Mitigation Strategy
The primary goal of the joint town/county mitigation strategy within the next 10 years is to reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs caused by natural and manmade hazards. This strategy proposes nine major elements and five major goals, spanning a continuum that ranges from research to the formulation and implementation of policy and further hazard mitigation. These elements are:
1. | Research – Developing an understanding of the natural and manmade hazards that effect the county and the municipalities, |
2. | Hazard Mapping and Assessments – Delineating susceptible areas and different types of hazards at a scale useful for planning and decision-making, |
3. | Real-Time Monitoring- Monitoring of current mitigation measures and evaluation of those efforts in a real time mode. How effective are our current programs? What measures can be put into place immediately to further reduce or minimize loss of life, injuries and economic costs prior to, during and immediately following a disaster, |
4. | Loss Assessment – Compiling and evaluating information on the economic impacts of hazards on a local level, |
5. | Information Collection, Interpretation, and Dissemination – Establishing an effective system for information transfer, |
6. | Guidelines and training – Developing guidelines and training for responders, managers and other professionals, and decision-makers, |
7. | Public Awareness and Education – Developing information and education for the community, |
8. | Implementation of Loss Reduction Measures – Encouraging mitigation actions, and |
9. | Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery – Building resistant and resilient communities |
Implementation of the strategy will require increased local funding as well as funding from state and federal sources in the form of grants. Without appropriate funding most, if not all, mitigation goals and proposals that require expenditures will not be able to be accomplished. Accomplishment of these recommendations is largely dependant upon funding being available from federal, state, local and private resources. Upon approval of this mitigation plan, work will begin to analyze each recommendation for a number of issues (i.e. feasibility, cost, legal, etc.). It is likely that these recommendations will test the limits of the fiscal and political willingness to implement them. Implementation will also require better coordination among levels of government, and partnerships between government, the public, and private sector businesses. This cooperation will encourage innovative programs and incentives for hazard planning, adoption of loss reduction measures, and implementation of new technology. Specifically, this strategy recommends the following goals:
Mitigation Goals
(also see Goals - Detailed
in this document)
formation of a cooperative hazard mitigation program to integrate hazard mitigation into new developments, commercial districts, land use planning, growth planning, infrastructure and other initiatives,
to prevent, through ordinance, the construction or occupancy of facilities that will house or are likely to house extremely hazardous substances as defined in S.A.R.A. Title III.
to maintain a standing hazard mitigation task force (interagency and inter-jurisdictional working group) to serve as a technical extension of the various planning boards,
to conduct hazard mitigation research into residential or commercial construction projects that are proposed for areas within 50 yards of the 1 percent (100 year) flood plain and report findings to the respective planning board, as appropriate or requested, (see below)
to request developers of projects that exceed twenty five (25) residential structures or exceed five (5) commercial occupancies, proposed for locations within one-half (1/2) mile of a US or NC highway, complete a hazard mitigation plan that includes evacuation routes, evacuation time line estimates for additional traffic, environmental / infrastructure impact, that in addition to current environmental impact requirements shall include water run off, water and sewer impacts, law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical service impacts and additional daily traffic impacts. (see below)
to provide for "zero development" for any new commercial, residential, or livestock housing construction inside the established 100 year flood plain. (see below)
to provide stand-by emergency generators with transfer switch and a 72 hour fuel capacity at all critical facilities by the year 2015. (see below)
to provide a stand-by emergency generator with transfer switch and a 72 hour fuel capacity at any new critical facility constructed, remodeled or reconstructed after January 1, 2005. (see below)
to require the owner of any existing health care facility, assisted living facility, skilled care facility or other such health care or geriatric care facility that operates twenty-four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week, with greater than ten (10) resident clients, to install a full capacity, stand-by emergency generator with transfer switch and a 72 hour fuel capacity at any such facility on or prior to January 1, 2010. (see below)
to require the owner/developer of any health care facility, assisted living facility, skilled care facility or other such health care or geriatric care facility that operates twenty-four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week, with greater than ten (10) resident clients, to install a stand-by emergency generator with transfer switch and a 72 hour fuel capacity at any such facility who's construction begins on or after January 1, 2005. (see below)
to seek voluntary implementation of commercial and residential wind resistant structures.
to retrofit or relocate residential structures currently located in the 100 year flood plain to a base elevation one (1) foot above the flood plain.
to retrofit all critical facilities to reduce collapsing materials such as light fixtures, ceiling tiles, shelves or other unsecured material.
to request Duke Energy install both audible and visual warning devices for flood gate opening and dam breach at Oxford Dam.
