Docstoc

Hazard Mitigation Plan

Document Sample
Hazard Mitigation Plan Powered By Docstoc
					City of Bristol, Tennessee
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan




August 2006


Prepared by:
AMEC Earth & Environmental
3800 Ezell Rd Suite 100
Nashville, TN 37211
1      INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................4
       1.1  Community Profile .........................................................................5
            Geography – Location and Area ......................................................5
            Climate.............................................................................................5
            Physical Features and Land Use .....................................................6
            Population........................................................................................6
            Economic Development ...................................................................7
       1.2  Mitigation Planning Background ..................................................8
       1.3  LHMP Timeline ...............................................................................8
       1.4  Partnerships...................................................................................8

2      PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................10
       2.1 Local Government / Community Participation ..........................10
       2.2 The Planning Process .................................................................11

3      RISK ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................16
       3.1  Risks .............................................................................................16
       3.2  Federally Declared Disasters......................................................18
            3.2.1 Natural Hazards .................................................................20
                   3.2.1.1 Dam Failures .........................................................20
                   3.2.1.2 Flooding Hazard.....................................................23
                               Riverine Flooding ...................................................23
                               Small System Flooding...........................................23
                   3.2.1.3 Geological Hazards ................................................25
                               Earthquakes ...........................................................25
                               Landslides ..............................................................29
                               Sinkholes and Subsidence .....................................31
                   3.2.1.4 Infestations.............................................................33
                   3.2.1.5 Severe Weather Hazards .......................................36
                               Drought...................................................................36
                               Wildfires..................................................................39
                               Extreme Temperatures...........................................41
                               Severe Thunderstorms/Hailstorms .........................44
                               Tornadoes ..............................................................47
                               Severe Winter/Ice Storms.......................................50
            3.2.2 Manmade Hazards..............................................................54
                   3.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials Spills.....................................54
                   3.2.2.2 Terrorism................................................................55
       3.3   Vulnerability Assessment ..........................................................57
            3.3.1 Critical Facilities .................................................................57
            3.3.2 Historical and Natural Resources.......................................57
            3.3.3 Development Trends..........................................................60
            3.3.4 Vulnerability Assessment Methodology .............................61
                   Dam Failure ........................................................................62
                   Flooding Hazards ................................................................62
                   Geological Hazards.............................................................64
                                                                                                          Page 2 of 121
City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                                           August 2006
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 1 – Introduction
                     Infestations..........................................................................66
                     Severe Weather – Drought .................................................66
                     Severe Weather – Other .....................................................66
                     Manmade Hazards – Hazardous Materials Spills................67
                     Manmade Hazards – Terrorism...........................................69
                     Bristol Motor Speedway ......................................................73
       3.4      Capability Assessment................................................................75

4      MITIGATION STRATEGY ........................................................................80
       4.1  Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................80
            4.1.1 Goals...................................................................................80
            4.1.2 Action Plan ..........................................................................81
            4.1.3 Other Action Items Considered ...........................................92

5      PLAN ADOPTION....................................................................................94

6      IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS...........................96
       6.1  Implementation ............................................................................96
       6.2  Incorporation................................................................................97
       6.3  Public Participation .....................................................................97
       6.4  Maintenance .................................................................................97

7      APPENDIX A – Resources .....................................................................98

8      APPENDIX B – Executed Resolution (Plan Adoption)......................100

9      APPENDIX C – LHMT Members and Meetings ...................................102

10     APPENDIX D – General Public Meetings ............................................110




                                                                                                      Page 3 of 121
City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                                       August 2006
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 1 – Introduction
1 Introduction

As part of the overall community planning effort for hazard mitigation, the City of Bristol,
Tennessee, has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) pursuant to the requirements
of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) and the regulations published in the Federal
Register Volume 67, Number 38, Tuesday, February 26, 2002. Section 104 of DMA revises the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by adding Section 322, which
provides new and revitalized emphasis on hazard mitigation, including adding a new
requirement for local mitigation plans. These new local mitigation planning regulations are
implemented through 44 CFR Part 201.6.

Hazard mitigation planning is a requirement for state and local governments in order to maintain
eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs.
Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk
to human life and property from hazards. Hazard mitigation planning is the process through
which the natural hazards that threaten communities are identified, the likely impacts of those
hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies that would lessen
the impacts are identified, prioritized, and implemented.

Proactive hazard mitigation planning at the local level can help reduce the cost of disaster
response and recovery to property owners and governments by protecting critical community
facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption.

In accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, this LHMP analyzes the effects of
hazards on the community, recognizes the resources and mitigation programs available to the
community, and develops the strategies necessary to lessen or eliminate the effects. This plan
identifies and describes local authorities and programs that are currently in place to mitigate
vulnerability to hazards1. While the Disaster Mitigation Act only requires that the LHMP address
natural hazards, this plan also addresses technological and man-made hazards to the extent
possible. Aspects of technological and man-made hazards considered to be sensitive are
included as reference only in this document.

The LHMP was developed under the guidance of a local hazard mitigation core team comprised
of key City staff and appropriate local government entities. Input was received from additional
staff from adjacent jurisdictions, key public sectors, and the general public.

This plan will be integrated into other planning documents used by the community to guide
growth and to address emergency responses.




1
    TEMA 2003, Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.
                                                                                    Page 4 of 121
    City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                     August 2006
    Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Section 1 – Introduction
1.1   Community Profile

Geography – Location and Area

The City of Bristol, Tennessee is located at the northern limit of Sullivan County, Tennessee,
and adjoins Bristol, Virginia. In 1901, the City Councils of Bristol, Tennessee and Virginia
together designated State Street, Bristol's main thoroughfare, as the state line. Each side of the
street has its own government and city services, but together, they form an important industrial
center to the area that manufactures metal goods, textiles and electronic products.

The community of Bristol, Tennessee, encompasses 29.6 square miles (see Figure 1.1).
Interstate 81 ties Bristol to important population centers such as Knoxville, Tennessee (118
miles west) and Roanoke, Virginia (143 miles east). Interstate highways 77 and 40 connect with
1-81 within 73 miles of Bristol, and Interstate 26 is approximately 25 miles south of Bristol.




                                Figure 1.1 City of Bristol Location Map

Climate

Bristol enjoys a climate with four distinct, moderate seasons. According to the Southeast
Region Climate Center, annual average temperatures range from 44.8 to 67.0 degrees
Fahrenheit with an average summer temperature of 73.5 degrees and an average winter
temperature of 37.6 degrees. The average annual precipitation is 42.0 inches. Table 1-1
presents monthly normal climate statistics for the community.


                                                                                     Page 5 of 121
 City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                      August 2006
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
 Section 1 – Introduction
         Table 1.1 Average Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation for the City of Bristol

    Period of Record :
                              Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep                       Oct Nov Dec Annual
   8/1/1948 to 3/31/2004
  Average Temperature
                              35.5 38.9 46.5 55.6 64.2 71.6 75.0 73.9 67.9              56.9 46.4 38.3    55.9
            (°F)
Average Max Temperature
                              45.2 49.5 58.1 67.9 76.1 82.8 85.5 84.8 79.4              69.4 57.7 48.1    67.0
            (°F)
Average Min Temperature
                              25.9 28.4 34.9 43.4 52.3 60.4 64.5 63.1 56.4              44.4 35.1 28.4    44.8
            (°F)
Average Total Precipitation
                              3.6 3.6 4.0 3.4 4.0 3.7 4.5 3.5 2.9                       2.3   3.1   3.5   42.0
           (in.)
 Average Total Snowfall
                              5.7 4.6 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0                       0.0   1.1   2.9   17.1
           (in.)
Source: Southeast Regional Climate Center (http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/climate/sercc/)


    Physical Features and Land Use

    In the outlying areas of Sullivan County, forested areas are intermixed with farms, pastures and
    rural residential areas. As expected, suburban type developments (subdivisions and associated
    commercial areas) are more prevalent nearest the two cities, Kingsport and Bristol.

    The terrain in the City of Bristol can be described as rolling hills, with frequent steep, and
    sometimes rocky, slopes. Sullivan County lies within the East Tennessee Seismic Zone, and
    obvious karst features, such as sinkholes and pinnacled rocks, are common. The area has an
    elevated potential for earthquakes, although the vast majority of earthquakes that do occur have
    had a relatively low magnitude when compared to those that occur in the western United States.

    Population

    Bristol is included within the Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol TN-VA Metropolitan Statistical Area
    (MSA). Historical population data is presented in Table 1.2 for both the City of Bristol and the
    MSA.




                                                                                               Page 6 of 121
     City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                                August 2006
     Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
     Section 1 – Introduction
            Table 1.2 Population Data for the Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA
                                 Metropolitan Statistical Area

                                   Annual                                      Annual
                        Bristol                  MSA           Population
            Date                     %                                           %
                      Population               Population       Change
                                   Change                                      Change
            1900          n/a1       n/a         150,613            -             -
            1910           n/a       n/a         170,605         19,992          1.3
            1920           n/a       n/a         188,718         18,113          1.0
            1930           n/a       n/a         229,781         41,063          2.0
            1940           n/a       n/a         273,448         43,667          1.8
            1950           n/a       n/a         324,976         51,528          1.7
            1960           n/a       n/a         347,132         22,156          0.7
            1970         20,064       -          372,876         25,744          0.7
            1980         23,986     19.5         433,638         60,762          1.5
            1990         23,421     -2.4         436,047          2,409          0.1
            2000         24,821      6.0         480,091         44,044          1.0
        1
         Information not available.
        Source: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's State of the Cities Data System
        (SOCDS). (http://socds.huduser.org/quicklink/screen2.odb?statestring=47)

Economic Development

Industrial and concentrated business areas in Sullivan County are located almost exclusively
within Bristol and Kingsport.       Bristol's industrial base includes batteries, electronics,
pharmaceuticals, mining machinery, aluminum products, compressors, apparel, textiles, and
food products. Major industries in Bristol include King Pharmaceutical, Glaxo, and Exide.

The Tri-Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area reports a labor force of 234,000. Both Virginia and
Tennessee are right-to-work states and most industries in the Tri-Cities are non-union. There
have been no manufacturing work stoppages in the last six years. The Greater Tri-Cities
Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc. provides regional business and industry the opportunity to compete in
a global marketplace. Seven Foreign-Trade Zone sites and a Tri-Cities Regional Airport-based
U.S. Customs Station have been established to provide the foundation for international trade
opportunities.

Furthermore, Bristol has the uncommon distinction of being home to the Bristol Motor
Speedway. The facility can seat 160,000 people and fills to capacity at least twice per year
when NASCAR Nextel Cup Series events are held. Additionally, the NASCAR Busch Series
events, Craftsman Truck Series events, and Goody’s Dash Series events draw large numbers
of spectators to the Bristol Motor Speedway.

In general, while much of Sullivan County can be characterized as rural, the City of Bristol has
encountered steady population growth over the past two decades due to its proximity and easy
access to the region’s population centers. Bristol is a transportation center served by more that
50 motor freight carriers and one railroad company.



                                                                                    Page 7 of 121
 City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                     August 2006
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
 Section 1 – Introduction
1.2   Mitigation Planning Background

The City of Bristol has historically worked cooperatively on emergency management issues,
including hazard mitigation planning, with the surrounding communities of Sullivan County, the
City of Kingsport, the City of Bluff City, and the City of Bristol, VA. The Sullivan County
communities developed a Regional Core Planning Team (RCPT) and have worked
cooperatively in the development of their Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP).

Sullivan County, Kingsport and Bristol have been working cooperatively on hazard mitigation
planning since 1996. In 2002, the Local Hazard Mitigation RCPT began preparation of a hazard
mitigation planning grant application. This RCPT of County and City staff met regularly
throughout 2003 to begin the development of the LHMP document, pooling resources, and other
organizing activities.

In late 2003, the City of Bristol submitted a hazard mitigation planning grant application, and it
was approved in January 2004. In March 2004, Bristol contracted with AMEC Earth and
Environmental to develop a LHMP separately for Bristol. While Bristol’s LHMP is a stand-alone
document separate from the Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP for Sullivan County, and the Cities of
Kingsport and Bluff City, both plans were developed through a coordinated effort. It is the
desire of all communities within Sullivan County to integrate the plans into one Countywide
LHMP during the plan maintenance process. To develop the Bristol LHMP, a Core Planning
Team within the City was identified, as well as key stakeholders within the City and Bristol Motor
Speedway staff.

The plan development was delayed in 2004, as City GIS staff attended HAZUS training and
obtained a copy of the HAZUS-MH software.

1.3     LHMP Timeline

As noted above, the development of the Bristol LHMP began in early 2004. Several Core
Planning, Local Hazard Mitigation Team, general public stakeholder meetings were held in early
spring to gather input on the risks and strategies. City staff then attended HAZUS-MH training
during the summer, obtained the HAZUS software in the fall, and obtained an ESRI license in
early winter to facilitate vulnerability analysis.

1.4     Partnerships

Sullivan County, Bristol, Kingsport and Bluff City form the Regional Core Planning Team
(RCPT) and were partners in the process of developing both LHMPs. For this LHMP, Bristol
partnered with Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS) staff to develop mitigation strategies specific to
BMS.

Other local agencies and private entities that have been involved as Local Hazard Mitigation
Team members include the Tennessee Valley Authority, Local and State Parks Departments,
the TriCities Regional Airport Authority, local electric/water/wastewater utilities, Exide, and King
Pharmaceutical. It is anticipated that additional partnering opportunities with these team
members will be identified later in the plan implementation and maintenance processes.



                                                                                      Page 8 of 121
 City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                                       August 2006
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
 Section 1 – Introduction
                               This page intentionally left blank.




                                                                     Page 9 of 121
City of Bristol, Tennessee
                                                                      August 2006
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Section 1 – Introduction
2 Planning Process

As noted previously, two groups have facilitated hazard mitigation planning in Bristol: the Core
Planning Team (CPT) and the Local Hazard Mitigation Team (LHMT). The CPT includes the
following members:

                                  Table 2.1 Core Planning Team


                  Team Member                                  Title
               William L. Sorah          Deputy City Manager - Operations
               Velma Witte               Sec. Dept. of Operations
               Blaine Wade               Police Chief
               Gary Whitaker             Deputy Fire Chief
               Phil Vinson               Fire Chief
               Michael Sparks            Deputy City Manager - Development Services
               Tim Beavers               City Engineer

The CPT decided to address both natural and technological/manmade hazards in the hazard
mitigation planning process, since the potential for technological/manmade hazards has
increased over the past several years. While the risk is relatively low for international terrorism
to occur in Bristol, domestic terrorism risks are relatively higher, and the potential lifelines
disrupted by technological and manmade disasters could be economically devastating.

Members of the LHMT were involved in the planning process and in the development of goals
and objectives. Appendix C contains a listing of all LHMT members. Members were involved in
gathering data and information, providing input on risk assessment, and developing and
prioritizing objectives for each community.


2.1       Local Government / Community Participation

The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each local government seeking the
required FEMA approval of their mitigation plan must:

      •   Participate in the process;
      •   Detail areas within the Planning Area where the risk differs from that facing the entire
          area;
      •   Identify specific projects to be eligible for funding; and
      •   Have the Governing Board formally adopt the plan.

For the City of Bristol, “participation” means the local government representatives will:

      •   Attend the CPT and/or LHMT meetings;
      •   Provide available data;
      •   Review and provide/coordinate comments on the Draft plans;
      •   Advertise, coordinate and participate in the Public Input process; and
 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 10 of 121
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
 Section 2 – Planning Process
      •   Coordinate the formal adoption of the plan by City Council.

Bristol also provided vulnerability analyses, including the HAZUS-MH analysis for inclusion in
this document.


2.2       The Planning Process

AMEC established the process for the hazard mitigation planning effort utilizing the DMA
planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a
4-phase process. AMEC also integrated an older, more detailed 10-step planning process that
was still required at the time this effort was initiated for other FEMA mitigation plans, such as for
FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs.
Thus, AMEC formulated a single planning process that melds these two sets of planning
requirements together and meets the requirements of six major programs: DMA, CRS, FMA,
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), FEMA’s Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM),
and new flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The
graphics below show how the old 10-step process fits within the new four-phase process.




                     Figure 2.1 Hazard Mitigation 10-Step Planning Process

      1) Get Organized. AMEC and the CPT coordinated document reviews and staff
         interviews. The City had some data in house from previous Hazard Mitigation Plans.
         AMEC collected additional data through website research, community document
         reviews, TEMA discussions and LHMT interviews.

             a. CPT – comprised of City and County staff. The CPT served as the lead group
                throughout the development of the Plan. This group decided the goals and
                objectives of the Plan, identified potential local hazards, provided first-hand
                accounts of historical disasters and other major hazard events that were notable,
                performed vulnerability assessments and created impact maps, reviewed all
                drafts of the Plan, and coordinated meetings with other stakeholders throughout
                the development of the Plan. This team formed in 2003 and participated in
                meetings as a group or with other stakeholders on multiple occasions.
 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 11 of 121
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
 Section 2 – Planning Process
           b. LHMT – comprised of key private companies and governmental agencies. The
              LHMT functioned in support to the CPT. The LHMT members provided
              information regarding how the identified hazards might affect their facilities and
              what measures are in place already to prevent or to handle certain hazards. In
              some cases, they provided information about specific historical disasters or major
              hazardous events that impacted their facilities or the area in which their facility
              was located. Appendix C contains sign-in sheets and meeting minutes for this
              stakeholder level.


   2) Involve the public. In addition to members of the CPT and the LHMT, local
      businesses, academia, non-profit organizations, interested parties, and the general
      public were invited to participate in the development of the Plan. Stakeholders included
      the TriCities Regional Airport Authority, local electric/water/wastewater utilities, Bristol
      Motor Speedway, Exide, and King Pharmaceutical.

       Copies of the Plan and comment forms for submittal were available to the public in the
       Planning Commission office, local libraries, and City of Bristol website
       (http://www.bristoltn.org/) prior to the public meetings. Appendix D contains community
       calendar, meeting minutes and sign-in sheets from meetings with the general public.

       Before submitting the LHMP to TEMA, the CPT conducted a public meeting on March
       21, 2004, on the draft LHMP to discuss the plan and receive comments. Public notice of
       the Planning Commission Meeting was given on the City of Bristol website
       (http://www.bristoltn.org/calendar/12monthcalendar.html).

       Copies of the final Plan were available to the public on August 25, 2006 for one week in
       the local library, the Sullivan County EMA office and on the city’s website
       (http://www.bristoltn.org/) for review and comment. The public was notified via legal
       notice in the local newspaper and on the city’s website as to where and when the Plan
       was available for review. A suggestion envelope, postal and email addresses were
       provided to the public at each location to assist with submitting responses. Any
       comments received were reviewed and all appropriate suggestions were incorporated
       into the final Plan prior to submission to TEMA.

   3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies. Early in the planning process,
      AMEC and the CPT determined that data collection, mitigation and action strategy
      development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting other state and
      federal agencies to participate in the planning process. Based on their involvement in
      hazard mitigation planning, representatives from the following key agencies were offered
      inclusion as members of the CPT:

       •   Tennessee Emergency Management Agency;
       •   Tennessee Valley Authority;
       •   Tennessee State Parks; and
       •   Tennessee Department of Transportation.

       In addition, technical data, reports, and studies were obtained from these and other
       agencies either through web-based resources or directly from the agencies.
City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 12 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 2 – Planning Process
   4) Identify the Hazard(s). AMEC and the LHMT gathered information on potential risks
      incurred in the area. These hazards were then prioritized based upon the likelihood of
      future occurrences, the level of damage from past events, and a community’s ability to
      reduce the threat. The following potential natural and manmade hazards have been
      identified for the City:




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                    Page 13 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                    August 2006
Section 2 – Planning Process
               NATURAL HAZARDS
                 Dam Failures;
                 Flood Hazards, which include:
                     o Riverine flooding
                     o Small system flooding
                 Geological Hazards, which include:
                     o Earthquakes,
                     o Landslides, and
                     o Sinkholes and subsidence;
                 Infestations; and
                 Severe Weather Hazards, which include:
                     o Droughts,
                     o Wildfires,
                     o Extreme temperatures,
                     o Severe thunderstorms and hail storms,
                     o Tornadoes, and
                     o Winter storms.

               MANMADE HAZARDS
                 Hazardous materials spills; and
                    Terrorism.

   5) Assess the Risks. AMEC and the CPT utilized existing data and created data for use
      in the vulnerability and capability assessment to describe the impact that each identified
      hazard would have upon the City of Bristol and to determine the current ability of the
      community to mitigate the hazards through existing policies, regulations, programs, and
      procedures. Hazard areas were specifically identified and included on GIS for the City.
      The tax appraisal database was then incorporated into the GIS system to accurately
      estimate dollar amount losses. Assumptions that affect the cost estimates or risks were
      identified for each hazard area.

   6) Set Planning Goals. Planning goals were established to incorporate improvement
      areas identified in Step 5 into the Mitigation Plan. Through a series of meetings, the
      CPT and LHMT identified goals and objectives that:

       •   Represent basic desires of the community;
       •   Encompass all aspects of the community, public and private;
       •   Are nonspecific, in that they refer to the quality (not the quantity) of the outcome;
       •   Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and
       •   Are time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.

       Additionally, goals from other community programs and priorities were identified and
       discussed. This Multi-Objective Management (MOM) assisted the CPT in striving for
       efficiency by combining projects/needs from various community programs and plans that
       are similar in nature or location. Combining projects/needs through MOM effectively
       results in access to multiple sources of funding to solve problems that can be
       “packaged” and broadens the supporting constituency base by striving towards
       outcomes desired by multiple stakeholder groups.



