Docstoc

Pigeon Forge

Document Sample
Pigeon Forge Powered By Docstoc
					                                                 Pigeon Forge
                                             Hazard Mitigation Plan

                                          Sevier County, Tennessee


                                                 Table of Contents

1.   Prerequisites ............................................................................................................. 1
  1.1 Adoption by the Local Governing Body .............................................................. 1
2. Planning Process ..................................................................................................... 2
  2.1 Description of the Planning Process..................................................................... 2
  2.2 The Key Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 3
  2.3 Stakeholder Meetings ........................................................................................... 4
  2.4 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 9
  2.5 Incorporation of Existing Documents .................................................................. 9
3. Risk Assessment .................................................................................................... 10
  3.1 Identifying Hazards ............................................................................................ 10
     3.1.1  Flood ........................................................................................................... 11
     3.1.2  Atmospheric Hazard – Severe Storm.......................................................... 16
     3.1.3  Atmospheric Hazard – Windstorm ............................................................. 19
     3.1.4  Atmospheric Hazard – Hailstorm ............................................................... 19
     3.1.5  Drought ....................................................................................................... 21
     3.1.6  Earthquake .................................................................................................. 22
     3.1.7  Extreme Heat............................................................................................... 29
     3.1.8  Landslide ..................................................................................................... 32
     3.1.9  Land Subsidence ......................................................................................... 36
     3.1.10 Tornado ....................................................................................................... 37
     3.1.11 Winter Storm............................................................................................... 39
     3.1.12 Wildland Fire .............................................................................................. 41
  3.2 Profiling Hazards................................................................................................ 47
     3.2.1  Area Climate and Local Geography............................................................ 47
     3.2.2  Flood Profile ............................................................................................... 48
  3.3 Assessing Vulnerability...................................................................................... 49
     3.3.1  Vulnerability Assessment Methodology ..................................................... 49
     3.3.2  Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures and Estimating Losses .... 73
4. Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................. 74
  4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals .......................................................................... 76
  4.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ............................................. 76
  4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Actions ............................................................... 77
5. Plan Maintenance................................................................................................... 85
  5.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan................................................. 85
  5.2 Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms ............................................ 86
  5.3 Continued Public Involvement........................................................................... 88
  Appendix A: Introductory Letter Example ................................................................... 89
  Appendix B: Stakeholder Invite List ........................................................................... 90

                                                                                                                       Page | 1
Appendix D: Documentation of Meetings .................................................................... 93
Appendix E: Comment Card...................................................................................... 115
Appendix X: Annual Summary Report...................................................................... 117
Appendix X2: Individual Project Progress Report .................................................... 118
Appendix X3: Amendment Form .............................................................................. 119




                                                                                                        Page | 2
1. Prerequisites
  1.1 Adoption by the Local Governing Body
The Pigeon Forge Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, hereafter known as “the
Plan” adheres to the guidelines outlined in 44 CFR, Section 201.6.

As the Plan‟s Administrator, the City of Pigeon Forge will submit the Plan to the
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV for review and comment.
Once the State and Federal reviewers certify the plan approvable, Pigeon Forge
will submit the Plan for formal adoption. The approval will at a minimum include
the endorsement of the Pigeon Forge (? Karl needs to answer this). The
endorsement of this plan demonstrates Pigeon Forge‟s commitment to fulfilling
the mitigation objectives outlined in the plan. It also legitimizes the plan and
authorizes the responsible agencies identified in the plan to execute their
responsibilities.




                                                                          Page | 1
2. Planning Process

The Pigeon Forge Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by Stantec Consulting
and RJH Planning, under the direction of Pigeon Forge‟s Public Works
Community Development Division, hereafter known as “the Planning Team” and
in cooperation with all the stakeholders involved in the process. The main
players contributing to the completion of the plan have been Pigeon Forge‟s Karl
Kreis, Assistant City Planner, Stantec‟s Mike Anderson, Karen Schaffer and Erin
Wagoner and RJH Planning‟s Josh Human. Karl Kreis, Assistant City Planner,
oversaw the plan development strategy and coordination of the development
process, while relying on the expertise and technical assistance of the planning
team consisting of Stantec and RJH Planning .


  2.1 Description of the Planning Process
The planning process began in November of 2007 and the planning team
organized the process in the following manner:

   1.   Planning Process,
   2.   Risk Assessment (Hazard Identification and Vulnerability),
   3.   Multiple Hazard Mitigation Strategy,
   4.   Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance Process
   5.   Hazard Mitigation Plan Review, Approval and Adoption

The planning process in theory is linear, but in practice became a series of
iterations as the planning team worked to design a system that accommodated
an exceedingly broad-based mitigation process. As existing programs were
identified and new ideas and recommendations generated, each step had to be
re-evaluated for sufficient information and direction to accommodate new
information. The following is an overview of the planning process employed by
planning team.

Task 1: Planning Process
Events included in the Planning Process:
    Discuss Natural Hazards
    Define Critical Facility
    Discuss Timeline
    Hand Out Press Release
    Establish Remaining Meetings
    Identify Relevant Documents
    Organize and Schedule Interviews
    Present Plan Process
    Confirm Schedules
    Discuss Prioritized Hazards

                                                                         Page | 2
Task 2: Risk Assessment
Events included in the Risk Assessment:
    Data Gathering
    Existing Plan Check-List
    Existing Regulations
    Local Mapping – GIS Base Data
    Critical Facilities
    Property Value Information
    GAP Analysis and Data Augmentation
    Discuss Assessment Techniques
    Determine Vulnerability
    TEMA – Coordination

Task 3: Mitigation Strategy
Events included in the Mitigation Strategy:
    Develop Goals and Objectives
    Develop Alternatives, Costs
    Create Evaluation Criteria
    Prioritization Matrix

Task 4: Plan Maintenance
Events included in the Plan Maintenance:
    Capability Assessment
    Incorporation into Existing Planning
    Plan Revisions and 5-year Updates
    Public Involvement and Outreach

Task 5: Plan review, approval and adoption
Events included in the Plan review, approval and adoption:
    Draft Review
    Incorporate Comments
    Submit to TEMA / FEMA
    Incorporate Comments
    Finalize and Submit to TEMA / FEMA
    Adoption Upon FEMA Approval
          o County Commissioners
          o Public Council Ck this


  2.2 The Key Stakeholders

After identifying potential local stakeholders, the Assistant City Planner of Pigeon
Forge sent an introductory letter asking for assistance and participation in the
planning process (See Appendix A). The letter asked that each local agency

                                                                            Page | 3
assign a liaison to work on the stakeholder group. A schedule of four
stakeholder meetings was set and all liaisons were invited to attend. The purpose
of these meetings varied, but the main objective was the development of
dialogue among the multiple agencies throughout Pigeon Forge who deal with
natural hazards and their effects.

The Pigeon Forge staff put their heads together to produce a diverse set of
stakeholders.   The original invitee list included a group of 42 potential
stakeholders. (See Appendix B)

Formal invitations and reminders to the meetings were mailed and follow-up
telephone calls were made to encourage attendance. To get the public involved
the meeting location and times were announced in the paper (need the press
releases here Appendix C).

The followi ng agencies were key stakeholders in the development of the Plan,
demonstrated not only by attendance at the stakeholder meetings and public
meetings, but also in their role as active providers of data and information to
assist with the development of the profiles and risk assessments as needed by
the planning team:

Local Planning & Development Agency
Utility Services (sewer, water, gas, etc.)
Emergency Services (Fire, Police, EMS)
Public Works
Roads/Transportation Department
City Officials
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
Sevier Co Emergency Management Agency
State Local Planning Office
Department of Tourism


  2.3 Stakeholder Meetings

The Planning team conducted four stakeholder meetings which allowed an
interactive feedback process to take place among all of the representatives of
local agencies and concerned organizations and citizens. In order to provide
more interaction with the public and our local agencies a website was created to
facilitate   the  activities   that   were     occurring   at   each     meeting
http://gis.fmsm.com/pfhazplan . This website was a very important tool for the
planning team to use to promote the Hazard Mitigation Plan activities to a larger
audience, including individuals that could not attend specific meetings. Each
stakeholder meeting was in Annex Room B at the City Hall Complex at 225 Pine
Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge. Most of the meetings ran from 9:00 AM -12:00
AM and the public was encouraged to attend through announcements in our local

                                                                          Page | 4
media outlets (Appendix C). Each meeting will be discussed in more detail in the
following section.

Stakeholder Meeting 1: December 17, 2007

The first public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on December 17, 2007 in the Annex Room B at
the City Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.
City of Pigeon Forge Community Development Director, John Jagger called the
meeting to order at 9:30am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the
opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Karen Schaffer of
FMSM (Now Stantec) Engineers gave an overview of FMSM‟s consulting
background with the City and introduced Mike Anderson, also of FMSM. Mike
Anderson provided an introduction to the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and
presentation to the public and stakeholder group.

The Agenda for this meeting included:
   I. Sign In / Introductions
  II. Hazard Mitigation Plan
        •    Purpose
        •    Benefits
        •    Components
        •    Schedule
 III. Establish Team
IV.   Roles / Responsibilities
  V. Work Items
        •    Mission Statement
        •    Hazard Prioritization
        •    Critical Facilities

The main focus of this meeting was to introduce and gain interest in the Hazard
Mitigation planning process. The gains from this meeting included identifying key
stakeholders that could contribute information, establish roles and responsibilities
of the stakeholder group, promote the benefits of the plan and establishing a
schedule for completion.

In addition to putting on the stakeholder meeting the Planning Team developed a
hazard questionnaire (See Appendix E). The purpose was to solicit additional
feedback from the community in regard to perceived threats, vulnerabilities and
general awareness of the risks associated with natural hazards. Questionnaires
and brochures were disseminated to individual community City Halls and also
made available upon the Hazard Mitigation Planning website
http://gis.fmsm.com/pfhazplan.

A full description of the meeting minutes can be found in the following Appendix.
(See Appendix D)

                                                                             Page | 5
        Stakeholder Meeting 2: March 4, 2008

        The second public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
        Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on March 4, 2008 in the Annex Room B at the
        City Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. City of
        Pigeon Forge Community Development Director, John Jagger called the meeting
        to order at 10:00am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the opening
        remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mike Anderson of Stantec
        Consulting Services gave an overview of the first stake holder meeting and
        introduced Josh Human of RJH Planning. Mike Anderson and Josh Human
        provided an introduction and project overview of the Natural Hazard Mitigation
        Plan. All stakeholders and members of the public in attendance were welcomed
        to introduce themselves to the group. Each individual present was introduced to
        the group. Mike Anderson and Josh Human provided a presentation to the public
        and stakeholder group.

        The Agenda for this meeting included:
           I. Sign In / Introductions
          II. Risk Assessment
                •    Identify and Prioritize Hazards
                •    Vulnerability Model
                •    Data needs
         III. Mitigation Strategy
                •    Overview
                •    Roles
        IV.   Next Meeting

        The main focus of this meeting was to introduce the Risk Assessment section to
        the stakeholder group. The gains from this meeting were the identification and
        prioritization of the Hazards for the Pigeon Forge and identifying key
        stakeholders that could contribute to the rest of the Risk Assessment section.
        The table below demonstrates the hazard identification and prioritization process
        for the plan.

HAZARD                     EAST (STATE PLAN)           PIGEON        Occurrences in Sevier
                                                       FORGE         Co./Sevierville/Pigeon
                                                                     Forge (NCDC/Sheldus)


Flood                      1                           (A)           17
Severe Storm*              2                           (A)           126
Windstorm*                 4                           (A)           14
Hailstorm*                 7                           (A)           36
Wildland Fire              3                           (A)           0


                                                                                  Page | 6
Severe Winter Storm                                 (A)           18
Drought                 6                           (B)           1
Erosion**               8                           (B)           0
Land Subsidence**       12                          (B)           0
Landslide**             10                          (B)           0
Extreme Heat            9                           (C)           2 (Sheldus)
Earthquake              11                          (C)           0
Tornado                 5                           (C)           0
     A = High, B = Medium, C = Low (Prioritization)
     *We combined Windstorm, Hailstorms and Severe Storms
     ** We combined Landslide, Land Subsidence and erosion

     A full description of the meeting minutes can be found in the following Appendix.
     (See Appendix D)

     Stakeholder Meeting 3: May 6, 2008

     The third public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
     Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on May 6, 2008 in the Annex Room B at the City
     Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. City of
     Pigeon Forge Community Development Assistant City Planner, Karl Kreis, called
     the meeting to order at 10:00am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the
     opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting.                He notified
     stakeholders that John Jagger, former City Community Development Director,
     was no longer with the City, but that the City is continuing their efforts on the
     NHMP. Josh Human of RJH Planning gave an overview of the previous
     stakeholder meetings and provided an introduction and project overview of the
     Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. All stakeholders and members of the public in
     attendance were welcomed to introduce themselves to the group. Each
     individual present was introduced to the group including press and members of
     the public. Josh Human provided a presentation to the public and stakeholder
     group.

     The Agenda for this meeting included:
        1. Sign In / Introductions
        2. Risk Assessment
               1. Identify and Prioritize Hazards
               2. Vulnerability Model
               3. Exposure Score
               4. Risk Score
        3. Hazard Identification Exercise
        4. Mitigation Strategy
               1. Overview

                                                                                Page | 7
         2. Eligible Projects
   5. Next Meeting

The main focus of this meeting was to develop a better understanding of where
past events have occurred (Profile) and to introduce the mitigation strategy. The
gains from this meeting were the Hazard Identification exercise which helped
identify past occurrences of hazards on a map that sequentially contributed to
creating a better Risk Score and identified future project/action locations.

A full description of the meeting minutes and the Hazard Identification exercise
can be found in the following Appendix. (See Appendix D)

Stakeholder Meeting 4: June 3, 2008

The fourth public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on June 3rd, 2008 in the Annex Room B at the
City Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. City of
Pigeon Forge Community Development Assistant City Planner, Karl Kreis, called
the meeting to order at 10:00am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the
opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Josh Human of RJH
Planning gave an overview of the previous stakeholder meetings and provided
an introduction and project overview of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. All
stakeholders and members of the public in attendance were welcomed to
introduce themselves to the group. Each individual present was introduced to
the group including press and members of the public. Josh Human and Mike
Anderson provided a presentation to the public and stakeholder group.

The Agenda for this meeting included:
   1. Sign In / Introductions
   2. Risk Assessment
          • Quick Overview
   3. Mitigation Strategy
          • Examples
          • Complete mitigation strategy
   4. Next Meeting

The main focus of this meeting was to develop a mitigation strategy for Pigeon
Forge. The gains from this meeting were the development of eight Mitigation
Goals and nearly 40 Mitigations Action items.

A full description of the meeting minutes can be found in the following Appendix.
(See Appendix D)

The Last meeting to introduce the Plan will need to added after it is approvable .




                                                                            Page | 8
  2.4 Public Involvement

Every stakeholder meeting was open to the public and announced in the media
prior to their dates. The public was also involved through the website
http://gis.fmsm.com/pfhazplan developed to encourage participation for those
members of the public and concerned stakeholders that could not attend a
meeting. The website provided the planning team the ability to load documents
up on the web for review and to take comments from the public and our
stakeholders. The Pigeon Forge Mitigation Plan will be placed on the website for
a two week period in order to receive comments from concerned private and
public citizens. A press release will be issued to encourage this. (We need to do
this)

  2.5 Incorporation of Existing Documents

The planning team reviewed several local agencies‟ plans to identify programs
and policies that currently promote or could potentially further mitigation
initiatives in Pigeon Forge. As part of this effort, the planning team contacted
numerous agencies‟ seeking local hazard data, existing pla ns, partnerships,
common goals, projects, and commitment to an all natural hazards mitigation
plan. This outreach included soliciting information from federal, state, and local
resources. The following is a list of reports, plans, and manuals containing
information that was incorporated into the Pigeon Forge Hazard Mitigation Plan:

   Reports
          Sevier County and Municipalities Hillsides and Ridge Study
          Subsidence and Sinkholes in East Tennessee: A Field Guide to Holes
          in the Ground: State of Tennessee Dept. of Environment and
          Conversation Division of Geology
          Sevier County, Tennessee 2007 Flood Insurance Report (FIS)
          Sevier County, Tennessee 1983, Flood Insurance Report (FIS)
   Plans and Manuals
          Pigeon Forge 1996 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
          Pigeon Forge Zoning Ordinance 2007
          Pigeon Forge Subdivision Regulations
          Pigeon Forge Storm Water Ordinance
          Sevier County Zoning Ordinance
          Sevier County Subdivision Regulations
          Sevier County Stormwater Resolution
          Sevier County Emergency Management Plan
          Southern Standard Building Code
          Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 blue book
          Karl can you add to this?




                                                                           Page | 9
3. Risk Assessment

The Risk Assessment portion of this Plan identifies, profiles, and assesses the
natural hazards that are known to affect Pigeon Forge. The process provides a
complete overview and definition of each natural hazard to decision makers and
residents. Each category of natural hazard may currently, or in the future, affect
the area. A complete understanding of each natural hazard and the effects of that
hazard on their planning area, better prepares decision makers, local agencies
and residents on the causes of, potential damages from, and possible scenarios
of each natural hazard.

  3.1 Identifying Hazards

All hazards and there effects on Pigeon Forge are identified by researching past
events, documenting recorded damages, and assessing the probability and
consequences of the event happening again. Understanding these hazards and
their relationship to land, infrastructure, and population is the first step to
achieving risk awareness.

During the process of Hazard Identification the Planning Team considered
several hazards known to impact communities throughout the United States,
these hazards include:
    Avalanche                               Mine Subsidence
    Coastal Storms                          Severe Winter Storm
    Drought                                 Tornado
    Extreme Heat                            Tsunami
    Earthquake                              Volcano
    Flood                                   Wildfire
    Hailstorm                               Windstorm
    Hurricane

The Planning Team considered state and regional data, past documented
events, and other sources to identify the natural hazards most likely to affect
Pigeon Forge. The hazards identified in the table are the hazards identified by
the Pigeon Forge Stakeholders that they deemed affecting the planning area.
These hazards are consistent with those detailed within the State‟s Hazard
Mitigation Plan for this area (East Tennessee):

Hazard
Flood
Atmospheric Hazards Combined – Severe Storm, Windstorm, Hailstorm
Drought
Earthquake
Extreme Heat

                                                                         Page | 10
Landslide               Combined – Erosion, Land Subsidence
Tornado
Winter Storm

3.1.1 Flood

Flooding, as defined, is a general or temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from excessive water and annually creates
the most damage in Tennessee. From 1963 through 2003, flooding resulted in 20
Federal Disaster Declarations across the state, with Public Assistance/Mitigation
expenditures in excess of $ 294 million. It should be noted that the average
duration of Mississippi, Tennessee and Cumberland River systems for out -of-
bank flooding has been fourteen days. However, in several instances, the
sustained flood durations have exceeded sixty to seventy days along the
Mississippi system in West region. The Tennessee and Cumberland systems
have experienced twenty to thirty day events. As a point of record, the 1927
Mississippi flooding left the West region in disaster conditions for nearly a year.
Inarguably, flooding events present the highest priority natural hazard in the state
posing significant problems for 20 to 30 percent of the entire population.

There are approximately 1,600 miles of rivers traversing the state with 57 major
lakes; creating 5,000 miles of frontage (Corps of Engineers, TVA, and
Tennessee Division of GIS Information Services). Regardless of the region, all 95
are prone to either flash or out-of-bank flooding and, within the past ten years,
have been included in a Federal Disaster Declaration for flooding.

The main flood season for the East region tends to be March to December (TVA,
USGS, EarthSat Floodcast). The East region is primarily subjected to flash-
flooding, due almost exclusively to forty years of out-of-bank flood mitigation
efforts by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Factors contributing to the flood hazard in Tennessee include: (1) proximity to the
major rivers and tributaries (Tennessee, Cumberland, Mississippi), (2) heavy
rainfalls within the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins, (3) significant
historic filling of wetland areas in West region (Obion, Shelby, Tipton, Dyer, and
Lake Counties), (4) heavy development (urbanization) in areas with flat terrain
and wide floodplains (Middle and West), (5) loose, clay soils in certain areas that
minimize rainfall infiltration rates, and (6) rocky, steep terrain producing explosive
flash flooding effects. Also, all three regions continue to develop and as
urbanization increases the amount of land impervious to rain also increases; i.e.,
paved areas. This urbanization effect reduces the land‟s natural ability to absorb
water and increases the likelihood for flash flooding (example: the Carter
County/Doe River flash flooding resulted in eight fatalities, 20 injuries, and 100
homeless (FEMA-1197-DR-TN). Additionally; ponding has been responsible for
flooding in numerous low elevation areas; example: Montgomery, Cheatham and
Davidson Counties (FEMA-1167-DR-TN).

