographical setting on Lake Erie, it is vulnerable to a wide array of hazards that threaten its communities, businesses, governments and environment. To determine the hazards that pose the greatest threat to the state, the OMPAT in conjunction with FEMA developed a list of potential hazards by conducting a review of several key resources, which include:
• Review of historical data on events that have occurred in the last 40 years;
• Review of 2003 plan data;
• Collaboration with various agencies that are the known “experts” on different hazards, including the Ohio Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency;
• Review of hazards identified in guidance materials provided by FEMA – Region V on identifying hazards; and
• Review of the local mitigation plans. Ohio currently has 93 approved single and multi jurisdictional plans with 11 in progress. The approved plans were used to assess the impacts hazards are having throughout the state.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 55
Risk Assessment
44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(i) – The risk assessment shall include an overview of the location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate. The risk assessment relies upon information about past hazard events from published sources such as NOAA, USGS, USACE and ODNR, among other agencies.
The risk assessment section for each hazard in this plan includes a description of the location of the hazard, past occurrences, and a discussion of probability of future hazard events.
Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction
44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(ii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the state’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The state shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard events. The methodology for this section varies by hazard due to available data and will be more thoroughly discussed prior to the results of the section for each hazard.
Integration of LHMP data into the state HIRA was done, where determined appropriate. In the past three years, the LHMP focus has been on having communities undertake and complete plans. In the next SOHMP update, there will be a much better integration, and analysis of LHMP data (see Section 4.3 on a discussion of issues related to integration) as a result of the web portal project and associated reports/functions, etc. that will be developed. In the meantime, the HIRA information from LHMPs was reviewed by taking a representative sample (30 plans) and reviewing them to “ground truth” data and assumptions made in the SOHMP. Specifically the review entailed determining which hazards were identified as the most severe threats and comparing them to the data developed from the statewide risk assessment. Also, where there was a hazard with either a specific geographic extent (subsidence due to karst topography), or where there is a known high-risk area associated with a statewide hazard (Xenia and tornadoes), LHMPs were reviewed and applicable information was included in the SOHMP.
Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction
44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The methodology for this section varies by hazard due to available data and will be more thoroughly discussed prior to the results of the section for each hazard.
Similar to the requirement to utilize vulnerability analysis information from LHMPs, LHMP data was reviewed and incorporated using the method described above.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 56
Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities
44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(ii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the state’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. State-owned or operated critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas shall be addressed. The general methodology for the development of this section is discussed below any specific variations by hazard is addressed within the specific hazard.
The State of Ohio currently maintains a partial listing of state-owned facilities located in the Risk Management Section of the Department of Administrative Services. The listing, as it exists from DAS is not sufficient for a vulnerability assessment or loss estimation. A growing number of the facilities are geocoded and many of the addresses are not sufficient to allow for automated geocoding. Considering the state owns everything from 30 story skyscrapers to sheds, the decision was made to focus on structures whose value exceeds $1 million or more has a key purpose in disaster response. Special cases exist at multi-building compound, such as prisons, while other structures were included which had lower values (or limited importance) due to their proximity to a structure meeting the thresholds.
Subsequently, the state determined which of the state-owned structures were considered to be critical facilities during a disaster. Critical facilities are defined as any facility whose services are necessary to the recovery and response operations following a disaster. Then, as disasters occurred, the Mitigation Strategy, prepared in support of the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, included activities to geocode and obtain additional information on these identified facilities so vulnerability assessments and loss estimations could be completed.
The initial effort to geocode and collect basic building information focused on Franklin and Delaware counties. These counties encompass the state capital of Columbus. The center for most state operations is located in these counties. This initial effort was completed by URS Corporation HMTAP contract with their firm. Subsequent efforts included all counties declared in DR-1507-OH, DR-1556-OH, DR-1580-OH and DR-1720-OH. The Federal Coordinating Officers for these disasters allowed mitigation DAE’s to collect the same information URS collected for the declared counties.
The most recent effort was completed by a DAE activated to specifically complete another leg of the collection effort. After consultation with members of the Ohio EMA, the decision was made to start with the largest urban areas and work to the sparsely populated counties. The target leg of the effort was greater Cleveland. This included all the surrounding counties that encompass the Cleveland Metropolitan Statistical Area.