Table MS 1
Mitigation Goals Priority
In the preparedness, response and recovery phases of a comprehensive emergency management program is an opportune time to conduct real-time monitoring of mitigation efforts. This project proposes that this monitoring is an effective tool to immediately improve upon current mitigation programs and future programs that may be impacted.
1. | Concept: Consolidation of written (electronic or plain copy) documents into a single, seamless, integrated plan that incorporates all phases of a comprehensive emergency management program. This would allow emergency managers, planners and elected officials an opportunity to examine their mitigation efforts in conjunction with preparedness plans, response procedures and recovery activity. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired that the feasibility portion of this project be completed by December 31, 2004, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be Emergency Management) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the information to be integrated. Determine the information that can be shared with the public and a method of allowing such access. Determine a method for allowing access to secured areas of a data base, by authorized users. Automate, as much as possible the preparedness, response and recovery information processes. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be determined after a study of the capabilities of all available technology is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Information Collection, Interpretation, and Dissemination:
One of the keys to a successful implementation of a hazard mitigation strategy is information. Without information and the dissemination of that information planners, managers, elected officials, the public and private industry will not be able to make effective hazard mitigation decisions. Currently the ability of planners to implement mitigation is hampered by the ability of all involved agencies town and county to automatically communicate and coordinate plans. Whether this is a plat submitted for development, a new commercial district or proposed road and street additions.
1. | Concept: Use of technology to accomplish an automated system to coordinate plans information, development information, road expansion information or other demographics is desired. Further, it is desired that town and county automated systems that contain such information have the ability to be integrated with one another and relative information shared between the systems. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion of this project completed by December 31, 2004, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be EM and Information Systems) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the capability of systems to be integrated. Determine the information that can be shared with the public and a method of allowing such access. Determine a method for allowing access to secured areas of a data base, by authorized users. Automate, as much as possible the planning and inspections processes. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be determined after a study of the capabilities of all available technology is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
The establishment of guidelines that will be used in a joint town/county mitigation plan and the training of personnel in those guidelines is perhaps one of the more important projects that will be carried out. This will take a tremendous cooperative effort on behalf of all participants at an unprecedented level. Joint guidelines that are transparent to jurisdictional boundaries is desired. With the ever expanding jurisdictional boundaries of the municipalities, through annexation, it is imperative that clear understanding of guidelines that are used by both the municipality and the county in such joint efforts be conveyed to managers, planners, inspectors, mapping, addressing, emergency management and ,when appropriate, emergency response personnel.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, joint town and county guidelines for hazard mitigation implementation and to use all available information in the decision making process that is likely to effect within a five (5) year period, based on growth projections, a municipal jurisdiction. This includes planning and zoning authority that is currently exercised by either the municipality or the county. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion of this project completed by December 31, 2004, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be EM and HM Task Force) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to form joint guidelines. Determine the information that can be shared with the public and a method of allowing such access. Determine a method for providing the most cost effect training of users in established guidelines. Automate, as much as possible the planning and inspections processes and train those responsible for data management. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be determined after a study of the capabilities of all available technology is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Public Awareness and Education:
Alexander County and the municipalities carry out a large number of hazard mitigation, public education projects. Current mitigation efforts in public awareness and education can be found in the "Current Mitigation Measures" section of this plan. Each is identified by hazard and the multitude of efforts that are carried out by both the public and the private sector. This particular portion of the mitigation strategy however; deals with new initiatives that are proposed, planned, recommended or at least recommended for further examination.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, joint town and county public education materials and public information for hazard mitigation implementation. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion of this project completed by December 31, 2005, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be Hazard Mitigation Task Force) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to form joint public information programs, brochures, handouts, etc. Establish a goal of the number of brochures to be distributed, and their method of distribution. Establish a goal of the number of public presentations to be conducted and the method by which these presentations will be carried out (i.e. Power Point presentations, videos, personal appearances, public radio and television, etc.) Establish locations on current websites, that can be accessed by the public, a place for hazard mitigation information (i.e. Links) Establish a method for using print media, such as newspapers, circulars and periodicals to inform and educate the public. Establish a method and procedure for using mail to notify the public of mitigation efforts they can carry out as well as informing them of existing hazards (i.e. ...do you know you live in a flood plain? Do you have flood insurance?...") Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be determined after a study of the capabilities of all available technology is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Implementation of Loss Reduction Measures:
The implementation of this mitigation strategy is dependant upon several factors. Perhaps most important is funding. Historically the municipality and the county have relied on funding from state and federal sources to implement mitigation measures. This may not be possible in future efforts. Each agency, determined to be responsible for a project or portion of that project, must be innovative and cost effective in its recommendations. Recommendations that require implementation by ordinance will be required to follow the same due process afforded to any ordinance addition or modification. These require public hearings and each agency, determined to be responsible for such recommendations must be prepared to justify the recommendation. Public education and awareness prior to implementation is essential, as well as public support for mitigation measures.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, joint town and county mitigation funding sources. To establish joint searches for opportunities to implement hazard mitigation goals, objectives, or recommendations. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion of this project completed by December 31, 2003, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be County and municipal executives) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to form joint public funding sources or seek joint funding, where practical to implement hazard mitigation goals, goals or recommendations. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications. Establish a goal of the number of recommendations and their priority, to be analyzed and or carried out on an annual basis. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding or known to be providers of publications and or public information regarding hazard mitigation efforts. (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project or recommendation implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be determined after a study of the capabilities of all available technology is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
See the Alexander County Emergency Operations Plan. This plan has been formally adopted by the county and by the municipalities in accordance with NCGS 166A. This plan, along with procedures can be viewed by the public at website www.co.alexander.nc.us or the Alexander County Public Library. This has already been accomplished with the updates to the county Emergency Operations Plan conducted by all response and coordination agencies for all jurisdictions. The updated county EOP will be available for inspection on or before June 1, 2004.