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 14 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 2 – Planning Process
   7) Review Possible Activities. After developing the goals, the LHMT and CPT undertook
      a brainstorming session to generate a set of viable alternatives that would support the
      selected goals. The CPT focused on the following categories of mitigation measures:

       •   Prevention;
       •   Property Protection;
       •   Structural Projects;
       •   Natural Resource Protection;
       •   Emergency Services; and
       •   Public Information.

       A facilitated discussion examined and analyzed potential alternatives. Similar to the
       goal-setting activity, the LHMT and CPT included previously recommended mitigation
       actions from existing community plans in its review that had not been completed. After
       old and new mitigation actions had been identified, the CPT members used a FEMA
       recommended decision-making process to prioritize mitigation measures.

   8) Draft an Action Plan. The prioritized mitigation measures were further developed into
      an action plan that identifies the following for each measure:

       •   Responsible office;
       •   Priority (high, medium, or low);
       •   Cost estimate;
       •   Benefit to the community;
       •   Potential funding sources; and
       •   Schedule for completion.

   9) Adopt the Plan. After the LHMP has been finalized, the governing body of the City of
      Bristol will adopt the plan by resolution.

   10) Implement the Plan, Evaluate its Worth, and Revise as needed. Step 10 is critical to
       the overall success of Hazard Mitigation Planning. Upon adoption, the Mitigation Plan
       faces the truest test of its worth, implementation. Many worthwhile and high priority
       mitigation actions have been recommended. The CPT must decide which action to
       undertake based upon priority and available funding.

       In addition, the Mitigation Plan requires maintenance. There will be an ongoing effort to
       monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan, and to update the plan as
       progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized. Maintenance efforts
       will also focus on integrating this Bristol-specific LHMP with the Sullivan County multi-
       jurisdictional LHMP.

       As members of the Bristol CPT are also on the Sullivan County CRPT, both teams will
       meet at least annually to discuss updates, revisions, integration of the two plans, and
       status of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as to continue coordinating
       implementation of the plans. It is anticipated that the Bristol LHMT will continue to
       provide input.



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 15 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 2 – Planning Process
                               This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                           Page 16 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                           August 2006
Section 2 – Planning Process
3 Risk Assessment

3.1      Risks

This section outlines the potential natural and manmade hazards risks identified for the City of
Bristol. The following potential natural and manmade hazards have been identified for the City:

      NATURAL HAZARDS
        Dam Failures;
        Flood Hazards,
            o Riverine flooding
            o Small system flooding
        Geological Hazards, which include:
            o Earthquakes,
            o Landslides, and
            o Sinkholes and subsidence;
        Infestations; and
        Severe Weather Hazards, which include:
            Droughts,
            o Wildfires,
            o Extreme temperatures,
            o Severe thunderstorms and hail storms,
            o Tornadoes, and
            o Winter storms.

      MANMADE HAZARDS
        Hazardous materials spills; and
        Terrorism.

The City of Bristol is located in Sullivan County in northeast Tennessee, more than 400 miles
from the eastern coastline. Because of the geographic location, coastal hazards such as
hurricanes, tsunamis, coastal erosion, or storms are not potential hazards. While the outer rain
bands of east coast hurricanes have the potential to reach the area, hurricane force winds do
not. Therefore, these risks were not included in this LHMP.

The CPT and LHMT ranked the potential hazards in order of highest to lowest priority. The
designations H, M and L were used for high, medium, and low rankings. Table 3.1 lists the
hazards and ranking as identified by the LHMT. The actual ranking refers to how the hazard
realistically applies to the community, and this ranking considers the following factors:

         •   Likelihood of future occurrences;
         •   Level of damages from past events;
         •   Ability to reduce threat.

The Perceived ranking refers to the public’s perception of the hazard. Major differences
between perceived and actual rankings may indicate that education is needed to address the
hazard.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 16 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                        August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                               Table 3.1 Hazard Ranking by LHMT

                                                          Rank,   Rank,
                                   Hazard               Perceived Actual
                    Dam failures                            L       M
                                          Flood Hazards
                    River flooding                          L       L
                    Small system flooding                   H       H
                                       Geological Hazards
                    Earthquakes                             L       H
                    Landslides                              L       L
                    Sinkholes/subsidence                    L       L
                    Infestations                            L       L
                                     Severe Weather Hazards
                    Drought                                 L       L
                    Wild fires                              M       L
                    Extreme Temperatures                    M       M
                    Severe thunderstorms                    M       M
                    Tornadoes                               M       M
                    Severe winter storms/ice storms         H       M
                                       Manmade Hazards
                    Hazardous materials spills              L       H
                    Terrorism                               L       H


Based upon the actual (rather than perceived) hazard ranking, the following hazards were
considered medium to moderate to high priority hazards:

        Dam failures
        Small system flooding;
        Earthquakes;
        Severe weather (thunderstorms, winter storms, tornadoes);
        Hazardous materials spills; and
        Terrorism.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                 Page 17 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                 August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.2       Federally Declared Disasters

Since TEMA has been established, communities in Sullivan County have had few federally
declared disasters and rank among the lowest for disaster declarations in Tennessee. The
disaster declarations were based upon winter storm damage and “piggy-backed” existing
disaster declarations. Details of the disaster declarations are below:

      •   FEMA – DR - 1167: March 1997. Disaster Declaration for severe storms and ice.
          $739,700 in disaster funds given to Sullivan County communities.
      •   FEMA – DR - 1197: January 1998. Disaster Declaration for severe snow and ice storm.
          $1,788,269.50 in disaster funding provided.
      •   FEMA – DR - 1215: April/May 1998. Disaster Declaration for straightline winds, hail.
          $178,600 in disaster funding provided. This disaster was combined with PRS1197.

It is also important to note that the federal government may issue a disaster declaration through
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and/or the Small Business Administration, as well as through
FEMA. The quantity and types of damage are the factors that determine whether such
declarations are issued.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides assistance to farmers and other rural
residents, as the result of natural disasters. Agricultural-related disasters are quite common.
One-half to two-thirds of the counties in the United States have been designated as disaster
areas in each of the past several years. Agricultural producers may apply for low-interest
emergency loans in counties named as primary or contiguous in a disaster designation.

USDA Secretarial disaster designations must be requested of the Secretary of Agriculture by a
governor or the governor’s authorized representative, or by an Indian Tribal Council leader.
According to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Sullivan County has been eligible for the
following USDA Secretarial disaster designations:

      •   S 1978: November 2004. Storms, including remnants of Hurricane Frances and Ivan
          that occurred from September 1, 2004 and continuing, for 22 counties in the state of
          Tennessee. Sullivan County was named as a contiguous county where eligible family
          farmers may qualify for FSA, EM loan assistance, pursuant to section 321(a) of the
          Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Eligibility is due to losses caused by
          Primary counties are Washington and Greene Counties. Emergency loan application will
          be received through July 18, 2005.
      •   M 1568: September 2004. Damages and losses caused by severe storms and flooding,
          that occurred from September 16-20, 2004. Sullivan County was declared as a
          contiguous county disaster area. Emergency loan application will be received through
          June 7, 2005, for physical and production losses.
      •   S 1864: April 2003. Emergency loan applications were received through September 23,
          2004 for this disaster declaration. Sullivan County was designated a primary county for
          EM loans for losses caused by excessive rain that occurred April 1, 2003 and continuing.


The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides disaster assistance to families and
businesses through its Disaster Assistance Program. The mission of this program is to offer
financial assistance to those who are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses in the
aftermath of a disaster. By offering low-interest loans, the SBA is committed to long-term


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 18 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
recovery efforts. SBA is also committed to mitigation, and has additional loan programs to help
reduce future losses.

A state governor may request an SBA declaration. When the governor’s request for assistance
is received, a survey of the damaged area(s) is conducted with state and local officials, and the
results are submitted to the Administrator for a decision. When the Administrator of SBA
declares an area, both primary and adjacent counties are eligible for the same assistance.

SBA will make a physical disaster declaration or economic injury disaster declaration.
Currently, Sullivan County is eligible for one SBA Declaration:

    •   SBA #9AM4 – September 2004. Storms including remnants of Hurricanes Frances and
        Ivan that occurred September 1, 2004 and continuing. Small businesses located in the
        Sullivan may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. These
        are working capital loans to help the business continue to meet its obligations until the
        business returns to normal conditions. Physical damages cannot be covered by these
        loans. Only small, non-farm agriculture dependent businesses and small agricultural
        cooperatives are eligible to apply for assistance. The filing deadline for economic injury
        loan applications is July 18, 2005.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 19 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.2.1    Natural Hazards

Natural hazards are those hazards that are not precipitated by man. This section provides an
overview of natural hazards, notes their applicability to the City of Bristol, documents historic
hazard events and estimates the probabilities for each event happening in the City of Bristol in
the future.

3.2.1.1 Dam Failures

Dams are man-made structures built for the purpose of power production, agriculture, water
supply, recreation, and flood protection. A levee is a natural or artificial barrier that diverts or
restrains the flow of a stream or other body of water for the purpose of protecting an area from
inundation by floodwaters.

Dams and levees are usually designed to withstand a flood with a computed risk of occurrence.
For example, a dam or levee may be designed to contain a flood at a location on a stream that
has a certain probability of occurring in any one year. If a larger flood occurs, then that structure
will be overtopped. Overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure. Failed dams or
levees can create floods that are catastrophic to life and property because of the tremendous
energy of the released water and the amount of development located within the area protected
by the dam or levee.

Dams and levees typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. Two factors
that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are:

        •   The amount of water impounded; and
        •   The density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream.

Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes:

        •   Deliberate intention (terrorism);
        •   Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding;
        •   Earthquake (liquefaction / landslides);
        •   Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping flows;
        •   Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping;
        •   Improper design;
        •   Improper maintenance;
        •   Negligent operation; and/or
        •   Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway.

There are two dams upstream of the City of Bristol that are maintained by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). The Beaver Creek Dam, a flood detention dam, is located in southwestern
Virginia and provides flood control and recreation for Bristol residents. The nearby Clear Creek
Dam and Reservoir, also in Virginia, provides flood control for Bristol, and the area features a
golf course adjacent to Clear Creek.        Beaver Creek and Clear Creek dams were both


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 20 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
    constructed to control flooding based on recommendations from a study published by TVA in
    1961. (Reference “Floods on Beaver Creek in Vicinity of Bristol, Virginia-Tennessee”).

    In addition, the Steele Creek Dam and Reservoir, surrounded by the City’s Steele Creek Park,
    provides flood control and a recreational area for Bristol residents. This dam is operated and
    maintained by the City. The Middlebrook Dam is a privately owned and maintained dam located
    on Sinking Creek on the eastern side of the City off King College and Middlebrook Roads.
    Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1 present information on the identified dams.
                                     Table 3.2 Dams - the City of Bristol
                                                   Dam        Dam
                                                                          Year
      Dam Name            River       City        Height    Storage                   Hazard1   Owner Name
                                                                        Completed
                                                    (ft)    (acre-ft)
                          Clear
      Clear Creek                    Bristol      51.00      2825.00        1965        H             TVA
                         Creek
                         Beaver
     Beaver Creek                    Bristol      85.00      5020.00        1965        H             TVA
                         Creek
                         Steele
     Steele Creek                    Bristol        50        1989          1963        H        City of Bristol
                         Creek
                          Sinking
      Middlebrook
                          Creek
                                     Bristol        17         222          1971        S        Private Owner
1
 H = High Hazard; S = Significant Hazard
Source: National Inventory of Dams; http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm

    Past occurrences of dam failures. A dam break occurred in April 1977 when the Middlebrook
    Dam on Sinking Creek failed, causing minor flooding damage. However, the dam was
    reconstructed, in 1990, with a spillway that relieves the 500-year flood without overtopping the
    dam and causing a similar dam failure.

    Future probabilities of flooding. The Virginia Dam Safety Act, established by the Virginia Soil
    and Water Conservation Board (VS&WCB), was created to provide for safe design,
    construction, operation and maintenance of dams to protect public safety. The owner of each
    regulated dam is required to apply to the VS&WCB for an operation and maintenance
    certificate. The application requires an assessment of the dam by a licensed professional
    engineer; an operation and maintenance plan; and an emergency action plan. The emergency
    action plan is filed with the appropriate local emergency official and the Department of
    Emergency Services.
    Dams are classified with a hazard potential based upon the anticipated downstream losses in
    the event of failure. Hazard potential is not related to the structural integrity of a dam but strictly
    to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to fail.

        •   Class I - dams which upon failure would cause probable loss of life or excessive
            economic loss

        •   Class II - dams which upon failure could cause possible loss of life or appreciable
            economic loss

        •   Class III - dams which upon failure would not likely lead to loss of life or significant
            economic loss

        •   Class IV - dams which upon failure would not likely lead to loss of life or economic loss
            to others

    City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                  Page 21 of 121
    Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                  August 2006
    Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                                                   Clear Creek Dam


                                                                                          81
                                                                                      e
                                       Beaver Creek Dam                         tat
                                                                             ers
                                                                      In t


                                                                   Middlebrook Dam

                                                               •



                               Steele Creek Dam




                  Figure 3.1 Dam Locations relative to the City of Bristol
    (Source: National Inventory of Dams; http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm)

The Tennessee Safe Dams Program, operated by the TDEC, was also created to protect the
public from dam failures. TDEC inspects dams for safety and requires that dams meet stability
and spillway standards in order to obtain and maintain an operating permit. Dams are inspected
every 1, 2, or 3 years depending on the hazard potential category of the dam.

Similar to Virginia, hazard potential is determined by the downstream damage that could result if
a dam failed.

       •   High hazard – dams would probably cause loss of life in the event of failure.
       •   Significant hazard – dams would cause property damage or temporary loss of roads
           or utilities with a remote chance of loss of life.
       •   Low hazard – dams would have little or no effect to life and property downstream in
           the event of failure.


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                     Page 22 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                     August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Beaver Creek and Clear Creek dams are located within the State of Virginia and are classified
as Class I dams. Steele Creek dam, located within the State of Tennessee, is classified as a
high hazard dam. The Middlebrook Dam, located within the City limits, is classified as a
significant hazard dam.

3.2.1.2 Flooding Hazard, Riverine and Small System

Floods are among the most frequent and costly natural disasters in terms of human hardship
and economic loss. There are several different types of likely flood events in Tennessee
including flash, riverine, and urban stormwater (small system flooding). Regardless of the type
of flood, the cause can almost always be attributed to excessive rainfall, either in the flood area
or upstream reach.

The term "flash flood" describes localized floods of great volume and short duration. In contrast
to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results from a heavy rainfall on a relatively small
drainage area. Precipitation of this sort usually occurs in the spring and summer.

Riverine floods result from precipitation over large areas. This type of flood occurs in river
systems whose tributaries may drain large geographic areas and include many independent
river basins. The duration of riverine floods may vary from a few hours to many days. Factors
that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation, intensity and distribution, the
amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and water-resistance of
the surface areas due to urbanization.

Urban flood events result as land loses its ability to absorb rainfall as it is converted from fields
or woodlands to roads, buildings, and parking lots. Urbanization increases runoff two to six
times over what would occur on undeveloped terrain. During periods of urban flooding, streets
can become swift moving rivers. The LHMT identified smaller systems, such as drainage
ditches and internal stormwater infrastructure, as a source of flooding.

All flood events may result in upstream flooding due to downstream conditions such as channel
restriction and/or high flow in a downstream confluence stream. This type of flooding is known
as backwater flooding.

Under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Bristol’s local streams have established
floodplains that are regulated under the local floodplain ordinance. The most recent FEMA
Flood Insurance Study (FIS), published in February 2004, includes Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) with adopted floodplains, floodways, and flood profiles for streams within the corporate
limits of Bristol. The study included detailed studies for portions of Beaver, Little, Cedar and
Sinking Creeks and incorporated detailed studies from the Sullivan County FIS (1993) of
annexed portions of Back, Beaver, and Whitetop Creeks.

In addition to the FIS Report, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District
completed a flood damage reduction study on Beaver Creek in December 2004. For this study,
which was commissioned for the cities of Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia, 20 stream
miles of Beaver Creek and its tributaries, were studied. Flood reduction alternatives were
developed and evaluated based on their net benefits and environmental impact.

Both of the FIS report and Corps of Engineers report cite portions of Beaver Creek as the major
sources of flooding. The damage centers include downtown commercial Bristol; the area just
downstream of this commercial area; and the area around the confluence of Beaver and its

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 23 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
tributary, Mumpower Creek. Mapping of the defined floodplains is presented within Section
3.3.4, Vulnerability Assessment Methodology, as Figure 3.16.

Past occurrences of flooding. NOAA records show 5 flooding events between January 1950
and May 2003 specific to the City of Bristol. An additional 6 flooding events were noted within
Sullivan County which may have impacted the City of Bristol. Table 3.3 gives a summary of
each flooding event.

                                  Table 3.3 Flooding Events in Bristol

Location or                                                                       Property      Crop
                    Date         Time     Type    Magnitude   Deaths   Injuries
  County                                                                          Damage       Damage
Bristol-                                  Flash
                 03/27/1994      1800                N/A        0         0         50K            0
Kingsport                                 Flood
                                          Flash
Bristol          06/20/1994      1600                N/A        0         0         5K             0
                                          Flood
Bristol-                                  Flash
                 08/19/1995      1655                N/A        0         0         1K             0
Kingsport                                 Flood
                                          Flash
Countywide       01/19/1996      2000                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood
                                          Flash
Countywide       03/15/1996      1650                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood
                                          Flash
Bristol          05/24/1996      2350                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood
                                          Flash
Countywide       05/26/1996      1015                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood
                                          Flash
Countywide       05/26/1997      2245                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood

Countywide       07/11/1999      1100     Flood     N/A         0         0          0             0

                                          Flash
Countywide       07/03/2001      1540                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood
                                          Flash
Bristol          07/29/2001      1700                N/A        0         0          0             0
                                          Flood

   TOTALS:                                                      0         0         51K            0
Data from the National Climatic Data Center.

Future probabilities of flooding. In order to estimate the frequency of occurrence, flood
events on the same day are considered one event. The recurrence interval is a rough estimate
of the amount of time, on average, during which one occurrence of a flood will take place. It is
important to note that in reality, flooding can occur multiple times during one recurrence interval,
and that the recurrence interval is only an estimated average time period. Based upon the
information in Table 3.3, the estimated return interval for a small system flood event in
Bristol/Sullivan County is once every nine months, with the highest probability of occurrence
between May and July.



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                Page 24 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
The Bristol community is aware of areas that flood during large storm events. Staff are
dispatched prior to or during a storm event to check the areas to prevent or lessen flood impacts
by cleaning the storm drain system, unblocking pipes, and other measures.

The City of Bristol’s floodplain ordinance requires the lowest finished floor elevation (FFE) to be
at least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE).

3.2.1.3    Geological Hazards

Earthquakes

An earthquake is a shaking or trembling of the earth’s surface caused by the lifting, shifting,
breaking, or slipping of a fault line. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault
together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel
through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. Bristol is
within proximity of the Southern Appalachian Seismic Zone, a portion of which is known as the
East Tennessee Seismic Zone.

The Southern Appalachian Seismic Zone (SASZ) extends from Alabama to Virginia with the
most recent activity extending from northwestern Georgia through east Tennessee (the portion
known as the East Tennessee Seismic Zone or ETSZ) (Figure 3.2). The ETSZ is the most
active seismic region in the eastern United States.

Several methods have been developed to quantify the strength of an earthquake. The most
recognized methods for measuring earthquake strength are:

          Richter Magnitude is a measure of earthquake strength or the amount of energy
          released. Charles Richter originally developed this scale in 1935. Magnitude is
          expressed in whole numbers and decimals, with each succeeding whole number
          representing a tenfold increase in the energy released. There is only one Richter
          value calculated for the epicenter of a specific earthquake. (The epicenter is the
          location on the surface of the earth directly above where an earthquake
          originates. It is determined by measuring the amplitudes of ground motion on
          seismograms.)

          Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is an evaluation of the severity of ground
          motion at a given location measured relative to the effects of the earthquake on
          people and property. This scale was developed by Wood and Nueman in 1931,
          based on Mercalli’s 1902 original version. Intensity is expressed in Roman
          numerals I – XII. The Mercalli scale is the most effective means of determining
          the approximate magnitude of a quake that occurred in historic time prior to the
          advent of uniform seismic detection devices and the Richter Scale.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 25 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
        Bristol




                  Figure 3.2 Schematic Map of East Tennessee Seismic Zone

Table 3.4 compares these two methods of measuring earthquake strength.

                         Table 3.4 Comparison of Richter Magnitude and
                                Modified Mercalli Intensity Scales

     Richter            Mercalli
                                                             Effects
    Magnitude            Scale
        2                 I – II     Usually detected only by instruments
        3                   III      Felt Indoors
        4                IV – V      Felt by most people; slight damage
        5               VI – VII     Felt by all; damage moderate
        6               VII – VIII   Damage moderate to major
        7                IX – X      Major damage
       8+                X - XII     Total and major damage


Ground Motion Amplification. Ground motion is the movement of the earth’s surface due to
earthquakes or explosions. It is produced by waves generated by a sudden slip on a fault or
sudden pressure at the explosive source and travels through the earth and along its surface.
Ground motion is amplified when surface waves of unconsolidated materials bounce off of or
are refracted by adjacent solid bedrock. The seismic hazard in Bristol is shown in Figure 3.3,
which uses contour values to indicate the earthquake ground motions that have a common
probability of being exceeded in 50 years.