                                                                             Page | 11
Description

During the 20th century, floods were the number one natural disaster in the U.S.
in terms of number of lives lost and property damage, and they are the number
one weather-related killer. Most communities in the U.S. have experienced some
kind of flooding. Floods can be slow, or fast rising, but generally develop over a
period of days. For instance, the Mississippi River flood of 1993 was caused by
repeated heavy rain from thunderstorms over a period of weeks. Hundreds of
floods occur each year, making it one of the most common hazards in all 50
states and U.S. territories.

In most years, flooding accounts for or is involved with three -quarters of federal
disaster declarations claiming about 140 lives each year and responsible for
more damage to property each year than any other type of weather hazard.

A flood is a natural event for rivers and streams and is caused in a variety of
ways. Winter or spring rains, coupled with melting snows, can fill river basins too
quickly. Torrential rains from decaying hurricanes or other tropical systems can
also produce flooding. The excess water from snowmelt, rainfall, or storm surge
accumulates and overflows onto the banks and adjacent floodplains. Floodplains
are lowlands, adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans that are subject to recurring
floods. Currently, floodplains in the U.S. are home to over nine million
households.
A flood, as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program is a general and
temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of
normally dry land area, or of two or more properties from:
     overflow of inland or tidal waters;
     unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any
       source;
     a mudflow; or,
     a collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body
       of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or
       currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels that result in a
       flood.

Factors determining the severity of floods include:

      Rainfall intensity and duration
          o A large amount of rain over a short time can result in flash flooding
          o Small amounts may cause flooding where the soil is saturated
          o Small amounts may cause flooding if concentrated in an area of
              impermeable surfaces
      Topography and ground cover
          o Water runoff is greater in areas with steep slopes and little
              vegetation

                                                                          Page | 12
Frequency of inundation depends on the climate, soil, and channel slope. In
regions without extended periods of below-freezing temperatures, floods usually
occur in the season of highest precipitation.

Types

Floods are the result of a multitude of naturally occurring and human-induced
factors, but they all can be defined as the accumulation of too much water in too
little time in a specific area. Types of floods include regional floods, river or
riverine floods, flashfloods, urban floods, ice-jam floods, storm-surge floods,
dam- and levee-failure floods, and debris, landslide, and mudflow floods.

       Regional Flooding can occur seasonally when winter or spring rains
        coupled with melting snow fill river basins with too much water too quickly.
        The ground may be frozen, reducing infiltration into the soil and thereby
        increasing runoff. Extended wet periods during any part of the year can
        create saturated soil conditions, after which any additional rain runs off
        into streams and rivers, until river capacities are exceeded. Regional
        floods are many times associated with slow-moving, low-pressure or
        frontal storm systems including decaying hurricanes or tropical storms.

       River or Riverine Flooding is a high flow or overflow of water from a river
        or similar body of water, occurring over a period of time too long to be
        considered a flash flood.

       Flash Floods are quick-rising floods that usually occur as the result of
        heavy rains over a short period of time, often only several hours or even
        less. Flash floods can occur within several seconds to several hours and
        with little warning. They can be deadly because they produce rapid rises in
        water levels and have devastating flow velocities.

Several factors can contribute to flash flooding. Among these are rainfall
intensity, rainfall duration, surface conditions, and topography and slope of the
receiving basin. Urban areas are susceptible to flash floods because a high
percentage of the surface area is composed of impervious streets, roofs, and
parking lots where runoff occurs very rapidly. Mountainous areas also are
susceptible to flash floods, as steep topography may funnel runoff into a narrow
canyon. Floodwaters accelerated by steep stream slopes can cause the flood-
wave to move downstream too fast to allow escape, resulting in many deaths

Flashfloods can also be caused by ice jams on rivers in conjunction with a winter
or spring thaw, or occasionally even a dam break. The constant influx of water
finally causes a treacherous overflow; powerful enough to sweep vehicles away,
roll boulders into roadways, uproot trees, level buildings, and drag bridges off
their piers.


                                                                           Page | 13
      Urban Flooding is possible when land is converted from fields or
       woodlands to roads and parking lots; thus, losing its ability to absorb
       rainfall. Urbanization of a watershed changes the hydrologic systems of
       the basin. Heavy rainfall collects and flows faster on impervious concrete
       and asphalt surfaces. The water moves from the clouds, to the ground,
       and into streams at a much faster rate in urban areas. Adding these
       elements to the hydrological systems can result in floodwaters that rise
       very rapidly and peak with violent force. During periods of urban flooding,
       streets can become swift moving rivers and basements can fill with water.
       Storm drains often back up with vegetative debris causing additional,
       localized flooding.

      Ice-Jam Flooding occurs on rivers that are totally or partially frozen. A rise
       in stream stage will break up a totally frozen river and create ice flows that
       can pile up on channel obstructions such as shallow riffles, log jams, or
       bridge piers. The jammed ice creates a dam across the channel over
       which the water and ice mixture continues to flow, allowing for more
       jamming to occur. Backwater upstream from the ice dam can rise rapidly
       and overflow the channel banks. Flooding moves downstream when the
       ice dam fails, and the water stored behind the dam is released. At this
       time the flood takes on the characteristics of a flash flood, with the added
       danger of ice flows that, when driven by the energy of the flood-wave, can
       inflict serious damage on structures. An added danger of being caught in
       an ice-jam flood is hypothermia, which can quickly kill.

      Storm-surge flooding is water that is pushed up onto otherwise dry land by
       onshore winds. Friction between the water and the moving air creates
       drag that, depending upon the distance of water (fetch) and the velocity of
       the wind, can pile water up to depths greater than 20 feet. Intense, low-
       pressure systems and hurricanes can create storm-surge flooding. The
       storm surge is unquestionably the most dangerous part of a hurricane as
       pounding waves create very hazardous flood currents.

Nine out of 10 hurricane fatalities are caused by the storm surge. Worst-case
scenarios occur when the storm surge occurs concurrently with high tide.
Stream flooding is much worse inland during the storm surge because of
backwater effects.

          Dam-and Levee-Failure Flooding are potentially the worst flood events.
           A dam failure is usually the result of neglect, poor design, or structural
           damage caused by a major event such as an earthquake. When a
           dam fails, an access amount of water is suddenly let loose
           downstream, destroying anything in its path. Dams and levees are
           built for flood protection. They usually are engineered to withstand a
           flood with 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

                                                                            Page | 14
            certain probability of occurring in any one year. If a larger flood occurs,
            then that structure will be overtopped. If during the overtopping the
            dam or levee fails or is washed out, the water behind it is released and
            becomes a flash flood. Failed dams or levees can create floods that
            are catastrophic to life and property because of the tremendous energy
            of the released water.

           Debris, Landslide, and Mudflow Flooding is created by the
            accumulation of debris, mud, rocks, and/or logs in a channel, forming a
            temporary dam. Flooding occurs upstream as water becomes stored
            behind the temporary dam and then becomes a flash flood when the
            dam is breached and rapidly washes away. Landslides can create
            large waves on lakes or embayment‟s and can be deadly. Mudflow
            floods can occur when volcanic activity rapidly melts mountain snow
            and glaciers, and the water mixed with mud and debris moves rapidly
            down slope.

Most lives are lost when people are swept away by flood currents, whereas most
property damage results from inundation by sediment-laden water. Flood
currents also possess tremendous destructive power as lateral forces can
demolish buildings and erosion can undermine bridge foundations and footings
leading to the collapse of structures.

Facts

Most people are unaware that:

       80% of flood deaths occur in vehicles, and most happen when drivers try
        to navigate through flood waters.
       Only six inches of rapidly moving flood water can knock a person down.
       A mere two feet of water can float a large vehicle.
       One-third of flooded roads and bridges are so damaged by water that any
        vehicle trying to cross stands only a 50% chance of making it to the other
        side.
       95% of those killed in a flash flood tried to outrun the waters along their
        path rather than climbing rocks or going uphill to higher grounds.
       Most flood-related deaths are due to flash floods.
       Most homeowners‟ insurance policies do not cover floodwater damage.
       Six to eight million homes are located in flood-prone areas.
       Flooding has caused the deaths of more than 10,000 people since 1900.
       Property damage from flooding now totals over $1 billion each year in the
        U.S.
       More than $4 billion is spent on flood damage in the U.S. each year. More
        than 2,200 lives were lost as a result of the Johnstown, Pennsylvania flood
        of 1889. This flood was caused by an upstream dam failure.


                                                                              Page | 15
     On July 31, 1976, the Big Thompson River near Denver overflowed after
      an extremely heavy storm. A wall of water 19 feet high roared down the
      Big Thompson Canyon where many people were camping. 140 people
      perished and millions of dollars of property were lost.
     On average, there are about 145 deaths each year due to flooding.
     About one-third of insurance claims for flood damages are for properties
      located outside identified flood hazard areas.
     Under normal conditions floods do not cause damage. Damage occurs
      when structures are built in flood-prone areas.

Common Flood-Related Terms

     100-Year Flood Plain. The area that has a 1% chance, on average, of
      flooding in any given year. (Also known as the Base Flood.)
     500-Year Flood Plain. The area that has a 0.2% chance, on average, of
      flooding in any given year.
     Base Flood. Represents a compromise between minor floods and the
      greatest flood likely to occur in a given area. The elevation of water
      surface resulting from a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any
      given year.
     Floodplain. The land area adjacent to a river, stream, lake, estuary, or
      other water body that is subject to flooding. This area, if left undisturbed,
      acts to store excess floodwater. The floodplain is made up of two
      sections: the floodway and the flood fringe.
     Floodway. The NFIP floodway definition is “the channel of a river or other
      watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved, in order to
      discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
      elevation more than one foot.” The floodway carries the bulk of the
      floodwater downstream and is usually the area where water velocities and
      forces are the greatest. NFIP regulations require that the floodway be
      kept open and free from development or other structures that would
      obstruct or divert flood flows onto other properties. Floodways are not
      mapped for all rivers and streams but are generally mapped in developed
      areas. Unlike floodplains, floodways do not reflect a recognizable
      geologic feature.
     Flood Fringe. The flood fringe refers to the outer portions of the
      floodplain, beginning at the edge of the floodway and continuing outward.
      The fringe land area is outside of the stream or river floodway, but is
      subject to inundation by regular flooding
     Annual flooding. Occurs much more frequently than the 100-year flood
      and, over time, may in fact produce a much greater risk to structure.


3.1.2 Atmospheric Hazard – Severe Storm



                                                                          Page | 16
The most severe weather in Tennessee occurs in the mountainous regions east
of the Great Valley or along the northern Cumberland Plateau. Northwestern
(and to some extent north central) Tennessee is also susceptible to extreme
weather conditions due to its close proximity to the potentially bitter-cold region of
the Great Plains. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the assessment, it is
assumed all of the state is equally at risk from severe storm events.

Description

A thunderstorm is formed from a combination of moisture, rapidly rising warm air
and a force capable of lifting air such as a warm and cold front, a sea breeze or a
mountain. All thunderstorms contain lightning and may occur singly, in clusters or
in lines. Thus, it is possible for several thunderstorms to affect one location in
the course of a few hours. Some of the most severe weather occurs when a
single thunderstorm affects one location for an extended period time.

Lightning is an electrical discharge that results from the buildup of positive and
negative charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong
enough, lightning appears as a "bolt." This flash of light usually occurs within the
clouds or between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning reaches a
temperature approaching 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit in a split second. The rapid
heating and cooling of air near the lightning causes thunder.

While thunderstorms and lightning can be found throughout the United States,
they are most likely to occur in the central and so uthern states.

Types of Thunderstorms

      Single Cell (pulse storms). Typically last 20-30 minutes. Pulse storms
       can produce severe weather elements such as downbursts, hail, some
       heavy rainfall and occasionally weak tornadoes. This storm is light to
       moderately dangerous to the public and moderately to highly dangerous to
       aviation.

      Multicell Cluster. These storms consist of a cluster of storms in varying
       stages of development. Multicell storms can produce moderate size hail,
       flash floods and weak tornadoes. This storm is moderately dangerous to
       the public and moderately to highly dangerous to aviation.

      Multicell Line. Multicell line storms consist of a line of storms with a
       continuous, well developed gust front at the leading edge of the line. Also
       known as squall lines, these storms can produce small to moderate size
       hail, occasional flash floods and weak tornadoes. This storm is moderately
       dangerous to the public and moderately to highly dangerous to aviation.




                                                                             Page | 17
      Supercell. Even though it is the rarest of storm types, the supercell is the
       most dangerous because of the extreme weather generated. Defined as a
       thunderstorm with a rotating updraft, these storms can produce strong
       downbursts, large hail, occasional flash floods and weak to violent
       tornadoes. This storm is extremely dangerous to the public and aviation.

Types of Lightning

Flashes that do not strike the surface are called cloud flashes. They may be
inside a cloud, travel from one part of a cloud to another, or from cloud to air.
Overall, there are four different types of lightning:

      Cloud to sky (sprites)
      Cloud to ground
      Intra-cloud
      Inter-cloud

Lightning flashes can have more than one ground point. Roughly, there are five
to ten times as many cloud flashes than cloud to ground flashes.

Thunderstorm Facts

      The National Weather Service estimates more than 100,000
       thunderstorms worldwide each year.
      1,800 to 2,000 thunderstorms occur worldwide in a given second.
      In the last 25 years, severe storms have been involved in over 300 federal
       disasters.

Dangers Associated with Thunderstorms

      Lightning
      Flash floods
      Hail
      Outflow
      Winds
          o Downbursts or strong down drafts which can cause an outburst of
              potentially damaging winds at or near the ground
          o Micro or macro-bursts
      Tornadoes

Lightning Facts

      Lightning is the second most frequent killer in the U.S. with nearly 100
       deaths and 500 injuries each year.
      Lightning is a component of all thunderstorms.

                                                                           Page | 18
      In the continental U.S. there are more than 40 million cloud to ground
       lightning flashes each year.
      The longest bolt, seen to date, was 118 miles long in the Dallas -Ft. Worth,
       TX area.
      The peak temperature of lightning is around 60,000 degree Fahrenheit, or
       about 5 times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
      Lightning most commonly occurs in thunderstorms, but it can also occur in
       snowstorms, sandstorms, and in the ejected material over volcanoes.

Cloud to ground lightning can injure or kill people and destroy objects by direct or
indirect means. Objects can either absorb or transmit energy. The absorbed
energy can cause the object to explode, burn, or totally destruct. The various
forms of transfer are:

   1) Tall object transferred to person
   2) Tall object to ground to person.

   3) Object (telephone line, plumbing pipes) to a person in contact with the
      appliance

Effects of Lightning

      Fires
           o Fires may occur in structures such as storage and processing units,
               aircraft and electrical infrastructure and components.
           o Forest fires may be initiated by lightning. Half the wildfires in the
               western U.S. are caused by lightning.
      Injury and death to people
           o 85% of lightning victims are children and young men ages 10 to 35.
      25% of victims die and 70% of survivors suffer long term effects.

3.1.3 Atmospheric Hazard – Windstorm

Windstorms or high winds are storms with sustained winds of 40 mph or gusts of
58 mph or greater; not caused by thunderstorms and expected to last for an hour
or more. Although different in definition, windstorms may be considered as part of
a symbiotic relationship or concurrent events with Severe Storms. Consequently,
it is relatively impossible to discern or define where one begins and the other
ends. Therefore, the State of Tennessee, while clearly understanding windstorms
may be a separate hazard, elected to consider windstorms and the historical
significance of such events along with priority hazards; Severe Storm and
Tornado.

3.1.4 Atmospheric Hazard – Hailstorm



                                                                           Page | 19
Hailstorms occur when freezing water in thunderstorm type clouds accumulates
in layers around an icy core. Hail causes damage by battering crops, structures,
automobiles, and transportation systems. Based on available data at the state
level, it is assumed the entire state is equally at risk from hailstorms. Due to a
myriad of variables, hailstorm probability cannot be categorized through
traditional statistical methods.

Description

Hail is precipitation in the form of spherical or irregular pellets of ice larger than 5
millimeters (0.2 inches) in diameter (American Heritage Dictionary).

Hail is a somewhat frequent occurrence associated with severe thunderstorms.
Hailstones grow as ice pellets and are lifted by updrafts, and collect super-cooled
water droplets. As they grow, hailstones become heavier and begin to fall.
Sometimes, they are caught by successively stronger updrafts and are re-
circulated through the cloud growing larger each time the cycle is repeated.
Eventually, the updrafts can no longer support the weight of the hailstones. As
hailstones fall to the ground, they produce a hail-streak (i.e. area where hail falls)
that may be more than a mile wide and a few miles long.

Types

Hail is a unique and fairly common hazard capable of producing extensive
damage from the impact of these falling objects. Hailstorms occur more
frequently during the late spring and early summer months. Most thunderstorms
do not produce hail, and ones that do normally produce only small hailstones not
more than one-half inch in diameter. However, hailstones can grow larger than
the size of a golf ball before falling to the ground.



Hail conversion chart
Diameter of Hailstones   Description
(inches)
0.50                     Marble
0.70                     Dime
0.75                     Penny
0.88                     Nickel
1.00                     Quarter
1.25                     Half Dollar
1.50                     Walnut
1.75                     Go lf Ball
2.00                     Hen Egg
2.50                     Tennis Ball
2.75                     Baseball
3.00                     Tea Cup
4.00                     Grapefru it
4.50                     Softball

                                                                               Page | 20
Facts

       Hailstones can fall at speeds of up to 120 mph.
       Hail is responsible for nearly $1 billion in damage to crops and property
        each year in the U.S.
       The largest hailstone ever recorded fell in Coffeyville, Kansas in 1970. It
        measured over 5.6 inches in diameter and weighed almost two pounds.

3.1.5 Drought

Description

A drought is defined as the cumulative deficit of precipitation relative to what is
normal for a region over an extended period of time. Unlike other natural
hazards, a drought is a non-event that evolves as a prolonged dry spell. It may
be difficult to determine when a drought begins or ends. A drought can be short,
lasting just a few months, or persist for years before climatic conditions return to
normal. Drought conditions can occur at any time throughout the year, but are
most apparent during the summer months.

Because the impacts of a drought accumulate slowly at first, a drought may not
be recognized until it has become well-established. The many aspects of
drought reflect its varied impacts on people and the environment. While the
impacts of that deficit may be extensive, it is the deficit, not the impacts, that
defines a meteorological drought.

Types

Drought is measured in the Palmer Drought Severity Index according to the level
of recorded precipitation against the average, or normal, amount of precipitation
for a region.

Palmer Drought Severity Index
Palmer Classifications System (PDSI)
+4.0 in. or more             extremely wet
3.0 in to 3.99 in            very wet
2.0 in to 2.99 in            moderately wet
1.0 in to 1.99 in            slightly wet
0.5 in to 0.99 in            incipient wet spell
0.49 in to -0.49 in          near normal
-0.5 in to -0.99 in          incipient dry spell
-1.9 in to -1.99 in          mild drought
-2.0 in to -2.99 in          moderate drought
-3.0 in to -3.99 in          severe drought
-4.0 in or less              extreme drought

                                                                           Page | 21
(Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA))

Facts

       High temperatures, prolonged high winds, and low relative humidity can
        aggravate drought conditions.
       Droughts can lead to economic losses such as unemployment, decreased
        land values, and Agro-business losses.
       In 1998, over 2 billion dollars in property loss was credited to drought in
        the United States.

Primary Effects

       Crop failure is the most apparent effect of drought in that it has a direct
        impact on the economy and, in many cases, health (nutrition) of the
        population that is affected by it. Due to a lack of water and moisture in the
        soil, many crops will not produce normally or efficiently and, in many
        cases, may be lost entirely.

       Water shortage is a very serious effect of drought in that the availability of
        potable water is severely decreased when drought conditions persist.
        Springs, wells, streams, and reservoirs have been known to run dry due to
        the decrease in ground water, and, in extreme cases, navigable rivers
        have become unsafe for navigation as a result of drought.

Secondary Effects

       Fire susceptibility is increased with the absence of moisture associated
        with a drought. Dry conditions have been known to promote the
        occurrence of widespread wildfires.