Goal: Expansion of emergency response forces
The implementation of this mitigation strategy is dependant upon several factors. Perhaps most important is funding. Historically the municipality and the county have relied on funding from general revenue to implement expansions of emergency services response forces. Each agency, determined to be responsible for a project or portion of that project, must be innovative and cost effective in its recommendations. Public education and awareness prior to implementation is essential, as well as public, elected official and administrative support for this goal.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, additional emergency response forces, by at least 10%, that are trained, equipped and prepared to respond to a variety of emergency and disaster situations. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2004, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be County and municipal executives) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the overall impact on general fund revenues and the impact on budget. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to form public funding sources or seek joint funding, where practical to implement this goal and recommendation. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be carried out in the course of annual budget preparations, determined after study of the current capabilities of all response forces is completed and the project scope has been completed. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Goal: Formation of a cooperative hazard mitigation program to integrate hazard mitigation into new developments, commercial districts, land use planning, growth planning, infrastructure and other initiatives.
1. | Concept: The integration of a cooperative hazard mitigation program into new development, commercial districts, infrastructure and land use planning become imperative as Alexander County continues to grow. According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce (EDIS), Alexander County experienced a 22.8% increase in population from 1992 to 2002. This goal also includes the objectives (goals) of:
This concept is
concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have
the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2004,
assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be County and municipal executives, with delegation of study to county planners, Social Services and others) Determine the feasibility of the project or projects. Establish a priority methodology for each of the goals listed above. Determine the overall impact on general fund revenues and the impact on budget. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to implement recommendations. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: Phase I. To be carried out in the course of annual budget preparations, determined after study of the current land use plan, current ordinances and other documents.
Phase II. To be carried out upon the
development of recommended ordinance changes as appropriate, giving ample
opportunity for the public and affected parties to present concerns to
planning boards and elected officials. Public hearings or other forms of
due process will be afforded in accordance to local ordinance and or state
law. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Goal: Retrofit or relocate residential structures currently located in the 100 year flood plain to a base elevation one (1) foot above the flood plain and participate in available buy-out programs.
This goal may seem a low priority project to some officials. However, a recent count of structures inside the 100 year flood plain indicates that flooding could occur of such a magnitude to cause a significant impact on citizens that are effected. The state of North Carolina is familiar with "buy out" programs in flood plains and flood prone areas. Federal and state officials feel that by (1) removing people from the hazard and (2) preventing citizens from placing themselves (intentionally or not) in harms way, this reduces the cost to Alexander County, the State and the Federal Government and saves lives. By further enacting a "zero" tolerance for persons desiring to build in the floodplain and prohibiting development in those areas, Alexander County better prepares itself to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and habitable property. This goal is entirely dependant upon state and federal funding and the ability to provide adequate public information to citizens that may be effected. This will be a difficult goal to obtain, if not impossible without state and federal monetary commitments.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, the retrofit, relocation or purchase of habitable structures in the 100 year (1%) floodplain. To plan for the retrofit, relocation or purchase of habitable structures at the rate of 10% per annum until the project is complete. This project should not begin until new floodplain maps are generated by the state and accurate analysis of the new maps is made to determine impact upon local populations. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2005, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be Emergency Management, County planning and the NC Division of Emergency Management) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to implement such a program, including grants management. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be carried out in the course of floodplain map preparation by the contracted firm of the State of North Carolina, which is developing new flood plain maps. These maps will be available by January, 2004 from the Division of Emergency Management or from FEMA. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Goal: Retrofit all critical facilities to reduce collapsing materials such as light fixtures, ceiling tiles, shelves or other unsecured material.