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                      Page 26 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                      August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
In developing Figure 3.3, the ground motions being considered at a given location are those
from all future possible earthquake magnitudes at all possible distances from that location. The
ground motion coming from a particular magnitude and distance is assigned an annual
probability equal to the annual probability of occurrence of the causative magnitude and
distance. The City of Bristol is in an area with a 20 to 30 percent Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGA), which according to FEMA is considered a moderate to high earthquake hazard risk.

The method assumes a reasonable future catalog of earthquakes, based upon historical
earthquake locations and geological information on the recurrence rate of fault ruptures.




                                                              Bristol




                               Figure 3.3 Exceedance Probability

Past occurrences. USGS recorded earthquakes affecting East Tennessee and Sullivan
County, including the City of Bristol, are noted in Table 3.5. Earthquake data was not available
at the local level for the City of Bristol. The table rates earthquakes based upon the Mercalli
Intensity Scale and Richter Magnitude Scale.

Future probabilities of earthquakes. According to the Tennessee Emergency Management
Agency, instead of a prediction of when an earthquake will strike, an estimate of the likelihood of
an earthquake recurring within a given time frame should be given: Only one or two
earthquakes with magnitudes equal to or greater than 3.0 are expected in the SASZ per year.
The extrapolated, expected recurrence time for earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.0 or greater in
the SASZ is 186 years (Bollinger et al., 1989).


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 27 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                           Table 3.5 Recorded Earthquakes

                              Intensity /
            Date              Magnitude             Fault                                Comments

    Jan. 4, 1843                     VII        New Madrid                      Felt in East TN; no damage

    Nov. 28, 1844                    VI           East TN
    March 28, 1913                   VII          East TN               Centered in Knoxville; two shocks felt
                                                                    Two separate tremors affected a 21,500 sq. km
    Sept. 7, 1956                    VI           East TN
                                                                                        area
    Late 1973                        VI           East TN                           Minor damage
    October 23,1977                  2.8            ---1            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    March 22,1978                    2.9             ---            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    June 3,1981                       3              ---            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    October 22,1984                  3.1             ---            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    November 27,1987                                 ---            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    November 27,1987                 3.5             ---            USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
                                                                    USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    February 16,1988                 3.3              ---
                                                                          Within 25km of the City of Bristol
    April 14,1988                    4.1              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    April 10,1989                    4.3              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    November 8,1990                  2.7              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    November 8,1990                  3.2              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    January 1,1993                    3               ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    February 12,1994                 3.4              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    March 11,1995                    3.8              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    June 26,1995                     3.5              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    July 7,1995                      3.1              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    October 26,1995                   4               ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    April 19,1996                    3.9              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    June 29,1996                     4.1              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
    October 28,1997                  3.4              ---           USGS / National Earthquake Information Center
1
  Information not available from the USGS/National Earthquake Center.
Information obtained from http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/states/tennessee/tennessee_history.html and
http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html




      City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                        Page 28 of 121
      Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                        August 2006
      Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Landslides

The term landslide includes a wide range of ground movement, such as rock falls, deep failure
of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Although gravity acting on an over-steepened slope is the
primary reason for a landslide, there are other contributing factors:

    •   Erosion by rivers, glaciers, or ocean waves create over steepened slopes;
    •   Rock and soil slopes are weakened through saturation by snowmelt or heavy rains;
    •   Earthquakes create stresses that make weak slopes fail;
    •   Earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and greater have been known to trigger landslides;
    •   Volcanic eruptions produce loose ash deposits, heavy rain, and debris flows; and
    •   Excess weight from accumulation of rain or snow, stockpiling of rock or ore from waste
        piles or from man-made structures may induce weak slopes to fail.

Landslides constitute a major geologic hazard because they are widespread, occurring in all 50
states, and cause $1 to 2 billion in damages and more than 25 fatalities, on average, each year.
Landslides pose serious threats to highways and to structures that support fisheries, tourism,
timber harvesting, mining, and energy production, as well as general transportation. Landslides
commonly happen concurrently with other major natural disasters such as earthquakes and
floods, which exacerbate relief and reconstruction efforts. Expanded development and other
land uses have increased the incidence of landslide disasters.

The City of Bristol is located in the eastern mountainous region of Tennessee. The terrain in the
area can be described as rolling hills, with frequent steep, and sometimes rocky, slopes. Steep
slopes are either well vegetated or are stable rock. Obvious karst features, such as sinkholes
and pinnacled rocks, are a common site.

Figure 3.4 provides an overview of landslide risks throughout the US. Sullivan County, including
the City of Bristol, is identified as moderately susceptible to landslides but has had a low
incidence.

Past occurrences. No known devastating occurrences of landslides have been recorded or
were reported by City of Bristol staff. Some minor slides have occurred that block roadways,
but roadways are quickly cleared. Therefore, landslides were not considered a potential hazard.

Future probabilities of landslides and subsidence. Although the physical cause of many
landslides cannot be removed, geologic investigations, good engineering practices, and
effective enforcement of land use management regulations can reduce landslide hazards. City
of Bristol subdivision regulations specify that lots with steep slopes must be individually
approved by the Planning Commission. Lots are designated for special approval during the
preliminary plat review process based on soil conditions, degree of slope or other lot features,
and to address concerns relating to the feasibility of construction. In addition, the regulations
contain a section that provides specifications for construction on “difficult terrain.” The purposes
of this section are to provide standards that are suited to “extreme topographical or irregular
land areas” and to reduce the need for variances on difficult terrain. However, outside of
subdivision development, the critical lot concept is not utilized.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 29 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                      USGS Open File Report 97-289

                        LANDSLIDE INCIDENCE
                                        Low (less than 1.5% of an area
                                        involved)
                                        Moderate (1.5% - 15% of an area
                                        involved)
                                        High (greater than 15% of an area
                                        involved)
                        LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY/INCIDENCE

                                           Moderate susceptibility/low incidence

                                           High susceptibility/low incidence

                                           High susceptibility/moderate incidence


                                    Figure 3.4 Landslide Risks




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 30 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Sinkholes and Subsidence

The geology of Bristol mainly consists of limestone and dolomite rock, along with isolated shale
formations. Karst is a distinctive topography in which the landscape is shaped by the dissolving
action of water on carbonate bedrock (usually limestone, dolomite, or marble). Karst areas are
characterized by sinkhole and cave formations.

According to a Tennessee Department of Geology report on causes of subsidence in east
Tennessee, solution sinkholes form as the limestone dissolves, creating sunken areas in the
land surface. Cover collapse sinkholes form when caves collapse and suddenly drop a portion
of the land surface above. Damage to buildings commonly results from collapse of soil and/or
rock material into an open void space near or beneath man-made structures. Ground
subsidence into even a small opening may be very costly if a structure sits on the overlying
surface. Sinkhole collapses are often unpredicted and sudden, although they occur more
frequently after heavy rainfall. Heavy rainfalls increase the soil’s weight and decrease its
strength and stability. Construction can also trigger collapses by directing runoff into a
vulnerable area, or weakening the cover of an incipient collapse. Finally, lowering of the water
table by a nearby well or from quarry pumping can also trigger collapse when the buoyant effect
of groundwater is removed.

Past occurrences. None of the LHMT members reported major land subsidence issues within
the City of Bristol, and research of historical records did not identify any land subsidence reports
for the area. Minor land subsidence has affected City infrastructure in the past, but community
lifelines were not interrupted. Figure 3.5 presents the Karst Hazard Map for the State of
Tennessee with the City of Bristol identified. The area is identified as having one to 10 percent
incidence of sinkholes.

Future probabilities of subsidence. Given the topography of the area, it is likely that Bristol
will have areas of subsidence in the near future.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 31 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                          Figure 3.5 Karst Hazard Map of Tennessee
                               (Source: TDEC Ground Water 305b Water Quality Report, November2002)




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                           Page 32 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.2.1.4   Infestations

West Nile virus (WNV) is one of several mosquito-borne viruses in the United States that can
infect people. The virus exists in nature primarily through a transmission cycle involving certain
species of mosquitoes and birds. Mosquitoes become infected with WNV when they feed on
infected birds.

WNV first struck the northern hemisphere in Queens, N.Y., in 1999 and killed four people. The
disease spread from New York to the West Coast in three years. By 2003, all 50 states were
warning of an outbreak.

Positive cases of West Nile Virus in Sullivan County were first reported in 2002 in birds and
veterinary animals. Since that time, positive cases in humans, horses, and birds have been
reported each year. Figure 3.6 presents human cases reported in Tennessee in 2004. None
occurred in Sullivan County. Data at the local level for the City of Bristol was not available.




                                                                               Bristol




                       Figure 3.6 2004 Human Cases of WNV in Tennessee


Past occurrences. Historic cases of West Nile Virus, animal and human, from 2000 through
2004 are presented in Table 3.6. While three human cases were reported in Sullivan County in


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 33 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
2003, there were none in 2004. Data at the local level for the City of Bristol was not available.
Other types of epidemics have been reported in the State of Tennessee in the past. These
diseases are shown in Table 3.7. Data at the local level for the City of Bristol was not available.

                        Table 3.6 Historic Cases of West Nile Virus 2000-2004
                                       West Nile-Type and Number of Cases
             Year
                                   Bird           Human Mosquito Sentinel* Veterinary
             2000                      TN did not participate in data collection
             2001         test samples submitted no report no report no report no report
             2002                   8             no data no data no data           1
             2003                   7                3        no data no data       3
             2004                   1             no data no data no data        no data
          *Sentinel flocks are chickens that are set out and are bitten by area mosquitoes. They do not suffer adverse effects from
          being bitten but develop antibodies against West Nile virus.




                                             Table 3.7 Historic Epidemics
                                Year     Type of Epidemic           Area
                               1960-61   Infectious Hepatitis   State-wide
                                1957          Influenza         State-wide
                               1950-51   Infectious Hepatitis Sullivan County
                                1954     Diphtheria outbreak    State-wide
                               1945-46      Polio outbreak      State-wide
                                1943      Measles epidemic      State-wide
                                1943          Meningitis        State-wide
                                1943      Whooping Cough        State-wide
                                1941      Measles epidemic      State-wide
                                1936 Influenza and Pneumonia State-wide
                                1936        Polio epidemic      State-wide
                                1936          Meningitis        State-wide
                               1930-31        Meningitis        State-wide
                                1923      Measles epidemic      State-wide
                                1918          Influenza         State-wide
                                1916        Polio epidemic      State-wide
                                1878   Yellow Fever epidemic    State-wide
                                1873      Cholera epidemic      State-wide
                                1873   Yellow Fever epidemic    State-wide
                                1876   Yellow Fever epidemic    State-wide
                                1866      Cholera epidemic      State-wide
                                1854      Cholera epidemic      State-wide
                                1849      Cholera epidemic      State-wide




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                                                  Page 34 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                                                  August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Future probabilities of infestation. The fifth annual West Nile Virus conference was held in
Denver, Colorado in February 2004. Conclusions of the conference include:

         •    Widespread West Nile virus activity exists over most of the continental United States;
         •    At least 225 species of birds have been infected. Corvids are the most commonly
              reported positive bird;
         •    At least 49 species of mosquitoes have been infected. Culex mosquitoes are the
              most commonly reported positive mosquito;
         •    WNV-positive bird collections and WNV-positive mosquito collections precede the
              onset of human cases in most counties;
         •    Human cases have been reported in all states except Maine, Oregon, and
              Washington;
         •    Neuroinvasive disease and high mortality is the most common among people over
              60 years of age; There is an impressive westward movement of most intense WNV
              transmission;
         •    No currently approved and effective vaccine and no currently approved and effective
              antivirals exists; and
         •    Mosquito control reduces the WNV risk of human infection.




(Courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, As of October 27, 2004)

                        Figure 3.7 2004 West Nile Activity in the United States




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 35 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.2.1.5   Severe Weather Hazards

Drought

A drought is a period of drier-than-normal conditions that results in water-related problems.
Precipitation (rain or snow) falls in uneven patterns across the country. The amount of
precipitation at a particular location varies from year to year but, over a period of years, the
average amount is fairly constant. The average monthly precipitation for Bristol, recorded at the
Tri-Cities Regional Airport, is presented in Table 3.8.
                         Table 3.8 Average Monthly Precipitation (inches)
                                 1948-2003 National Climatic Data Center

   Station      Jan    Feb     Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec    Annual
  Tri-Cities
  Regional      3.59   3.59    3.99   3.36   3.98   3.63   4.36   3.31   2.92   2.34   3.04   3.52    41.63
   Airport

When no rain or only a very small amount of rain falls, soils can dry out and plants can die.
When rainfall is less than normal for several weeks, months, or years, the flow of streams and
rivers declines and the water levels in lakes, reservoirs, and wells fall. If dry weather persists
and water-supply problems develop, the dry period can become a drought. Lower river levels
can also cause transportation interruptions on navigable streams.
A common indicator of drought is the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI is a soil
moisture algorithm calibrated for relatively homogeneous regions. It is used by many U.S.
government agencies and states to trigger drought relief programs. It was also the first
comprehensive drought index developed in the United States. The classifications of the PDSI
are presented in Table 3.9
                                  Table 3.9 Palmer Classifications

                                        Palmer Classifications
                                 4.0 or more            Extremely wet
                                  3.0 to 3.99              Very wet
                                  2.0 to 2.99          Moderately wet
                                  1.0 to 1.99            Slightly wet
                                  0.5 to 0.99         Incipient wet spell
                                 0.49 to -0.49           Near normal
                                 -0.5 to -0.99        Incipient dry spell
                                 -1.0 to -1.99           Mild drought
                                 -2.0 to -2.99        Moderate drought
                                 -3.0 to -3.99         Severe drought
                                  -4.0 or less         Extreme drought




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                    Page 36 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                    August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
The PDSI indicates that for the period of 1895 through 1995 the eastern portion of Tennessee
was in a severe to extreme drought 5 to 10 percent of the time (Figure 3.8). During periods of
drought, the Governor has called for a ban of open burning in an effort to reduce the risk of
wildfire.

The beginning of a drought is difficult to determine. Several weeks, months, or even years may
pass before people recognize that a drought is occurring. The end of a drought can occur as
gradually as it began. Dry periods can last for 10 years or more. The first evidence of drought
usually is seen in records of rainfall. Within a short period of time, the amount of moisture in
soils can begin to decrease. The effects of a drought on flow in streams and rivers or on water
levels in lakes and reservoirs may not be noticed for several weeks or months. Water levels in
wells may not reflect a shortage of rainfall for a year or more after a drought begins.




                               Figure 3.8 Palmer Drought Severity Index



Past occurrences. There have been 16 recorded droughts encompassing Sullivan County,
including the City of Bristol, since 1797 (Table 3.10). While eastern Tennessee area is certainly
susceptible to summer droughts, the City of Bristol is well situated to handle water shortages.
The City uses the Holston River as a water supply. Since TVA controls the river level, the area
has not experienced water shortages. The LHMT members could not recall water restrictions
ever being placed on water use in the city or county.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 37 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                   Table 3.10 Droughts Since 1797
                        Year         Affected Area     Year      Affected Area
                        1797           Statewide     1930-1931     Statewide
                        1819           Statewide      1940-42      Statewide
                        1830           Statewide     1954-1954     Statewide
                       1853-54         Statewide     1966-1967     Statewide
                       1877-78         Statewide     1969-1971     Statewide
                        1887           Statewide     1980-1981     Statewide
                       1894-96         Statewide     1985-1988     Statewide
                       1913-14         Statewide       1988      Sullivan County
                       1925-26         Statewide

Future probabilities of drought. The Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Weather
Service, together with the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Drought
Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, issues a
weekly drought assessment for the United States. This assessment provides a consolidated
depiction of national drought conditions based on a combination of drought indicators and field
reports. The CPC also issues a Seasonal United States Drought Outlook each month in
conjunction with the weekly release of the long-lead temperature and precipitation outlooks near
the middle of the month.
The current seasonal outlook for the United States is presented in Figure 3.9.      The City of
Bristol is not likely to enter into a period of drought in the near future.




                               Figure 3.9 U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook
City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 38 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Wildfires

Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given
area’s potential to burn. These factors include:

     •    Fuel;
     •    Topography; and
     •    Weather.

Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally
classified by type and by volume. Fuels sources are diverse and include everything from dead
tree needles, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses.
Man-made structures and other associated combustibles are also to be considered as a fuel
source. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such
as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for spreading wildfires.

An area’s topography (terrain and land slopes) affects its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Fire
intensities and rates of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a
fire to rise via convection. The natural arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also
contribute to increased fire activity on slopes.

Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the
potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the fuels that feed the
wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is
the most treacherous weather factor. The issue of drought conditions contributes to concerns
about wildfire vulnerability.

The National Weather Service Fire Weather Program emerged in response to a need for
weather support to large and dangerous wildfires. This service is provided to federal and state
land management agencies for the prevention, suppression, and management of forest and
rangeland fires. The National Weather Service Forecast Office in Nashville provides year-round
fire weather forecasts for most of Middle Tennessee. Routine fire weather forecasts are issued
daily for Tennessee Division of Forestry Districts 4 and 5 (Figure 3.8).

Steel Creek Park and Whitetop Park are City-owned parks in the City of Bristol. Each park
system implements fire management Best Management Practice (BMP) guidance.

Past occurrences of wildfires. No records of historical wildfires were found when researching
the City of Bristol’s forests and natural areas. However, there have been 18 recorded wildfire
events within the State of Tennessee since 1916, indicating the hazard potential, and City staff
noted occasional wild- or woodland fires have occurred in Steele Creek Park.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 39 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Future probabilities of wildfires. Bristol receives on average over 40 inches of rainfall
annually. While small brush or natural area wildfires are not uncommon, large-scale wildfires
pose a minimal risk to East Tennessee. The current US Forest Service forecasts a moderate
fire danger potential for the City of Bristol, presented in Figure 3.10.




                Figure 3.10 Observed Fire Danger Class (as of December 2004)




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                     Page 40 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                     August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
  Extreme Temperatures

  Extreme temperature events, both hot and cold, can have severe impacts on natural
  ecosystems, agriculture and other economic sectors, and human health and mortality. The
  normal monthly temperatures for the Bristol area are presented in Table 3.11.

                               Table 3.11 Average Temperature Summary (°F)
                                    1948-2004 National Climatic Data Center

                                                                                                                Annual
Station        Jan      Feb      Mar    Apr    May     Jun     Jul    Aug      Sep     Oct        Nov    Dec
                                                                                                                 Avg
Tri-Cities
Regional       35.5     38.9     46.5   55.6   64.2    71.6   74.9    73.9     67.9    56.9       46.4   38.3    55.9
 Airport

  High Temperatures. Temperatures that remain 10 degrees or more above the average high
  temperature for the region and last for several weeks are defined as extreme heat by FEMA.
  Humid or muggy conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when high
  atmospheric pressure traps damp air near the ground.

  In an effort to alert the public to the hazards of prolonged heat and humidity episodes, the
  National Weather Service devised the "heat index”. The heat index is an accurate measure of
  how hot it feels to an individual when the effects of humidity are added to high temperature.
  Table 3.12 presents heat index values and their potential physical effects.

  The National Weather Service will issue a Heat Advisory for the Bristol area when daytime heat
  indices are at or above 105°F and nighttime heat indices are at or above 80°F. An Excessive
  Heat Warning is issued when the heat index equals or exceeds 115°F for three hours or longer
  with a minimum heat index of at least 80°F during a 24-hour period. An excessive heat advisory
  is also issued when heat advisory conditions persist for at least 3 days. In either of these
  scenarios, the heat becomes dangerous for a large portion of the population.

                                 Table 3.12 Heat Index Values and Effects

                    Heat Index Values
                                                                      Heat Index Effects
             (Combination of Heat and Humidity)

                                                        Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure
                       80 to 90 degrees F
                                                        and/or physical activity.

                                                        Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion
                      90 to 105 degrees F               possible with prolonged exposure and or
                                                        physical activity.

                                                        Sunstroke, heat cramps or heat exhaustion
                      105 to 130 degrees F              likely, and heatstroke possible with prolonged
                                                        exposure and/or physical activity.

                                                        Heatstroke/sunstroke highly likely with
                  130 degrees and higher F
                                                        continued exposure.


  City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                  Page 41 of 121
  Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                  August 2006
  Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Cold Temperatures. The National Weather Service will issue a Wind Chill Advisory for the
Bristol area when wind-chill temperatures are expected to reach –4°F to –20°F.

In 2001, the NWS implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature (WCT) index. This index
was developed by the National Weather Service to describe the relative discomfort/danger
resulting from the combination of wind and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat
loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the
body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature.

Specifically, the new WCT index:

    •   Calculates wind speed at an average height of five feet (typical height of an adult human
        face) based on readings from the national standard height of 33 feet (10m);

    •   Is based on a human face model;

    •   Incorporates modern heat transfer theory (heat loss from the body to its surroundings,
        during cold and breezy/windy days);

    •   Lowers the calm wind threshold to 3 mph;

    •   Uses a consistent standard for skin tissue resistance; and

    •   Assumes no impact from the sun (i.e., clear night sky).