Tertiary Effects

       Environmental degradation in the forms of erosion and ecological damage
        can be seen in cases of drought. As moisture in topsoil decreases and
        the ground becomes dryer, the susceptibility to windblown erosion
        increases. In prolonged drought situations, forest root systems can be
        damaged and/or destroyed resulting in loss of habitat for certain species.
        In addition, prolonged drought conditions may result in loss of food
        sources for certain species.
       In prolonged drought situations the soil surrounding structures subsides,
        sometimes creating cracks in foundations and separation of foundations
        from above ground portions of the structure.

3.1.6 Earthquake


                                                                             Page | 22
The Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone (ETSZ), identified in 1993, roughly runs
adjacent to Interstate 75 from Chattanooga northward to Oak Ridge then
eastward toward the Knoxville area and finally extending further eastward to
Ashville, North Carolina. The eastern Tennessee portion of the zone is
approximately 300km long by 50km wide and has yet to produce a damaging
earthquake. The largest recorded event occurring in 1973 was in the magnitude
of 4.6 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Nevertheless, researchers have
noted a ten-fold increase in registered seismic activity in the area in the period
from 1980 to 1990. However, the activity tends to be on the low side of the
Mercalli Scale and generally does not raise much public interest. All in all, the
area is considered at light risk of being affected by an earthquake in the next 100
years. However, if such an event occurred, it could be expected to affect
approximately 25 percent of the state‟s population.

Due to the geologic formations in the East Tennessee region, it would take a
large Mercalli Scale event to produce the same scale of damage, as would a
similar event along the New Madrid fault. Nevertheless, the potential from
damage to the Radiological and Hazardous Materials facilities as well as the
flood control sites in East Tennessee could produce disaster damage rivaling any
event in the western portion of the state.

Description

An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking
and shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of
years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that
form the Earth's surface move slowly over, under, and past each other.
Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked
together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated
energy grows strong enough, the plates break free releasing the stored energy
and producing seismic waves generating an earthquake. The areas of greatest
tectonic instability occur at the perimeters of the slowly moving plates, as these
locations are subjected to the greatest strains from plates traveling in opposite
directions and at different speeds. However, some earthquakes occur in the
middle of plates.

Ground motion, the movement of the earth‟s surface during earthquakes or
explosions, is the catalyst for most of the damage during an earthquake.
Produced by waves generated by a sudden slip on a fault or sudden pressure at
the explosive source, ground motion travels through the earth and along its
surface. Ground motions are amplified by soft soils over lying hard bedrock,
referred to as ground motion amplification. Ground motion amplification can
cause an excess amount of damage during an earthquake, even to sites very far
from the epicenter.
Earthquakes strike suddenly and without warning. Earthquakes can occur at any
time of the year and at any time of the day or night. On a yearly basis, 70 to 75

                                                                          Page | 23
damaging earthquakes occur throughout the world. Estimates of losses from a
future earthquake in the United States approach $200 billion.

Ground shaking from earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges, disrupt
gas, electric, and phone service, and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches,
flash floods, fires, and huge, destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with
foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil, and trailers
and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken
off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a
populated area, it may cause deaths and injuries and extensive property
damage.

The Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994, struck a modern
urban environment generally designed to withstand the forces of earthquakes.
Its economic cost, nevertheless, has been estimated at $20 billion. Fortunately,
relatively few lives were lost. Exactly one year later, Kobe, Japan, a densely
populated community less prepared for earthquakes than Northridge, was
devastated by the most costly earthquake ever to occur. Property losses were
projected at $96 billion, and at least 5,378 people were killed. These two
earthquakes tested building codes and construction practices, as well as
emergency preparedness and response procedures.
There are 45 states and territories in the United States at moderate to ver y high
risk from earthquakes, and they are located in every region of the country.
California experiences the most frequent damaging earthquakes. However,
Alaska experiences the greatest number of large earthquakes-most located in
uninhabited areas. The largest earthquakes felt in the United States were along
the New Madrid Fault in Missouri, where a three-month long series of quakes
from 1811 to 1812 included three quakes larger than a magnitude of 8 on the
Richter Scale. These earthquakes were felt over the entire eastern United
States, with Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Alabama,
Arkansas, and Mississippi experiencing the strongest ground shaking.

Types

Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity using the
Richter Scale and Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity.

The Richter magnitude scale measures an earthquake‟s magnitude using an
open-ended logarithmic scale that describes the energy release of an earthquake
through a measure of shock wave amplitude. The earthquake‟s magnitude is
expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions. Each whole number
increase in magnitude represents a 10-fold increase in measured wave
amplitude, or a release of 32 times more energy than the preceding whole
number value.




                                                                           Page | 24
The Modified Mercalli Scale measures the effect of an earthquake on the Earth‟s
surface. Composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from
unnoticeable shaking to catastrophic destruction, the scale is designated by
Roman numerals. There is no mathematical basis to the scale; rather, it is an
arbitrary ranking based on observed events. The lower values of the scale detail
the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people, while the increasing values
are based on observed structural damage. The intensity values are assigned
after gathering responses to questionnaires administered to postmasters in
affected areas in the aftermath of the earthquake.




                                                                         Page | 25
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Scale Intensity       Description of Effects             Maximum        Corresponding
                                                         Acceleration   Richter Scale
                                                         (mm/sec)
I       Instrumental    Detectable         only       on <10
                        seismographs
II      Feeble          Some people feel it                  <25        <4.2
III     Slight          Felt by people resting (like a       <50
                        truck rumbling by)
IV      Moderate        Felt by people walking               <100
V       Slightly        Sleepers awake; church bells         <250       <4.8
        Strong          ring
VI      Strong          Trees sway; suspended objects        <500       <5.4
                        swing; objects fall off shelves
VII     Very Strong     Mild alarm; walls crack; plaster     <1000      <6.1
                        falls
VIII    Destructive     Moving cars uncontrollable;          <2500
                        masonry      fractures; poorly
                        constructed buildings damaged
IX      Ruinous         Some houses collapse; ground         <5000      <6.9
                        cracks; pipes break open
X       Disastrous      Ground cracks profusely; many        <7500      <7.3
                        buildings              destroyed;
                        liquefaction and landslides
                        widespread
XI      Very            Most buildings and bridges           <9800      <8.1
        Disastrous      collapse; roads, railways, pipes
                        and cables destroyed; general
                        triggering of other hazards
XII     Catastrophic    Total destruction; trees fall;       >9800      >8.1
                        ground rises and falls in waves
Source:           North              Carolina               Emergency      Management
www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/earthquake. htm)

Facts

Earthquakes in the central or eastern United States affect much larger areas than
earthquakes of similar magnitude in the western United States. For example, the
San Francisco, California earthquake of 1906 (magnitude 7.8) was felt 350 miles
away in the middle of Nevada, whereas the New Madrid earthquake of
December 1811 (magnitude 8.0) rang church bells in Boston, Massachusetts,
1,000 miles away. Differences in geology east and west of the Rocky Mountains
cause this strong contrast.



                                                                               Page | 26
Although earthquakes in the central and eastern United States are less frequent
than in the western United States, they affect much larger areas. This is shown
by two areas affected by earthquakes of similar magnitude, the 1895 Charleston,
Missouri, earthquake in the New Madrid seismic zone and the 1994 Northridge,
California, earthquake. Red indicates minor to major damage to buildings and
their contents. Yellow indicates shaking felt, but little or no damage to objects,
such as dishes.




(Source: United States Geological Survey http://quake.usgs.gov/ prepare/ factsheets/NewMadrid)

       Ten Largest Earthquakes in Contiguous United States
Magnitude    Date                    Location
7.9          February 7, 1812        New Madrid, Missouri
7.9          January 9, 1857         Fort Tejon, California
7.8          March 26, 1872          Owens Valley, California
7.8          February 24, 1892       Imperial Valley, California
7.7          December 16, 1811       New Madrid, Missouri area
7.7          April 18, 1906          San Francisco, California
7.7          October 3, 1915         Pleasant Valley, Nevada
7.6          January 23, 1812        New Madrid, Missouri
7.5          July 21, 1952           Kern County, California
7.3          November 4, 1927        west of Lompoc, California
7.3          December 16, 1954       Dixie Valley, Nevada
7.3          August 18,1959          Hebgen Lake, Montana
7.3          October 28, 1983        Borah Peak, Idaho

Source: www.disasterrelief.org/Libra ry/WorldDis/wde2_txt.html#cont)


                                                                                      Page | 27
Likelihood of Occurrence

The goal of earthquake prediction is to give warning of potentially damaging
earthquakes early enough to allow appropriate response to the disaster, enabling
people to minimize loss of life and property. The U.S. Geological Survey
conducts and supports research on the likelihood of future earthquakes. This
research includes field, laboratory, and theoretical investigations of earthquake
mechanisms and fault zones. A primary goal of earthquake research is to
increase the reliability of earthquake probability estimates. Ultimately, scientists
would like to be able to specify a high probability for a specific earthquake, on a
particular fault, within a particular year.       Scientists estimate earthquake
probabilities in two ways: by studying the history of large earthquakes in a
specific area, and by the rate at which strain accumulates in the rock.

Scientists study the past frequency of large earthquakes in order to determine
the future likelihood of similar large shocks. For example, if a region has
experienced four magnitude 7 or larger earthquakes during 200 years of
recorded history, and if these shocks occurred randomly in time, then scientists
would assign a 50 percent probability (that is, just as likely to happen as not to
happen) to the occurrence of another magnitude 7 or larger quake in the region
during the next 50 years.

But in many places, the assumption of random occurrence with time may not be
true, because when strain is released along one part of the fault system, it may
actually increase on another part. Four magnitude 6.8 or larger earthquakes and
many magnitude 6 - 6.5 shocks occurred in the San Francisco Bay region during
the 75 years between 1836 and 1911. For the next 68 years (until 1979), no
earthquakes of magnitude 6 or larger occurred in the region. Beginning with a
magnitude 6.0 “shock” in 1979, the earthquake activity in the region increased
dramatically; between 1979 and 1989, there were four, magnitude 6 or greater
earthquakes, including the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake. This
clustering of earthquakes leads scientists to estimate that the probability of a
magnitude 6.8 or larger earthquake occurring during the next 30 years in the San
Francisco Bay region is about 67 percent (twice as likely as not).

Another way to estimate the likelihood of future earthquakes is to study how fast
strain accumulates. When plate movements build the strain in rocks to a critical
level, like pulling a rubber band too tight, the rocks will suddenly break and slip to
a new position. Scientists measure how much strain accumulates along a fault
segment each year, how much time has passed since the last earthquake along
the segment, and how much strain was released in the last earthquake. This
information is then used to calculate the time required for the accumulating strain
to build to a level resulting in an earthquake. This simple model is complicated
by the fact that such detailed information about faults is rare. In the United
States, only the San Andreas fault system has adequate records for using this
prediction method.

                                                                             Page | 28
The University of Memphis estimates that, for a 50-year period, the probability of
a repeat of the New Madrid 1811-1812 earthquakes with:
     a magnitude of 7.5 - 8.0 is 7 to 10%
     a magnitude of 6.0 or larger is 25 to 40%

3.1.7 Extreme Heat

Prolonged periods of extreme heat are rare in Tennessee, but have occurred in
years past and will occur again. Due to the flat topography and lower elevation of
the Western Region and, to a lesser extent, the Middle Region of the state, the
effects of severe and prolonged periods of heat are more pronounced in those
areas. Even though the risk is more predominant in the West and Middle
Regions, the Eastern Region is just as susceptible to the adverse effects of
extreme heat. Therefore, for the purposes of the risk assessment, it is assumed
all regions of the state are equally at risk from extreme heat.

Description:
Temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high
temperature for the region and last for several weeks are defined as extreme
heat.

Heat Index
Our bodies dissipate heat by varying the rate and depth of blood circulation, by
losing water through the skin and sweat glands, and as a last resort, by panting,
when blood is heated above 98.6°F. Sweating cools the body through
evaporation. However, high relative humidity retards evaporation, robbing the
body of its ability to cool itself.




                                                                          Page | 29
(http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/heat.htm)
(Due to the nature of the heat index calculation, the values in the table have an error +/- 1.3F.)

NOAA’s National Weather Service Heat Index Program

Based on the latest research findings, the NWS has devised the “Heat Index”
(HI). The HI, given in degrees F, is an accurate measure of how hot it really feels
when relative humidity (RH) is added to the actual air temperature. The NWS will
initiate alert procedures when the HI is expected to exceed 105°- 110°F for at
least two consecutive days. The Heat Index is the temperature the body feels
when heat and humidity are combined. The chart below shows the HI that
corresponds to the actual air temperature and relative humidity.

Considering the tragic death toll which occurred in 1980, the NWS has stepped
up its efforts to alert more effectively the general public and appropriate
authorities to the hazards of heat waves-those prolonged excessive
heat/humidity episodes.




                                                                                                     Page | 30
                               Heat Index/Heat Disorders Impacts
                Heat Index                                 Heat Disorders I
              130° or Higher             Heatstroke/sunstroke highly higher likely with
                                         continued exposure
                105°- 130°               Sunstroke, heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely,
                                         and heatstroke possible with prolonged exposure
                                         and/or physical activity
                90°- 105°:               Sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion
                                         possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical
                                         activity
                80° - 90°                Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or
                                         physical activity

Types of Heat Disorder Symptoms

When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove, body temperature
begins to rise, and heat related illnesses and disorders might develop. Elderly
persons, small children, chronic invalids, those on certain medications and
persons with weight and alcohol problems are particularly susceptible to heat
reactions, especially during heat waves in areas where a moderate climate
usually prevails. Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse
of the body‟s ability to shed heat by circulatory changes and sweating, or a
chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much sweating. When heat gain
exceeds the level the body can remove, or when the body cannot compensate
for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body‟s inner
core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop.

Ranging in severity, heat disorders share one common feature: the individual has
overexposed or over exercised for his age and physical condition in the existing
thermal environment. Studies indicate that, other things being equal, the severity
of heat disorders tend to increase with age. Heat cramps in a 17 -year-old may
be heat exhaustion in someone 40, and heat stroke in a person over 60.

      Sunburn: Redness and pain. In severe cases swelling of skin, blisters,
       fever, and headaches. Sunburn, with its ultraviolet radiation burns, can
       significantly retard the skin‟s ability to shed excess heat.
      Heat Cramps: Painful spasms usually in muscles of legs and abdomen
       possible. Heavy sweating.
      Heat Exhaustion: Heavy sweating, weakness, skin cold, pale and clammy.
       Pulse thready. Normal temperature possible. Fainting and vomiting.
      Heat Stroke (or sunstroke): High body temperature (106° F. or higher).
       Hot dry skin. Rapid and strong pulse. Possible unconsciousness.




                                                                                             Page | 31
3.1.8 Landslide


Landslides (rockslides, mudslides, etc) are among the most common natural
hazards. As with most natural hazards, they are often characterized by the
catastrophic examples, such as the Hebgen Lake (Montana) Quake Lake slide
of 1959. Unlike most natural hazards, however, most damage is not caused by
extreme events, but by uncounted (and often unreported) minor events. A major
rockslide in 1998 shut down Interstate 40 near the Tennessee-North Carolina
border for almost two months, resulting in major economic damage to the area,
which is highly dependent upon tourism.


Slopes with the greatest potential for sliding are between 34 degrees and 37
degrees. Although steep slopes are commonly present where landslides occur , it
is not necessary for the slopes to be long.

Therefore, landslides are one major natural hazard that is as likely, or perhaps
more likely, to occur in any portion of Tennessee as in the mountainous eastern
part of the state.

Two criteria are typically used to classify landslides - types of movement and
types of material. The types of movement are falls, topples, slides, spreads,
flows, and combinations or two or more of these. Bedrock and soils are
considered the principle material types. The soils type is further divided into
debris and earth. Landslides occur when the shearing of forces exceed the
resisting forces of earth materials. Several factors contribute to either increased
sheer stress or reduced shear strength, thus initiating the landslide process.
Factors which can increase shear stress are:

    Removal of lateral support, such as previous slope failure, erosion by
     rivers, streams or tidal currents and construction.
    Loading by natural or human means. Loading may occur with the added
     weight of rain, hail or snow, the accumulation of loose rock fragments or
     volcanic material, stockpiles of ore or rock, or the weight of buildings.
    Vibrations caused by earthquakes, blasting, machinery, and traffic or
     possibly thunder.

Factors contributing to reduce shear strength are:

    Characteristics of the earth materials, composition, texture, structure and
     slope geometry.
    Material alteration through weathering and other physio-chemical
     reactions.
    Changes in direct water content and pore pressure and in structure.


                                                                            Page | 32
The hazards associated with landslides are as diverse as the types of failure.
Falls may damage roads or buildings at the base of a steep slope, injure
climbers, or remain on a road as a hazard to drivers. Slumps usually damage
utilities within or below the slide mass, but seldom cause a threat to life.
Translational slides can be the most catastrophic of all. In addition to presenting
a local hazard to structures and utilities, they can cause damage and death both
far from and only slightly below the source.

Much of the topography of the eastern portion of the State of Tennessee was
shaped by landsliding. Some slides occurred under a different climate than that
which presently exists and are now stable. Others have been de-stabilized by
human activity or natural causes and are currently active. The evidence of past
landslides is among the most important factors in the prediction of future failures
as it is inevitable that landslides will recur in most parts of the state. The areas of
greatest susceptibility are those underlain by Cretaceous shales, with steep
slopes, where the geologic structure parallels the hillslope, and where water
availability is highest. The hazard decreases with deviation from those
characteristics. The hazard is greatest in the spring, when more water is usually
present, and during earthquakes, which may trigger the failure of unstable
slopes. The variability of the hazard with structure, rock type, and terrain is such
that only a site-by-site analysis will serve to delineate areas of hazard.

Obviously, landslides pose some degree of hazard to the entire state, however,
the threat is more pronounced in the eastern portion. They become disastrous
when intensive land development occurs in their proximity and people and
property are endangered. It is therefore reasonable to expect an increase in
potential levels of damage as the population grows, unless mitigative strategies
are implemented. Identification of problem areas and avoidance of these problem
areas will greatly reduce the potential for a catastrophic event. In addition,
improved building designs and enforced building codes, control and stabilization
necessary for the area, and the purchase of insurance will help to properly
mitigate against this hazard.

Description

Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope.
Landslides may be very small or very large, and can move at slow to very high
speeds. Many landslides have been occurring over the same terrain since
prehistoric times. They are activated by storms and fires and by human
modification of the land. New landslides occur as a result of rainstorms,
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and various human activities.

Mudflows or debris flows are rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with
water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as
during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the earth into a flowing river of
mud or "slurry." A slurry can flow rapidly down slopes or through channels, and

                                                                               Page | 33
can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. A slurry can travel
several miles from its source, growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other
materials along the way.
Most of the landslide damage does not occur in rugged mountain country. Most
losses from landslides and soil creep occur in cities developed on gently sloping
hillsides. Although a landslide may occur almost anywhere, from man-made
slopes to natural, pristine ground, most slides often occur in areas that have
experienced sliding in the past. All landslides are triggered by similar causes.
These can be weaknesses in the rock and soil, earthquake activity, the
occurrence of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, or construction activity changing some
critical aspect of the geological environment. Landslides that occur following
periods of heavy rain or rapid snow melt worsen the accompanying effects of
flooding.

Landslides pose a hazard to nearly every state in the country by causing $2
billion in damages and 25 to 50 deaths a year. There is a concentration of losses
in the Appalachian, Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions. It has been
estimated that about 40 percent of the U.S. population has been exposed to the
direct and indirect effects of landslides.

Public and private economic losses from landslides include not only the direct
costs of replacing and repairing damaged facilities, but also the indirect cost
associated with lost productivity, disruption of utility and transportation systems,
reduced property values, and costs for any litigation. Some indirect costs are
difficult to evaluate, thus estimates are usually conservative or simply ignored. If
indirect costs were realistically determined, they likely would exceed direct costs.

Much of the economic loss is borne by federal, state, and local agencies
responsible for disaster assistance, flood insurance, and highway maintenance
and repair. Private costs involve mainly damage to land and structures. A
severe landslide can result in financial ruin for the property owners because
landslide insurance (except for debris flow coverage) or other means of
spreading the costs of damage are unavailable.