As resources become available, the next locations to address are the greater Cincinnati area followed by Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown. Once all urban areas are complete the process with move the most populated rural counties and work until all of Ohio has been geocoded.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 57
For those counties still pending geocoding, the values of the anticipated inventory are provided. Because the State is a dynamic entity which builds, purchases, sells and razes, structures the result is an ever changing inventory. Due to the uncertainty of the actual count and value of building, only those counties which have been geocoded are used for analysis
Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities
44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The state shall estimate the potential dollar losses to state-owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. The general methodology for the development of this section is discussed below any specific variations by hazard is addressed within the specific hazard.
At this time, assessments have been completed in 20 of the 34 counties for state structures in Region 1 (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment will be completed as resources become available. Currently, there are a total of 118 state-owned structures. The value of geocoded structures in the region is $420,804,675. Out of those 85 are state-owned structures and 33 are classified as critical facilities. The value of geocoded state-owned and critical facilities in region one is $388,716,248 and $32,088,427 respectively. The county with the largest dollar exposure of state-owned facilities is Marion at $288,139,569, due to a high security prison. Seneca County has the highest dollar exposure to critical facilities at $3,271,799.
Out of Region 2, assessments have been conducted on 19 of the 25 counties (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment for the remaining counties will be completed as resources become available. Presently, there are a total of 377 state owned structures. The value of geocdoded structures in the region is $2,565,418,691. 323 structures are state-owned structures and 54 are classified as critical facilities. The value state owned and critical facilities in region one is $2,362,890,560 and $202,528,131 respectively. As would be expected, Franklin county which contains the state capital represents the lion’s share of the dollar value with $1,859,092,160 in state-owned structures and $154,972,529 in critical facilities.
Twenty-four of the 29 counties within Region 3 have been assessed for vulnerable state-owned structures and critical facilities (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment for the remaining counties will be completed in phases as resources become available. Presently, there are a total of 185 state-owned structures. The value of geocoded structures in the region is $174,461,204. 130 structures are state-owned structures and 45 are classified as critical facilities. The value of state-owned and critical facilities in region one is $312,328,458 and $34,776,160 respectively. The county with the largest dollar exposure of state-owned facilities is Belmont at $49,135,708 again due to a prison. Lawrence County has the highest dollar exposure to critical facilities at $2,115,090.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 58
UPDATE SUMMARY
The 2003 HIRA identified a comprehensive list of hazards, both manmade and natural, but only included a more complete risk assessment and vulnerability analysis for five hazards. The 2008 update includes risk assessments/vulnerability analyses on all 12 natural hazards, and one technological hazard (dam/levee failure). The developing these data was a collaborative process involving several state and Federal agencies who are deemed to be the “experts” in a particular hazard. For the 2008 update the existing analyzed hazards were reviewed for accuracy and availability of improved data. Based on the review is was determined that the tornado, winter storm, landslide and dam/levee failure hazards showed no significant changes since they were developed and decision was made to leave these unchanged until future events warrant action. The following major updates have been made:
• Severe Thunderstorms, Coastal Erosion, Wildfire, Land Subsidence, Droughts and Earthquakes are added;
• Hazardous Materials and Terrorism were removed after careful consideration of the sensitivity of the information and the potential for misuse;
• Natural Biohazards is refocused to address Invasive Species due in part to the Emerald Ash Borer infestation which occurred in the intervening time period.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 59
County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total
Allen $20,294,446 $7,966,963 $28,261,409 Ashland $10,391,165 $13,976,980 $24,368,145 Adams $0 $760,627 $760,627
Auglaize $2,027,076 $1,529,944 $3,557,020 Ashtabula $40,124,846 $3,463,499 $43,588,345 Athens $32,505,169 $2,808,250 $35,313,419
Champaign $0 $1,147,740 $1,147,740 Butler $0 $5,505,878 $5,505,878 Belmont $49,135,708 $1,347,740 $50,483,448
Clark $0 $1,050,078 $1,050,078 Cuyahoga $50,772,179 $6,213,702 $56,985,881 Brown $65,208 $970,328 $1,035,536
Clinton $0 $2,197,818 $2,197,818 Delaware $23,872,985 $7,394,232 $31,267,217 Carroll $0 $611,224 $611,224
Crawford $0 $1,143,222 $1,143,222 Fairfield $17,986,893 $766,764 $18,753,657 Clermont $3,431,946 $253,692 $3,685,638
Defiance $0 $4,340,497 $4,340,497 Franklin $1,859,092,160 $154,972,529 $2,014,064,689 Columbiana $1,568,280 $859,423 $2,427,703
Darke $0 $868,109 $868,109 Geauga $383,336 $834,720 $1,218,056 Coshocton $0 $811,244 $811,244
Erie $96,117,027 $3,489,853 $99,606,880 Greene $4,660,889 $3,011,201 $7,672,090 Gallia $17,060,839 $2,091,100 $19,151,939
Fayette $222,581 $1,051,434 $1,274,015 Hamilton $44,379,039 $5,348,848 $49,727,887 Guernsey $7,604,726 $1,347,740 $8,952,466
Fulton $0 $978,140 $978,140 Knox $18,357,401 $804,670 $19,162,071 Harrison $0 $1,057,617 $1,057,617
Hancock $450,896 $1,819,770 $2,270,666 Lake $152,384 $2,409,217 $2,561,601 Highland $0 $597,712 $597,712
Hardin $0 $1,302,642 $1,302,642 Licking $22,315,457 $1,996,725 $24,312,182 Hocking $489,094 $817,921 $1,307,015
Henry $0 $792,984 $792,984 Lorain $101,265,777 $1,046,127 $102,311,904 Holmes $0 $394,405 $394,405
Huron $0 $586,443 $586,443 Mahoning $63,773,028 $351,783 $64,124,811 Jackson $500,000 $1,266,000 $1,766,000
Logan $0 $627,344 $627,344 Medina $1,059,595 $169,000 $1,228,595 Jefferson $500,000 $1,266,000 $1,766,000
Lucas $111,043,289 $1,893,190 $112,936,479 Montgomery $70,386,516 $5,887,936 $76,274,452 Lawrence $0 $2,115,090 $2,115,090
Madison $257,920,017 $1,581,407 $259,501,424 Pickaway $214,139,019 $2,292,098 $216,431,117 Meigs $0 $1,167,669 $1,167,669
Marion $288,139,569 $648,543 $288,788,112 Portage $5,133,427 $1,793,566 $6,926,993 Monroe $0 $1,389,960 $1,389,960
Mercer $0 $1,512,930 $1,512,930 Richland $21,422,096 $1,413,370 $22,835,466 Morgan $496,641 $1,508,239 $2,004,880
Morrow $0 $1,381,740 $1,381,740 Stark $38,275,862 $1,006,516 $39,282,378 Muskingum $1,634,022 $200,000 $1,834,022
Miami $0 $5,995,119 $5,995,119 Summit $60,369,325 $3,552,785 $63,922,110 Noble $57,142,664 $969,943 $58,112,606
Ottawa $32,968,327 $2,494,800 $35,463,127 Trumbull $8,858,101 $0 $8,858,101 Perry $0 $1,385,505 $1,385,505
Paulding $0 $866,022 $866,022 Warren $59,409,389 $2,879,191 $62,288,580 Pike $0 $822,565 $822,565
Preble $0 $1,887,841 $1,887,841 Wayne $0 $946,254 $946,254 Ross $5,781,342 $2,019,777 $7,801,119
Putnam $0 $1,479,060 $1,479,060 TOTAL $2,362,890,560 $202,528,131 $2,565,418,691 Scioto $109,023,716 $1,673,596 $110,697,312
Sandusky $2,390,700 $635,000 $3,025,700 Tuscarawas $19,764,050 $1,745,600 $21,509,650
Seneca $11,557,307 $3,271,799 $14,829,106 Vinton $0 $774,725 $774,725
Shelby $5,436,099 $3,024,399 $8,460,498 White Cell ~ Geocoded Washington $5,624,640 $1,742,468 $7,367,108
Union $60,567,524 $951,936 $61,519,460 Amber Cell ~ Data Only TOTAL $146,161,665 $28,299,539 $174,461,204
Van Wert $20,750 $1,147,740 $1,168,490
Williams $0 $3,425,334 $3,425,334
Wood $7,606,913 $4,723,866 $12,330,778
Wyandot $0 $699,287 $699,287
TOTAL $388,716,248 $32,088,427 $420,804,675Additional county inventories will be completed as oportunities arise.