Past occurrences. There have been 28 recorded extreme temperature events in Sullivan
County and East Tennessee since 1893. It is assumed that extreme temperature events in
Sullivan County would also impact to the City of Bristol. Data at the local level was not
available. These events are presented in Table 3.13.

Future probabilities of extreme temperatures. On average, extreme temperature events
have occurred once every six years, suggesting a similar recurrence period.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 42 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                        Table 3.13 Recorded Extreme Temperatures

                                                    Record
                          Historical
   Location                                          Highs /                                          Comment
                            Event
                                                    Lows OF
  Tennessee             Summer 1819                 Low                Unusually cold temperatures statewide
  Tennessee              Winter 1823                Low                Severe winter
  Tennessee              April 1849                 Low                Severe cold-statewide
East Tennessee           12/28/1880                 Low                Arctic air hit east TN, Record lows below zero
East Tennessee            10/6/1884                 High               Hot temperatures baked east TN
  Tennessee             January 1893                Low                Severe cold-statewide
East Tennessee            1/21/1895                  -21               Record lows set in 1895
  Tennessee              02/03/1905                 Low                Severe cold-statewide
East Tennessee           10/11/1906                 Low                Cold air hit east TN, Chattanooga recorded earliest freeze
East Tennessee           12/10/1917                 Low                Temperatures fell to single digits, 2 nights
East Tennessee           12/30/1917                  -32               Coldest temperature recorded in TN at Mountain City
East Tennessee           09/05/1925                 High               Warm air hit area, setting record highs.
East Tennessee           12/29/1925                 Low                Arctic air hit east TN, Record lows 2 nights
  Tennessee              Winter 1940                Low                Severe winter
East Tennessee           11/26/1950                   10               Arctic outbreak caused 3 nights of record lows
  Tennessee            June-July 1952               High               Statewide Heat Wave
East Tennessee           09/03/1954                   94               High Temperatures, Records set in Oak Ridge 5 days
East Tennessee           02/20/1958                   13               Frigid air hits, record lows set 5 consecutive nights
East Tennessee           08/14/1967                   51               Cool air hit East TN, setting record lows.
  Tennessee              12/01/1976                 Low                Severe cold-statewide
East Tennessee           05/04/1986                   30               Latest date for freezing in East TN, Record set in Knoxville
  Eastern US             04/01/1987           Low 20's (East TN)       Record lows in 45 southeastern cities
  Eastern US             10/09/1987                 Low                Record lows in 18 southeastern cities
East Tennessee           10/14/1988                   26               Record cold for 2nd straight day in Tri-Cities and elsewhere
  Eastern US             11/12/1989                 High               Record highs in 33 southeastern cities
East Tennessee           06/27/1998                 High               Hot weather in East TN, Highs in Knoxville resulted in 2 deaths
East Tennessee           09/28/1998                   89               Warm temperatures in area, Tri-Cities set records 3 days
East Tennessee           11/02/2003                   80               Warm air hit east TN. Tri-Cities hit records near 80's, 3 days
  Sources: Chronology of Disasters in TN (Including Natural and Man caused Disasters, Epidemics and Civil Disturbances) Allen P. Coggins, 1993.
    Hevrdeys, Jerry. 2005 Weather Calendar. National Weather Service. WFO Morristown, TN. www.srh.noaa.gov/MRX (Accessed 1/17/2005).




        City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                                    Page 43 of 121
        Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                                    August 2006
        Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Severe Thunderstorms and Hailstorms

Thunderstorms are defined as localized storms, always accompanied by lightning, and often
having strong wind gusts, heavy rain and sometimes hail or tornadoes. Thunderstorms can
produce a strong out-rush of wind known as a downburst, or straight-line winds which may
exceed 120 mph. These storms can overturn mobile homes, tear roofs off of houses and topple
trees.

Approximately 10 percent of the thunderstorms that occur each year in the United States are
classified as severe. A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it contains one or more of the
following phenomena:
    •     Hail measuring ¾ inch or greater;
    •     Winds gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph); or
    •     A tornado.
A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather
conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm is likely to develop. This is the time to locate a
safe place in the home and to watch the sky and listen to the radio or television for more
information.
A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm has been sighted or
indicated by weather radar. At this point, the danger is very serious and it is time to go to a safe
place, turn on a battery-operated radio or television, and wait for the "all clear" from authorities.
Past occurrences of hail storms. The National Weather Service recorded 6 hailstorms within
the City of Bristol with hail at least 0.75 inch in diameter between 1950 and 2004 (see Table
3.14.) An additional 8 hailstorms were identified in Sullivan County which may have impacted
the City of Bristol.

    Table 3.14 Hail Storms in Sullivan County and the City of Bristol from 1950 – 2004

   Location or                                                                 Property     Crop
                        Date     Time   Type   Magnitude Deaths Injuries
     County                                                                    Damage      Damage
Countywide           10/08/1960 1600    Hail     1.00 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           04/23/1967 2150    Hail     1.50 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           04/23/1967 2225    Hail     1.50 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           04/23/1968 2125    Hail     1.00 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           07/25/1969 1535    Hail     1.00 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           05/05/1977 1400    Hail     2.75 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide           04/27/1989 1530    Hail     1.00 in.      0        0         0            0
Bristol             05/07/1998   2035   Hail     1.75 in.      0        0         0            0
Bristol             06/02/1999   1915   Hail     1.75 in.      0        0          0           0
Bristol             04/28/2002   1515   Hail     0.75 in.      0        0         5K           0
Bristol             06/02/2002   1538   Hail     0.75 in.      0        0         0            0
Bristol             08/02/2002   1625   Hail     0.75 in.      0        0         0            0
Bristol             06/16/2003   1510   Hail     0.75 in.      0        0         0            0
Countywide          09/27/2003   1445   Hail     0.88 in.      0        0         0            0
TOTALS:                                                        0        0         5K           0

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 44 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Future probabilities for hail storms. For the purposes of estimating return interval, storms
occurring on the same day are considered the same storm event. Given the data provided in
Table 3.14, the estimated return interval for hail storms producing 0.75 inch or larger sized hail
is 3.1 years.

Past occurrences of thunder storms with severe winds. Six thunderstorms with severe
winds of 50 knots or more were recorded in the City of Bristol from 1964 through 2004 (see
Table 3.15). An additional eleven events were recorded in Sullivan County, which may have
impacted the City of Bristol.
    Table 3.15 Thunderstorms with severe winds from 1950 – 2004 in Sullivan County

Location or                                                                   Property       Crop
                    Date        Time     Type   Magnitude   Deaths Injuries
  County
                                                                              Damage       Damage
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     08/03/1964     6:35 PM            50 kts      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     05/08/1967     1:00 PM            52 kts      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     06/05/1970     1:30 PM           70 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     05/23/1973     6:13 PM           52 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     12/05/1977 10:40 AM              60 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     07/20/1983     2:45 PM           61 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     07/24/1983 11:35 AM              76 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     04/09/1991     5:17 PM           55 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     06/13/1997     7:25 PM            52 kts      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     02/17/1998 11:30 AM              55 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     06/11/2003     7:20 PM            55 kts      0        0         8K            0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     07/09/2003     2:50 PM           60 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     07/10/2003     7:30 PM           60 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     08/04/2003     7:45 PM           60 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     08/28/2003     1:45 AM           60 kts.      0        0         0             0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
 Countywide     05/31/2004     3:05 AM           60 kts.      0        0        25K            0
                                         Wind
                                         Tstm
    Bristol     06/14/2004     4:10 PM           65 kts.      0        0        15K            0
                                         Wind
  TOTALS:                                                     0        0         48            0
National Weather Service

Future probabilities for thunderstorms with severe winds. Thunderstorms are likely to
occur in the City of Bristol approximately 30 to 50 days each year (Figure 3.11).

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 45 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                               Figure 3.11. Average Number of Thunderstorm Days Per Year




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                 Page 46 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                 August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Tornadoes

The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a violently rotating column of air pendant
from a thunderstorm cloud that touches the ground. Tornados are generally considered the
most destructive of all atmospheric-generated phenomena. An average of 800 touch down
annually in the United States. More tornados occur during the months of May and June than in
other months. Additionally, over 30 percent of recorded tornado activity has occurred between
the hours of 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm, and an additional estimated 25 percent has occurred
between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm. Thus, over half of all tornadoes occur between 3:00 and 9:00
pm.

Tornados follow the path of least resistance. Therefore, valleys and flatter land areas are most
susceptible to them. The typical tornado path is 16 miles long with a width of less than one-
quarter mile. Tornadoes have resulted in some of the greatest losses to life of any natural
hazard, with the mean national death toll being between 80 and 100 persons every year.

Tornados are classified using the tornado scale developed by Dr. Theodore Fujita. The Fujita
Tornado Scale assigns a category to tornados based on their wind speeds and relates this to
the general type of damage that is expected. Ratings range from F0 (light damage), to F5 (total
destruction). The Fujita scale is presented in Table 3.16. Approximately ninety percent of
tornados nationwide recorded between 1956 and 2001 were F2, F1, and F0 tornados. Most of
these (68 percent of all tornados) were F1 and F0 tornados.

                                  Table 3.16 Fujita Tornado Scale

           Wind Speed
Scale
             Range                                        Type of Damage
Value
             (mph)
                           Light – May be some damage to poorly maintained roofs. Unsecured lightweight
  F0           40-72       objects, such as trashcans, are displaced.
                           Moderate – Minor damage to roofs occurs, and windows are broken. Larger
  F1          73-112       heavier objects become displaced. Minor damage to trees and landscaping can
                           be observed.
                           Considerable – Roofs are damaged. Manufactured homes, on nonpermanent
                           foundations, can be shifted off their foundations. Trees and landscaping either
  F2         113-157       snap or are blown over. Medium-sized debris becomes airborne, damaging other
                           structures.
                           Severe – Roofs and some walls, especially unreinforced masonry, are torn from
  F3         158-206       structures. Small ancillary buildings are often destroyed. Manufactured homes on
                           nonpermanent foundations can be overturned. Some trees are uprooted.
                           Devastating – Well-constructed homes, as well as manufactured homes, are
  F4         207-260       destroyed. Some structures are lifted off their foundations. Automobile-sized
                           debris is displaced and often tumbles. Trees are often uprooted and blow over.
                           Incredible – Strong frame houses and engineered buildings are lifted from their
  F5         261-318       foundations or are significantly damaged or destroyed. Automobile-sized debris
                           is moved significant distances. Trees are uprooted and splintered.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                               Page 47 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
A comprehensive tornado risk determination considers the risks of death, injury and property
damage (costs), in addition to the probability of a tornado striking. The Disaster Center, a
private center focusing on disaster mitigation, bases its State risk assessment by dividing the
square mileage of each State against the frequency of death, injury, number of tornadoes, and
cost of damages for each State. It then ranks each State by these individual categories, adds
the total of each State's individual rankings and divides by the number of factors (four). Using
data from 1950 –1995, and this methodology, Tennessee ranks 16th in the nation for tornado
risk (http://www.disastercenter.com/tornado/rank.htm). Sullivan County, including the City of
Bristol, is in the lowest risk area of Tennessee (http://www.usgs.gov/themes/map6.html).

Past occurrences. While staff from the City of Bristol report many straight-line winds, NOAA
only reported two tornados in the area between January 1950 and December 2004. Table 3.17
outlines those events. Figure 3.9 is a map based upon NOAA weather data, showing wind
zones across the United States. The City of Bristol is located in an area that has had 1-5
tornadoes per 1,000 square miles (Figure 3.12).

                   Table 3.17 NOAA Reported Tornadoes in Sullivan County,
                                including the City of Bristol

                                                Path Length
  Date           Time          Dead   Injured     (miles)        Rating          Location
                                                                               Near Colonial
 April 4,
               3:00 AM          0       2           13.8           F0         Heights to West
  1974
                                                                                  Bristol
 October                                                                   Near Bloomingdale to
               3:35 AM          0       10          16.2           F1
 1, 1977                                                                      Cedar Grove
Data from NOAA (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~67209)




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                       Page 48 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                        August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                         Figure 3.12 Tornado Activity in the United States


Future probabilities for tornadoes. In order to estimate the frequency of occurrence, the
number of tornado days is compared to the length of the period of record, which is from 1950 to
2004. (The actual number of tornado incidents was not used 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.) The recurrence interval is defined from the information and is a
rough 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, a tornado can occur
multiple times within one recurrence interval, and that the recurrence interval is only an
estimated average time period between tornadoes. Recurrence intervals for tornadoes within
the Bristol area are presented in Table 3.18. It is evident from this table, tornadoes occur
infrequently in Sullivan County, and thus infrequently in the City of Bristol.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 49 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
        Table 3.18 Estimated Recurrence Intervals of Tornadoes (from 1950 – 2004)

                                             Number of
                                            Occurrences          Recurrence
                               Tornado
                                           Within Sullivan        Interval
                                Class
                                               County              (years)
                                           (Tornado Days)
                                  F0              1                     24
                                  F1              1                     27
                                  F2          no record              ---------
                                  F3          no record             ----------
                                  F4          no record             ----------
                                  F5          no record             ----------
                                  All
                               Tornado             2                  25.5
                                Events
                         Data courtesy of NOAA, National Weather Service Forecast
                         office, Morristown, TN.
                         http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/tornado/sullivan.htm


Severe Winter/Ice Storms

Winter storms are especially hazardous in terms of closing emergency routes, creating power
and utility system failures, and immobilizing economic activity. Commuters may become
stranded, airports may close, and emergency and medical services may be disrupted.
Accumulations of snow and ice can cause roofs to collapse and knock down trees and power
lines. Ice can disrupt communications and power for days while utility companies repair
extensive damage. Even small accumulations of ice can be extremely dangerous to motorists
and pedestrians. Bridges and overpasses freeze before other surfaces and are particularly
dangerous.

The types of winter precipitation that may occur in Bristol include:

    •   Snow Flurries -- Light snow falling for short durations, resulting in a light dusting or no
        accumulation.
    •   Snow Showers -- Snow falling at varying intensities for brief periods of time. Some
        accumulation possible.
    •   Blowing Snow -- Wind-driven snow that reduces visibility and causes drifting. May be
        falling snow or loose snow picked up off the ground by the wind.
    •   Blizzard -- Winds of more than 35 miles per hour with snow and blowing snow, reducing
        visibility to near zero.
    •   Sleet -- Forms from raindrops that freeze into ice pellets before reaching the ground.
        Sleet usually bounces when hitting a surface and does not stick. It can, however,
        accumulate and make driving treacherous. Typically occurs at temperatures from 30 to
        31 degrees on the ground and 32 to 34 degrees in the clouds.
    •   Freezing Rain -- Falls onto a surface with a temperature below freezing, causing it to
        freeze to surfaces such as trees, cars and roads and form a coating of ice. Can be very


 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 50 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
         hazardous even in small accumulations. Typically occurs at temperatures from 30 to 33
         degrees on the ground and 34 to 36 degrees in the clouds.


 Past occurrences of severe winter/ice storms. East Tennessee generally has several
 severe winter storms annually, with heavy snow and ice loads. Table 3.19 identifies severe
 winter storms on record with the National Weather Service from 1993 through 2002. These
 storms were generally widespread. No differentiation was made in the NWS information
 between the City of Bristol and the Sullivan County jurisdiction.

                        Table 3.19 Severe Winter Storms in Sullivan County

                                                                         Property     Crop
  Date          Time            Type     Magnitude   Deaths   Injuries
                                                                         damage      damage
12/20/1993      2200         Snow          N/A         0         0          1K         0
01/04/1994      1200         Snow          N/A         0         0          1K         0
01/14/1994      1800         Snow          N/A         0         0          0K         0
02/09/1994      2000       Ice Storm       N/A         0         0         500K        0
01/17/1995      0400      Heavy Snow       N/A         0         0           0         0
01/17/1995      1700           Ice         N/A         0         0         500K        0
01/06/1996      2100      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/11/1996      1900           Ice         N/A         0         0           0         0
02/02/1996      0200      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
12/18/1996      1600      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/10/1997      1100      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
12/30/1997      0400      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/27/1998      1930      Winter Storm     N/A         1         0         1.0M        0
12/22/1998      0100       Ice Storm       N/A         0         0           0         0
01/06/1999      0700      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
03/13/1999      0400      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/22/2000      1000      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
12/02/2000      1800      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
12/18/2000      1800      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/01/2001      0200      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/20/2001      0300      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/05/2002      2200      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
12/04/2002      1200      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/05/2003      400       Heavy Snow       N/A         0         0           0         0
01/16/2003      0100      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/22/2003      1900      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
01/09/2004      0300      Winter Storm     N/A         0         0           0         0
02/15/2004      2100      Heavy Snow       N/A         0         0           0         0
02/26/2004      1200      Heavy Snow       N/A         0         0           0         0
TOTALS:                                                1         0        2.001 M        0



  City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                    Page 51 of 121
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                     August 2006
 Section 3 – Risk Assessment
By far, the biggest concern Bristol has when dealing with a severe winter storm is getting utilities
back to functioning. Many resources, both public and private, have been spent in the past
repairing above-ground utility lines to restore electricity and in clearing roads, as well as
property damage.

Future probability of severe winter/ice storms. For the purposes of estimating return
interval, storms occurring on the same day are considered the same storm event. For each
year between 1993 and 2004, at least one severe winter storm each season has hit Sullivan
County and/or the City of Bristol between December and March. Table 3.20 provides an
estimated return interval in days for a severe winter storm, given that at least one storm event
will occur between December and March.

                       Table 3.20 Return Interval for Severe Winter Storms
                                               (from 1993 – 2004)

                                                                    Recurrence Interval
                      Winter Year               Number of
                                                                    Between December
                     (December –              Storms Within
                                                                         - March
                        March)               Sullivan County
                                                                          (days)
                      1993 – 1994                     4                    17.75
                      1994 – 1995                     1                     120
                      1995 – 1996                     3                      21
                      1996 – 1997                     2                     20.5
                      1997 – 1998                     2                      26
                      1998 – 1999                     3                      27
                      1999 – 2000                     1                     120
                      2000 - 2001                     4                    12.75
                      2001 - 2002                     1                     120
                      2002 - 2003                     3                    13.25
                     2003 - 20041                     3                      29
                    All Winter Storm
                                                      27                   19.5
                         Events
                         1
                             Through March 2004.

Additionally, the City of Bristol may anticipate 3 to 6 inches of snowfall annually, according to
the National Weather Service (Figure 3.13).




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                               Page 52 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                  Figure 3.13 Annual Mean Snowfall
                               (Courtesy of the National Weather Service)




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                 Page 53 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                  August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.2.2   Manmade Hazards

While DMA 2000 does not require communities to address manmade hazards in local hazard
mitigation plans, the City of Bristol wanted to include them. Two types of manmade hazards are
addressed in this LHMP: terrorism and hazardous chemical spills.

3.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials Spills

The City of Bristol is bordered by a major interstate and intersected by two major highways.
Figure 3.14 shows the locations of railroad systems within the City of Bristol, and Figure 3.15
shows the location of Interstate 81. The potential for spills associated with any of these
transportation corridors is fairly high, given that these interstates are major transportation
corridors north and south.




                                Figure 3.14 Railroad System




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                      Page 54 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                       August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                     Figure 3.15 Interstate 81

3.2.2.2 Terrorism

International terrorism in the City of Bristol has not occurred. However, domestic terrorism has
occurred in several Sullivan County communities on a small scale. The LHMT described
several domestic events involving homemade bombs and bomb threats, though specific dates
could not be provided. Terrorism events ended with little or no damage or loss of life. Given the
location of Bristol Motor Speedway and the large numbers of people in the area during racing
events, Bristol included terrorism threats in the LHMP. It is the desire of all Sullivan County
communities to protect critical infrastructure to prevent lifeline interruption and/or corruption to
the extent feasible and practical.

The locations of priority facilities and infrastructure that could be potential terrorism targets were
identified for Bristol. These facilities and hazard mitigation efforts taken to date are summarized
below:

   Bristol Motor Speedway
On race days two times a year, several hundred thousand people are in and around Bristol
Motor Speedway (BMS). BMS has an Emergency Operations Plan specifically for the
speedway, and the City Fire and Police Departments coordinate closely during events.

    Chemical plants

            •    King Pharmaceutical
            •    Glaxo Pharmaceutical
            •    Exide
            •    Necessary Oil

 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 55 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
These facilities are fairly small in comparison to other chemical companies in Sullivan County.

    Water Treatment Plants

            •    Bristol Water Treatment Plant

A vulnerability assessment has been performed on the facility as required.

    Wastewater Treatment Plants

            •    Bristol Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Vulnerability assessments are not required for WWTPs. However, an emergency operations
plan is in place.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 56 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.3       Vulnerability Assessment

A Vulnerability Assessment is performed to determine the impact the identified hazards have on
the built environment and how they can affect people’s safety. Community vulnerability can be
quantified in those instances where there is a known, identified hazard area, such as a mapped
floodplain. In these instances the numbers and types of buildings subject to the identified hazard
can be counted and their values tabulated. Further, other information can be collected, such as
the location of critical community facilities (e.g., a fire station), historic structures, and valued
natural resources (e.g., an identified wetland or endangered species habitat) that are within the
specific hazard area. Together, these values portray the impact, or vulnerability, of that area to
that hazard.

3.3.1     Critical Facilities

Of significant concern with respect to a hazard event is the location of critical facilities within the
Community. Critical facilities, as defined by the CPT and LHMT, were broken into two
categories:

      •   Critical facilities related to people – These facilities include schools, daycares, nursing
          homes, and hospitals. There are 27 critical facilities related to people located within the
          City of Bristol.