Types

       Slides of soil or rock involve downward displacement along one of more
        failure surfaces. The material from the slide may be broken into a number
        of pieces or remain a single, intact mass. Sliding can be rotational, where
        movement involves turning about a specific point. Sliding can be
        translational, where movement is down slope on a path roughly parallel to
        the failure surface. The most common example of a rotational slide is a
        slump, which has a strong, backward rotational component and a curved,
        upwardly-concave failure surface.




                                                                           Page | 34
   Flows are characterized by shear strains distributed throughout the mass
    of material. They are distinguished from slides by high water content and
    distribution of velocities resembling that of viscous fluids. Debris flows are
    common occurrences in much of North America. These flows are a form
    of rapid movement in which loose soils, rocks, and organic matter,
    combined with air and water, form a slurry that flows downslope. The term
    “debris avalanche” describes a variety of very rapid to extremely rapid
    debris flows associated with volcanic hazards. Mudflows are flows of fine-
    grained materials, such as sand, silt, or clay, with high water content. A
    subcategory of debris flows, mudflows contains less than 50 percent
    gravel.

   Lateral spreads are characterized by large elements of distributed, lateral
    displacement of materials. They occur in rock, but the process is not well-
    documented and the movement rates are very slow. Lateral spreads can
    occur in fine-grained, sensitive soils such as quick clays, particularly if
    remolded or disturbed by construction and grading. Loose, granular soils
    commonly produce lateral spread through liquefaction. Liquefaction can
    occur spontaneously, presumably because of changes in pore-water
    pressures, or in response to vibrations such as those produced by strong
    earthquakes.

   Falls and Topples. Falls occur when masses of rock or other material
    detach from a steep slope or cliff and descend by free fall, rolling, or
    bouncing. These movements are rapid to extremely rapid and are
    commonly triggered by earthquakes. Topples consist of forward rotation
    of rocks or other materials about a pivot point on a hill slope. Toppling
    may culminate in abrupt falling, sliding, or bouncing, but the movement is
    tilting without resulting in collapse. Data on rates of movement and control
    measures for topples is sparse Factors Contributing to Landslides

   Steep slopes are more susceptible to landslides and should be avoided
    when choosing a building site.

   Slope stability decreases as water moves into the soil. Springs, seeps,
    roof runoff, gutter down spouts, septic systems, and site grading that
    cause ponding or runoff are sources of water that often contribute to
    landslides.

   Changing the natural slope by creating a level area where none previously
    existed adds weight and increases the chance of a landslide.

   Poor site selection for roads and driveways.

   Improper placement of fill material.


                                                                         Page | 35
      Removal of trees and other vegetation. Plants, especially trees, help
       remove water and stabilize the soil with their extensive root systems.

3.1.9 Land Subsidence
Ground subsidence is not a major problem in Tennessee. Nevertheless, the
potential exists and must be taken into consideration.

Much of Tennessee is underlain by karst topography (i.e., beds of relatively soft
limestone and dolomite that can easily be dissolved by the dilute organic acids
invariably present in water that has percolated downward through soil humus and
surface vegetation). In places, such rock is honeycombed with cracks, fissures
and sizable cavern systems. In some areas natural drainage occurs primarily
below ground rather than via surface streams. These underground passages are
commonly connected to the surface by funnel-shaped depressions called
sinkholes. Sinkholes often lead to ground subsidence or collapse. This results
from the settlement or collapse of overlying materials into solution openings
beneath the surface, such as caves or enlarged joints. Sinkholes generally form
in farm fields, woodlands, and other such terrain however, occasionally may form
along city streets, highways, in parking lots, or beneath buildings. This has
occurred in a number of Tennessee towns and cities, including Clarksville,
McMinnville, and Knoxville. On occasion, sinkholes or subterranean passages
have been known to dam; backing up water and creating localized flooding.

One section of the state most susceptible to sudden ground collapse is a five-
county area from the Land Between the Lakes eastward through Clarksville and
Springfield. A second area is a crescent-shaped region from Donelson to
Murfreesboro, south to Shelbyville and west to Columbia. Most areas adjacent to
the western and eastern escarpments of the Cumberland Plateau, the
Sequatchie Valley and a large portion of the Valley of East Tennessee are
likewise prone to sinkhole formation and hence, landscape subsidence and
ground collapse. Additionally, in the coal mine districts of East Tennessee,
abandoned mines, mine shafts, tunnels, and wells have sometimes given way,
negatively impacting the surface; i.e., roads or buildings.

Description

Land subsidence occurs when the ground sinks to a lower than normal level.
Mine subsidence is defined as the collapse of underground coal mines resulting
in direct damage to a surface structure.

Land subsidence occurs when large amounts of ground water have been
withdrawn from certain types of rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The rock
compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding the ground up.
When the water is withdrawn, the rock falls in on itself. Land subsidence can
occur unnoticed because it covers large areas rather tha n in a small spot, like a
sinkhole.

                                                                         Page | 36
3.1.10 Tornado

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to
the ground with the most violent capable of tremendous destruction with wind
speeds of 250 mph or more and damage paths in excess of one mile wide and
50 miles long. They can develop as “families,‟ or clusters along storm fronts.
Such super outbreaks of tornadoes have occurred numerous times in
Tennessee; most recently in the eastern part of the state in 1993. Undoubtedly,
tornadoes are among the most unpredictable of weather phenomenon and can
occur anywhere but are most prevalent in the United States. Due to the
prevailing wind patterns, 59 percent of all tornadoes in the U.S. move from SW to
NE and 97 percent from some westerly direction; making the Midwest,
Southeast, and Southwest potions the most susceptible. They are generally most
prominent along the Tennessee and Mississippi/Alabama border, forming what
could be called Tennessee‟s Tornado Alley; enveloping a 15 county area.

In Tennessee, the largest number of tornadoes occurs from February through
June, with the greatest number in April. According to the National Weather
Service, the state has an average of 11 tornadoes and five related deaths per
year. Some areas of the state experience tornadoes more than others with most
occurrences taking place in the flatter central and western portions.
Nevertheless, numerous tornadoes have been reported in the east, especially
during the occurrences of 1974 and 1993. Given the unpredictable nature of
tornadoes; striking at random, forecasting with any certainty what jurisdictions or
regions have a greater chance of being struck is an “Educated Guess”, at best.
Consequently, occurrences of yesterday serve as the best blueprint for
tomorrow.

Unlike other hazards, it may be less important to tornado risk than to identify it;
due in no small part to the difficulty in determining the paths of future
occurrences. The Fujita scale provides an idea of strength and extent of
damages of tornadoes that can occur in Tennessee. According to that scale
approximately: 88 percent of Tennessee tornadoes are of the F0/F1 to F1/F2
classification (80 to 120 mph wind speed), ten percent are of the F3/F4
classification (120 to 200 mph wind speed), and two perce nt of are of the F4/F5
classification; registering 200 to 300 mph wind speeds. According to the “Design
Wind Speed Map” developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),
the vast majority of the state is located in Wind Zone IV associated with up to 250
mph winds. The remaining, eastern, portion falls in Wind Zone III which can
possess up to 200 mph wind speeds.




                                                                            Page | 37
Tornadoes have occurred in practically every county in the state and will
undoubtedly occur again. It is more of a question of where as opposed to when.
Unfortunately, due to the myriad meteorologic and geographic variables,
predication of when tornadic activity aloft will manifest into a tornado on the
ground is, at best, educated guesswork or a “roll of the dice.” Consequently, it is
relatively impossible to statistically predict a tornado at any one time or place.
Given the historical track record of tornado occurrences in the state, it is only
reasonable to assume the chances of tornadic activity in any given year being
virtually assured; i.e., 100%.




                                                                            Page | 38
                            The Fujita-Pearson Tornado Measurement Scale
 Fujita        Estimated                                Typical Damage
 Scale           Wind
              Speed (mph)
  F0             < 73        Light Damage - Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees;
                             shallow-rooted trees pushed over; signboards damaged.
  F1            73 - 112     Moderate Damage - Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off
                             foundations or overturned; moving autos blown off roads.
  F2            113 - 157    Considerable Damage - Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes
                             demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; light
                             object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.
  F3            158 - 206    Severe Damage - Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses;
                             trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the
                             ground and thrown.
  F4            207 - 260    Devastating Damage - Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with
                             weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large
                             missiles generated.
  F5            261 - 318    Incredible Damage - Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and
                             swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100
                             meters (109 yards); trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur.


3.1.11 Winter Storm

Description

A winter storm can range from moderate snow over a few hours to blizzard
conditions with blinding wind-driven snow, sleet and/or ice that lasts several
days. Some winter storms may be large enough to affect several states while
others may affect only a single community. All winter storms are accompanied
by low temperatures and blowing snow, which can severely reduce visibility. A
severe winter storm is defined as an event that drops four or more inches of
snow during a 12-hour period or 6 or more inches during a 24 hour span. All
winter storms make driving and walking extremely hazardo us. The aftermath of
a winter storm can impact a community or region for days, weeks, or months.

Types

         Blizzards are by far the most dangerous of all winter storms. They are
          characterized by temperatures below twenty degrees Fahrenheit and
          winds of at least 35 miles per hour. In addition to the temperatures and
          winds, a blizzard must have a sufficient amount of falling or blowing snow.
          The snow must reduce visibility to one-quarter mile or less for at least
          three hours. With high winds and heavy snow, these storms can punish
          residents throughout much of the U.S. during the winter months each
          year. In mid-March of 1993, a major blizzard struck the Eastern U.S.

                                                                                 Page | 39
      Ice storms occur when freezing rain falls from clouds and freezes
       immediately on impact. Ice storms occur when cold air at the surface is
       overridden by warm, moist air at higher altitudes. As the warm air
       advances and is lifted over the cold air, precipitation begins falling as rain
       at high altitudes then becomes super cooled as it passes thro ugh the cold
       air mass below, and, in turn, freezes upon contact with chilled surfaces at
       temperatures of 32º F or below. In extreme cases, ice may accumulate
       several inches thick, though just a thin coating is often enough to do
       severe damage.

Winter Storm Facts

      Winter storms have been known to occur in the time period between the
       end of October and the end of March.
      Every state in the continental U.S. and Alaska has been impacted by
       severe winter storms.
      The super-storm of March 1993 caused over $2 billion in property damage
       in twenty states and Washington D.C. At least 79 deaths and 600 injuries
       were attributed to the storm.

Possible Effects

Storm effects such as power outages, extreme cold, flooding, and snow
accumulation can cause hazardous conditions and hidden problems, including
the following:

      Power outages can result when snow and ice accumulation on trees
       cause branches and trunks to break and fall onto vulnerable power lines.
       Blackouts vary in size from one street to an entire city.

      Extreme cold temperatures may lead to frozen water mains and pipes,
       damaged car engines, and prolonged exposure to cold resulting in
       frostbite.

      Flooding may occur after precipitation has accumulated and then
       temperatures rise once again which melts snow and ice. In turn, as more
       snow and ice accumulate the threat of flooding increases.

      Snow and ice accumulation on roadways can cause severe transportation
       problems in the form of extremely hazardous roadway conditions with
       vehicles losing control, collisions, and road closures.




                                                                            Page | 40
3.1.12 Wildland Fire

Historically, wildland fires in Tennessee have been extreme during drought or dry
years. Millions of dollars in timber, agricultural products (crops and stock) and
man-made structures have been lost to such wildland blazes.

Description

A wildfire is an unplanned fire, a term that includes grass fires, forest fires, and
scrub fires either man made or natural in origin. There are three different classes
of wildland fires.

Types

       Surface fires are the most common type and burn along the floor of a
        forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees.
       Ground fires are usually started by lightning and burn on or below the
        forest floor.
       Crown fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the
        tops of trees.
       Spotting can be produced by crown fires as well as wind and topography
        conditions. Large burning embers are thrown ahead of the main fire. Once
        spotting begins, the fire will be very difficult to control.

Wildland fires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills the area for miles
around.

The average forest fire kills most trees up to 3-4 inches in diameter, in the area
burned. These trees represent approximately 20 years of growth. In the case of
up-slope burning, under severe conditions, almost every tree is killed regardless
of size or type. When the trees are burned and everything is killed, then the
forest is slow to reestablish itself, because of the loss of these young seedlings,
saplings, pole and sawtimber trees.

Included in the destruction by fires are the leaf and other litter on the forest floor.
This exposes the soil to erosive forces, allowing rainstorms to wear away the
naked soil and wash silt and debris downhill, which will clog the streams and
damage fertile farmlands in the valleys. Once the litter and humus (spongy layer
of decaying matter) is destroyed, water flows more swiftly to the valleys and
increases flood danger.

Other consequences of wildfires are the death of and loss of habitat for the
forest‟s wildlife. Even when the adult animals escape, the young are left behind
to perish. The heaviest wildlife lost is felt by game birds since they have ground
nesting habits. Fish life also suffers as a result of the removal of stream shade

                                                                              Page | 41
and the loss of insect and plant food is destroyed by silt and lye from wood ashes
washed down from burned hillsides.

Wildfire Fuel Categories

       Light fuels such as shrubs, grasses, leaves, and pine needles (any fuel
        having a diameter of one-half inch or less) burn rapidly and are quickly
        ignited because they are surrounded by plenty of oxygen. Fires in light
        fuels spread rapidly but burn out quickly, are easily extinguished, and fuel
        moisture changes more rapidly than in heavier fuels.
       Heavy fuels such as limbs, logs, and tree trunks (any fuel one -half inch or
        larger in diameter) warm more slowly than light fuels, and the interiors are
        exposed to oxygen only after the outer portion is burned.

       Uniform fuels include all of the fuels distributed continuously over an area.
        Areas containing a network of fuels that connect with each other to
        provide a continuous path for a fire to spread are included in this category.

       Patchy fuels include all fuels distributed unevenly over an area, or as
        areas of fuel with definite breaks or barriers present, such as patches of
        rock outcroppings, bare ground, swamps, or areas where the dominant
        type of fuel is much less combustible.

       Ground fuels are all of the combustible materials lying beneath the surface
        including deep duff, tree roots, rotten buried logs, and other organic
        material.

       Surface fuels are all of the combustible materials lying on or immediately
        above the ground, including needles or leaves, duff, grass, small
        deadwood, downed logs, stumps, large limbs, and low shrubs.

       Aerial fuels are all of the green and dead materials located in the upper
        canopy, including tree branches and crowns, snags, hanging moss, and
        tall shrubs.

Fuel Types

       Grass. Found in most areas, but grass is more dominant as a fuel in
        desert and range areas where other types of fuel are less prevalent. It
        can become prevalent in the years after a fire in formerly timbered areas.

       Shrub (brush). Shrub is found throughout most areas of the U.S. Some
        examples of highly flammable shrub fuels are the palmetto/ gallberry in
        the Southeast, sagebrush in the Great Basin, and chaparral in the
        Southwest.


                                                                            Page | 42
                            Timber litter. This type of fuel is most dominant in mountainous
                             topography, especially in the Northwest.

                            Logging slash. This fuel is found throughout the country. It is the debris
                             left after logging, pruning, thinning, or shrub-cutting operations. It may
                             include logs, chunks, bark, branches, stumps, and broken understory
                             trees or shrubs.

Fuel Characteristics

                           Fuel moisture is the amount of water in a fuel. This measurement is
                            expressed as a percentage. The higher the percentage, the greater the
                            content of moisture within the fuel. How well a fuel will ignite and burn is
                            dependent, to a large extent, on its moisture content. Dry fuels will ignite
                            and burn much more easily than the same fuels when they are wet
                            (contain a high moisture content). As a fuel's moisture content increases,
                            the amount of heat required to ignite and burn that fuel also increases.
                            Light fuels take on and lose moisture faster than heavier fuels. Wet fuels
                            have high moisture content because of exposure to precipitation or high
                            relative humidity, while dry fuels have low moisture content because of
                            prolonged exposure to sunshine, dry winds, drought, or low relative
                            humidity.


                                 Acres Burned in the United States (1993-2002)
                                                                                                      7383493




                                                                                                                          7184712
   Number of Acres Burned




                                                           6065998




                                                                                            5289190
                                       4073579




                                                                                                                3570911
                                                                     2856959


                                                                                  2329704
                             1797674




                                                 1840546




                            1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
                                                                           Year




                                                                                                                                    Page | 43
                              Fires in the United States (1993-2002)




                                               96363




                                                                                  92250
   Number of Fires




                                                                          83886




                                                                                          84079
                                       82234




                                                                  81043
                               79107




                                                                                                  73457
                                                       66196
                      58810




                     1993 1994 1995 1996 1997                  1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
                                                           Year



Source: United States Forestry Service

Wildfire Facts

                    Homeowners can do much to help save their homes from wildfires, such
                     as constructing the roof and exterior structure of a dwelling with non-
                     combustible or fire resistant materials such as tile, slate, sheet iron,
                     aluminum, brick or stone.

                    In 2002, 6.9 million acres were burned in wildfires in the U.S., making it
                     the fourth worst wildfire season since 1960.

                    The worst wildfire season, in terms of number of acres burned, was 2000
                     when wildfires burned 8.4 million acres. The second and third worst
                     seasons were in 1988 and 1963.

                    While it was U.S. policy for most of the 20 th century to suppress wildfires,
                     fires actually benefit the ecosystem: The effects of fire can retard or
                     accelerate the natural development of plant communities, alter species
                     diversity and change nutrient flows.

                    More than 100 years of suppressing fires, combined with past land-use
                     practices, have resulted in a heavy buildup of dead vegetation, dense
                     stands of trees, a shift to species that have not evolved and adapted to
                     fire, and occasionally an increase in non-native, fire-prone plants.
                     Because of these conditions, today's fires tend to be larger, burn hotter,
                     and spread farther and faster, making them more severe.

                                                                                                          Page | 44
   Government scientists have also concluded that "fire severity has
    generally increased and fire frequency has generally decreased over the
    last 200 years. The primary causative factors behind fire regime changes
    are effective fire prevention and suppression strategies, selection and
    regeneration cutting, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of
    exotic plants.”

   Scientific analysis of the 2000 fire season revealed that the vast majority
    of burned acres were located in previously logged and roaded areas, not
    in road-less or wilderness areas.

   The Endangered Species Act permits federal officials to take actions that
    might impact endangered species or their habitat during times of
    emergency, including wildfire emergencies. Water can be taken from a
    river without permission from wildlife agencies during emergencies.

   There is consensus in the scientific literature dealing with fire and forest
    management that forests in un-roaded, un-logged areas have the most fire
    resiliency and present a lower fire risk compared to other areas.
   The Congressional Research Service, in an August 2000 report analyzing
    the impact of the fires in 2000, concluded, "Timber harvesting removes the
    relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products,
    but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles. The
    concentration of these „fine fuels‟ on the forest floor increases the rate of
    spread of wildfires."

   In 1996, U.S. government scientists issued the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
    Project Report, concluding that, "Timber harvest, through its effects on
    forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased
    fire severity more than any other recent human activity."

   Fire ecologists and most forest scientists agree that long-term ecological
    restoration with careful fire reintroduction (not increased resource
    extraction or aggressive fire suppression) holds the best hope of
    preventing future large-scale severe wildfires in fire-dependent
    ecosystems of the interior West.

   Many species depend on fires to improve habitat, recycle nutrients and
    maintain diverse habitats.

   Humans, either through negligence, accident, or intentional arson, have
    caused approximately 90% of all wildfires in the last decade. Accidental
    and negligent acts include unattended campfires, sparks, burning debris,
    and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The remaining 10% of fires are


                                                                        Page | 45
                             mostly caused by lightning, but may also be caused by other acts of
                             nature such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes.

                                         USFS Emergency Fire Suppression

                          $1,200.00


                          $1,000.00
   Cost Per Acre Burned




                           $800.00


                           $600.00


                           $400.00


                           $200.00


                             $0.00
                                   80


                                          82


                                                 84


                                                        86


                                                               88


                                                                      90


                                                                              92


                                                                                     94


                                                                                            96


                                                                                                   98
                                 19


                                        19


                                               19


                                                      19


                                                             19


                                                                    19


                                                                            19


                                                                                   19


                                                                                          19


                                                                                                 19
                                                                     Year

(Source: United States Forest Service *All dollar amounts in 1999 dollars)




                                                                                                        Page | 46
  3.2 Profiling Hazards

The following section profiles historical occurrences of those natural hazards
most likely to affect Pigeon Forge. These hazard profiles have been created
using the best available data from a variety of resources including, but not limited
to, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), National Weather Service (NWS),
local agencies and newspaper articles, and the approved Tennessee Hazard
Mitigation Plan.