Table 2.1.a
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
Total State Owned Structure and Critical Facility Information by Region
Legend
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 60
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY
The hazards evaluated in the SOHMP to determine whether they could potentially affect the state include:
1) Coastal Erosion 2) Droughts
3) Earthquakes 4) Floods
5) Storm Surges 6) Landslides
7) Land Subsidence 8) Natural Biohazards (Invasive Species)
9) Severe Thunderstorms 10) Windstorms
11) Hailstorms 12) Severe Winter/Ice Storms
13) Tornadoes 14) Wildfire
15) Tropical Cyclones 16) Snow Avalanches
17) Extreme Summer Weather 18) Expansive Soils
19) Tsunami 20) Volcano
21) Dam Failure 22) HAZMAT
23) Terrorism 24) Urban Fire
25) Nuclear Accidents
The list was more closely examined, paying special attention to the likelihood of future occurrence and the fact that many of the identified hazards are interrelated (i.e., landslides can be a result of flooding). Following this, the list of hazards was pared down to the hazards that are most likely to affect the state and are most likely to pose a more serious threat.
For the purpose of ranking hazards affecting the state, in order of importance for mitigating their effects, a hazard index was assigned (see Table 2.1.a) on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest priority for considering mitigation goals (highest, high, medium, low, and lowest). This index takes into account the anticipated frequency of occurrence (see Table 2.1.b), the specific consequences of impact (see Table 2.1.c) and if there has been a past declaration for that particular hazard. This is not meant to be a scientific process, but will serve as a way to prioritize mitigation goals based on the potential frequency and likely extent of damage from hazards known to affect the state.
It is important to note that HIRAs are developed for many different purposes. For the purposes of emergency planning and similar functions, a document called the 2007 Ohio HIRA has also been produced. The 2007 Ohio HIRA (Appendix Y) prioritizes hazards utilizing criteria developed to facilitate emergency planning. These criteria include frequency, duration, speed of onset, magnitude, impact on business, impact on people, and impact on property. This method assigns a numerical value to vulnerability based on the criteria of impacts on businesses,
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 61
people, and property. The 2007 Ohio HIRA places more emphasis on life safety issues versus the HIRA performed for the SOHMP which places a similarly high priority on property/facility damage. Also, the 2007 HIRA evaluates manmade hazards. This data is valuable as it is another method to “ground truth” the data in the SOHMP HIRA.
Table 2.1.a
Impact
Frequency of
Occurrence
Highly Likely 5 (Highest) 4 (High) 4 (High) 3 (Medium)
Likely 5 (Highest) 4 (High) 3 (Medium) 2 (Low)
Possible 4 (High) 3 (Medium) 2 (Low) 2 (Low)
Unlikely 3 (Medium) 2 (Low) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest)
Highly
Unlikely2 (Low) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest)
Source: FEMA, 1997
Hazard Index Ranking
Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Table 2.1.b
Highly Likely Near 100 Percent probability in the next year.
LikelyBetween 10 and 100 percent probability in the next year, or at least one
chance in the next 10 years.
PossibleBetween 1 and 10 percent probability in the next year, or at least one
chance in the next 100 years.
UnlikelyLess than 1 percent probability iun the next year of less than once chance
in the next 100 years.
Highly Unlikely Little to no probability in next 100 years.
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: FEMA, 1997
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 62
Table 2.1.c
CatastrophicMultiple Deaths, complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more, more than 50 percent of property is severely damaged.
CriticalMultiple severe injuries, complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least 2 weeks, more than 25 percent of property is severely damaged.
LimitedSome injuries, complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week, more than 10 percent of property severely damaged.
NegligibleMinor injuries, minimal quality-of-life impact, shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less, less than 10 percent of property is severely damaged.