      •   Critical facilities related to terrorism – These facilities include Bristol Motor Speedway,
          and the wastewater treatment and water treatment plants. There are 5 critical facilities
          related to terrorism located within the City of Bristol: BMS, King Pharmaceutical, Glaxo
          Pharmaceutical, Exide, and Necessary Oil.

3.3.2     Historical and Natural Resources

Historic and Natural Resources are important to identify before disasters for three reasons:

      1. The community may decide that these sites are worthy of a greater degree of protection
         than currently exists, due to their unique and irreplaceable nature;
      2. If these resources are affected by a disaster, cataloging them ahead of time allows for
         more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts
         are higher; and
      3. The rules for repair, reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation and/or replacement of
         these resources usually differ from ordinary procedures.

Current sites on the Tennessee Register of Historic Sites and Structures (State Register) and
the National Register of Historic Places as of June 2004 are presented in Table 3.21. The
species listed in Table 3.22 are identified as endangered, threatened, and rare by the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and are located within Sullivan
County.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 57 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                              August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                 Table 3.21 Cultural Resources

                     Historic Place               Period of       Date listed on the
                     And Location                Significance     National Register
     Bristol Commercial Historic District         1875-1899
     Roughly along State, Piedmont, Moore,        1900-1924                2003
     Shelby, Bank, Progress, 5th, 6th, 7th and    1925-1949       District - #03000440
     8th Streets                                  1950-1974
     Bristol Municipal Stadium                                            1987
                                                  1925-1949
     1112 Edgemont Avenue                                        Structure - #87001039

     Bristol Virginia-Tennessee Slogan Sign       1900-1924              1988
     E. State Street                              1925-1949       Object - #88001568

     Bunting’s Drug Store                                                1983
                                                  1850-1874
     420 State Street                                            Building - #83004669

     First National Bank of Bristol                                      1985
                                                  1900-1924
     500 State Street                                            Building - #85001606

     King, Edward Washington, House               1900-1924              1999
     308 7th Street                               1925-1949      Building - #99001371

     Paramount Theatre and Office Building                               1985
                                                  1925-1949
     516 State Street                                            Building - #85000701
                                                  1875-1899
     Parlett House                                1900-1924              1983
     728 Georgia Avenue                           1925-1949      Building - #83003070
                                                  1950-1974
     Pemberton Mansion and Oak                                           1973
                                                  1875-1899
     9 mi. NE of Bristol on TN 34                                Building - #73001840
                                                  1750-1799
                                                  1800-1824
     Steel-Seneker Houses                                                1977
                                                  1825-1849
     4 mi. W of Bristol on TN 126                                Building - #77001294
                                                  1850-1874
                                                  1875-1899
     US Post Office—Shelby Street Station                                1985
                                                  1900-1924
     620 Shelby Street                                           Building - #85002772




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                     Page 58 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                      August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                          Table 3.22 Natural Resources Found in Bristol, TN

                                                                              Federal State
                 Scientific Name                        Common Name
                                                                              Status1 Status2
                                      PLANTS
BERBERIS CANADENSIS                     American Barberry                                  S
BOTRYCHIUM MATRICARIIFOLIUM             Chamomile Grapefern                                S
BUCKLEYA DISTICHOPHYLLA                 Piratebush                                         T
CIMICIFUGA RUBIFOLIA                    Appalachian Bugbane                                T
CYMOPHYLLUS FRASERIANUS                 Fraser’s Sedge                                     S
CYPRIPEDIUM ACAULE                      Pink Lady’s-slipper                              E-CE
DRABA RAMOSISSIMA                       Branching Whitlow-grass                            S
DRYOPTERIS CRISTATA                     Crested Shield-fern                                T
EUPATORIUM STEELEI                      Steele’s Joe-pye Weed                              S
GENTIANA AUSTROMONTANA                  Appalachian Gentian                                S
HEXASTYLIS VIRGINICA                    Virginia Heartleaf                                 S
HYDRASTIS CANADENSIS                    Goldenseal                                       S-CE
HYDROPHYLLUM VIRGINIANUM                Appalachian Waterleaf                              T
JUGLANS CINEREA                         Butternut                                          T
LEUCOTHOE RACEMOSA                      Fetter-bush                                        T
LONICERA DIOICA                         Mountain Honeysuckle                               S
MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA                     Sweetbay Magnolia                                  T
MEEHANIA CORDATA                        Heartleaf Meehania                                 T
PANAX QUINQUEFOLIUS                     American Ginseng                                 S-CE
PLATANTHERA FLAVA VAR HERBIOLA          Tubercled Rein-orchid                              T
PLATANTHERA GRANDIFLORA                 Large Purple Fringed Orchid                        E
PLATANTHERA ORBICULATA                  Large Round-leaved Orchid                          T
PYROLA AMERICANA                        American Wintergreen                               E
SCUTELLARIA SAXATILIS                   Rock Skullcap                                      T
SILENE CAROLINIANA SSP PENSYLVANICA     Carolina Pink                                      T
SMILACINA STELLATA                      Starflower False Solomon’s-seal                    E
STREPTOPUS AMPLEXIFOLIUS                White Mandarin                                     T
SYMPLOCARPUS FOETIDUS                   Skunk-cabbage                                      E
THUJA OCCIDENTALIS                      Northern White Cedar                               S
TRIENTALIS BOREALIS                     Northern Starflower                                T
TSUGA CAROLINIANA                       Carolina Hemlock                                   T
VITIS RUPESTRIS                         Sand Grape                                         E
WOODSIA SCOPULINA SSP APPALACHIANA      Allegheny Cliff-fern                               S
                             INVERTABRATES – MOLLUSCS
CONRADILLA CAELATA                      Birdwing Pearlymussel                   LE         E
EPIOBLASMA FLORENTINA WALKERI           Tan Riffleshell                         LE         E
FUSCONAIA CUNEOLUS                      Fine-rayed Pigtoe                       LE         E
FUSCONAIA EDGARIANA                     Shiny Pigtoe                            LE         E
PEGIAS FABULA                           Little-wing Pearlymussel                LE         E
QUADRULA INTERMEDIA                     Cumberland Monkeyface                   LE         E
                                VERTABRATES – BIRDS
CORVUS CORAX                            Common Raven                                       T
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS                Bald Eagle                              LT         D
LIMNOTHLYPIS SWAINSONII                 Swainson’s Warbler                                 D
   City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                  Page 59 of 121
  Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                   August 2006
  Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                                                                                                    Federal State
                       Scientific Name                                           Common Name
                                                                                                                    Status1 Status2
TYTO ALBA                                                   Common Barn-owl                                                           D
                                                    VERTABRATES – FISHES
CYPRINELLA MONACHA                                          Spotfin Chub                                                LT            T
ETHEOSTOMA PERCNURUM                                        Duskytail Darter                                            LE            E
PERCINA AURANTIACA                                          Tangerine Darter                                                          D
PERCINA BURTONI                                             Blotchside Darter                                                         D
PERCINA MACROCEPHALA                                        Longhead Darter                                                           T
PHOXINUS TENNESSEENSIS                                      Tennessee Dace                                                            D
                                                   VERTABRATES – MAMMALS
MYOTIS GRISESCENS                                           Gray Bat                                                    LE            E
PARASCALOPS BREWERI                                         Hairy-tailed Mole                                                         D
SOREX FUMEUS                                                Smoky Shrew                                                               D
SOREX LONGIROSTRIS                                          Southeastern Shrew                                                        D
SYNAPTOMYS COOPERI                                          Southern Bog Lemming                                                      D
ZAPUS HUDSONIUS                                             Meadow Jumping Mouse                                       (PS)           D
  1
      Federal Status is defined as:
         LE - Listed Endangered, the taxon is threatened by extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
         LT -    Listed Threatened, the taxon is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.
         C-      Candidate Species, These “Candidate” species are not currently proposed for listing, but development and publication
                 of proposed rules for such candidate species is anticipated. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient
                 information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened
                 species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will determine the relative listing priority of these candidate species, and
                 encourages other agencies, groups and individuals to give consideration to these taxa in environmental planning.
         (PS) - Partial Status (based on taxonomy) Taxon which is listed in part of its range, but for which Tennessee subspecies are
                 not included in the Federal designation
         (PS: status) - Partial Status (based on political boundaries) Taxon which is listed in part of its range, but for which
                 Tennessee populations are not included in the Federal designation e.g.
  2
      State Status is defined as:
          E-     Endangered Species means any species or subspecies of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of
                 the state’s flora is determined by the Commissioner to be in jeopardy, including but not limited to all species of plants
                 determined to be “endangered species” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
          T -    Threatened Species means any species or subspecies of plant which appears likely, within the foreseeable future, to
                 become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range in Tennessee, including but not limited to all
                 species of plants determined to be a “threatened species” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
          S-     Special Concern Species means any species or subspecies of plant that is uncommon in Tennessee, or has unique
                 or highly specific habitat requirements or scientific value and therefore requires careful monitoring of its status.
          D-     “Deemed in Need of Management” Any species or subspecies of nongame wildlife which the executive director of the
                 TWRA believes should be investigated in order to develop information relating to populations, distribution, habitat
                 needs, limiting factors, and other biological and ecological data to determine management measures necessary for
                 their continued ability to sustain themselves successfully. This category is analogous to “Special Concern.”
          P-     Possibly Extirpated species or subspecies that have not been seen in Tennessee for the past 20 years.
                 May no longer occur in Tennessee.
          CE - Commercially Exploited due to large numbers being taken from the wild and propagation or cultivation
                 insufficient to meet market demand. These plants are of long-term conservation concern, but the Division of
                 Natural Heritage does not recommend they be included in the normal environmental review process.


  3.3.3        Development Trends

  To understand the vulnerability of the built environment within each community, an assessment
  of the development trends was necessary. This allows us to focus on where and what type of
  future development will occur and thus determine how to fortify it to be hazard resistant.
  Fostering economic development is a priority for the City of Bristol. Tax-increment financing is
  anticipated to bring and improve commercial development, retail growth, and industrial growth to
  the community. Examples of current and potential development include:

   City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                                          Page 60 of 121
  Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                                           August 2006
  Section 3 – Risk Assessment
        •   Redevelopment of the West Ridge Plaza and the former Southgate Shopping
            Center;
        •   A condominium, restaurant and retail development near Bristol Motor Speedway;
        •   An office park near Bristol Regional Medical Center; and
        •   A new Bristol Business Park, under development on the Bristol beltway.

City officials plan to focus on transportation concerns as well. Transportation planning is seen
as a challenge because of the difficulty traveling through town going east to west. The City will
be identifying ways to move traffic smartly and efficiently. Examples of current and potential
transportation development include:

        •   A Tennessee Department of Transportation bridge on Anderson Street;
        •   A road connecting State Route 126 to U.S. Highway 11W near the Interstate 81, exit
            74 interchange; and
        •   The expansion of the Bristol beltway.

The overall population increase for the City was 6.0% from 1990 - 2000. This suggests a
moderately low rate of development of residential structures as well as commercial structures
and infrastructure.

3.3.4   Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

On a more realistic scale, community vulnerability can be quantified in those instances where
there is a known, identified hazard area, such as a mapped floodplain. In these instances the
numbers and types of buildings subject to the identified hazard can be counted and their values
tabulated. Further, other information can be collected, such as the location of critical community
facilities (e.g., a fire station), historic structures, and valued natural resources (e.g., an identified
wetland or endangered species habitat) that are within the specific hazard area. Together, these
values portray the impact, or vulnerability, of that area to that hazard.

The CPT and LHMT identified the natural hazard of flooding and the manmade hazards of
hazardous materials spills and terrorism for which specific geographical hazard areas were
defined. For these hazard areas, the CPT and LHMT inventoried the following as a means of
quantifying the vulnerability within the hazard area:

        •   Total Values at Risk (i.e., types, numbers, and value of land and improvements);
        •   Identification of Critical Facilities at risk; and
        •   A general statement of community impact.

For the other hazards identified in the preceding section, information is available where the
potential impacts can be developed or inferred, although this information is not tied to a specific
area within the City. For these hazards, such as severe weather and drought, the entire county
is at risk, not just the City. In some cases, certain hazard characteristics suggest varying
degrees of risk within different areas of the community. For example:

        •   In earthquakes, certain soils are more susceptible to shaking than others, and certain
            types of building construction are more likely to sustain damage than others. Thus,
            in areas with higher concentrations of these types of soils or these types of buildings,
            greater damages can be expected. Any area that included both risky soils and
            vulnerable construction would be most likely to incur the greatest level of damage
            and disruption.
 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                               Page 61 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
        •   West Nile Virus is spread through mosquito bites. Thus, people and livestock
            frequenting areas with the greatest concentration of mosquitoes, and during the
            times of greatest concentration, are most likely to become infected. Areas with
            standing water are where mosquitoes breed, and therefore are an area of higher risk.
            Standing water can be found in, for example, swimming pools, ponds, birdbaths,
            ditches, and old spare tires – so the risk areas could be in many locations and in
            differing concentrations.

Table 3.23 presents the probable risk and vulnerability for identified hazards within the
community.

                Table 3.23 Summary of Probable Hazard Risk and Vulnerability


                   Hazard                        Risk                    Vulnerability

  Dam Failure                                    High                      Moderate
  Flooding Hazards                               High                        Low
  Geological Hazards                              Low                        Low
  Infestations                                    Low                        Low
  Severe Weather – Drought                        Low                        Low
  Severe Weather Hazards                       Moderate                    Moderate
  Manmade Hazards                              Moderate                    Moderate

Dam Failure

Flood inundation maps for dam failures were not available to calculate the specific structural
vulnerability. However, Beaver Creek, Clear Creek, and Steele Creek dams are classified as
dams which upon failure would cause probable loss of life or excessive economic loss.
Additionally, Middlebrook Dam is classified as a dam which upon failure would cause property
damage or temporary loss of roads or utilities with a remote chance of loss of life.

Conclusion. The analysis suggests that the City of Bristol has a moderate to high vulnerability
to dam failure.

Flooding Hazards

Flooding impacts may include urban, residential, and commercial consequences. Buildings can
experience significant damage, sometimes beyond repair. Household furnishings and business
inventories can be lost if there is not adequate time to remove items to safe locations.
Subsequent impacts include revenue loss to employees and businesses, as well as, local
governments through tax loss.

In addition to being at risk because of floodwater, residents face the threat of explosions and
fires caused by leaking gas lines along with the possibility of being electrocuted. Even wild
animals, such as venomous snakes, forced out of their homes and brought into contact with

 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 62 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
humans by floodwaters, can be a threat. Additional public health concerns include mold, West
Nile Virus, and encephalitis.

Severe flooding can cause extensive damage to public utilities and disruptions to the delivery of
services. Loss of power and communications can be expected. Drinking water and wastewater
treatment facilities may be temporarily out of operation. Storm and sanitary sewers may also be
impacted due to locations in flood prone areas for design purposes, such as gravity flow to
minimize pumping charges.

Impacts of flooding on transportation are particularly significant. Flooded streets and roads block
transportation and make it difficult for emergency vehicles to respond to calls for service.
Floodwaters can washout sections of roadway and bridges. This disruption may extend to a
regional, even national, scale particularly with regard to access to highways, railroads, and
navigable waterways. Most importantly, the majority of fatalities that occur in floods are the
result of people trying to drive on roads covered by floodwaters.

In order to determine vulnerability, the 100-year floodplain map was overlaid onto the Sullivan
County cadastral data. The properties that intersected the floodplain were then queried for
property improvements greater than $0.00 (see Table 3.24.) This gave an indication of an
improvement to a piece of property that touched the floodplain, i.e. count of structures in
floodplain. Of the 11,227 parcels located within the City of Bristol, 942 are located within the
100-year floodplain representing 8.39% of the total properties. Similarly, of the total
$836,097,000 in improvement values, $129,024,700 are located within the 100-year floodplain.
This means that 15.43% of the total property value of the community is located within the 100-
year floodplain.

         Table 3.24 Analysis of Structures Located within the 100-Year Floodplain

                                                       Total
                                                                      Improvement
                         Property Type              Number of
                                                                         Value
                                                    Structures
              Residential                               564           $ 25,955,400
              Nonresidential                            378           $103,069,300
                           TOTAL                        942           $129,024,700

No critical facilities are located in the mapped 100-year floodplain. Figure 3.16 shows the
locations of critical facilities with respect to the FIRM flood hazard areas.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 63 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                           Figure 3.16 Critical Facilities and Floodplain

Conclusion. The analysis suggests that Bristol has a low vulnerability to flooding and flood
damages.

Geological Hazards

Based on historic and scientific information, the risk to the City of Bristol from earthquakes is
low.

An evaluation of the vulnerability of the City of Bristol to earthquakes was performed using the
HAZUS software program. 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). NIBS maintains committees of wind, flood, earthquake, and software experts to provide
technical oversight and guidance to HAZUS-MH development. Loss estimates produced by
HAZUS-MH 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 on
emergency preparedness and response and recovery planning. HAZUS-MH also uses
standard census data for computations. This data is available for Sullivan County, not
specifically the City of Bristol.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 64 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
The study used 2000 Census Bureau data for Sullivan County with the following assumptions:
    •   Three Historical Earthquakes
           − January 5, 1843;
           − August 17, 1865; and
           − October 30, 1973
    •   Respective Earthquake magnitudes and depths;
           − 5.8 Magnitude at 10 KM depth;
           − 5.3 Magnitude at 10 KM depth; and
           − 5.3 Magnitude at 10 KM depth.
    •   213.56 square mile region;
    •   12 census tracts;
    •   22,587 households;
    •   Population of 55,150 people (2000 Census Bureau data);
    •   Total building replacement cost of 3,179 million dollars; and
    •   Approximately 99% of the buildings (and 84% percent of the building value) are
        associated with residential housing.

                               Table 3.25 Earthquake Hazard Damage

          Impacts / Earthquake                  1-5-1843          8-17-1865       10-30-1973

Residential Bldgs. Damaged
                                                   0.0                  0.0            0.0
(Based upon 21,000 buildings)
Injuries
                                                   0.0                  0.0            0.0
(Based upon 55,150 people)

Displaced Households                               0.0                  0.0            0.0

Economic Loss                                      0.0                  0.0            0.0

Damage to Schools
                                                   0.0                  0.0            0.0
(Based upon 25 schools))
Damage to Hospital
                                                   0.0                  0.0            0.0
(Based on 1 hospital – 348 beds)

Damage to Transportation Systems                   0.0                  0.0            0.0
Households w/out Power & Water
Service                                            0.0                  0.0            0.0
(Based upon 22,587 households)
Debris (in million tons)                           0.0                  0.0            0.0


Common impacts from earthquakes include damages to infrastructure and buildings (e.g.,
crumbling of un-reinforced masonry (brick); collapse of architectural facades; breakage of
underground utilities, gas-fed fires; landslides and rock falls; and road closures). Less common,
but possible damages would include dam failures and subsequent flash floods.

 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 65 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Conclusion. The analysis suggests that the City of Bristol has a low vulnerability to damages
related to earthquakes.

Infestations

The impacts of West Nile may include the loss of life or either short or long term debilitation for
the victims. It may also include economic hardship for the individuals or their families. Lost work
time affects not only the employee, but also the employer. Loss of productivity due to individual
illnesses is a major business problem today without taking into account the effects of a major
epidemic.

In addition, a serious epidemic would likely cause a strain on current public health and medical
resources. Response efforts cause an economic impact on the community including the cost of
spraying, data collection and testing efforts, and public information.

Both the risk and vulnerability to Tennessee from West Nile Virus (WNV) is considered low,
based on the percentage of total population that actually contracts the disease. The first
appearance of WNV in North America occurred in 1999. As of August 2003, WNV had been
documented in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Positive cases of West Nile Virus in
Sullivan County were first reported in 2002 in birds and veterinary animals. According to the
Tennessee State Department of Health, the number of confirmed human cases for the State for
2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 are 1, 141, 103, and 1, respectively. This is consistent with the
natural trends that indicate the second year of exposure to WNV is the worst.

Severe Weather Hazards – Drought

Drought impacts may include physical, bio- physical, social and economic consequences.
Physically, there may be a reduction in water supply for drinking, domestic, and irrigation
purposes with a subsequent impact of increased pumping costs. The ground water level may be
depleted and the flow of perennial water sources reduced. Bio-physical impacts include
damage to crop quantity and quality, damage to wildlife habitat and wildlife, an increase in
invasive/noxious weeds, and the deterioration of water quality. Economically, there may be a
loss in livestock production and increased prices for commodities.

The seasonal outlook as prepared by the Climate Prediction Center, does not predict that
eastern Tennessee is likely to enter a period of drought in the near future.

The City uses the Holston River as a water supply. Since TVA controls the river level, the area
has not experienced water shortages.

Severe Weather Hazards – Extreme Temperatures, Thunderstorms, Tornadoes, and
Winter Storms

The severe weather evaluated as part of this risk assessment included: extreme temperatures,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, and winter storms. In general, both the risk and vulnerability to the
City of Bristol from severe weather is high, all of the presidential disaster declarations for
Sullivan County since 1997 have been a result of severe storms.