3.2.1 Area Climate and Local Geography




                                                                            Page | 47
3.2.2 Flood Profile




                      Page | 48
  3.3 Assessing Vulnerability

This hazard vulnerability section uses “best available data” from national, state,
and local data sets. The vulnerability assessment methodology was created by
the Josh Human of RJH Planning and the Center for Hazards Research and
Policy Development at the University of Louisville. These estimates should be
used to understand relative risk and potential losses from hazards. Uncertainties
are inherent in any vulnerability assessment and loss estimation methodology,
arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards
and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from
approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive
analysis (such as incomplete inventories, demographics, or economic
parameters). The Pigeon Forge planning team, using the best available data and
methods, determined the vulnerability of Pigeon Forge for a variety of natural
hazards.

Important definitions to understand for this vulnerability assessment
model:

Hazard Identification: A hazard is considered to be anything which either
threatens the residents of a community or the things that they value.
Exposure: Your community‟s assets, resources, and populations potentially
exposed to a hazard
Risk: Risk equals your hazard probability times the hazard consequences.
Vulnerability: Defines what part of your “exposure” is at “risk” to each “hazard”

3.3.1 Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

There is no single way to determine Hazard Vulnerability. The Pigeon Forge
planning team spent many hours of research and conducted test runs to come up
with their methodology. The final model relies heavily on GIS software and
provides the reader several layers of information that can be used as seen in this
report or individually for their own information needs. In order to facilitate data
collection and analysis, a planning area or an area of measure must be identified.
Typically county boundaries or some form of census boundaries (tracts, blocks)
are used. However, in Pigeon Forge this methodology did not complement the
boundaries of the city and a new model was created. After researching specific
and relevant planning areas the team decided to use the city‟s Planning Zones
(94 Zones See following Map) used in their zoni ng maps. Using the planning
zones as our planning areas allowed the team to provide Pigeon Forge an area
specific Vulnerability Assessment that followed a boundary that was already
being used in the city. The planning zone boundaries were used to organize the
data inputs and normalize the data. This approach enabled the potential creation
of a vulnerability score for each planning zone and for each hazard. Thereby,
allowing decision makers to concentrate mitigation actions on specific areas of
the city.
                                                                          Page | 49
Planning Zone Map




                    Page | 50
Model

The model that was used has been praised and used by many for State, Local
and University Hazard Mitigation Plans.

Hazard Vulnerability Score = Exposure Score X Risk Score

When measuring vulnerability, the planning team measured what would be
exposed to each natural hazard. The Exposure Score provides the information
needed to complete a Vulnerability Assessment on any type of hazard. For our
model the exposure score was made up of four different variables called ranks.
The exposure score places human asset variables into the hazard vulnerability
score.

Exposure Score

Exposure Score = Population Rank + Property Value Rank + Government Facility
Rank + Commercial Zone Rank

Definition of Variables

   1. Population Rank

        Variable                    Source
        Population by Planning Zone Pigeon Forge GIS
                                    and Census 2000
                                    Data

Population Rank was derived for each zone based on the total number of
buildings via the parcel data x 2.45 (Pigeon Forge average household number
Census 2000)

See the Population Rank map below (p.120)

Property Value Rank

        Variable                        Source
        Property Value by Planning Zone Real property
                                        assessments,
                                        by parcel, from
                                        Pigeon Forge
                                        PVA

Property Value Rank was derived for each zone based on a count of the total
value (appraised) of each parcel within each zone.


                                                                        Page | 51
See the Property Value Rank map below (p.121)

   2. Government Facility Rank

      Variable                                Source
      Government Facilities per Planning Zone Pigeon Forge
                                              Parcel and
                                              Building GIS
                                              data

Government Facilities Rank was derived for each zone based on a count of the
total number of government buildings via the parcel data.

Government Facilities identified as critical were Schools, Waste water Treatment
Plants, Police Department, Public Works Buildings and the EOC.

See the Government Facility Rank map below (p.121)

Each of the above variables was calculated and then ranked 1-5 (1=Low,
5=High), using the Natural Breaks (Jenks) method provided in ArcGIS as a
classification choice.

   3. Zone Rank

      Variable                   Source
      Zone of each Planning Zone Pigeon Forge
                                 Planning and
                                 GIS data

Zone Rank was achieved by identifying each planning zones “Zone
Classification” on a map. This variable was used to sho w the importance of
Pigeon Forge’s commercial transient population. The Commercial Zones were
giving a higher rank thus providing them more weight in the calculation of the
model.

Zones
R-1 (Low Density) Residential areas were giving a rank of 1
R-2 (High Density) Residential areas were giving a rank of 2
M-1 Industrial District areas were giving a rank of 3
C-1 General Commercial Districts
C-2 Tourist Commercial Districts
C-3 Neighborhood Commercial District
C-4 Planned Unit-Commercial District
C-5 Commercial Amusement Park District were giving ranks of 4



                                                                         Page | 52
See the Zone Rank map below (p.121)

Each variable was calculated as described above (See Bolded Descriptions) and
the ranks were added to produce an Exposure Score, one of the variables used
to equate the Hazard Vulnerability Score. It is important to note that each one of
the exposure variables can be used individually to show important information or
combined in different formation to produce different results. This Vulnerability
Assessment Model was developed to be flexible and encompassing.




                                                                          Page | 53
Population Rank Map




                      Page | 54
Property Value Rank Map




                          Page | 55
Government Facilities Rank Map




                                 Page | 56
Zone Rank Map




                Page | 57
Exposure Score Map




                     Page | 58
       Risk Score

       Risk Score = (Risk Rank = Probability x consequences) or Area Effected Rank

       When measuring vulnerability, the planning team had to measure the effects of
       natural hazards on Pigeon Forge Planning Zones. The Risk Score assigns a
       hazard variable to the Hazard Vulnerability Score. The Planning Team decided
       the risk score would be comprised of one of the following variables: Risk Rank or
       Area Effected Rank. These two variables were chosen because of the
       differences in information recorded for natural hazards. Some hazards have
       boundaries for analysis, such as flooding, while total numbers of occurrences
       and their past consequences are best used to analyze those hazards occurring
       anytime or anyplace, such as severe storms.

       Risk Rank is a function of the consequences of an event in relationship to the
       probability of the event occurring. Combined, both consequences and probability
       operate together to convey risk (R=PxC)

       The following table describes Risk Rank for the Hazards identified in the Pigeon
       Forge Plan. This table also provides an annualized loss estimate for each of the
       Hazards. The data for this table was derived from the National Climatic Data
       Center and the University of South Carolina‟s Sheldus Database.

       Risk Rank and Loss Estimation Table:
                         Occurrences
Hazard                   1950-2008           Total Damages Probability Consequences Risk
Flood                                   20   $73,060,000.00      0.34 $1,259,655.17 $434,363.85
Severe Storm/Windstorm                 142    $6,336,000.00      2.45    $109,241.38 $267,453.03
Hail                                    38       $25,000.00      0.66        $431.03     $282.40
Wildfire                                 0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00
Severe Winter Storm                     46    $1,506,000.00      0.79     $25,965.52  $20,593.34
Drought                                  1            $0.00      0.02          $0.00       $0.00
Erosion                                  0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00
Land Subsidence                          0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00
Landslide                                0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00
Extreme Heat                             2    $1,052,632.00      0.03     $18,148.83     $625.82
Earthquake                               0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00
Tornado                                  0            $0.00      0.00          $0.00       $0.00

       For purposes of the Plan, the probability of a future event occurring in any given
       year is calculated based upon the number of past events divided by the number
       of years of record. For example, there have been 46 severe winter storms
       throughout the city over the last 58 years, yielding an annual occurrence ratio of
       0.79 (probability). The results of the hazard profiling effort tell us that those 46


                                                                                    Page | 59
events have produced a combined $1,506,000 of documented damages, or
roughly $25,965.52 per event (consequences).

Knowing both the annual occurrence probability ratio and the average damage
consequences per occurrence allow us to predict a weighted financial loss (Risk)
for any given year by multiplying the two values together. Therefore we can then
say that for any given year, it is likely that somewhere in the county,
approximately $21,000 worth of damages will be sustained. However,
considering we do not know where this damage will occur, we can then
proportionally distribute that damage across the individual planning zones. This is
accomplished by comparing the relative area that each planning zone occupies
with respect to the entire city. For example, Planning Zone 49 occupies
approximately 10.86% of the city‟s geographic area. Therefore, the Risk
Assessment Model would predict Planning Zone 49 as assuming approximately
$2,100 of estimated annual risk for this hazard. (See Appendix X for Planning
Zone Percent breakdown).

Distributing the risk in this manner is preferred given that the events are
geographic in nature and do not necessarily correlate to population distribution. .
Each planning zone was assigned a Risk Rank 1-5 (1=Low, 5=High) based on
their estimated annual risk and geographic weighted distribution for each hazard.

The Risk Rank model was computed using the following model.

Risk = ( P x C) x D

Where:
P = Annual Chance Probability Ratio (past events / years of record)
C = Average Annual Damages ($) from NCDC Records.
D = Geographic Weighted Distribution of Event by Planning Zone Area

This model was used for hazards that we could not calculate using an area
specific risk boundary model. These hazards included Severe Storm, Hail,
Severe Winter Storm and Extreme Heat (See bolded Hazards in Risk Rank
Table).

Once the Risk Score‟s were determined, the equation was set into motion to
produce a Hazard Vulnerability Score, per hazard, for each planning zone.




                                                                           Page | 60
Severe Storm Vulnerability Map




                                 Page | 61
Severe Winter Storm Vulnerability Map




                                        Page | 62
Hail Vulnerability Map




                         Page | 63
Extreme Heat Vulnerability Map




                                 Page | 64
Area Affected Rank illustrates each planning zone‟s vulnerability to flood,
landslide, erosion and wildfire based on the area affected by each hazard. Flood,
landslide, erosion, and wildfire vulnerability are based upon the percent of each
planning zone‟s total area that is affected. During stakeholder meeting number
four the planning team asked the group to locate and profile (See Appendix X
Hazard ID) past hazard events on a map. Since this data is area specific it was
determined to use this data within the Area Affected Rank. Providing Pigeon
Forge even more certainty of where problem areas are located, thus providing
geographically informed decisions on where to mitigate in the future. The area
affected boundary files were acquired and developed from different data sources
discussed below.

Flood: Using floodplain boundary data from the new FEMA DFIRM data set,
each planning zones percentage of area within the 100 year floodplain was
determined. Next, the planning zones were ranked 1-5 (1=low, 5=High) based
upon the percentage of 100 year floodplain located within each planning zone
producing one of the steps used to calculate the Risk Score. Secondly, the
Hazard Identification points were located within each planning zone and were
counted and ranked. The Flood Risk Score was calculated for each planning
zone by adding each area affected rank to the hazard identification rank. Finally,
a Flood Vulnerability Score was created by multiplying the Risk Score by the
Exposure Score. (See Flood Vulnerability Map)

Landslide: Researching the “Sevier County and Municipalities Hillsides and
Ridges Study” it was suggested that development subject to a 15% slope or
greater should be considered for Critical Slope Floating Zone. In keeping with
this prior mitigation document it was determined to map areas with a 15% slope
as potential danger zones to landslide type events. Using a USGS Digital
Elevation Map (DEM) a slope percentage map was created. Each planning
zones percentage of area within the 15% area was determined. Next, the
planning zones were ranked 1-5 (1=low, 5=High) based upon the percentage of
15% slope located within each planning zone producing one of the steps used to
calculate the Risk Score. Secondly, the Hazard Identification points were located
within each planning zone and were counted and ranked. The Landslide Risk
Score was calculated for each planning zone by adding each area affected rank
to the hazard identification rank. Finally, a Landslide Vulnerability Score was
created by multiplying the Risk Score by the Exposure Score. (See Landslide
Vulnerability Map)

Erosion: In order to determine erosion areas within the Pigeon Forge planning
area the planning team decided to create a buffer system around existing
streams. This was used due to the fact that most erosion occurs around
streams. Using the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) the planning
team created a 10‟ buffer around the streams in order to create an area thought
to potentially have erosion problems. Each planning zones percentage of area
within the 10‟ buffer erosion zone was determined. Next, the planning zones

                                                                          Page | 65
were ranked 1-5 (1=low, 5=High) based upon the percentage of 10‟ buffer
erosion zone located within each planning zone producing the Risk Score.
During the Hazard Identification exercise no stakeholder was able to identify any
past erosion locations. The Erosion Risk Score was calculated for each planning
zone by adding each area affected rank together. Finally, a Flood Vulnerability
Score was created by multiplying the Risk Score by the Exposure Score. (See
Erosion Vulnerability Map)

Wildfire: In order to determine Wildfire problem areas within the Pigeon Forge
planning the planning team used a tree density GIS file provided by the local
Pigeon Forge GIS department. The tree density layer located areas within
Pigeon Forge that were heavily forested. Each planning zones percentage of
area within the tree density areas was determined. Next, the planning zones
were ranked 1-5 (1=low, 5=High) based upon the percentage of tree density
areas located within each planning zone producing one of the steps used to
calculate the Risk Score. Secondly, the Hazard Identification points were located
within each planning zone and were counted and ranked. The Wildfire Risk
Score was calculated for each planning zone by adding each area affected rank
to the hazard identification rank. Finally, a Wildfire Vulnerability Score was
created by multiplying the Risk Score by the Exposure Score. (See Wildfire
Vulnerability Map)

Note: Some census tracts have no Area Affected areas located in them. This
caused a 0 Risk Score; thus, equaling a 0, Hazard Vulnerability Score

Once the Risk Score‟s were determined, the equation was set into motion to
produce a Hazard Vulnerability Score, per hazard, for each planning zone.




                                                                         Page | 66
Flood Vulnerability Map




                          Page | 67
Pigeon Forge Repetitive Loss Properties

The table below shows those properties in Pigeon Forge classified by the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as repetitive loss properties. The
NFIP makes flood insurance available to those communities where the
appropriate public body has adopted adequate floodplain management
regulations for its flood-prone areas. The loss history of a property includes all
flood claims paid on an insured property, regardless of any change(s) of
ownership, since the building's construction, or back to 1978 if the building was
constructed before 1978. A repetitive loss property is a property that has
experienced:

1. Four or more paid flood losses of more than $1,000 each; or
2. Two paid flood losses within a 10-year period that, in the aggregate, equal or
exceed the current value of the insured property; or
3. Three or more paid losses that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed the current
value of the insured property.

The city of Pigeon Forge has 20 repetitive loss properties with a total of 52
claims. The losses on those claims total $480,870. A concentration of repetitive
loss properties provides a documented account of a county‟s vulnerability and
dollar loss to flooding. Due to confidentiality reasons the properties have not
been mapped but the block number of the roads has been added to the table.
Without community oversight of building activities in the floodplain, mitigation
efforts could be undermined or nullified by careless building. Unless the
community as a whole is practicing adequate flood hazard mitigation, the
potential for loss will not be reduced sufficiently to affect disaster relief costs.




                                                                            Page | 68
Repetitive Loss Table:
                                         Bldg          Contents
Area                       Occupancy     Payment       Payment               Losses     Total Paid
600-699 Block Ashbury
Drive                      SINGLE FMLY    $12,955.25             $2,801.98       2     $15,757.23
600-699 Block Ashbury
Drive                      SINGLE FMLY     $6,614.77              $997.41        2      $7,612.18
600-699 Block Ashbury
Drive                      SINGLE FMLY     $7,263.03              $602.93        3      $7,865.96
600-699 Block Ashbury
Drive                      SINGLE FMLY    $17,142.80             $3,129.88       2     $20,272.88
600-699 Block Ashbury      Multiple
Drive                      Family         $15,600.00              $691.67        4     $16,291.67
600-699 Block Ashbury      Multiple
Drive                      Family          $9,871.64             $3,430.06       2     $13,301.70
600-699 Block Ashbury      Multiple
Drive                      Family         $21,281.77                 $0.00       4     $21,281.77
1850-1990 Center Road      SINGLE FMLY    $19,312.97             $3,615.25       2     $22,928.22
500-600 Circle Drive       SINGLE FMLY    $22,640.51                 $0.00       2      22,640,51
500-600 Circle Drive       SINGLE FMLY    $33,456.69             $9,200.00       4     $42,656.69
740-880 Golden Circle Dr   SINGLE FMLY    $68,098.23            $50,750.75       3    $118,848.98
2550-2700 High Valley Dr   SINGLE FMLY    $25,125.88             $8,361.13       4     $33,487.01
2550-2700 High Valley Dr   SINGLE FMLY    $10,883.87             $8,543.27       3     $19,427.14
2550-2700 High Valley Dr   SINGLE FMLY    $26,071.16             $3,895.39       2     $29,966.55
100-299 INDIANA AVE        NON RESIDNT    $10,883.67             $8,543.27       3     $10,134.42
100-299 INDIANA AVE        SINGLE FMLY     $9,509.37                 $0.00       2     $10,134.42
2800 NANCY ST              SINGLE FMLY     $6,643.33             $1,315.00       2      $7,958.33
                           ASSMD
PIGEON RIVER CT-RIVER RD   CONDO          $38,852.51            $18,731.20       2 $57,583.71
3700-3900 RIVER RD         SINGLE FMLY    $14,635.08             $6,000.00       2 $20,635.08
2100-2160 RIVER BANK RD    SINGLE FMLY     $4,727.01                 $0.00       2   $4,727.01
                                                       Totals                   52 $480,870.95
Source: Tennessee Emergency Management Agency




                                                                               Page | 69
Landslide Vulnerability Map




                              Page | 70
Erosion Vulnerability Map




                            Page | 71
Wildfire Vulnerability Map




                             Page | 72
The Hazards not captured in one of the fore mentioned Risk Score models:
Earthquake, Drought, Tornado and Land Subsidence were either completed
through a different model or could not be completed due to lack of data at this
current time.

For the Earthquake model the planning team decided to use FEMA‟s loss
estimation software HAZUS-MH. HAZUS-MH is a very powerful tool that is
commonly used to show vulnerabilities and loss estimations for the Earthquake
Hazard (See Appendix EQ).

For the hazards of Drought, Tornado and Land Subsidence a lack of data on past
occurrences and location was the root behind not being able to complete a
detailed Vulnerability Assessment. We currently do not have enough data on
past Drought and Tornado events occurring in Pigeon Forge. The Planning
Team recognized that we can‟t calculate past occurrences of these events but
felt the need to keep these hazards identified as potential threats due to their
sporadic geographic occurrence nature. There have been examples o f both of
these hazards in the Eastern part of the State. The Land Subsidence Hazard is
known to occur throughout this region but currently there are no maps that show
these areas. We would like to see these maps come on-line so we can use them
in the future to show Land Subsidence events. Using the state Hazard Mitigation
Plan as an example “the vast majority of jurisdictions/critical facilities within the
state are potentially at risk; i.e., 100% vulnerable ” (Pg. 65 Tennessee Hazard
Mitigation Plan) the hazard was left in as an identified threat.


3.3.2 Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures and Estimating
      Losses

Methodology

The same methodology was used to identify vulnerable buildings and critical
facilities as was used to estimate potential losses to these structures.

Critical facilities assessed in this section were: Schools, Wastewater Treatment
Plants, Police Department, Public Works Buildings and the EOC. These
estimates should be used to understand critical facilities vulnerability and
potential loss from hazards. Uncertainties are inherent in any vulnerability and
loss potential methodologies, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge
concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment.
Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications that are
necessary for a comprehensive analysis (such as incomplete inventories,
demographics, or economic parameters).