Consequences of Impact
Source: FEMA, 1997
Table 2.1.d
HazardPast Federal
DeclarationsFrequency Impcat Hazard Ranking
Coastal Erosion No Highly Likely Negligible 3
Droughts No Likely Negligible 2
Earthquakes No Possible Limited 2
Floods Yes Highly Likely Critical 4
Seiche / Coastal Flooding No Likely Limited 3
Landslides Yes Highly Likely Limited 4
Land Subsidence No Possible Negligible 2
Invasive Species No Highly Likely Limited 4
Severe Thunderstorms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4
Windstorms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4
Hailstorms No Likely Negligible 2
Severe Winter/Ice Storms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4
Tornadoes Yes Highly Likely Critical 4
Wildfire No Likely Limited 3
Tropical Cyclones No Unlikely Negligible 1
Snow Avalanches No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1
Extreme Summer Weather No Likely Negligible 2
Expansive Soils No Unlikely Negligible 1
Tsunami No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1
Volcano No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1
Dam Failure No Possible Critical 3
Hazardous Materials Events No Likely Negligible 2
Terrorism No Unlikely Critical 2
Urban Fire No Highly Likely Negligible 3
Hazard Ranking Assessment
Natural Hazards
Technological Hazards
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 63
Once the hazard ranking was complete an assessment was conducted to narrow the field of hazards (see Table 2.1.d). Several hazards were deleted from the list based on the unlikelihood of occurrence and the potential for a negligible impact on the state should they occur. These include tropical cyclones, snow avalanches, extreme summer weather, expansive soils, tsunami events, and volcano events. Other hazards were combined, as many of them are factors in larger hazards. The final hazard list included 15 hazards, which are listed in order of importance below.
• Flooding (4) – which includes flash flooding, normal riverine flooding. There have been numerous past declarations for this disaster.
• Seiche / Coastal Flooding (4) – this is a geographically specific hazard for areas bordering Lake Erie. There have been no past declarations for this disaster.
• Tornadoes (4) – which includes windstorms. There have been several past declarations for tornados and high wind events as a result of severe thunderstorms.
• Landslides (4) – which includes road slips and mudslides. There have been several declarations for this type of disaster many as a result of severe flooding.
• Winter Storms (4) – which includes snowstorms, ice storms and any other winter precipitation. There have been declarations for this type of disaster.
• Severe Summer Storms (4) – these storms have a higher ranking than dam failure simply because there are many factors associated with severe thunderstorms. In Ohio the primary disaster factors for severe thunderstorms have been flooding, tornadoes, high wind events, and landslides all of which have been addressed separately. Other aspects of sever thunderstorms (hail and lightning) are not as pressing in the overall mitigation process.
• Invasive Species (4) – There have been no federal declarations for invasive species to date.
• Dam / Levee Failure (3) – Though dam-failure is not at the top of the ranking chart it is still considered an important hazard as it has a significant impact on flooding.
• Coastal Erosion (3) –Erosion from coastal storms and normal Lake Erie fluctuations.
• Wildfire (3) – there have been no federal declarations for wildfire to date.
• Land Subsidence (2) – there have been no federal declarations for land subsidence to date.
• Droughts (2) – there have been no federal declarations for droughts to date.
• Earthquakes (2) – there have been no federal declarations for earthquakes to date.
State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 64
• Hazardous Materials (2) – which includes nuclear accidents. There have been no federal declarations for HAZMAT events to date.
• Terrorism (2) – there have been no federal declarations directly referred to as terrorism in the past. However, in August 2003 there was a declaration related to power outage, which initiated in Cleveland and spanned across a good portion of the northern United States and southern Canada. This grid could be considered a major target in future terrorist activities and should be planned for accordingly.
This plan discusses each of the hazards in more detail with the exception of two technological hazards that were previously mentioned in the 2003 SOHMP – terrorism and hazardous materials. It is felt that these two hazards are better addressed in ongoing homeland security and emergency management planning efforts and are represented in the 2007 Ohio HIRA.
According to the Ohio HIRA, the following are the top ten hazards (ranking score in parenthesis): Windstorm/tornado (24.25), Flood/flash flood/seiche (22.75), emerging disease (21.75), earthquake (7.9 magnitude) (21.25), building/structure collapse (20.75), landslide/mudslide/subsidence (19.25), snow/ice/hail/sleet (19.25), terrorism (19), product defect or contamination (18.75), and extreme temperature (heat and cold) (18.5). These tend to correspond fairly well with the hazards profiled in the SOHMP HIRA, with the exception of earthquake (scenario in the Ohio HIRA different than in the SOHMP HIRA), invasive species, and terrorism.