Impacts to the City of Bristol as a result of severe weather could include damage to
infrastructure, particularly damage to overhead power lines, road closures, and interruption in
business and school activities. In the case of tornadoes, severe damages can occur to
buildings. Utility outages can impact anything relying on electricity without a redundant power
 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 66 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
supply (e.g., a generator, solar power, or redistribution plan), and include secondary impacts
such as interruption to water and sewage services, heat and refrigeration, fuel supplies,
computers and cell phones. If interruption to business occurs for an extended period, economic
impacts can be severe. Also of concern would be the impacts on populations with special needs
such as the elderly and those requiring the use of electric medical equipment. Although typically
short-lived, delays in emergency response services can also be of concern. Depending on the
nature of a given storm, all areas within the City of Bristol are equally at risk; however, those
areas relying on above ground utilities could suffer the greatest damage.

Manmade Hazards – Hazardous Materials Spills

There is a fundamental difference between natural and manmade hazards. The types,
frequencies, and locations of natural hazards within the City of Bristol have been identified and,
where possible, future occurrences predicted. Natural hazards are governed by the laws of
physics and nature. Manmade hazards are caused by malevolence, incompetence,
carelessness, and other behaviors, which are functions of the human mind and cannot be
forecast with any accuracy. There is, therefore, the potential for most, if not all, types of
manmade hazards to occur anywhere. The potential location of hazardous materials spills can
be predicted to occur along major transportation lines. The vulnerability along these major
transportation routes was determined.

Railroads

The locations of the railroads within Bristol are presented in Figure 3.17.




                     Figure 3.17 Locations of Railroads in the City of Bristol

In order to determine vulnerability, a corridor extending 100 feet on either side of the railroads
was overlaid onto the Sullivan County cadastral data. The properties that intersected the
 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 67 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
corridor were then queried for property improvements greater than $0.00 (See Table 3.26). This
gave an indication of an improvement to a piece of property that touched the corridor.

                    Table 3.26 Structures Within the 100-ft Railroad Corridor

                                                    Number of           Improvement
                 Property Type
                                                    Structures              Value
     Residential                                        74               $ 1,339,600
     Non-residential                                    62               $49,347,700
                  TOTAL                                136               $50,687,300


Of the 11,227 parcels located within the City of Bristol, 136 are located within the corridor
representing approximately one percent of the total properties. Similarly, of the total
$836,090,000 in improvement values, $50,687,300 is located within the corridor. This means
that 6.06% of the total property value of the community is located within the railroad corridor.

Major Interstates

Interstate-81 is the major interstate corridor in Bristol and is shown in Figure 3.18. Both
hazardous and non-hazardous materials are transported on Interstate-81 daily. In order to
determine vulnerability, a corridor extending 500 feet on either side of the major interstates was
overlaid onto the Sullivan County cadastral data. The properties that intersected the corridor
were then queried for property improvements greater than $0.00 (see Table 3.27.) This gave an
indication of an improvement to a piece of property that touched the corridor.




                               Figure 3.18 500-ft Corridor of Interstate 81


 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 68 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Table 3.27 summarizes the dollar amount in damages that would be incurred should a major
spill occur due to an accident, terrorist activity, or other malfunction affecting 500-foot corridors
on both sides of the interstates.

                 Table 3.27 Structures Within the 500-ft Interstate-81 Corridor

                                                 Number of              Improvement
                 Property Type
                                                 Structures                 Value
     Residential                                     5                    $ 157,700
     Non-residential                                 19                  $7,981,900
                  TOTAL                              24                  $8,139,600

Of the 11,227 parcels located within the City of Bristol, 24 are located within the corridor
representing less than one percent of the total properties. Similarly, of the total $836,090,000 in
improvement values, $8,139,000 is located within the corridor. This means that .97% of the
total property value of the community is located within the interstate corridor.
Conclusion. The analysis suggests that Bristol has a low vulnerability to damages related to
spills or other hazards along railroads and interstates.

Manmade Hazards - Terrorism

In performing this vulnerability assessment, several assumptions were made about the potential
for terrorism activities:

    1) Activities would target facilities that could produce the greatest environmental and/or
       health disaster; and
    2) Activities would target those facilities that could disrupt major lifelines.

King and Glaxo Pharmaceutical, Exide, and Necessary Oil were identified for the analysis. To
determine the community’s vulnerability to terrorism at these facilities, a general spatial analysis
was performed. The concentration of development (and thus indirectly of people) located within
a given search area of the facilities was determined using the parcel data provided by the
County. The analysis takes into account only the aerial distribution of parcels in reference to
these sites and does not focus on individual or specific types of hazardous materials and their
potential effects should a terrorism event occur.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) develops standards used in searching
for regulated facilities that manufacture, use, store or are disposal sites for hazardous or
potentially hazardous materials and waste. According to these standards, a radial distance of 1
mile was considered in evaluating each of these sites’ potential to effect surrounding properties.
This 1-mile radius was overlaid onto the Sullivan County cadastral data. The properties that
intersected the corridor were then queried for property improvements greater than $0.00 (see
Table 3.27.) This gave an indication of an improvement to a piece of property that touched the
radius.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 69 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                 Figure 3.19 One-mile Impact Area of Pharmaceutical Facilities




                                                                                        Figure
                                                                                    3.20 One-
                                                                                          mile
                                                                                       Impact
                                                                                    Area of
                                                                                         Exide




                     Corporation




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                      Page 70 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                       August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                        Figure 3.21 One-mile Impact Area for Necessary Oil

Of the 11,227 parcels located within the City of Bristol, 3,876 are located within the radii of
Glaxo and King Pharmaceutical facilities (Figure 3.19) representing 34.5 percent of the total
properties. Similarly, of the total $836,090,000 in improvement values, $345,603,300 are
located within the radius. This means that 41.3 percent of the total property value of the
community is located within the impact areas for both facilities. 3,541 parcels are located within
the impact zones for Exide and Necessary Oil (Figures 3,20 and 3.21) representing 31.5
percent of the total property with a cumulative property value of $238,558,300 representing 28.5
percent of the total property value.

                      Table 3.28 Structures Within the 1-Mile Impact Area
                                          For Exide
                                            Number of
                  Property Type                              Improvement Value
                                            Structures
             Non-residential                    77               $77,875,400
              Pharmaceutical       0
              Schools              0
              Emergency
              Shelters             1
              Childcare
              Facilities           0
              Retirement
              Home                 0
              Nursing Home         0
             Residential                       402               27,059,600
                       TOTAL                   479              $104,935,000

 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 71 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                      Table 3.29 Structures Within the 1-Mile Impact Area
                                      For Necessary Oil
                                            Number of
                  Property Type                              Improvement Value
                                            Structures
             Non-residential                    347              $25,301,300
              Pharmaceutical       1
              Schools              5
              Emergency
              Shelters             4
              Childcare
              Facilities           3
              Retirement
              Home                 1
              Nursing Home         0
             Residential                       2715             $ 108,322,000
                       TOTAL                   3062             $133,623,300



                      Table 3.30 Structures Within the 1-Mile Impact Area
                              For Glaxo and King Pharmaceutical
                                            Number of
                  Property Type                              Improvement Value
                                            Structures
             Non-residential                    836             $216,259,500
              Pharmaceutical       2
              Schools              5
              Emergency
              Shelters             6
              Childcare
              Facilities           5
              Retirement
              Home                 1
              Nursing Home         1
             Residential                       3440             $ 129,343,800
                       TOTAL                   3876             $345,603,300


Conclusion. The analysis suggests that Bristol has a moderate vulnerability to damages
related to terrorism as these facilities.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                  Page 72 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                   August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Bristol Motor Speedway
The CPT and LHMT both felt that BMS presents a heightened vulnerability during race events,
due to the number of people in the facility. The vulnerability is directly related to the ability to
evacuate people in the event of a disaster, whether weather related or terrorism related.
The following hazard mitigation activities are conducted prior to large race events:

     •   Access to BMS facilities is limited, starting about 1 week before an event. Bristol Police
         are currently working to get more control of access routes at the North and South
         Gates.
     •   Security sweeps are performed for the entire facility during the week before the event.
         Areas checked include all public and private areas (bathrooms, concessions, offices,
         etc.), the grandstands, water lines, manholes, storm drains, and sewers.
     •   Manholes, grates, and other underground access points are secured with locks and
         straps.
     •   Police are working toward implementing a series of bomb sweeps prior to events, using
         10 to 12 trained dogs. Currently, a bomb sweep is performed prior to a race event for
         the entire area that is located within a certain distance from the track. The Virginia
         State Police assist with monitoring of biohazards and bomb threats.
     •   BMS gate personnel perform searches of all articles brought into the facility by race
         fans.
     •   Police and BMS personnel have a plan of action should a suspicious item be found
         during a sweep or fan belongings search.
     •   Airspace around BMS is restricted during the events and fighter jets have been
         stationed at the TriCities Airport to provide air security if needed.
     •   Local police coordinate with state and federal agencies prior to and during events as
         appropriate (TN & VA State Police, FBI, FAA, etc.).
     •   A threat assessment is performed approximately 1 month to 1 week prior to an event.
         The assessment is performed through the FBI, and a criminal intelligence briefing is
         held with all the major agencies involved in an event.
     •   Weather is monitored prior to and throughout an event.
     •   The BMS public address system and infield “Jumbotrons” can be used for hazard
         announcements and instructions.
     •   Environmental hazards are not generally problematic. Each race team is responsible
         for environmental cleanliness associated with their areas and equipment. Safety Kleen
         is onsite during events for oil/gas and other chemical spills.
     •   An evacuation plan is currently being developed for BMS. Major points of the plan will
         be to: (1) assign greater evacuation responsibilities for the 500+ BMS ushers, and (2)
         assign evacuation routes/personnel to each area of the facility.
     •   Evacuation decisions are made by appropriate BMS, City Police, and other personnel.

In addition to vulnerabilities within the BMS facility, there are approximately 40 to 45 campsites
within a 3-mile radius outside of the BMS facility. This translates into approximately 35,000
campers. The major potential hazards associated with areas outside BMS during an event are:

     •   Storm events and related issues (flooding, tornados, lightning);
     •   Fire;
     •   Pedestrian ingress/egress.

Campsites are full or nearly full from approximately 4 days pre-event, to 1 day post-event.

 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 73 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Campsites range in size from several hundred campers per property to three to four campers
per property. All campsites are privately owned. The City of Bristol requires campsite owners
to obtain permits for campsites.

The following summarizes identified issues related to severe weather hazards at campsites.

     •   Beaver Creek is located near the BMS facility. The Creek has a history of overbank
         flooding after heavy, concentrated rain events. Flood maps developed by USACE
         indicate that several major campsites are located within the 100-year floodplain of
         Beaver Creek.
     •   The VA flood warning system is located approximately nine miles north of the BMS
         facility and should provide advanced warning for flood waters from the Beaver Creek
         watershed. It doesn’t, however, provide warning for flood waters associated with Back
         Creek and Sinking Creek. These streams converge approximately one mile north or
         immediately west of the BMS facility.
     •   There is no current plan of action for evacuation of campsites during a major storm/flood
         event. It is unknown if private campsites have public address capabilities. Police
         cruisers can be used to notify campers in the event of an evacuation.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 74 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
3.4     Capability Assessment

An additional method of evaluating the potential for hazards to adversely impact the City of
Bristol is to conduct an inventory and analysis of the community’s existing mitigation
capabilities. Doing so provides an assessment of how well prepared the community is presently,
and highlights any areas where improvements might be worthwhile. The term “mitigation
capabilities” is meant to be inclusive of all existing policies, regulations, procedures, and abilities
that already contribute to the protection of the City of Bristol and the minimization of damages
from future disasters.

The LHMT took two approaches in conducting this assessment. First, an inventory of existing
policies, regulations and plans was made. These policy and planning documents were collected
and reviewed to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard related losses, or if they
inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses. Second, an inventory of other mitigation
activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose for this effort was to identify
activities and actions beyond policies, regulations and plans that were either in place, needed
improvement, or could be undertaken, if deemed appropriate.

The LHMT and consultant collected and reviewed the following documents:

                                Table 3.31 Documents Reviewed

                     City                           Report                         Date

                    Bristol          Emergency Disaster Preparedness               1987

                    Bristol            Planning and Zoning Ordinance           March 2002

                    Bristol                Subdivision Regulations              March 2001
                                      Long Range Transportation Plan
                    Bristol                                                 Year 2005
                                                   Update
                                     Construction Standards from Bristol,
                    Bristol                                               November 2001
                                                     TN
                  Bristol,
       S.Holston/Watuaga/Wilbur,         TVA Emergency Action Plan               July 2003
         St.Patrick Henry/Boone

In addition to the assessment of community policies, regulations and plans, the following matrix,
Table 3.32, was created as a way of taking inventory of additional mitigation capabilities in each
community. The intent of this effort was to see if there were any similarities or gaps in
community programs and tools that might indicate where some improvements could be made.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 75 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                              August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                                   Table 3.32 Capability Matrix

                         Capability                        City of Bristol
           Comprehensive Plan
           Land Use Plan                                          Y
             - with integrated Hazard                             N
               Mitigation planning?
           Subdivision Ordinance                                    Y
           Zoning Ordinance                                         Y
           Hazard Mitigation Plan                                   Y
           NFIP/FPM Ordinance                                       Y
           Floodway Buffer Ordinance                                N
            - Map Date                              FIS Report – February 4, 2004
            - Substantial Damage language?                          Y
            - Floodplain Manager?                                   Y
            - # of Floodprone Buildings?                     942 (parcels)
            - # of NFIP policies                              60 (in 2003)
            - Maintain Elevation Certificates?                      Y
            - # of Repetitive Losses?                               0
           CRS Rating, if applicable             Not yet participating in CRS Program
           Stormwater Program?                       NPDES Phase II Community
           Building Code Version                       Southern Building Codes
           Full-time Building Official                              Y
            - Conduct "as-built" Inspections?                       Y
           BCEGS Rating                                     Not applicable
           Local Emergency Operations Plan                          Y
           HMP in place?                                            Y
           Warning System in Place?                                 Y
            - Storm Ready Certified?                                N
            - Weather Radio reception?                              Y
            - Outdoor Warning Sirens?                               Y
            - Emergency Notification (R-911)?                       Y
            - Other? (e.g., cable over-ride)                Not applicable
           GIS System?                                              Y
            - Hazard Data?                                          N
            - Building footprints?                                  N
            - Tied to Assessor data?                                Y
            - Land-Use designations?                                Y
           Erosion Control procedures?                              Y
           Sediment Control procedures?                             Y
           Public Information Program/Outlet           In NPDES Phase II plan
           Environmental Education
           Program?




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 76 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Explanation of Capability Assessment Matrix

Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Long-Term Community Growth Plan

Land Use Plan: Designates type of Land Use desired/required – Comprised of Zoning

Subdivision Ordinance: Regulates platting, recording, infrastructure improvement

Zoning Ordinance: Dictates type of Use and Occupancy, lot sizes, density, set-backs, and
construction types, Implements Land Use Plan

NFIP/FPM Ord: Floodplain Management Ordinance: Directs development in identified Flood
Hazard Areas. Required for Participation in NFIP and Availability of Flood Insurance

Substantial Damage: Floodplain             ordinance    contains    language     on     Substantial
Damage/Improvements (50% rule)

Administrator: City Floodplain Management Administrator, someone with the responsibility of
enforcing the ordinance and providing ancillary services (map reading, public education on
floods, etc.)

# of FP Bldgs: Buildings are in the Floodplain

# of policies? Buildings insured against flood through the NFIP

# of RL’s: # of Repetitive Losses: (Paid more than $1,000, twice in the past 10 years)

CRS Rating: Community Rating System of the NFIP

BCEGS: Building Code Effectiveness Grading System Rating

LEOP: Local Emergency Operations Plan – a disaster RESPONSE plan

HM Plan: Hazard Mitigation Plan

Warning: type of system: “Storm Ready” Certification from the National Weather Service;
NOAA Weather Radio reception; Sirens; Cable (TV) Override; “Reverse 911”

GIS: Geographic Information System

Erosion Or Sediment Control: Projects or regulations in place

Public Information And/Or Environmental Education Program: Existing program even if its
primary focus is not hazards. Examples would be "regular" flyers included in city utility billings,
a website, or an environmental education program for kids in conjunction with Parks &
Recreation?)




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 77 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
Evaluation of Existing Capabilities Identified through the Matrix

Overall, the existing policies and procedures for implementing and accomplishing mitigation are
both strong and comprehensive. This analysis has, though, highlighted several issues for the
CPT to consider addressing through Plan recommendations. The issues are described below:

    •   The City of Bristol participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. However, there
        are approximately 942 parcels with structures located within the floodplain and, as of the
        end of 2003, there were 60 flood insurance policies in force. Thus, approximately 6
        percent of the floodplain parcels were covered by flood insurance.

    •   Building codes in the City of Bristol address peak ground acceleration. However, single-
        family residential dwellings are not required to meet seismic building standards.

Other Existing Mitigation Capabilities

Several significant mitigation programs are underway in the City of Bristol that further strengthen
the existing level of community protection against hazards and reduce future losses from
disasters.

    •   The City of Bristol is considering participating in the NFIP Community Rating System.
        Regulating floodplain management within the community beyond the minimum
        requirements of the NFIP will benefit not only the community as a whole, but will also
        reduce the cost of flood insurance premiums for residents.

    •   The City of Bristol has adopted a building code that addresses wind loads. This building
        code adheres to the Southern Standard Building Codes and specifies wind load that
        buildings must meet. The City intends to adopt the International Building Codes in the
        near future.

    •   According to the Subdivision Regulations, lots are designated critical during the
        preliminary plat review process based on soil conditions and degree of slope or other lot
        features, to address concerns related to the feasibility of construction. Reviewers
        emphasize that a typical house design may not be suitable for a critical lot. A critical lot
        usually requires a design that is specifically for that lot. Generally, a lot will be
        designated critical when it is created on topography with slopes of 15 percent or greater.

        Prior to submission of an application for a building permit on a lot designated as critical,
        a plan shall be submitted to the Department of Codes Enforcement staff for approval.
        The plan shall provide a survey of existing conditions and details of the proposed
        development on the lot. No clearing or grading may take place prior to approval of the
        critical lot plan and issuance of a building permit.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, is currently performing a detailed
hydrologic and hydraulic study of the Beaver Creek watershed.

    •   Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment; Section 205 Flood Damage
        Reduction; Beaver Creek Flood Damage Reduction Study; The Cities of Bristol,
        Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia; December 2004.


 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 78 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
                               This page intentionally left blank.




 City of Bristol, Tennessee                                          Page 79 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                           August 2006
Section 3 – Risk Assessment
5       Plan Adoption

The Bristol City Council will adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by resolution. The executed
copy of this adopted committee resolution is included in Appendix B. The adoption of this
resolution completes Step 9 of the Plan Development Process: Formal Plan Adoption.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 94 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                        August 2006
Section 5 – Plan Adoption
                                   This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                               Page 95 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                               August 2006
Section 6 –Implementation and Maintenance
6         Implementation and Maintenance Process

6.1       Implementation

The Bristol CPT will continue to coordinate efforts and resources to implement the
recommended strategies within the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as with the Sullivan
County Core Regional Planning Team. The CPT will meet annually to discuss changes and
revisions and will evaluate the strategies’ effectiveness after major hazard events occur.

Step 10 of the Plan Development Process: Implementation and Maintenance of the Plan is
critical to the overall success of Hazard Mitigation Planning. Upon adoption, the plan faces the
truest test of its worth: implementation. Implementation implies two closely related concepts:
action and priority.

While this plan recommends many worthwhile actions, the decision about which action to
undertake first will be the first issue that the CPT and LHMT face. Pursuing low or no-cost high-
priority recommendations will have the greatest likelihood of being the first steps.

Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective but low-cost, is to take
steps to incorporate both the recommendations and the underlying principles of this Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan into other community plans and mechanisms, such as Comprehensive
Planning, Capital Improvement budgeting, Economic Development goals and incentives, or
regional plans such as those put forth by the State Department of Transportation. Mitigation is
most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of
government and development. The best chance for the plan’s success is if CPT and LHMT staff
and elected officials maintain a vigilance to incorporate the plan into operations. This
integration is accomplished by a constant, prevailing, and energetic effort to network among
programs and to identify and highlight the multi-objective, “win-win” benefits for each affected
program, as well as the communities and constituents. This effort is achieved through the
routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, sending memos, and promoting
safe, sustainable communities.

In concert with these efforts, it is important to maintain constant monitoring of funding
opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended
actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how any required local
match or participation requirement can be met. Then, when funding does become available, the
CPT and LHMT will be in a position to capitalize upon the opportunity. Funding opportunities
that can be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, special district budgeted
funds, state or federal ear-marked funds, and grant programs, including those that can serve or
support multi-objective applications.

With the adoption of this plan, the CPT and LHMT should be converted to a permanent advisory
body. This Committee should agree to commit to:

      •   Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;
      •   Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;
      •   Pursue the implementation of the high priority, low/no-cost Recommended Actions;
      •   Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of community decision-making by
          identifying recommendations of this plan when other community goals, plans and
          activities overlap, influence, or directly affect community vulnerability to disasters;

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 96 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Section 6 –Implementation and Maintenance
      •   Maintain vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to assist the
          community in implementing the Recommended Actions of this plan for which no current
          funding or support exists;
      •   Monitor implementation of this Plan;
      •   Report on progress and recommended changes to the City Council; and
      •   Inform and solicit input from the public.