Need to Loss Estimate tables


                                                                            Page | 73
4. Mitigation Strategy

The Pigeon Forge Stakeholder Group developed a Mitigation Strategy by
focusing on six (6) essential aspects in risk reduction. The aspects provided
guidance for specific mitigation actions that the Stakeholder Group could apply to
each hazard; thus, producing a clear hazard mitigation blueprint. The essential
aspects considered in developing specific and clear actions are as follows:

1 Prevention
Preventative activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse.
They are particularly effective in reducing a community‟s future vulnerability,
especially in areas where development has not occurred or capital improvements
have not been substantial. Examples of preventative activities suggested to the
Stakeholder Group included:

   Planning and Zoning initiatives            Capital improvements
   Open space preservation                     programming
   Floodplain regulations                     Riverine / fault zone setbacks
   Stormwater management
   Drainage system maintenance

2 Property Protection
Property protection measures protect existing structures by modifying the
building to withstand hazardous events, or removing structures from hazardous
locations. Examples include:

   Acquisition                                Retrofitting (i.e., windproofing,
   Relocation                                  floodproofing, seismic design
   Building elevation                          standards, etc.)
   Critical facilities protection             Insurance
                                               Safe rooms

3 Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by
preserving or restoring natural areas and their mitigative functions. Such areas
include floodplains, wetlands and dunes. Parks, recreation or conservation
agencies and organizations often implement these measures. Examples include:

   Floodplain protection                      Wetland preservation and
   Riparian buffers                            restoration
   Fire resistant landscaping                 Habitat preservation
   Fuel Breaks                                Slope stabilization
   Erosion and sediment control


                                                                            Page | 74
4 Structural Projects
Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by
modifying the environmental natural progression of the hazard event. They are
usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff.
Examples include:

   Reservoirs                                Channel modification
   Levees / dikes / floodwalls               Storm sewers
   Diversions / Detention / Retention

5 Emergency Services
Although not typically considered a “mitigation technique,” emergency service
measures do minimize the impact of a hazard event on people and property.
These commonly are actions taken immediately prior to, during, or in response to
a hazard event. Examples include:

   Warning systems                           Sandbagging for flood protection
   Evacuation planning and                   Installing shutters for wind
    management                                 protection

6 Public Information and Awareness
Public Information and awareness activities are used to advise residents,
business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards,
hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves
and their property. Examples of measures to educate and inform the public
include:

   Outreach projects                         Library materials
   Speaker series / demonstration            School children education
    events                                    Hazard expositions
   Hazard map information
   Real estate disclosure




                                                                           Page | 75
     4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals

Information needed to establish goals and actions was compiled from the two
stakeholder meetings, the planning team and the stakeholder group compiled
Pigeon Forge‟s Mitigation Goals. These goals where determined by the planning
team and the stakeholder group to have the greatest benefit in hazard mitigation
for Lexington-Fayette County.

The mitigation goals were designed to be general guidelines for the mitigation
plan. These goals are for the long-term and represent the overall vision of the
mitigation plan. The objectives define the strategies and implementation steps to
attain the identified goals.

In order to maintain a clear and precise mitigation action plan each action was
reviewed, assessed, and aligned with the following eight (8) Hazard Mitigation
Goals:

1. Minimize the loss of life and injuries that could be caused by natural hazards.
2. Minimize the loss of property, business, and other economic activities from
      natural hazards.
3.    Facilitate the strengthening of public emergency services, its infrastructure,
      facilities, equipment, and personnel to natural hazards.
4.    Develop a community-wide mitigation effort by building stronger partnerships
      between government, businesses, and the general public.
5.    Increase public and private understanding of natural hazard mitigation
      through the promotion of mitigation education and awareness of natural
      hazards.
6.    Enhance existing or design new policies and technical capabilities that will
      reduce the effects of natural hazards.
7.    Enhance existing technical and GIS data and capabilities that will reduce the
      effects of natural hazards.
8.    Reduce adverse environmental impacts caused by Natural Hazards

     4.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions

By using the before mentioned essential aspects of risk reduction the
Stakeholder Group identified specific mitigation actions for each hazard and,
next, determined to what degree each would affect the identified hazards. Those
actions determined to impact risk reduction efforts to a larger degree where given
higher priority in the mitigation strategy.

The Mitigation Action Priority Matrix defines the rankings (A-D) that were
assigned to each mitigation action.


                                                                             Page | 76
  Mitigation Action Priority Matrix

    Priority                                       Description
A Very High         A Projects or activities that permanently eliminate damages or deaths
                      and injuries across the State from any hazard.

B High              B Project or activities that reduce the probability of damages, deaths,
                      and injuries across the State from any hazard.

                    C Project or activities that educate the public on the subjects of hazard
C Medium              mitigation, hazard research, and disaster preparedness.

                    D Project or activities that warn the public to the approach of a natural
D Low                 hazard threat across the State.


  Benefit Cost Review
  The Planning Team also considered the return on investment for each activity.
  This benefit cost review was performed on a qualitative basis. This review
  considered each activity‟s benefit as a function of its ability to permanently
  eliminate or reduce risk (i.e. High, Medium, and Low). The costs to implement
  each activity were also examined qualitatively using a similar convention. The
  result produced a generalized approach for assessing relative benefits to cost.
  The Planning Team agreed that more detailed benefit cost analysis would be
  performed as necessary prior to the implementation of each activity. In cases of
  activities identified for funding through FEMA mitigation programs, the group
  recognized that FEMA approved benefit-cost analysis would be required.

       4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Actions

  Finally, the Stakeholder Group developed the below Mitigation Strategy Matrix
  by:

  1.     Determining mitigation actions for each of the previously identified hazards;
  2.     Reviewing whether new or existing buildings would be affected;
  3.     Prioritized each action;
  4.     Identified how each action would be implemented and administered; and
  5.     Conducted a Benefit Cost Review.

  In all 34 actions were chosen to mitigate the following hazards:

           Flood – 9                                     Extreme Heat – 2
           All Hazards – 6                               Drought – 2
           Atmospheric Hazards – 4                       Landslide – 2
           Wildland Fires – 3                            Tornado – 2
           Earthquakes – 2                               Winter Storm – 2
                                                                                   Page | 77
Need Karl to review this
Mitigation Strategy Matrix
                                                                                                                  Activity
                                                                                                                  Reduces
                                                                Proposed Funding/Budget            Matches       Affects on
   Hazard       Type of Action or Project   Lead Implementer                            Priority                            Benefit/Cost
                                                                Schedule Considerations             Goals         New or
                                                                                                                  Existing
                                                                                                                 Structures

                                            Pigeon Forge Fire
 All Hazards          Reverse 911                                 TBD       Grant funding   D      1,2,3,4,5,6     Both         Low
                                               Department




               Evaluate/upgrade/maintain
 All Hazards      appropriate response      Fire Department     1-2 years   Grant funding   B        1,2,3         N/A          High
                       equipment




                Education and outreach
                                             Department of
 All Hazards       toward transient                             1-2 years   General Fund    D      1,2,3,4,5       N/A          Low
                                               Tourism
                     populations




                                                                                                                                Page | 78
                                                                                                                          Activity
                                                                                                                          Reduces
                                                                    Proposed Funding/Budget              Matches         Affects on
  Hazard       Type of Action or Project      Lead Implementer                              Priority                                Benefit/Cost
                                                                    Schedule Considerations               Goals           New or
                                                                                                                          Existing
                                                                                                                         Structures




               Research and review the
                  need for additional
All hazards                                     Maintenance         1-2 years   Grant funding   A,B       1,2,3,6          Both      Very High
                generator capability at
                   critical facilities




              Demonstrate the need for           Pigeon Forge
All-Hazards       GIS capabilities for       Planning and Zoning,   1-2 years   General Fund    C      1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8     Both       Medium
              mitigation of hazard events       Building Codes



                 Review and enhance              Pigeon Forge
All-Hazards   current GIS capabilities and   Planning and Zoning,   1-2 years   General Fund    B      1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8     Both         High
                      databases                 Building Codes

             Research and review the                Fire
Atmospheric
            need for Outdoor Warning         Department/Public      1-2 years   Grant funding   D         1,2,3,5          Both         Low
  hazards
                      Sirens                       works



                                                                                                                                        Page | 79
                                                                                                                      Activity
                                                                                                                      Reduces
                                                                    Proposed Funding/Budget            Matches       Affects on
  Hazard       Type of Action or Project      Lead Implementer                              Priority                            Benefit/Cost
                                                                    Schedule Considerations             Goals         New or
                                                                                                                      Existing
                                                                                                                     Structures
                 Promotion and public
Atmospheric
                 education of weather           Public Schools      1-2 years   Grant funding   D       1,2,3,5        Both         Low
  hazards
                          radios
                  Research and review                                             General
Atmospheric
               infrastructure protection        Public Works        1-2 years   Fund/Grant      A,B     1,2,3,4        Both      Very High
  hazards
                (bury lines etc.) projects                                        Funding
Atmospheric Research and review the
                                                Public Schools      On-going    General Fund    A      1,2,3,4,5,6     N/A       Very High
  hazards   need for shelters in schools
             Educating the population
                 (private, public,
  Drought                                      Fire Department      1-2 years   Grant funding   C       2,3,5,8        Both       Medium
             commercial) on drought
               resistance measures
            Research and review Water
  Drought                                    Water Department       On-going    General fund    B       1,2,4,8        N/A          High
              conservation planning

                   Comply/enforce                Pigeon Forge
Earthquake     earthquake building code      Planning and Zoning,   On-going    General Fund    B      1,2,4,5,6       Both         High
                     restrictions               Building Codes

              Evaluate/upgrade/maintain
Earthquake       appropriate response          Fire Department        TBD       Grant funding   A        1,2,3         Both      Very High
                      equipment




                                                                                                                                    Page | 80
                                                                                                                   Activity
                                                                                                                   Reduces
                                                                 Proposed Funding/Budget            Matches       Affects on
Hazard     Type of Action or Project       Lead Implementer                              Priority                            Benefit/Cost
                                                                 Schedule Considerations             Goals         New or
                                                                                                                   Existing
                                                                                                                  Structures
           Educating the population
               (private, public,
Extreme
          commercial) on protective         Fire Department      On-going   Grant funding    C      1,2,3,4,5       Both       Medium
  Heat
          measures during extreme
                 heat events
Extreme
           Implement fan program            Fire Department      On-going   Grant funding    B         1, 4         N/A          High
  Heat

                                              Pigeon Forge
          Comply/enforce floodplain
 Flood                                    Planning and Zoning,   On-going   General Fund     B      1,2,4,5,6,8     Both         High
           building code restrictions
                                             Building Codes


          Create comprehensive plan
                                              Pigeon Forge
          that enforces restrictions in
 Flood                                    Planning and Zoning,   On-going   General fund     B       1,2,5,6        Both         High
            identified flood hazards
                                             Building Codes
                      areas

             Maintain/Upgrade
                                                                            General Fund,
 Flood    Stormwater management             Planning Zoning        TBD                       A       1,2,6,8        Both      Very High
                                                                            grant funding
                  system
 Flood    Maintain/Upgrade Culverts        Street Department     on-going   General fund     B       1,2,6,8        Both         High




                                                                                                                                 Page | 81
                                                                                                                         Activity
                                                                                                                         Reduces
                                                                   Proposed Funding/Budget              Matches         Affects on
 Hazard      Type of Action or Project       Lead Implementer                              Priority                                Benefit/Cost
                                                                   Schedule Considerations               Goals           New or
                                                                                                                         Existing
                                                                                                                        Structures
            Evaluate/upgrade/maintain
 Flood         appropriate response           Fire Department        TBD       Grant funding   A          1,2,3           N/A       Very High
                    equipment
               Use Risk Assessment
 Flood          section to identify           Planning Zoning      On-going    Grant funding   A,B    1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8     Both      Very High
                necessary projects
               Research and review
                      stream
 Flood                                        Planning Zoning      On-going    Grant funding   B       1,2,,4,5,6,8       Both         High
            restoration/environmental
                 quality projects
            Research and review flood
 Flood                                        Fire Department      1-2 years   Grant funding   B         1,2,4,5          Both         High
             warning systems (gauges)
            Participate in the CRS/NFIP
 Flood                                        Planning Zoning      On-going    Grant funding   C         1,2,4,5          Both       Medium
                     programs



            Create comprehensive plan
                                                Pigeon Forge
            that enforces restrictions in
Landslide                                   Planning and Zoning,   On-going    General fund    B         1,2,5,6          Both         High
            identified landslide hazards
                                               Building Codes
                        areas




                                                                                                                                       Page | 82
                                                                                                                  Activity
                                                                                                                  Reduces
                                                                Proposed Funding/Budget            Matches       Affects on
 Hazard      Type of Action or Project    Lead Implementer                              Priority                            Benefit/Cost
                                                                Schedule Considerations             Goals         New or
                                                                                                                  Existing
                                                                                                                 Structures

             Educating the population
                                             Pigeon Forge
                 (private, public,
Landslide                                Planning and Zoning,   1-2 years   Grant funding   C      1,2,3,4,5,8     Both       Medium
             commercial) on landslide
                                            Building Codes
              resistant development

             Research and review the             Fire
Tornado     need for Outdoor Warning      Department/Public     1-2 years   Grant funding   D       1,2,3,5        Both         Low
                      Sirens                    works
             Research and review the             Fire
Tornado     need for Outdoor Tornado      Department/Public     1-2 years   Grant funding   B      1,2,3,4,5,6     N/A          High
                     Shelters                   works
Wildland    Assess the need to become
                                           Fire Department      On-going    General Fund    C        1,2,4         Both       Medium
  fire          a Firewise community
               Enhance fire protection
                 Development Codes              Fire
Wildland
                     including the       Department/Planning    On-going    General Fund    C      1,2,3,4,5       Both       Medium
  fire
             Wildland/Urban Interface        and zoning
                          code
              Educating the population
Wildland           (private, public,
                                           Fire Department       2-Jan      General Fund    C      1,2,3,4,8       Both       Medium
  fire           commercial) on fire
                 resistance measures
 Winter      Implement snow removal
                                          Street Department     On-going    General Fund    B        1,2,3         N/A          High
 storm        plan for secondary roads


                                                                                                                                Page | 83
                                                                                                      Activity
                                                                                                      Reduces
                                                        Proposed Funding/Budget            Matches   Affects on
Hazard   Type of Action or Project   Lead Implementer                           Priority                        Benefit/Cost
                                                        Schedule Considerations             Goals     New or
                                                                                                      Existing
                                                                                                     Structures

         Public Education campaign      Planning                      General
Winter
          on how to deal with the     Zoning/Police     1-2 years   Fund/Grant      C      1,2,3,5     N/A        Medium
storm
              "Slippery Slopes"        Department                     Funding




                                                                                                                    Page | 84
5. Plan Maintenance
  5.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan

Monitoring

The Pigeon Forge Community Development Division and members of the
stakeholder group will monitor the status and progress of the plan elements on
an annual basis. Pigeon Forge will issue a summary report of this status at the
end of each calendar year beginning with the first full calendar year of the plan
(CY 2009) (See Appendix X). Pigeon Forge Community Development Division
will be the primary point of contact for county, state, and federal officials and will
coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and update the plan.

In order to accurately and efficiently monitor mitigation actions individual project
progress reports (See Appendix X2) will be filed with Pigeon Forge Community
Development Division and the stakeholder group on a annual basis. These
reports are designed to allow responsible agencies and organizations the ability
to list issues and successes with implementing the mitigation actions they are
responsible for in the mitigation action plan

Evaluating

The Pigeon Forge Community Development Division and members of the
stakeholder group will evaluate the status and progress of the plan elements on
an annual basis. Pigeon Forge Community Development Division will issue a
annual evaluation report of the status of mitigation actions, objectives and goals,
beginning with the first full calendar year of the plan (CY 2009).

Continued stakeholder evaluation of the plan and achievement of goals and
objectives will be provided annually through a survey of stakeholders that will
seek information about the agency or organization‟s activities with respect to
hazard mitigation. Public comment on the plan and achievement of goals and
objectives will also be solicited annually.

Updating

As part of a more comprehensive effort to improve data quality and update data
as it becomes available (i.e. infrastructure data, property valuation data, hazard
data, and a wide variety of GIS-related efforts that will improve the accuracy and
soundness of the plan), the stakeholder group will meet annually to review,
amend and update the plan. Pigeon Forge Community Development Division will
issue an evaluation report of the mitigation strategy annually. Emergency
meetings will be called into session if needed. Pigeon Forge Community
Development Division, using these annual meetings, will ensure submission of
the new and updated plan within the 5 year cycle to the State and FEMA
                                                                             Page | 85
Because hazard, building and project data is ever-changing the stakeholder
group will develop a standard form and procedure for developing and
implementing amendments to the plan (See Appendix X3).

Priority for mitigation will be given to the post-hazard event timeframe
immediately following a natural disaster when current listed mitigation goals,
objectives and actions do not fully mitigate the new event. A stakeholder group
emergency meeting maybe called to ensure opportunities are advanced. In
addition, the stakeholder group‟s ability to update the mitigation process by
adding new data into the mitigation plan will allow for the efficient use of available
resources, staff, and programs.

This plan maintenance process includes, but is not limited to, the proposal and
passage (by majority vote) of updates and amendments by the stakeholder group
during a regular annual or emergency meeting. The stakeholder group must
document the process and information used in submitting the amendment, as
well as the responsible agency and timeframe (if applicable). Any changes in the
hazard mitigation plan will be documented and appended in a section titled
“Amendments”.


  5.2 Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms

The Local Capabilities Assessment Matrix (see below) demonstrates the local
planning mechanisms available for incorporating the requirements of the hazard
mitigation plan. During the review, updating, and standard enforcement of the
existing authorities and programs, the mitigation actions listed in this plan will be
incorporated, implemented, and enforced.

The identified action projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new
buildings and infrastructure as well as existing buildings and infrastructure.
Activities also incorporate mitigation activities into other planning mechanisms
and recommends mitigation projects that can be integrated into Master Plans,
Flood Mitigation Plans, Capital Improvement Plans, Land-use Plans, Emergency
Management Plans, Zoning Ordinances, Building Codes, and Post-Disaster
Mitigation Policies and Procedures where appropriate. In addition, projects will be
implemented through existing or ongoing programs.




                                                                             Page | 86
                Pigeon Forge.
                                             Jurisdiction




            Y
                                 Floodplain Management Ordinance




            Y
                                     Community Rating System




            Y
                                         Zoning Regulations




            Y
                                      Subdivision Regulations




            Y
                                    Fire Prevention Codes (State)
                                                                     Existing Authorities




            Y
                                  Storm Water Management Plans




            Y
                                    NWS Storm Ready Program




            Y
                                    Emergency Operations Plan
                                                                     Programs




            Y
                                       Mine Subsidence Fund
                                                                                            Local Capabilities Assessment Matrix




            A

                                    Local Economic Development
                                 A= Authority F= Foundation N=None
            Y




                                   Regional Development Agency
                                                                     Resources




            Y




                                Local Emergency Management Agency
            Y




                                Local Emergency Planning Committee




Page | 87
  5.3 Continued Public Involvement

In order to have continued public support of the mitigation process, it is important
that the public be involved not only in the preparation of the initial plan, but also
in any modifications or updates to the plan. To ensure that the public support is
maintained, the following actions may be taken by the Planning Team or Project
Administrator:
        • Develop informational mailings to be distributed to the public about
        mitigation efforts in the City and updates made by the Planning Team.
        • Develop mitigation flyers or mailings that contain mitigation activities and
        actions that promote reducing damages and risks of natural hazards.
        • Develop a survey following a Presidential, Emergency, or State
        Declaration to solicit public input about current or possible future mitigation
        activities, and place it on the County website.
        • Hold a public meeting prior to plan update/re-adoption annually, to allow
        for public comment on the plan.




                                                                              Page | 88
Appendix A: Introductory Letter Example

December 11, 2007

Tom Cloud
TN Emergency Management Agency
803 N. Concord St.
Knoxville, TN 37919


Dear Mr. Cloud:

The first meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge’s Mitigation Stakeholder Group is set for Monday,
December 17, 2007 at 9:30 AM in the Annex Room B at the City Hall Complex (225 Pine
Mountain Road in the City of Pigeon Forge). You have been identified as a stakeholder and we
are inviting you to attend this meeting.

The City of Pigeon Forge is undertaking development of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to
identify and reduce vulnerability to losses from natural hazards such as flooding, tornados and
earthquakes. FMSM Engineers has been contracted to develop the Plan for adoption by the City.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, signed into law on October 30, 2000, requires that states
undertake a planning process to identify and reduce vulnerability to losses from natural hazards
such as flooding, tornadoes and earthquakes. Pursuant to Federal law, the City of Pigeon Forge is
required to develop a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan pursuant to Section 322 of the Federal Code
of Regulations. Federal law requires that the mitigation planning process contain the following
elements: open public involvement and a thorough risk and vulnerability assessment of the
natural hazards in the designated areas.