The implementation of this mitigation strategy is dependant upon several factors. Perhaps most important is funding. Historically the municipality and the county have relied on funding from general revenue to implement capital improvements, repairs to government structures and other critical facilities. Each agency, determined to be responsible for a project or portion of that project, must be innovative and cost effective in its recommendations. This includes the possibility of funding under hazard mitigation grant programs that may be available. Public education and awareness prior to implementation is essential, as well as public, elected official and administrative support for this goal.
1. | Concept: To establish, where feasible, additional structural and fixture integrity by 25%. At a minimum all critical facilities should be surveyed by earthquake planners and structural engineers employed by the Division of Emergency Management that are trained, equipped and knowledgeable to prepare reports and recommendations to local officials. This concept is concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2004, assuming funding can or will be approved. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be Emergency Management and County inspections) Determine the feasibility of the project. Determine the overall impact on general fund revenues and the impact on budget. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of jurisdictions to form public funding sources or seek joint funding, where practical to implement this goal and recommendation, including grants. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: To be carried out in the course of annual budget preparations, determined after study of the current capabilities of local agencies to perform assessments or the resources available from the Division of Emergency Management. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Goal: Request Duke Energy install both audible and visual warning devices for flood gate opening and dam breach at Oxford Dam.
1. | Concept: Oxford Dam, which spans the Catawba River and forms Lake Hickory restrains millions of gallons of water. Recent inundation maps from Duke Energy, the owner of Oxford Dam and hydroelectric facility, show considerable land mass inundation along the Catawba River in the unlikely event of a dam core breach or catastrophic flooding event. The Hazard Mitigation Task Force / LEPC feels that warning systems that would be both visual and audible to boaters and other users of the water way, as well as residences that may be occupied down stream would be beneficial in the attempt to save lives in a fast breaking event. This concept is
concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have
the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2004,
assuming funding can or will be approved by Duke Energy and or state
agencies.. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Projected to be Emergency Management and Duke Energy) Determine the feasibility of the project or projects. Establish a priority methodology for a warning system. Determine the overall impact on general fund revenues and the impact on budget, if any. Determine the overall impact on Duke Energy and costs that may be associated with such a system. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of agencies to implement recommendations. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: Phase I. To be carried out in the course discussions with Duke Energy, determined after study of the current policy of Duke Energy regarding implementation of such systems.
Phase II. To be carried out upon the
development of recommended systems. To be carried out according to a
mutually agreed upon schedule by Duke Energy, if such a goal can be
agreed upon by local officials and Duke Energy. If appropriate, public hearings or other forms of
due process will be afforded in accordance to local ordinance and or state
law. |
4. | Cost analysis: To be determined during the feasibility phase. |
Goal:
Seek assistance from NC DOT and other agencies to improve drainage on Muddy
Creek tributary.
1. | Concept: A tributary of Muddy Creek extends from Northwood / Northmont south and a second tributary south under South Center Street just north of the intersection of South Center and Royal Russel and SR 1600.These tributaries are known to local residents and officals to have high water after prolonged periods of rain. There is a possibility that drainage designs are preventing good drainage in the area, but this needs further study by Town Public Works and NC DOT. Map 1 on the Hazard Maps page, indicates the area of special concern for the Northwood / Northmont area and Map 2 on the Hazard Maps page, indicates the area of special concern for South Center Street. The Hazard Mitigation Task Force / LEPC and Town Officials feel that continued inattention to these areas will likely result in eventual property damages to nearby structures. This concept is
concurred by Alexander County and the Town of Taylorsville. It is desired to have
the feasibility portion this project completed by July 1, 2005,
assuming funding can or will be approved by state
agencies.. |
2. | Project scope: Determine the lead agency that will be responsible for project development. (Taylorsville Public Works) Determine the feasibility of the project or projects. Determine the overall impact on general fund revenues and the impact on budget, if any. Determine the capability (legally, physically and politically) of agencies to implement recommendations. Establish a rapid method of grant application and approval for such applications, where applicable. Establish closer working relationships with those persons or agencies that are known to be sources of funding (i.e. FEMA) Establish other innovative potential other than direct funding, for project implementation. Determine the cost for project implementation. Seek funding. |
3. | Implementation: Phase I. To be carried out in the course discussions with NC DOT, determined after study of the current policy of NC DOT and further examination of the priorities of town officials regarding improvements in drainage systems for the special concern areas.
Phase II. To be carried out upon the
development of recommended systems and solutions. To be carried out according to a
mutually agreed upon schedule by NC DOT and the Town of Taylorsville, if such a goal can be
agreed upon by local officials and NC DOT (where applicable). If appropriate, public hearings or other forms of
due process will be afforded in accordance to local ordinance and or state
law. |