The Committee will not have any powers over City and County staff; it will be an advisory body
only. Its primary duty is to see that the Plan is carried out successfully and to report to the City
Council and the public on the status of Plan implementation and mitigation opportunities in the
City of Bristol. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, hearing
stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, and passing concerns on to the appropriate.

6.2       Incorporation

The recommended strategies in this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into
planning documents as they are being updated, such as Urban Growth Boundary plan, Capital
Improvement Plans, and Emergency Operations Plans.

6.3       Public Participation

The public will be invited to participate in any revisions, updates or modifications of the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan prior to plan adoption.

6.4       Maintenance

Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the
plan, and to update the plan as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are
recognized. During the plan maintenance, roadblocks and opportunities such as the ability to
get funding, will be discussed and the prioritization of action items will be visited. The CPT will
evaluate the LHMP strategies based upon development trends, funding, recent major disasters,
and “lessons learned” from other communities in Sullivan County.

This monitoring and updating will take place through an annual review through the standing
CPT and a 5-year written update to be submitted to the state and FEMA Region IV, unless
disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) lead to a different time frame.

The CPT will coordinate with the LHMT to update and revise the plan. Public notice will be
given and public participation will be invited, at a minimum, through press releases to the local
media outlets, primarily newspapers and radio stations.

The evaluation of the progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in the degree of
vulnerability identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability status can be identified by noting:

      •   Lessened vulnerability as a result of implementing Recommended Actions;
      •   Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions; and/or,
      •   Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation).

The plan will be updated via written changes and submissions, as the CPT deems appropriate
and necessary, and as approved by the City Council.

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                Page 97 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 6 –Implementation and Maintenance
4        Mitigation Strategy

Thus far, the planning process has identified the hazards posing a threat to the City of Bristol
that described and quantified the vulnerability of the city to these risks. The next step, prior to
forming Goals and Objectives for improving each jurisdiction’s ability to reduce the impacts of
these risks, is to assess what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. Doing so
provides the City’s “net vulnerability” to disasters and more accurately focuses the Goals,
Objectives and Proposed Actions of this plan. This part of the plan is referred to as the City
mitigation capability assessment.

4.1      Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The CPT and LHMT together developed goals and objectives over several meetings. The
following is a listing of goals and general objectives, or Recommended Action Items, for each
goal.

4.1.1    Goals

The analysis of the components of the Risk Assessment identified areas where mitigation
improvements could be made, providing the framework for the CPT and LHMT to formulate
planning goals. Each CPT and LHMT member was provided a list of possible goal statements.
CPT and LHMT members then openly discussed each goal, reaching consensus on the final
listing.

Based upon the planning data review, and the process described above, the CPT developed the
final goal statements listed below. The goals and objectives provide the direction for reducing
future hazard-related losses in Bristol, TN.

The overall goals of the City of Bristol local hazard mitigation plan are listed below.

         •   Goal #1:      Protect community lifelines;

         •   Goal #2:      Ensure that public funds are used efficiently;

         •   Goal #3:      Better manage flood hazard areas;

         •   Goal #4: Improve and maintain coordination and communication between all
             jurisdictions;

         •   Goal #5:      Educate the public on community hazards;

         •   Goal #6: Improve hazard mitigation planning for Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS)
             facility events;

         •   Goal #7:      Improve public hazard communication methods; and

         •   Goal #8:      Better manage fire hazard areas.



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                Page 80 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
4.1.2    Action Plan

The Action Plan presents the prioritized recommendations for the City of Bristol to pursue in
order to lessen the vulnerability of people, property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural
resources to future disaster losses. The recommended mitigation strategies are designed to
reduce the adverse effects to both existing and new infrastructure.

In order to assist the individual jurisdictions with the identification of specific projects to mitigate
the impacts of natural hazards, all of the action item information assembled at previous CPT
and LHMT meetings was organized within the framework of the identified goals and objectives.
Potential mitigation measures within each of the following six categories were presented to the
CPT:

         •   Prevention;
         •   Property Protection;
         •   Structural Projects;
         •   Natural Resource Protection;
         •   Emergency Services; and
         •   Public Information.

A facilitated discussion examined and analyzed the alternatives. Then, with an understanding
of the alternatives, the CPT and LHMT generated a list of preferred mitigation actions to be
recommended. The CPT and LHMT members then utilized decision-making criteria to prioritize
the recommended actions. FEMA’s recommended “STAPLE/E” criteria set (social, technical,
administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental criteria) was utilized in order to help
decide why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to
be implemented than another. However, fiscal issues, (cost benefit reviews) coupled with
environmental, social, and political concerns formed the primary matrix for action item decisions.

All of the recommendations set forth fall into four easily identifiable strategies:

    1. ENFORCE existing rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Communities can
       reduce future losses not only by pursuing new programs and projects, but also by paying
       closer attention to what’s already “on the books.”

    2. EDUCATE the community on the hazard information that Metro has collected and
       analyzed through this planning process so that the community understands what
       disasters can happen, where disasters might occur, and what they can do to prepare
       themselves better. As part of public education, publicize the “success stories” that are
       achieved through the CPT’s ongoing efforts.

    3. IMPLEMENT the Action Plan, much of which is comprised of reiterating
       recommendations that have previously been made as a result of existing community
       plans.

    4. MOM --- ardently monitor “Multi-Objective Management” opportunities, so that funding
       opportunities may be shared and “packaged” and broader constituent support may be
       garnered.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                               Page 81 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                               August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
   For each recommended action item, basic information for use in the mitigation project
   identification and implementation process was collected. This information follows the FEMA
   Recommended Mitigation Action Form (RMAF) and includes:

        •    Recommended Action Item;
        •    Responsible Office/Person;
        •    Priority;
        •    Hazard Addressed;
        •    Cost Estimate;
        •    Community Benefit;
        •    Potential Funding; and
        •    Schedule.

   Action items that were considered, but not recommended, are included at the end of this
   section. The table below presents the correlation of each identified hazard and the
   recommended action items of the CPT and LHMT.



                                                                      Goal
                          Goal #1        Goal #2       Goal #3               Goal #5             Goal #6             Goal #7        Goal #8
                                                                       #4
Recommended Action    1   2    3     4   5    6    7   8    9    10    11    12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22     23      24
Dam Failure                          x        x                         x          x    x    x    x                   x    x
Flooding Hazards                     x   x    x    x   x    x    x      x    x     x    x    x    x                   x    x
Geological Hazards                   x        x                         x          x    x    x    x                   x    x
Infestations                                                            x          x         x
Severe Weather                       x   x    x                         x    x     x   x     x   x                    x   x    x      x       x
Manmade Hazards       x   x    x     x        x                         x          x   x     x   x    x    x    x     x   x




   City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                                        Page 82 of 121
   Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                                        August 2006
   Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 1: PROTECT COMMUNITY LIFELINES

RECOMMENDED ACTION 1:
Investigate the feasibility of installing a Hazardous Materials team in the City of Bristol, TN.

    Responsible Office:           Fire Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; eliminating gaps and duplications in response
                                  activities
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2006


RECOMMENDED ACTION 2:
Improve and maintain coordination and communication with TDOT on bridge replacements and
repairs for Volunteer Parkway and other State roadways that are key transportation routes
during race weekends.

    Responsible Office:           Transportation Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Reduce complaints and staff time in responding to
                                  complaints
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2005 and ongoing


RECOMMENDED ACTION 3:
Improve alternative route planning and equipment for Volunteer Parkway and other State
roadways that are key transportation routes during race weekends.

    Responsible Office:           Transportation Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Reduce complaints and staff time in responding to
                                  complaints
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2005




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                             Page 83 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION 4:
Fully integrate hazard mitigation planning into the capital improvement planning process. New
infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure should be coordinated with identified
hazard areas.

    Responsible Office:           City Manager or designee
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Eliminating gaps and duplications in mitigation planning activities
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


GOAL 2: ENSURE THAT PUBLIC FUNDS ARE USED EFFICIENTLY

RECOMMENDED ACTION 5:
Leverage other funding sources for hazard mitigation implementation, such as the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. FEMA
offers these programs to assist local communities with reducing future losses of lives and
properties due to disasters. The HMGP provides grants to local communities to implement long-
term hazard mitigation measures such as the elevation, acquisition, or relocation of flood-prone
structures after a major disaster declaration. The FMA program provides grants to communities
for projects that reduce the risk of flood damage to structures that have flood insurance
coverage. FEMA's mitigation grant programs are administered by the TEMA, which prioritizes
and selects project applications developed and submitted by local jurisdictions.

    Responsible Office:           City Manager or designee
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding and Severe Weather Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time to complete grant applications
    Community Benefit:            Potential funding sources for action items of this Mitigation Plan
    Potential funding:            Existing budget
    Schedule:                     Annually evaluate opportunities


RECOMMENDED ACTION 6:
Partner with local industries for hazard mitigation implementation.

    Responsible Office:           City Manager or designee
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Potential funding sources for action items of this Mitigation Plan
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Annually evaluate opportunities




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                               Page 84 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                               August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 3: BETTER MANAGE FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

RECOMMENDED ACTION 7:
Participate in the Community Rating System.

    Responsible Office:           Development Services, City Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Additional staff time for reporting activities
    Community Benefit:            Reduced Flood insurance premiums; improved stormwater
                                  management program; public information
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2005


RECOMMENDED ACTION 8:
Educate the community about stormwater and floodplains.

    Responsible Office:           Development Services, City Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Additional staff time for education activities
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Property Protection; Pro-active approach to flood
                                  mitigation
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2005


RECOMMENDED ACTION 9:
Update floodplain mapping, where needed, through the map modernization program and other
programs.

    Responsible Office:           Development Services, City Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             Low
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                FEMA map modernization program
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Property protection; Pro-active approach to flood
                                  mitigation
    Potential funding:            FEMA and General Fund
    Schedule:                     per FEMA schedule




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                              Page 85 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                              August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION 10:
Improve community regulation and planning to address small stream flooding.

    Responsible Office:           Development Services, City Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Property protection; Pro-active approach to flood
                                  mitigation
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2008


GOAL 4: IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
ALL JURISDICTIONS

RECOMMENDED ACTION 11:
Align the Sullivan County HMP and the City of Bristol, TN HMP maintenance schedules. This
allows for integrated regional planning for all natural hazards identified in both this hazard
mitigation plan and the multi-jurisdictional plan for Sullivan County.

    Responsible Office:           City Manager or designee
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Existing staff time
    Community Benefit:            Improved and coordinated planning efforts; efficient use of existing
                                  resources
    Potential funding:            None necessary
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


GOAL 5: EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON COMMUNITY HAZARDS

RECOMMENDED ACTION 12:
Become a Storm Ready Community. Approximately 90% of all presidentially declared disasters
are weather related, resulting in approximately 500 deaths per year and nearly $14 billion in
damage. StormReady assists communities with the communication and safety skills needed to
save lives and property, before and during the hazard event. StormReady helps community
leaders and emergency managers strengthen local safety programs.

    Responsible Office:           Operations Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Flooding and Severe Weather Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff Time
    Community Benefit:            Improved warning, increased lead time on warning systems and
                                  mitigation efforts, reduced losses, life safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2008


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                              Page 86 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                              August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION 13:
Seek input on the HMP at least once every three years. The Bristol CPT will continue to
coordinate efforts and resources to implement the recommended strategies within the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as with the Sullivan County Core Regional Planning Team. The
CPT shall seek input for the Working Group and public for all natural hazards and manmade
hazards.

    Responsible Office:           Operations Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Pro-active approach to hazard mitigation
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2008


GOAL 6: IMPROVE HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING FOR BRISTOL MOTOR SPEEDWAY
(BMS) FACILITY EVENTS

The CPT and LHMT both felt that the Bristol Motor Speedway presents a heightened
vulnerability during race events, due to the number of people in the facility. The vulnerability is
directly related to the ability to evacuate people in the event of a disaster, whether a natural
hazard or manmade hazard.

RECOMMENDED ACTION 14:
Improve pedestrian ingress/egress walkways and signage around the Bristol Motor Speedway
facility to improve evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency.

    Responsible Office:           Bristol Motor Speedway and Bristol Transportation Engineer
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Cost of updated signage; cost of pedestrian egress plan
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety
    Potential funding:            TDOT Grant, General Fund
    Schedule:                     2008


RECOMMENDED ACTION 15:
Prepare hazard mitigation plans and procedures for campsites surrounding the Bristol Motor
Speedway facility.

    Responsible Office:           BMS, Codes Enforcement, Fire Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                Page 87 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time for coordination with campsite owners
                                  and preparation of public education materials
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Public Education; Pro-active approach to hazard
                                  mitigation
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2008


RECOMMENDED ACTION 16:
Educate property owners near the Bristol Motor Speedway facility about hazard mitigation roles
and responsibilities.

    Responsible Office:           BMS, Fire Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time for coordination with campsite owners
                                  and preparation of public education materials
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Property Protection; Pro-active approach to hazard
                                  mitigation
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     2005


RECOMMENDED ACTION 17:
Improve coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) on airspace restrictions associated with events at the Bristol
Motor Speedway facility.

    Responsible Office:           BMS, Police Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time for coordination
    Community Benefit:            Eliminate gaps and duplications in response activities
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


RECOMMENDED ACTION 18:
Improve communication to public attending BMS events about evacuation procedures in and
around Bristol Motor Speedway.

    Responsible Office:           BMS, Police Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time for coordination with campsite owners
                                  and preparation of public education materials
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety; Eliminate gaps and duplications in response activities
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                              Page 88 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                              August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION 19:
Improve crowd management and disaster response training for Bristol Motor Speedway staff.

    Responsible Office:           BMS, Fire and Police Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Man-made Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time for coordination with campsite owners
                                  and preparation of public education materials
    Community Benefit:            Life Safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


GOAL 7: IMPROVE PUBLIC HAZARD COMMUNICATION METHODS

Improving communication provides protection for the community during a disaster, whether a
natural hazard or manmade hazard.

RECOMMENDED ACTION 20:
Improve the City’s emergency communication system.

    Responsible Office:           Police Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time and equipment costs
    Community Benefit:            Improved warning, increased lead time on warning systems and
                                  mitigation efforts, reduced losses, life safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund, Grants
    Schedule:                     2005


RECOMMENDED ACTION 21:
Investigate the replacement of the current civil alarm notification system.

    Responsible Office:           Police Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             High
    Hazard Addressed:             All Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Equipment Costs
    Community Benefit:            Improved warning, increased lead time on warning systems and
                                  mitigation efforts, reduced losses, life safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund, Grants
    Schedule:                     2006




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                           Page 89 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 8: BETTER MANAGE FIRE HAZARD AREAS

The City has a few residential areas located next to natural areas that are difficult to provide
with fire fighting services. These areas have difficult access roads and/or no water systems.

RECOMMENDED ACTION 22:
Investigate improvements to ingress/egress routes for residential areas located in wildfire
hazard areas of concern.

    Responsible Office:           Fire Department and Operations Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Severe Weather Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Increased lead time on warning systems and mitigation efforts,
                                  reduced losses; life safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


RECOMMENDED ACTION 23:
Investigate improvements in water delivery to residential areas located in wildfire hazard areas
of concern.

    Responsible Office:           Fire Department and Operations Department
    Priority (H,M,L):             Medium
    Hazard Addressed:             Severe Weather Hazards
    Cost Estimate:                Staff time
    Community Benefit:            Increased lead time on warning systems and mitigation efforts,
                                  reduced losses; life safety
    Potential funding:            General Fund
    Schedule:                     Ongoing


RECOMMENDED ACTION 24:

Many older homes in the area may be at risk for fire damage due to insufficient tree and
propane tank setback distances. Fire hydrants may be located too far away from homes,
reducing their effectiveness. In addition, current residences and new development may have
narrow driveways that are very difficult for emergency vehicles to access.

It is recommended to develop and adopt development design standards based upon FIREWISE
principles into the City’s subdivision ordinance. The design standards should include
standardized setbacks from trees and above-ground propane tanks, and minimum distances
from fire hydrants. FIREWISE recommended building materials should also be specified.

         Responsible Office: Planning and Zoning, Public Works
         Priority (H,M,L):   Low
         Hazard Addressed: Severe Weather Hazards



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 90 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                            August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
         Cost Estimate      Costs will include staff time for the development of the standards
                            to incorporate into the Subdivision ordinance and proper public
                            hearing and notice prior to action by the City Council.
         Community Benefit: Incorporation of the FIREWISE principles in new and re-
                            development projects throughout the City will, over time, decrease
                            the likelihood of insured fire damage from wildfire.
         Potential Funding: Existing Budget
         Schedule:          Within 5 years




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                      Page 91 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                      August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
4.1.3 Other Action Items Considered

Not all of the mitigation actions presented to and/or discussed by the CRPT and LHMT became
recommended action items. Action items may not have been considered to be cost-effective or
support the communities’ goals. Additionally, action items may have lacked political support,
constituent support, and funding. Action items not recommended or included in the priority list
are presented below.

         •   Construct tornado safe rooms and/or seek vendor donation of one model safe room.

         •   Update and/or develop vegetation ordinances (i.e., urban forester, landscape
             ordinances).

         •   Development of tree-trimming program to lessen the risk of power outages by falling
             limbs.

         •   No action.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 92 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                        August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
                                  This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                              Page 93 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                              August 2006
Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy
Appendix A – Resources

The following resources were used in the development of this plan:

Websites

TEMA Mitigation
http://www.tnema.org/Mitigation/Default.htm

Sullivan County Adopted Zoning Ordinance
http://www.sullivancounty.org/PDF/2003%20Proposed%20Zoning%20Back-UP.pdf

USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/data2002.html

National Climatic Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html


Documents

City of Bristol Planning and Zoning Ordinance
City of Bristol Construction Standards
City of Bristol Long Range Transportation Plan
City of Bristol Subdivision Regulations

TEMA Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Guide
TVA Emergency Action Plans for Dams




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                             Page 98 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                             August 2006
Appendices
                               This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                           Page 99 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                           August 2006
Appendices
Appendix B – Executed Resolution (Plan Adoption)




City of Bristol, Tennessee                         Page 100 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                          August 2006
Appendices
                               This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                           Page 101 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                            August 2006
Appendices
Appendix C – Local Hazard Mitigation Team

        Including:
        List of Members
        Meeting minutes – March 10, 2004
        Meeting sign in sheets – March 10, 2004




City of Bristol, Tennessee                        Page 102 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                         August 2006
Appendices
Local Hazard Mitigation Team Members
Name                      Title               Mailing Address      Email
Blaine Wade               Police Chief        801 Anderson St.     bwade@bristoltn.org

Gary Whitaker             Deputy Fire Chief   211 Bluff City Hwy   gawhitaker@aol.com

Phil Vinson               Fire Chief          211 Bluff City Hwy   pvinson@bristoltn.org

Michael Sparks            Development         PO Box 1189          msparks@bristoltn.org
                          Services
Jerry Fleenor             EMA Director        PO Box 389           jerryf@preferred.com
                                              Blountville
Ambre Torbett             Sullivan County     3411 Hwy 126 Ste     Planning@sullivancounty.org
                          Planning Director   30
                                              Blountville




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                      Page 103 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                       August 2006
Appendices
                                 Bristol LHMT Meeting
                                    March 10, 2004


Meeting Sign-In Sheet: Attached

Meeting Summary:

Bill Sorah introduced AMEC & explained that the people in the room are the Bristol Core
Planning Team.
        - Explanation of what this planning is
        - Tier 1       additional staff
        - Tier 2       key public/private stakeholders
Grant + $50k, $20k for equipment, internal resources
                $30k for consultant services
Beth Chesson explained goals of meeting
        1)      Backup & review/brainstorm Bristol hazards
        2)      Goals & objectives
        3)      CRS Program Participation (program probably can get to a class 9)
        - Explanation of HMP planning process and how that fits into CRS planning.
            Floodplain management will be much more detailed.
        - Planning commission will serve as the “general public” for the HMP & CRS planning
            process.

INPUT FROM CORE PLANNING TEAM
The group performed an examination of ranking of hazards for Sullivan County. Specific to
Bristol TN, what rankings need change?

    1. Landslides
       Bristol does see this on a minor scale. In Sullivan County, Hwy 11W & 11E have had
       landslide issues.

    2. Sinkholes
       Wet weather conditions cause a lot of adverse sinkhole problems. Bristol has spent
       substantial sums of money to repair sinkhole issues. This is a common problem.
       Construction along w/wet weather cause most problems.
       Sub Regs may address subsidence issues, but core planning team has no sense of
       whether current regs are effective. This information could probably come from Tim
       Beavers or others in codes enforcement.

    3. Earthquakes
       Needs further investigation as per discussion below
       Historic events list in Sullivan County HMP shows that a (Richter Scale) VI quake
       occurred every 21 years. City has been in meetings with FEMA, where FEMA indicated
       East TN has a significant risk.
        -    Need to review Sullivan County HMP. Previous listings show earthquakes in terms
             of “intensity”. Unknown whether that is equivalent to the Richter scale.
        -    Need to contact University of Memphis Earthquake Center used to do community
             modeling to predict city/community service interruptions.

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                     Page 104 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                      August 2006
Appendices
         -   Investigate if HAZUS MH provide risk/vulnerability info? It will give $ of
             damage per risk per community.
         -   Investigate construction standards (Southern Building Code has an earthquake
             portion of the code, however Bristol has probably not adopted that section because it
             can be pretty costly to implement. Does cost outweigh risk here?)
         -   Suggestion that Bristol’s requirements for ground preparation pre-construction are
             already above normal standards, however the requirements could be improved even
             more.
         -   Increased standards for water, gas residential & other critical facilities could probably
             go a long way toward mitigating this hazard. Unknown cost vs. risk.