Your agency was identified as a stakeholder to participate in this process. You will be (or have
been) contacted by Karl Kreis of the City of Pigeon Forge or Erin Wagoner of FMSM Engineers
seeking your agency’s participation and assistance in this vital planning process. You, or a
representative of your agency, will be asked to attend three to four meetings between now and the
June, 2008. In addition, data and information related to disasters and their impacts on the City of
Pigeon Forge may be requested. You will have an opportunity to comment on the draft plan.

        Mr. Kreis may be reached at (865) 429-7312 or kkreis@cityofpigeonforge.com
        Ms. Wagoner may be reached at (502) 212-5000 or ewagoner@fmsm.com
.
Thank you for your participation in this process.

Sincerely,



Karl Kreis
Assistant City Planner



                                                                                         Page | 89
Appendix B: Stakeholder Invite List

       Department                        Position                Name         Telephone

Belz Factory Outlet World                                  Sandy Sandiford

City                        City Manager                   Earlene Teaster   865-429-7300
                                                                             (865) 453-
City of Sevierville         Director of Planning           Jim Bryant        5504
                                                           Mayor Keith
City Official               Mayor                          Whaley            865-453-9061

City Official               Vice-Mayor                     Kevin McClure     865-453-9061
                            Community Development
Community Development       Director                       John Jagger       865-429-7312

Community Development       Assistant City Planner         Karl Kreis        865-429-7312

Department of Tourism       Director                       Leon C. Downey    865-453-8574

Dollywood                   Director Safety & Security     Robbie Fox        865-755-3343

Fire                        Fire Chief                     Tony Watson       865-429-7381
Insurance                   Burchfiel Overby Association   Tony Watts        865-389-6965

                            Smoky Mountain Lodging
Local Board of Realtors     Association (President)        Brad Ivens        865-286-1351
                            Smoky Mountain Lodging
Local Board of Realtors     Association                    Vickie King       865-286-1352

Parks & Recreation          Parks & Recreation Director    John Wilbanks     865-429-7373

Parks & Recreation          Parks & Recreation Director    Tom Garner        865-850-4696

Parks & Recreation          Parks & Recreation Director    Mike Weddington   865-429-7214
Pigeon Forge Hotel/Motel
Association                                                Harry Piarrot     865-805-8356

Pigeon Forge Police Dept    Chief of Police                Jack H. Baldwin   865-453-7435

Planning Commission         Planning Commission            Bill Bradley      865-453-2757

Public Works                Public Works Director          Mark Miller       865-429-7312
                                                                                    Page | 90
        Department                      Position                    Name        Telephone

Public Works Inspections
Team                       Chief Building Official            Joe Dunn         865-429-7314
Public Works Inspections
Team                       Fire Safety Specialist             Roger Price      865-429-7381
Schools - Pigeon Forge
High School                Principal                          Perry Schrandt   865-774-5790

Schools - Pigeon Forge
Middle School              Principal                          Jerry Wear       865-453-2401
Schools - Pigeon Forge
Primary School             Principal                          Nancy Williams   865-428-3016
Sevier County Emergency
Management Agency          Director                           John Fox         865-453-4919

Sevier County Health                                          Jana Chambers,   (865) 637-
Department                 Director                           Director         6853 ext 126
State Local Planning
Office                     Planner                            Bart Hose
TN Emergency
Management Agency          State Hazard Mitigation Officer    Tom Cloud        615-741-1345

TN Emergency
Management Agency          State Hazard Mitigation Officer    Judith Huff      865-594-5655

TN Emergency
Management Agency          State Hazard Mitigation Officer    Jim Cannon       865-741-9367
                                                                               (865) 986-
USACE                                                         Thomas Hood      0286
                                                                               (865) 453-
USDA-NRCS                                                                      4664
                                                                               (865) 545-
USGS                                                          Greg Johnson     4140

                           Wastewater Treatment Plant
Utilities - Sewer          Supervisor                         Martin Cross     865-428-3558

Utilities - Water          Water Plant Supervisor             Lynn Light       865-453-1275

Utility - Electric         Sevier County Electric             Jeff Hedrick     865-453-2887
                           Sevier County Utility District -
Utility - Gas              Gas                                Matt Ballard     865-453-3272
                           Sevier County Utility District -
Utility - Gas              Gas                                Jeff McCarter    865-453-3273

                                                                                       Page | 91
       Department                Position                   Name       Telephone
                    Sevier County Utility District -
Utility - Gas       Gas                                James Greene   865-453-3274

                    Local Business Owner               David Fee      865-429-7183

                    Local Business Owner               Jim Hedrick    865-385-9530




                                                                             Page | 92
Appendix D: Documentation of Meetings

Meeting Minutes:

Minutes of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public & Stakeholder Kick-Off Meeting
December 17, 2007
9:30am to 11:30am

Members Present: Jim Bryant, City of Sevierville Director of Planning; John
Jagger, City of Pigeon Forge Community Development Director; Karl Kreis, City
of Pigeon Forge Assistant City Planner; Leon Downey, City of Pigeon Forge
Department of Tourism Director; Robbie Fox, Dollywood Director of Safety and
Security; Tony Watson, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Chief; Tony Watts, Burchfiel
Overby Association Insurance; Vickie King, Smokey Mountain Vacation Lodging
Association; John Wilbanks, City of Pigeon Forge Parks and Recreation; Tom
Garner, City of Pigeon Forge Parks and Recreation; Mike Weddington, City of
Pigeon Forge Parks and Recreation; Bill Bradley, City of Pigeon Forge Planning
Commission; Mark Miller, City of Pigeon Forge Public Works Director; Joe Dunn,
City of Pigeon Forge Public Works C hief Building Official; Roger Price , City of
Pigeon Forge Public Works Fire Safety Specialist; Jerry Wear, Middle School
Principal; Nancy Williams, Primary School Principal; Tom Cloud, Tennessee
Emergency Management Agency; Thomas Hood, US Army Corps of E ngineers;
Martin Cross, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor; Jeff Hedrick, Sevier
County Electric; Jeff McCarter, Sevier County Gas; James Greene, Sevier
County Gas; Jim Hedrick, Pigeon Forge local business owner.

Stantec Staff Present: Karen Schaffer, Mike Anderson and Erin Wagoner

The first public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on December 17, 2007 in the Annex Room B at
the City Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.
City of Pigeon Forge Community Development Director, John Jagger called the
meeting to order at 9:30am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the
opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Karen Schaffer of
Stantec Consulting Services gave an overview of Stantec‟s consulting
background with the City and introduced Mike Anderson, also of Stantec. Mike
Anderson provided an introduction to the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and
presentation to the public and stakeholder group.

Overview of Presentation:
              What should a local natural hazard mitigation plan do?
                   o Reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and
                       property.


                                                                         Page | 93
                    o Give a community a „comprehensive‟ guide for future
                        mitigation efforts.
              What should a local natural hazard mitigation plan not do?
                    o It will not replace your Emergency Operation Plan
              What can a hazard mitigation plan do?
                    o Identify and assess risk.
                    o Develop strategies for reducing risk.
                    o Improve communication between agencies.
                    o Enhance existing programs.
                    o Provide eligibility for future mitigation program funding.
              Project Goals:
                    o Create a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to:
                             Protect lives, property, economic viability and
                               quality of life,
                             Become more disaster resistant,
                             Compliment existing efforts
                             Organize future mitigation efforts.
              Roles and Responsibilities
                    o Core Group: Have an awareness of the process, gather
                        information, offer your expertise, be a representative of
                        your jurisdiction.
                    o Planning Team Requirements: Obtain official recognition,
                        understand plan process and maintenance, meet monthly
                        during the plan, contribute to mitigation goals, and update
                        the plan every 5 years.
                    o Advisory Group: Provide documents, offer feedback,
                        perform reviews on plan draft.
              Project Overview:
                    o Planning Process
                             Meetings, stakeholder input, data gathering
                    o Risk Assessment (Hazard Identification and Vulnerability)
                             Analyze past occurrences, probabilities,
                               documents, and maps
                    o Multiple Hazard Mitigation Strategy
                             Determine strategies to reduce risk (preventative,
                               protection, projects, education, etc)
                    o Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance Process
                             Periodic plan monitoring, evaluating and updating
                               through annual reviews and the 5 year update.
                    o Hazard Mitigation Plan Review, Approval, and Adoption
                             Committee, Advisory group, public review, and
                               council adoption
              Plan Schedule and Important Dates:
1. Planning Process [throughout]
2. Risk Assessment (Hazard Identification and Vulnerability), [December 2007 –
March 2008]

                                                                          Page | 94
3. Multiple Hazard Mitigation Strategy, [April 2008 – May 2008]
4. Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance Process, [June 2008]
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Review, Approval and Adoption, [June 2008 – August
2008]

During and after the presentation, stakeholders and the public were encouraged
to respond with questions and comments. Mike Anderson with Stantec facilitated
questions, comments and stakeholder discussion. After the schedule was
sketched out, the public and stakeholder group began to complete tasks that
were relevant to the planning process. The group prioritized hazards based on
the list of identified hazards for the eastern region of Tennessee. Next, data and
current document needs were discussed within the group, and the group was
given the task provide data for the plan. The group was asked to consider how
their community would be impacted by each of the identified hazards. The group
identified core stakeholders that would be the key points of contact and would
filter information to the larger group. Overviews of the remaining sections of the
plan were given including: Risk Assessment, Mitigation Strategies, Plan
Maintenance, and Review, Approval, and Adoption of the plan.

Overview of Comments and Questions:
              Mr. Tom Cloud, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
               (TEMA) representative – responsible for reviewing the City of
               Pigeon Forge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
                  o Noted that the plan should address transient populations
                      prevalent to the area as well as public involvement.
                  o An approved plan will allow the City to apply for grant
                      funding. Funds are announced annually in
                      October/November and notification is sent to
                      communities in December.
                  o Plan requires a description of each hazard
              Mr. Leon Downey, City of Pigeon Forge Department of Tourism
                  o Has data for population fluctuations throughout the year
                      by zip code, based on overnight lodging data
              Mr. John Jagger, City of Pigeon Forge Community Development
               Director
                  o Population of “day-trip” tourists not staying in overnight
                      lodging cannot be identified from the existing data sets at
                      the Department of Tourism.
              Mr. Jim Bryant, City of Sevierville Director of Pla nning
                  o Noted that flood assessment can be based on the types
                      of buildings that are located in the floodplain; correlate
                      which buildings are in the floodplain with the estimate of
                      population at the time floods occur
              Mr. Tom Cloud, TEMA representative
                  o Noted that there have only been two tornadoes in Sevier
                      County since 1950 and none south of US-40. He

                                                                          Page | 95
                       believes that this is due to the mountainous topography
                       surrounding the community. Additional data is available
                       in the database tracked by the National Weather Service.
                    o Often when night temperatures do not drop below 80
                       degrees F is when people exhibit problems associated
                       with extreme heat.
                Mr. Tony Watson, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Department Chief
                    o Asked how and where risk can be assessed for wildland
                       fires
                    o Mr. Karl Kreis responded that the assessment will be
                       made on a planning area basis
                Mr. Joe Dunn, City of Pigeon Forge Public Works
                    o Public Works may have data on repetitive losses from
                       flooding
                Mr. Tom Cloud, TEMA representative
                    o Identified the need to establish a timeframe and set
                       deadlines prior to the next meeting.

In closing, Mike Anderson encouraged participants to take and read the brochure
handout and to provide any feedback on the comment cards provided.




                                                                       Page | 96
Minutes of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public & Stakeholder Meeting 2
March 4, 2008
10:00am to 12:00pm

Members Present: Judi Forkner, City of Sevierville Planning Department; John
Jagger, City of Pigeon Forge Community Development Director; Karl Kreis, City
of Pigeon Forge Assistant City Planner; Leon Downey, City of Pigeon Forge
Department of Tourism Director; Robbie Fox, Dollywood Director of Safety and
Security; Tony Watson, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Chief; Chris Knutsen, City of
Pigeon Forge Fire Department; Tony Watts, Burchfiel Overby Association
Insurance; Brad Ivens, Smokey Mountain Vacation Lodging Association; Mike
Weddington, City of Pigeon Forge Parks and Recreation; Jack Baldwin, City of
Pigeon Forge Chief of Police; Bill Bradley, City of Pigeon Forge Planning
Commission; Mark Miller, City of Pigeon Forge Public Works Director; Roger
Price , City of Pigeon Forge Public Works Fire Safety Specialist; Bart Hose, State
Local Planning Office; Tom Cloud, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency;
Martin Cross, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor; Jeff Hedrick, Sevier
County Electric; Jim Hedrick, Pigeon Forge local business owner; Mark Tayler,
NPS Fire Management Officer.

Consulting Staff Present: Karen Schaffer, Mike Anderson and Erin Wagoner
from Stantec Consulting Services; Josh Human from RJH Planning

The second public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on March 4, 2008 in the Annex Room B at the
City Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. City of
Pigeon Forge Community Development Director, John Jagger called the meeting
to order at 10:00am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the opening
remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mike Anderson of Stantec
Consulting Services gave an overview of the first stakeholder meeting and
introduced Josh Human of RJH Planning. Mike Anderson and Josh Human
provided an introduction and project overview of the Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan. All stakeholders and members of the public in attendance were welcomed
to introduce themselves to the group. Each individual present was introduced to
the group; attendance included individuals present listed above. Mike Anderson
and Josh Human provided a presentation to the public and stakeholder group.

Overview of Presentation:
              Today‟s Agenda
                   o Sign In / Introductions
                   o Risk Assessment
                           Identify and Prioritize Hazards
                           Vulnerability Model
                           Data needs
                   o Mitigation Strategy

                                                                          Page | 97
                 Overview
                 Roles
       o Next Meeting
   NHMP is a proactive plan (pre-disaster planning)
   Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
       o Federally mandated that State/Local jurisdictions must
           have an approved plan in order to be eligible for Post-
           Disaster HMGP funding (projects and planning).
       o Encourages agencies to participate in planning and
           implementation of natural hazard mitigation activities.
       o Enables the development of mitigation actions that are
           supported by stakeholders while reflecting the needs of
           the community.
       o Establishes a process for Local jurisdictions to define
           what their hazards are, what they are going to do about
           said hazards, and why.
       o Puts a focus on pre-disaster planning for Natural Hazard
           events.
   Emergency Operations Plan versus a Hazard Mitigation Plan
       o EOP respond to events where HMP develop strategies
           and methods to reduce risks.
   What can a hazard mitigation plan do?
       o Identify and assess risk.
       o Develop strategies for reducing risk.
       o Improve communication between agencies.
       o Enhance existing programs.
       o Provide eligibility for future mitigation program funding.
       o Discussed examples of projects that funds can be
           available for and need to maintain and update the plan
           every five years.
   Project Goal
       o Protect lives, property, economic viability and quality of
           life.
       o Become more disaster resistant.
       o Compliment existing efforts.
       o Organize future mitigation efforts.
   Stakeholders
       o Planning Team
                 Awareness of the process,
                 Information gathering,
                 Utilize your expertise,
                 Provide documents and data,
                 Perform draft plan reviews, and
                 Offer feedback
       o Primary Points of Contact
                 Key representatives,

                                                            Page | 98
                 Coordination roles, etc.
                 Tennessee EMA
                 FEMA Region IV
   DMA 2000 Requirements
        o Planning Process
        o Risk Assessment (current phase in the project)
        o Mitigation Strategy
        o Plan Maintenance Procedures
        o TEMA and FEMA Plan Review
        o Adoption by local Governing Body
   Risk Assessment Steps
        o Identifying Hazards
        o Profiling Hazards
        o Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
        o Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
        o Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
        o Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends
   Definitions of key terms for the project
        o Hazard Identification
        o Exposure
        o Risk
        o Vulnerability
   Hazard Identification – Hazard Prioritization based on the TN
    state plan for the east region and comparison with occurrences
    of hazards in Sevier County and Sevierville‟s Plan.
        o Tennessee East Region hazard prioritization.
        o National data search on Sevier County and Pigeon Forge
            hazard occurrences.
        o Interactive discussion to prioritize hazards for Pigeon
            Forge. Prioritization was based on off group input of
            historical occurrences, emergency declarations and
            stakeholder estimation of hazards.
        o The stakeholder group prioritized hazards on a tiered
            basis.
   The History of the Hazard – Sources
        o Local knowledge
        o Local Newspaper
        o Local plans (FIS report), past mitigation plans (1996)
        o State resources (plans, agencies etc.)
        o Federal resources (Presidential Declarations, agencies
            (NOAA, FEMA etc.)
        o Standard data bases (NCDC, Sheldus)
   Vulnerability Assessment – GIS
        o GIS provides the integration vehicle for the following:
        o Mapping (Identifying)
        o Modeling (Vulnerability Score)

                                                          Page | 99
       o Database management (Hazards and Multiple Variables)
       o Information analysis (Model Sampling and Flexibility
   Vulnerability Assessment Model
       o FEMA Region IV praised – Used for State, Local, and
          University Plans
       o The Center for Hazards Research (CHR) Vulnerability
          methodology was designed to be flexible and rely on GIS
          production.
       o CHR derived a methodology to achieve a “Vulnerability
          Score” which was the foundation in our vulnerability
          assessment.
       o Vulnerability Score = Exposure Score x Risk Score
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it works
       o We need an area for measure
                County, Census Tract, Census Block Group,
                  Census Block
       o Provides:
                Better hazard scenario assumptions
                Better dollar allocation
                Better policy decisions
                Better visuals
                Better for locals
   Review Vulnerability Model
       o Census tract data included three potential zones, but
          there are overlap issues of the tract boundaries across
          City boundaries.
       o Census block group data included eight zones, but still
          areas of overlap.
       o Census block data included over 300 zones, which is too
          many to use for the analysis. This data also had areas of
          overlap.
       o Example of data gaps resulting from using census data in
          the vulnerability methodology, displayed using GIS.
       o Alternative Vulnerability Method – Parcel Data
                Pigeon Forge Exposure based on 76 zones that
                  coincide with parcel data.
                Parcel boundaries do not overlap municipal
                  boundary.
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it Works
       o Variable creation
                Exposure Score = Population Rank + Property
                  Value Rank+ Property Age Rank + Critical Facility
                  Rank + Commercial Zone Rank
                Population Rank was derived for each zone based
                  on the total number of buildings via the parcel data
                  x 2.45 (Pigeon Forge average household number)

                                                            Page | 100
                  Property Value Rank was derived for each zone
                   based on a count of the total value (appraised) of
                   each parcel within each zone.
                Property Age Rank was derived for each zone
                   based on a count of the median age of each
                   building within each parcel.
                Critical Facilities Rank was derived for each zone
                   based on a count of the total number of
                   government buildings via the parcel data.
                Commercial Zone Rank was achieved by locating
                   areas within a commercial zone
        o Pigeon Forge exposure based on population estimated
           by buildings multiplied by an average household size of
           2.45.
        o Example of data resulting from using parcel data in the
           vulnerability methodology, displayed using GIS.
        o Pigeon Forge exposure based on assessed property
           values.
        o Pigeon Forge exposure based on property age.
        o Pigeon Forge exposure based on government buildings
           and critical facilities based on the number of government
           buildings per zone.
        o Example of HAZUS model for Pigeon Forge data, which
           did not show all schools on their data set. Local data is
           preferred over national datasets, as there may be data
           gaps.
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it Works
        o Variable creation
                Risk Score = (Risk Rank = Probability x
                   consequences) and/or Area effected rank
                Probability is based on past occurrences.
                Consequences is based on past dollar losses
                   (annualized loss/est. loss)
                Area effected takes a percent of the zones total
                   area affected by the hazard
        o Estimating Losses:
                We will use annualized losses (consequences) for
                   each hazard.
                We will also use HAZUS for Earthquake and
                   Flood.
   Mitigation Goals and Activities Discussion
        o Preventative Activities. Keep problems from becoming
           exacerbated through regulations including building
           codes, development outside of hazardous areas, and
           local planning or capital improvement projects.


                                                            Page | 101
                      o Property Protection. Activities that are building or parcel
                         specific such as flood proofing, structure acquisition, or
                         retrofitting.
                      o Emergency Services. Measures that are implemented
                         during a disaster to minimize associated impacts.
                      o Structural Projects. Control flooding, drainage, and other
                         hazards such as detention basins.
                      o Public Information. Initiatives that educate residents to
                         local hazards and the protective measures they can
                         perform to better protect themselves and their property.
                 Mitigation Strategies
                      o Development of a blueprint for reducing the potential
                         losses identified in the Risk Assessment
                              Description of mitigation goals
                              Identification and analysis of a comprehensive
                                  range of actions and projects
                              Action Plan describing how the mitigation actions
                                  and projects will be prioritized, implemented, and
                                  administered
                      o Prioritization on cost-effectiveness
                 Plan Schedule and Important Dates:
                      o Planning Process [throughout]
                      o Risk Assessment (Hazard Identification and
                         Vulnerability), [December 2007 – March 2008]
                      o Multiple Hazard Mitigation Strategy, [April 2008 – May
                         2008]
                              This meeting will discuss actions to mitigate
                                  hazards and any projects associated with this.
                      o Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance Process, [June
                         2008]
                              This meeting will discuss comments and adoption
                                  for the plan. The plan must be compared for
                                  accuracy against existing local documents,
                                  ordinances and other plans.
                      o Hazard Mitigation Plan Review, Approval and Adoption,
                         [June 2008 – August 2008]
                              TEMA review takes approximately 2 -3 weeks and
                                  FEMA review takes approximately 45 days.
                      o The funding cycle starts in the fall and closes in January
                         of each year.

During and after the presentation, stakeholders and the public were encouraged
to participate in the hazard prioritization for the plan and respond with questions,
comments and suggestions. Mike Anderson with Stantec and Josh Human with
RJH Planning facilitated questions, comments and stakeholder discussion. The
vulnerability assessment methodology was shared with the stakeholder group for

                                                                           Page | 102
approval. Examples of the preliminary assessment results were shared with the
group. After the state east region Plan and Sevierville Plan hazard prioritization
were shown to the group, an interactive discussion was held to prioritize local
hazards for the City of Pigeon Forge. The group was asked to consider how their
community would be impacted by each of the identified hazards. The group
identified hazards and prioritized them on a tiered basis by reaching a common
consensus. The schedule was reviewed by the stakeholder group and confirmed
with the TEMA representative.

Overview of Comments and Questions:

                Mr. Chris Knutsen, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Department
                    o There were six structures lost to wild land fires last year.
                        There is a larger risk for fires in the County – outside the
                        City limits. The fire department response and reporting
                        system includes the county.
                Mr. John Jagger, City of Pigeon Forge Community Development
                 Director
                    o Recognized the need to change local ordinance/building
                        codes to protect against fire.
                    o Importance that the plan does not conflict with
                        ordinances or ordnances should be revised.
                    o The City is looking into adopting the International Building
                        Code (IBC)
                    o Due to the recent drought, Douglass Lake is at its lowest
                        lake levels in the recent past. Douglass Lake is the City‟s
                        main water supply.
                Mr. Tom Cloud, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
                 (TEMA) representative
                    o Noted that Pigeon Forge has a low occurrence of
                        tornadoes and some activity of earthquakes on the east
                        Tennessee fault zone.

In closing, Mike Anderson encouraged participants to sign in to log their
attendance, take and read the brochure handout and to provide any feedback on
the comment cards provided.




                                                                          Page | 103
Minutes of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public & Stakeholder Meeting 3
May 6, 2008
10:00am to 12:00pm

Members Present: Judi Forkner, City of Sevierville Planning Department; David
Ball, City of Gatlinburg City Planner; Karl Kreis, City of Pigeon Forge Assistant
City Planner; Leon Downey, City of Pigeon Forge Department of Tourism
Director; Tony Watson, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Chief; Mark Miller, City of
Pigeon Forge Public Works Director; Joe Dunn, City of Pigeon Forge Public
Works Chief Building Official; Roger Price , City of Pigeon Forge Public Works
Fire Safety Specialist; Bart Hose, State Local Planning Office; Lynn Light, Pigeon
Forge Water Plant Supervisor; Jeff Hedrick, Sevier County Electric.

Public Present: Jennifer Alexander, Mountain Press Reporter; Liz Porter; Brent
Wood.

Consulting Staff Present: Karen Schaffer, John Malueg and Erin Wagoner from
Stantec Consulting Services; Josh Human from RJH Planning

The third public and stakeholder meeting of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan was held on May 6, 2008 in the Annex Room B at the City
Hall Complex at 225 Pine Mountain Road, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. City of
Pigeon Forge Community Development Assistant City Planner, Karl Kreis, called
the meeting to order at 10:00am. He requested that everyone sign in, gave the
opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the meeting. He notified
stakeholders that John Jagger, former City Community Development Director,
was no longer with the City, but that the City is continuing their efforts on the
NHMP. Josh Human of RJH Planning gave an overview of the previous
stakeholder meetings and provided an introduction and project overview of the
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. All stakeholders and members of the public in
attendance were welcomed to introduce themselves to the group. Each
individual present was introduced to the group including press and members of
the public; attendance included individuals present listed above. Josh Human
provided a presentation to the public and stakeholder group.

Overview of Presentation:
              Today‟s Agenda
                   o Sign In / Introductions
                   o Risk Assessment
                           Identify and Prioritize Hazards
                           Vulnerability Model
                           Exposure Score
                           Risk Score
                   o Hazard Identification Exercise
                   o Mitigation Strategy

                                                                         Page | 104
                 Overview
                 Eligible Projects
       o Next Meeting
   Plan versus response – the NHMP is a proactive plan (pre-
    disaster planning), whereas disaster response is reactive.
   Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
       o Federally mandated that State/Local jurisdictions must
            have an approved plan in order to be eligible for Post-
            Disaster HMGP funding (projects and planning).
       o Encourages agencies to participate in planning and
            implementation of natural hazard mitigation activities.
       o Enables the development of mitigation actions that are
            supported by stakeholders while reflecting the needs of
            the community.
       o Establishes a process for Local jurisdictions to define
            what their hazards are, what they are going to do about
            said hazards, and why.
       o Puts a focus on pre-disaster planning for Natural Hazard
            events.
   What can a hazard mitigation plan do?
       o Identify and assess risk.
       o Develop strategies for reducing risk.
       o Improve communication between agencies.
       o Enhance existing programs.
       o Provide eligibility for future mitigation program funding.
       o Discussed examples of projects that funds can be
            available, such as PDM grants and HMGP grants.
            Grants require maintenance and updates to the plan
            every five years.
   Plan Requirements
       o Planning process is ongoing through stakeholder
            communication and meetings.
       o Risk assessment is underway to identify and profile
            hazards, assess vulnerability, and analyze trends.
       o Mitigation strategy is currently underway to develop local
            hazard mitigation goals, identify and analyze mitigation
            measures and implement mitigation measures.
       o Future activities will include maintaining the plan through
            monitoring, evaluating and updating hazards and
            implementing the plan through existing programs.
       o The plan must be approved by TEMA and FEMA, and
            adopted by the local government.
   Definitions of key terms for the project
       o Hazard Identification
       o Exposure
       o Risk

                                                           Page | 105
       o Vulnerability
   Hazard Identification and Prioritization Exercise Results
       o Results of the hazard identification and prioritization
          exercise from public and stakeholder meeting 2 were
          discussed.
              Hazards were identified based on the state plan,
                 newspapers, public knowledge, and local experts
                 and compared with national data sets. Some
                 national data sets are based on county occurrence
                 data, rather than city municipal boundaries.
              Local hazards identified included all those in the
                 state plan and were prioritized in three categories:
                 A (highest priority), B (mid priority) and C (low
                 priority).
              The stakeholder group combined windstorm,
                 hailstorm and severe storm and combined
                 landslide, land subsidence and erosion.




   The History of the Hazard; Sources Include:
       o Local knowledge
       o Local Newspaper
       o Local plans (FIS report), past mitigation plans (1996)
       o State resources (plans, agencies etc.)
       o Federal resources (Presidential Declarations, agencies
          (NOAA, FEMA etc.)
       o Standard data bases (NCDC, Sheldus)
   Vulnerability Assessment – GIS
       o GIS provides the integration vehicle for the following:
       o Mapping (Identifying)
       o Modeling (Vulnerability Score)
                                                            Page | 106
       o Database management (Hazards and Multiple Variables)
       o Information analysis (Model Sampling and Flexibility
   Vulnerability Assessment Model
       o GIS provides the integration vehicle for the following:
                Mapping (identifying)
                Modeling (vulnerability score)
                Database management (hazards and multiple
                  variables)
                Information analysis (model sampling and
                  flexibility)
       o FEMA Region IV praised – Used for State, Local, and
          University Plans
       o The Center for Hazards Research (CHR) Vulnerability
          methodology was designed to be flexible and rely on GIS
          production.
       o CHR derived a methodology to achieve a “Vulnerability
          Score” which was the foundation in our vulnerability
          assessment.
       o Vulnerability Score = Exposure Score x Risk Score
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it works
       o We need an area for measure
                County, Census Tract, Census Block Group,
                  Census Block
                Planning Zones were used as the area for
                  measure using the City‟s zoning shapefiles.
       o Provides:
                Better hazard scenario assumptions
                Better dollar allocation
                Better policy decisions
                Better visuals
                Better for locals
   Maps comparing vulnerability assessment methods were
    discussed (census data versus zoning data used for the area of
    measure).
       o Census tract data included three potential zones, but
          there are overlap issues of the tract boundaries across
          City boundaries.
       o Census block group data included eight zones, but still
          areas of overlap.
       o Census block data included over 300 zones, which is too
          many to use for the analysis. This data also had areas of
          overlap.
       o Example of data gaps resulting from using census data in
          the vulnerability methodology, displayed using GIS.
       o Alternative Vulnerability Method – Parcel Data


                                                          Page | 107
                 Pigeon Forge Exposure based on 76 zones that
                  coincide with parcel data.
                Parcel boundaries do not overlap municipal
                  boundary.
       o Comparison between census data and zoning data
          methodologies showed zoning data to be more accurate.
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it Works
       o Variable creation
                Exposure Score = Population Rank + Property
                  Value Rank+ Government Facility Ra nk + Zone
                  Rank
                Population Rank was derived for each zone based
                  on the total number of buildings via the parcel data
                  x 2.45 (Pigeon Forge average household number)
                Property Value Rank was derived for each zone
                  based on a count of the total value (appraised) of
                  each parcel within each zone.
                Government Facilities Rank was derived for each
                  zone based on a count of the number of
                  government buildings via the parcel data.
                Zone Rank was achieved by locating areas within
                  each planning zone.
       o Vulnerability Assessment Model is based on the
          exposure score, which has several components.
       o Pigeon Forge exposure based on population estimated
          by buildings multiplied by an average household size of
          2.45.
       o Map of data resulting from using parcel data in the
          vulnerability model.
       o Pigeon Forge exposure based on assessed property
          values estimated by the total appraised value of each
          parcel within each zone.
       o Map of data resulting from using property value data in
          the vulnerability model.
       o Pigeon Forge exposure based on government facility
          rank estimated by the number of government buildings in
          each zone from the parcel data.
       o Maps of data resulting from using government owned
          parcels in the vulnerability model and zone rank.
       o Zone Rank was developed to weight commercial areas
          higher to account for transient populations.
                R-1 low density residential areas were given a
                  rank of 1
                R-2 high density residential areas were given a
                  rank of 2
                M-1 industrial district areas were given a rank of 3

                                                            Page | 108
                   C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and C-5 commercial areas
                    were given a rank of 4.
        o Map of zoning ranks based on weighted zoning data.
        o Maps of ranked data for property values, government
           facilities, zoning and population.
        o Map of overall exposure score.
   Vulnerability Assessment Model – How it Works
        o Variable creation
                Risk Score = (Risk Rank = Probability x
                    consequences) and/or Area effected rank
                Probability is based on past occurrences.
                Consequences is based on past dollar losses
                    (annualized loss/est. loss)
                Area effected takes a percent of the zones total
                    area affected by the hazard
        o Probability based on past occurrences
                Consequences based on past dollar losses
                Currently have data on past occurrences and
                    consequences for the entire county, but need
                    more information from the City (not a county-wide
                    plan).
                Area affected takes a percent of the zones total
                    area affected by the hazard – mapped and
                    overlaid on current zones.
                Map of flood area effected rank
   Hazard Identification Exercise
        o Stakeholders participated in an activity to identify local
           hazard events. Results will be used to determine the risk
           score and identify future projects/action items.
        o Three maps were made available to stakeholders to
           identify hazard occurrences for (1) geologic, (2)
           atmospheric and (3) other events. Stakeholders
           completed Hazard ID handouts that referenced map
           locations.
   Mitigation Goals and Activities Discussion
        o Preventative Activities. Keep problems from becoming
           exacerbated through regulations including building
           codes, development outside of hazardous areas, and
           local planning or capital improvement projects.
        o Property Protection. Activities that are building or parcel
           specific such as flood proofing, structure acquisition, or
           retrofitting.
        o Emergency Services. Measures that are implemented
           during a disaster to minimize associated impacts.
        o Structural Projects. Control flooding, drainage, and other
           hazards such as detention basins.

                                                            Page | 109
                    o Public Information. Initiatives that educate residents to
                       local hazards and the protective measures they can
                       perform to better protect themselves and their property.
                Plan Schedule and Important Dates
                    o Planning Process [throughout]
                    o Risk Assessment (Hazard Identification and
                       Vulnerability), [December 2007 – June 2008]
                    o Multiple Hazard Mitigation Strategy, [June 2008– July
                       2008] 4th meeting
                    o Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance Process, [July 2008]
                    o Hazard Mitigation Plan Review, Approval and Adoption,
                       [July 2008 – September 2008]

During and after the presentation, stakeholders and the public were encouraged
to participate in the vulnerability assessment model discussion and hazard
identification exercise and respond with questions, comments and suggestions.
Josh Human with RJH Planning facilitated questions, comments, and stakeholder
discussion. Maps depicting the assessment results were shared with the group.
The zone ranking and vulnerability assessment methodology was shared with the
stakeholder group for approval.

After the exposure score and ranking maps were shown to the group, an
interactive exercise was held to identify local hazards for the City of Pigeon
Forge. Erin Wagoner with Stantec and Josh Human with RJH planning assisted
stakeholders with the hazard identification exercise. The group was asked to
identify locations on maps that were impacted by hazard events in three
categories: (1) geologic (erosion, landslide, earthquake, land subsidence), (2)
atmospheric (severe storm, wind storm, hail, winter storm, and tornado) and (3)
other (flood, wildland fire, drought, extreme heat). Once a hazard was identified,
participants were to locate the event on the map and document location, time,
description and their contact information on a hazard ID handout (example
shown below).




                                                                         Page | 110
Overview of Comments and Questions:

               Mr. Bart Hose, State Local Planning Office
                   o Regarding the zoning rank, should the industrial zone be
                       weighted lower than the high density residential? The
                       stakeholder group considered and approved the existing
                       ranking scheme.
               Mr. Karl Kreis, City of Pigeon Forge Community Development
                Assistant City Planner
                   o Commented that the City had added an NHMP page to
                       their website, which included updates on the planning
                       process, stakeholder meetings, and past meeting
                       presentations.
                   o Commented that the City published NHMP meeting
                       announcements in the legal and general sections of the
                       newspaper and also invited press reporters to the
                       meeting. Several news articles have been published to
                       inform the public of the plan.
               Various stakeholders
                   o Stakeholder questions and comments were discussed
                       during the hazard identification exercise.

                                                                     Page | 111
In closing, Josh Human encouraged participants to sign in to log their
attendance, take and read the brochure handout and to provide any feedback on
the comment cards provided. The next meeting date, June 3, 2008 was
announced.




                                                                     Page | 112
Minutes of the City of Pigeon Forge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public & Stakeholder Meeting 3
June 3rd, 2008
10:00am to 12:00pm

Members Present: Judi Forkner, City of Sevierville Planning Department; David
Ball, City of Gatlinburg City Planner; Karl Kreis, City of Pigeon Forge Assistant
City Planner; Leon Downey, City of Pigeon Forge Department of Tourism
Director; Tony Watson, City of Pigeon Forge Fire Chief; Mark Miller, City of
Pigeon Forge Public Works Director; Joe Dunn, City of Pigeon Forge Public
Works Chief Building Official; Roger Price , City of Pigeon Forge Public Works
Fire Safety Specialist; Bart Hose, State Local Planning Office; Lynn Light, Pigeon
Forge Water Plant Supervisor; Jeff Hedrick, Sevier County Electric, Robbie Fox,
Director Safety and Security, John Wilbanks, Parks and Recreation, Tom Garner,
Parks and Recreation, Mike Weddington, Parks and Recreation, Bill Bradley,
Planning Commission, Martin Cross, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor,
Jim Hedrick, Local Business Owner.

Public Present: Jennifer Alexander, Mountain Press Reporter; Liz Porter; Brent
Wood.

Consulting Staff Present: Karen Schaffer and Mike Anderson from Stantec
Consulting Services; Josh Human from RJH Planning

   I.     Roll call.
          a. Karl Kreis introduced the purpose of the meeting. Planner with
              community development part of the City.
          b. 19 attendees representing neighboring communities, public,
              private, commercial businesses.
   II.    Josh Human, RJH Planning provided an overview of past meetings
          and introduced goals of today‟s meeting including building a proactive
          mitigation strategy.
   III.   Mr. Human overviewed each of the previous meetings and how they
          supported the primary elements of the mitigation planning processing
          including risk identification and vulnerability assessments. Mr. Human
          provided mapped results to the group showcasing vulnerability for
          each area. Karl Kreis supported the overview by explaining methods
          and locations associated with the vulnerability assessment.
   IV.    Mr. Human introduced mitigation goals and explained how they
          umbrella over actions. The group interaction significantly increased
          and participation was encouraged. The group looked carefully at
          example goals and modified to best fit the City. Combined, the group
          collectively developed 8 unique goals that were documented by Mr.
          Human. These goals globally addressed life, property, economy,
          prevention and education.
   V.     The group collectively discussed various mitigation activities for each
          hazard while linking each action to type of activity including prevention,
                                                                           Page | 113
      property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects,
      emergency services and public information and/or awareness. Each
      activity was then prioritized based upon potential for addressing most
      severe hazards and the activity‟s potential for permanently reducing
      associated risk.
VI.    Following the mitigation activity development session, Mike Anderson
      from Stantec provided an overview of next steps that included:
      a. Strategy for finalizing mitigation activity worksheets that included
          leveraging external website to collect any additional feedback.
      b. Outline and timeline for incorporating existing information and
          rolling up into a draft hazard plan document for public dissemination
          and review.
      c. Next steps to incorporate comments finalize draft and submit to the
          State and FEMA with estimated schedules.
      d. A discussion of plan maintenance and commitment from the group
          to continue to meet regularly following the plan‟s adoption.
      e. A detailed discussion of the adoption process.




                                                                     Page | 114
Appendix E: Comment Card




                           Page | 115
Page | 116
Appendix X: Annual Summary Report

                                  Lexington-Fayette County Hazard Mitigation Plan
                                             Local Mitigation Strategy
                                             Annual Summary Report

Date:
Subject: Annual Report Status of Mitigation Projects

This annual report is prepared to inform elected officials of the progress to date in making our community disaster -
resistant. The following tables briefly summarize the types of information needed to report the status of Existing
Projects and identify New Projects expected to be undertaken in the upcoming year.

EXISTING PROJECTS
Project Title                Purpose of Project           Status of Completion          Obstacles/Problems/Solutions




NEW PROJECTS
Project Title                 Purpose of Project            Funding Source(s)        Anticipated Problems/   Start/End Dates
                                                                                     Solutions




                                                                                                                  Page | 117
Appendix X2: Individual Project Progress Report

                                Lexington-Fayette County Hazard Mitigation Plan
                                           Local Mitigation Strategy

                                        Individual Project Progress Report

Date:
Subject: Annual Report Status of Mitigation Projects


Project Title:                                                  Problems/Obstacles & Proposed Corrective Action:

Status of Project:




Name of Reporter:

Email Address:

Telephone #:


Send to: Pigeon Forge Community Development Division


                                                                                                       Page | 118
Appendix X3: Amendment Form

                          Lexington-Fayette County Hazard Mitigation Plan

                                        Amendment Form

Amendment Sponsor:______________________
Amendment #:____________________________
Date:___________________________________

Current Text                                 _________________________________________________
                                                                        ______________________
                                                                                   ___________
                                                                                   ___________
                                                                                   ___________

Section:________     Page_______             Line______

Amended Text                                 _________________________________________________
                                                                        ______________________
                                                                                   ___________
                                                                                   ___________
                                                                                   ___________

Section:________     Page_______             Line______

Purpose of Amendment:___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                        Page | 119
Page | 120

				
DOCUMENT INFO