    4. Drought – not an issue

HAZARD RANKING DISCUSSION
  Perceived = what public feels and believes
  Actual = what staff know based on history of emergency responses

    1. Sinkholes/subsidence actual = moderate
                            perceived = low

    2. Tornadoes – moderate, becoming more prevalent

    3. Severe Thunderstorms = wind/hail

    4. Wildfires
          There are some residential areas near Steele Creek that do not have adequate fire
          protection
          5-yr drought 1998-2002 – would have been very worrisome if a fire had happened
          Fox Ridge & other ridges have residential areas that could be out-of-hand.
          Unreachable & inadequate H20 flow.
          Fox Ridge is a        residential s/d w/o fire protection. The fire dept. is restricted due
          to difficult access.
          Previous HMP attempted to address Fox Ridge. Currently the city is trying to gain a
          better access route, and put in a water system. Probably within 2-3 years.
          City is currently working a grant for a mini-pumper truck. For use at racetrack and
          it’s a 4x4 for difficult terrain areas. Would like to get it by August 2004.
          Not a city-wide issue, but the city does have pockets of high concern.

    5.       Dam Failures
             1988-1989 Middlebrook, owned & maintained by homeowners association has been
             retrofitted as per Dam Safety Act regulations/requirements. The dam failed in 1977,
             resulting in some damage.
             1989-1991 Steele Creek, city owned has been retrofitted as per Dam Safety Act
             regulations/requirements.

    5. Hazardous Materials Spills
          High due to railroad and interstate traffic.

    6. Drought
          1998-2002 drought did not cause water restrictions or wide spread drop damage.


City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 105 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
Appendices
    7. Terrorism
          a. Critical Facilities
               Hospital
               Water Treatment Plant
               Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS) twice per year
               2 local pharmaceutical companies cause a water quality concern
               Propane Storage Facility behind King Pharmaceutical
               East TN Natural Gas (ETNAS)

                 Volunteer Parkway
                 Main road throughout community, so taking out 1 bridge along route could have
                 great impact.
                 Problems during BMS events would be huge because it is the main artery.

                 Tank Farms
                 Necessary Oil (in Virginia)
                 Old Exxon/Esso Storage place

                 Natural Gas Pipeline Transfer Stations
                 Access issues are few
                 They have automatic shutdowns
                 These are not exposed, and are fairly secured.

             b. In Virginia
                - Clear Creek Dam (earthen dam, built in 1966 75-80 acre lake would impact
                Bristol downtown via Beaver Creek)
                - Norfolk Southern Railroad yard

    8. Hazard Priorities
             -Earthquakes
             -Hazardous Materials Spills
             -Terrorism
             -Small Stream Flooding

Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS)
        Some hazards are generally low until BMS raceway is full. Fire, flood, hazardous
        material, terrorism all take on new meaning when BMS is in action.
        BMS should be a separate hazard, or chapter, etc….
        Next step – Hold a meeting with BMS staff to discuss BMS specific hazards/strategies.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                       Page 106 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                        August 2006
Appendices
City of Bristol, Tennessee     Page 107 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan      August 2006
Appendices
                               This page intentionally left blank.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                           Page 108 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                            August 2006
Appendices
               Appendix D – General Public Stakeholder Meetings

        Including:
        March 10, 2004
        May 12, 2004
        March 21, 2005
                • Meeting minutes
                • Meeting sign in sheets
                • Community Calendar




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                        Page 109 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                         August 2006
Appendices
                               Stakeholders Group Meeting
                                     March 10, 2004
                For Sullivan County, Bristol (TN), Kingsport and Bluff City

Ambre Torbett with Sullivan County Planning provided an introduction. Beth Chesson of AMEC
Earth & Environmental gave an overview of the process and reviewed hazards for Sullivan Co.
HMP goals and objectives were discussed and input from individual stakeholders was received
as follows:

INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS
What are potential hazards for your sector of the community and what activities do you feel are
appropriate for your community sector?

Bluff City
Bluff City representatives gave an over view of their program and noted that they desire to have
an active role in the HMP from this point forward. They noted that their city has the following
potential hazards or high priority facilities:

    •   Railroad
    •   Rocky terrain
    •   Boone Lake
    •   River flooding
    •   Small system flooding-high to medium risk
    •   Tornadoes
    •   Earthquakes-high due to fault line
    •   Use Southern building codes with no add-ons for earthquakes beyond what is in ICC.
    •   Winter Storms
    •   High due to terrain (steep hills), but public works can control things (salting, barricades)
        to reduce risk to medium
    •   Wildfires
    •   Moderate (has a lot of high terrain), but volunteer fire dept. is top notch, so rates
        commensurate at medium
    •   Dam failures
    •   Moderate risk (Boone Lake – however the lake is a TVA facility)
    •   Hazardous Materials
    •   Due to railroad and truck traffic as high with commensurate risk at high
    •   Drought-low risk
    •   Terrorism
    •   Staff is fairly proficient and educated to terrorist risks in line with Sullivan Co.

Overall, the City has small system flooding and sinkholes issues. City Hall in downtown has
had major flooding/sinkhole problems. BMS impacts the city greatly, with increased traffic.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 110 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Appendices
Sprint
Ice and snow storms are top hazard- storm events in general. In general, they try to bury phone
lines to the extent practical, but rocky terrain does not always make it feasible. The company
has an emergency preparedness plan, but it is not specific to Sullivan Co.

Intermont Utility
IU is one of many utility districts serving water to the Sullivan County communities. UI gets
water from Bristol’s water treatment plant. Their biggest concern is flooding events as they
affect water lines and transmission. The utility representatives are also concerned about
terrorism at water storage facilities.

Bristol
Representatives from the City of Bristol noted one of the biggest concerns for the city continues
to be small stream flooding. Reintroduction of power after ice storms is also a concern.
Secondary impacts to water storage facilities from earthquakes could also be problematic (they
have 2 days of storage water). Bristol has the railroad through the town, with the potential for
hazardous materials spills. However, the greatest concern for the City is terrorism during race
days at Bristol. Bristol is working on getting 911 addresses for critical infrastructure.

Bristol WWTP
Hazard concerns for the WWTF are flooding and power loss, should the WWTF not be able to
provide services for an extended period of time. The WWTF does not store highly hazardous
chemicals on site. The WWTF does not have a vulnerability assessment, as it is not required
by law to have one. Terrorism against the facility would likely be localized, such as a
disgruntled employee and local group.

BAE
Terrorism and Other natural hazards are of concern to BAE. The facility has a hazard
vulnerability assessment and emergency preparedness plan for natural hazards. The DoD
conducts routine security inspections on the facility to ensure the facility is as secure as
possible. Security plans for the facility change as Homeland Security threat levels change.
BAE feels their spill response is good.

Sullivan Co. Sheriff Dept.
Feels communication to public and employees on hazards and during emergency events is
essential. Currently do not have enough manpower for hazards and alerts. Need more
deputies. The County is in the process of setting up a reverse 911 system. The Sheriff’s
department feels Sullivan County is in good shape with respect to terrorism prevention with
community response and neighborhood watches. Sheriff’s department representatives noted
that for Homeland Security, power substations are the #1 county threat. The Sheriff’s Dept
would like to know water system information to provide security during high threat times. (Note:
Jerry Fleenor could manage this information)

Kingsport WWTP
At the WWTP, the focus is on power restoration during storm events, especially providing power
to priority facilities. The WWTP representatives noted that the City’s Emergency Response staff
has a very limited spill response time if spills occur on certain bridges and creeks that are close
to intakes. Better communication between spill responders and the WWTP is needed to
respond quickly enough to shut down their intake. They have only 30 minutes.



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 111 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Appendices
Bristol Electric
Bristol Electric gets power from TVA. Total loss of power delivery is unlikely, as they have 3
separate delivery points. Bristol Electric reps have the following thoughts on requiring
underground utilities:
        -less likely to experience hazards due to outages
        -major TVA feeders and substations are overhead and cannot be run underground
        -underground utilities are expensive and are only good for individual outages, not system
        wide outages
        -overhead is easier to fix

Storm damage is frequent, but extent of service loss and damage is dependent on type of storm
and location. Bristol Electric flags special customers for priority power restoration.

Eastman
Internal and external vulnerability assessments are in place for terrorism. A -preparedness plan
is in place for flooding. The plant must shut down with too much and too little water, as both can
affect the plant negatively. Terrorism is considered the greatest threat. Terrorism assessment
was done in late 2003.

Duke Energy
They have an interstate pipeline. To address terrorism, they have annual drills and a have
security response plan in place. Duke Energy is part of National Security Response Plan. The
DOD has conducted threat assessments. Much of their system is underground, so storms and
flooding aren’t big issues. However, earthquakes are an issue, because they could shut down
natural gas lines. LNG plant is a concern, but would be minimal impact on community

TriCities Airport
 Airport has separate plans that address each of these: terrorism, winter storms (winter
operations plan); and hazardous materials spills. Non-local events can shut down National level
air system, which would affect TriCities Airport.


Ambre Torbett
-flooded areas that are not identified on flood FIRMS are numerous (flooded roads, etc…)
-chronic flood areas known to rest of community should be submitted to Ambre (by location)

Sensitive information management

Sullivan County Planning noted that having sewer distribution line locations and lift stations on a
layer for their GIS system would be beneficial. Bristol made the point that much information
about lift stations and storage facilities for water are often sensitive and that information should
not be made public in the HMP document. How will HMP and planning/mitigation process deal
with sensitive material such as water intakes, pump stations, system mapping?

3 Options for Handling Sensitive Issues in the LHMP:
   1. Put in Appendix labeled “sensitive” and produce only for certain people
   2. leave out completely
   3. Give info. Only to specific people (Jerry Fleenor etc.)

Meeting participants discussed the types of information that might be considered “sensitive” and
decided that each entity should determine the level of system security they desire and provide

City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                          Page 112 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                           August 2006
Appendices
the information to Planning as they feel appropriate to either Planning or Emergency
Management. The information will be left out of the LHMP


Note: A BMS representative was in attendance but had to leave early for another meeting to get
ready for race day in 2 weeks.
       Dede Hash
       Administrative VP
       423-989-6928
       dede@bristolmotorspeedway.com




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                     Page 113 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                      August 2006
Appendices
March 10, 2004 - Stakeholders Group Attendees
Name                    Affiliation          Address           Email
                                       Other Stakeholders

Larry Baker             Intermont            291 V.I.
                                             Ranch Rd
William Ogle Jr.        Intermont            291 V.I.
                                             Ranch Rd
Amber Torbett           Sullivan Co.
Larry Holloway          Eastman              PO Box 511,       Holloway@eastman.com
                                             B-18
                                             Kingsport, TN
                                             37662
Gail Plum               BAE Systems          4509 W.           Gail.plum@baesystems.com
                                             Stone Dr.
                                             Kingsport, TN
                                             37660
David Lewis             TDOT                 PO Box 3518
                                             CRS Johnson
                                             City, TN
                                             37602
Reggie Lett             East TN Natural      1277              JR left on Duke-Energy.com
                        Gas                  Fordtown Rd.
                                             Kingsport, TN
                                             37663
Dede Hash               BMS
Niki ENSOR              City of Kingsport    2436              ensor@ci.kingsport.tn.us
                        Water Plant          Sherwood
                                             Rd.
                                             Kingsport, TN
Herbert Morell          Sprint               # 2 Spruce        Herbert.morrell@mail.sprint.com
                                             St. Bristol, TN
                                             37620
Patrick Wilson          Tri-Cities Airport   PO Box 1055       pwilson@triflight.com
                        Commission           Blountville,
                                             TN 37617
Matthew Drake           Bristol WWTP         578 Beaver
                        US Filter            Creek Rd.
                                             Bluff City, TN
                                             37618
Andy Blake              Bristol, WWTP        578 Beaver        blaketa@usfiler.com
                        US Filter            Creek Rd.
                                             Bluff City, TN




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                                Page 114 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                                 August 2006
Appendices
                                City of Bristol, TN
                 HMP Meeting – Topic: Bristol Motor Speedway
                May 12, 2004 at Bristol Dragway Conference Room


Meeting Attendees:
        Bill Sorah             Deputy City Managers         City of Bristol, TN
        Velma Witte            Operations Secretary         City of Bristol, TN
        Jeff Tester            Engineering Designer         City of Bristol, TN
        Tim Beavers            City Engineer                City of Bristol, TN
        Phil Vinson            Fire Chief                   Bristol TN Fire Dept.
        Blaine Wade            Police Chief                 Bristol TN Police Dept.
        Michael Yaneiro        Deputy Police Chief          Bristol TN Police Dept.
        Eric Senter            Police Lieutenant            Bristol TN Police Dept.
        Dee Dee Hash                   VP Administration            Bristol Motor Speedway
        Scott Hatcher          VP Operations                Bristol Motor Speedway
        Bill Burchett          Operations Manager           Bristol Motor Speedway
        Beth Chesson           Project Manager              AMEC Earth & Env., Inc.
        Mary Halley            Project Consultant           AMEC Earth & Env., Inc.


NOTE: In this document, the term “Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS)” is meant to refer to the
      entire speedway facility, including the oval racetrack, the dragway, and any associated
      offices, buildings, parking lots, grandstands, and other facilities owned and operated by
      Bristol Motor Speedway.

Meeting Minutes:
        Brief review of the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act, the purpose of the local
        Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the draft LHMP for Sullivan County. Discussed why
        Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS) is being focused on separately from other private
        businesses.

        The goal of the meeting is to identify broad goals and possibly some objectives for
        Bristol Motor Speedway.

        Q. Should the final report note that the City Council has approved funding for some of
        the Beaver Creek recommendations made by USACE, and that USACE is moving
        forward on Beaver Creek flood mitigation projects?
        A. Yes – final report will reflect Beaver Creek flood mitigation status.

        The Vulnerability Assessment for the Bristol Water Treatment has been completed.

HAZARDS AND HAZARD PLANNING AT THE BMS FACILITY
The major potential hazards at the BMS facility during a BMS event are:
          Small explosive devices/bomb threats
          Storm events and storm related issues (lightning, wind, and tornados)




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 115 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Appendices
Hazard Mitigation Activities that take place prior to Race Events:
   Access to BMS facilities is limited, starting about 1 week before an event. Bristol Police are
   currently working to get more control of access routes at the North and South Gates.
   Current thinking is an underground, movable barrier that can allow ambulance and
   emergency vehicles to pass when necessary, but can be raised when at all other times.
   Security sweeps are performed for the entire facility during the week before the event.
   Areas checked include all public and private areas (bathrooms, concessions, offices, etc.),
   the grandstands, water lines, manholes, storm drains, and sewers.
   Manholes, grates, and other underground access points are secured with locks and straps.
   Police are currently working to implement a series of bomb sweeps prior to events, using 10
   to 12 trained dogs. Currently, a bomb sweep is performed prior to a race event for the entire
   area that is located within a certain distance from the track. This area is targeted because a
   bomb placed within the area could significantly damage the track infrastructure. The VA
   State Police assist with monitoring of biohazards and bomb threats.
   BMS gate personnel perform searches of all articles brought into the facility by race fans.
   Police and BMS personnel have a plan of action should a suspicious item be found during a
   sweep or fan belongings search.
   Airspace around BMS is restricted during the events and fighter jets have been stationed at
   the TriCities Airport to provide air security if needed.
   Local police coordinate with state and federal agencies prior to and during events as
   appropriate (TN & VA State Police, FBI, FAA, etc.).
   A threat assessment is performed approximately 1 month to 1 week prior to an event. The
   assessment is performed through the FBI, and a criminal intelligence briefing is held with all
   the major agencies involved in an event.
   Weather is monitored prior to and throughout an event.
   The BMS public address system and infield “Jumbotrons” can be used for hazard
   announcements and instructions.
   Environmental hazards will not generally be a hazard. Each race team is responsible for
   environmental cleanliness associated with their areas and equipment. Safety Kleen is
   onsite during events for oil/gas and other chemical spills. The gasoline facility located in
   BMS has all the necessary permits, SWPPPs and operational procedures needed for
   environment hazard compliance.
   An evacuation plan is currently being developed for BMS. Major points of the plan will be to:
   (1) assign greater evacuation responsibilities for the 500+ BMS ushers, and (2) assign
   evacuation routes/personnel to each area of the facility.
   Evacuation decisions are made by appropriate BMS, Police, and other personnel.



1.1    Hazard Mitigation Information for areas outside of the BMS Facility
        Potable water at the BMS facility is served by the City. Wastewater is sewered to the
        City Wastewater Treatment Plant.
        The nearest water holding tank is located approximately ¾ mile away from BMS. The
        facility is monitored continually, and anti-intrusion devices are installed on ladders,
        fences, etc.

There are approximately 40 to 45 campsites within a 3-mile radius of BMS. This translates into
approximately 35,000 campers. The major potential hazards associated with non-BMS areas
during a BMS event are:



City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                         Page 116 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                          August 2006
Appendices
             Storm events and related issues (flooding, tornados, lightning);
             Fire;
             Pedestrian ingress/egress.

Campsites are full or nearly full from approximately 4 days pre-event, to 1 day post-event.

Storm Event Hazards (Flooding, Tornados, Lightning) and Fire Hazards
      Beaver Creek is located near the BMS facility. The Creek has a history of overbank
      flooding after heavy, concentrated rain events.
      Flood maps developed by USACE indicate that several major campsites are located
      within the 100-year floodplain of Beaver Creek.
      The VA flood warning system is used to warn BMS of impending storm events. However
      the system will probably not be sufficient for campsites because they are located at the
      upstream end of Beaver Creek and will likely be flooded prior to VA warning system
      activation.
      There is no current plan of action for evacuation of campsites during a major storm/flood
      event. It is unknown if private campsites have public address capabilities. Police
      cruisers can be used to notify campers in the event of an evacuation.
      Sanitary waste on the campgrounds is handled through a combination of sewer, septic
      tanks, and portable toilets, depending upon the campground. Portable toilets usually
      require pumping 3 to 4 times per day during an event. Waste disposal at the campsites
      is not highly regulated by the City.

Pedestrian ingress/egress:
      Pedestrian ingress/egress is a continual problem and is considered a major hazard by
      local agencies because it is believed that several hundred people could be injured or
      killed given the right circumstances.
      Pedestrian walkway areas are the right-of-way and right lanes (both directions) of
      Volunteer Parkway. Traffic continues a constant flow in the left lanes (both directions).

BMS Event Hazard Mitigation Objectives:
  1. Improve race fan education about evacuation responsibilities/routes within the BMS
     facility.
  2. Improve hazard mitigation plans for campsites surrounding BMS facility.
  3. Educate fans, campers, and other identified audiences about hazards and evacuation
     responsibilities/routes for storms, floods, lightning, wind, pedestrian areas, and man-
     made hazards. Potential audiences: race fans, campers, campsite operators, property
     owners surrounding BMS. Potential education tools include brochures handed out by
     City, BMS, campground owners/operators, and PSA’s for TV and radio stations.
  4. Improve coordination with FAA/TSA on the area and duration of restricted airspace
     before, during and after race events.
  5. Improve vehicle/pedestrian access prevention at BMS North and South Gates.
  6. Improve pedestrian ingress/egress walkways and signage for Volunteer Parkway and
     other major travelways.
  7. Improve monitoring devices (i.e., visual) for water holding areas.
  8. Improve civil alarm/notification system to ensure alarms will be heard in BMS area.




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                        Page 117 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                         August 2006
Appendices
City of Bristol, Tennessee     Page 118 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan      August 2006
Appendices
                                                   March 2005

       Sunday               Monday           Tuesday         Wednesday       Thursday        Friday        Saturday

                                        1                2               3              4              5

                                         7:00 PM City                    7:00 PM
                                           Council -                     Parks & Rec.
                                         Slater Center                   Comm.-Slater
                                        (325 McDowell                    Center
                                              St.)
                                            agenda

6                      7                8                9               10             11             12

                                        6:30 PM
                                        CDAC-Annex



13                     14               15               16              17             18             19

                                                         3:00 PM E-   11:00 AM
                                                         911 Board -  Board of
                                                         Annex        Zoning
                                                                      Appeals -
                                                         12:00 Noon - Annex
                                                         Power Board
                                                         BTES

20                     21               22               23              24             25             26

                       7:30 AM          7:00 PM City     2:30 PM         4:00 PM       Good Friday
                       Sewer            Council Work     Housing         Better
                       Oversight -      Session -        Authority -     Property       City Offices
                       BVU              Annex            Fort Shelby     Board - Annex    Closed
                                                         Towers
                       6:00 PM
                       Planning
                       Commission -
                       Slater Center

27                     28               29               30              31

    Happy Easter!!




         City of Bristol, Tennessee                                                            Page 119 of 121
         Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                                             August 2006
         Appendices
                        Stakeholders Group Meeting - AGENDA
                                   March 21, 2005




City of Bristol, Tennessee                                    Page 120 of 121
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                     August 2006
Appendices
                        Stakeholders Group Meeting - MINUTES
                                   March 21, 2005




City of Bristol, Tennessee
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan                                   August 2006
Appendices
City of Bristol, Tennessee
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan   August 2006
Appendices
City of Bristol, Tennessee
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan   August 2006
Appendices
City of Bristol, Tennessee
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan   August 2006
Appendices

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:12/20/2011
language:
pages:126