36
Hazard IdenƟcaƟon and Risk Assessment Workbook Emergency Management Ontario 2012

Hira Ontario Ohio

  • Upload
    ferzian

  • View
    27

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

hira ontario

Citation preview

Page 1: Hira Ontario Ohio

 Hazard Iden fica on and Risk Assessment 

Workbook 

Emergency Management Ontario 2012 

Page 2: Hira Ontario Ohio

Table of Contents 

Sec on  Page Number 

Introduc on  3 

The HIRA Process  4 

Step One: Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet  5 

Step Two: Risk Assessment ‐ Frequency  6 

                  Frequency Worksheet  7 

                  Risk Assessment ‐ Consequence  8 

                  Consequence Variables  9 

                   Consequence Worksheet  12 

                   Total Consequence  13 

                   Total Consequence Worksheet  14 

                   Changing Risk  15 

                   Changing Risk Worksheet  16 

Step Three: Risk Analysis  17 

                    Risk Analysis Worksheet  18 

                    Priori za on Worksheet  19 

Step Four: Monitor and Review  20 

Next Steps: Vulnerable Groups and                                Mi ga on Ac ons 

21 

                    Vulnerable Groups Worksheet  22 

                    Poten al Mi ga on Ac ons Worksheet  23 

2

Page 3: Hira Ontario Ohio

 Why Should I Have a HIRA? 

 One of the core challenges faced by emer‐gency managers  is  how  to  prevent, mi ‐gate,  prepare,  respond  and  recover  from different  types  of  hazards.  Several  ques‐ons must be asked when faced with this 

challenge:     

What hazards exist in or near my community?  How frequently do these hazards occur?  How much damage can they cause?  Which hazards pose the greatest threat?  This Hazard  Iden fica on and Risk Assessment (HIRA) workbook can help guide you in answering these ques ons.   A HIRA can:   Help you to prepare for the worst and/or most likely hazards.  Save  me by isola ng any hazards which can not affect your community.  Allows  for  the crea on of emergency plans, exercises and  training based on 

the most likely and/or highest risk scenarios.  Helps your program to become proac ve rather than just reac ve.  What is a HIRA?  A HIRA  is a risk assessment tool that can be used to assess which hazards pose the greatest risk in terms of how likely they are to occur and how great their po‐ten al impact may be. It is not intended to be used as a predic on tool to deter‐mine which hazard will cause the next emergency. 

Introduc on 

3

Page 4: Hira Ontario Ohio

There are four steps to create and maintain a HIRA: 

The HIRA Process 

4

            1) Hazard Iden fica on ‐ In this step the hazards that could impact your commu‐nity are separated from those that can not. This requires a review of all hazards and their causes to determine whether they may be a threat to your community. This may require the consulta on of the scien fic community, historical records and government agencies.  2) Risk Assessment  ‐  In  this step  the  level of  risk  for each hazard  is examined. This may involve speaking with hazard experts, researching past occurrences and possible scenarios. The    likelihood of the hazard occurring and the poten al  im‐pacts of the hazard on people, property, the environment, business and finance and cri cal infrastructure should be examined.    3) Risk Analysis  ‐  The  informa on collected  in  the  risk assessment step will be analyzed  in this step. The desired outcome of the risk analysis  is the ranking   of the hazards. This highlights the hazards that should be considered a current pri‐ority for your emergency management program.  4) Monitor and Review  ‐  It is important to remember that a HIRA is an ongoing process and hazards and their associated risks must be monitored and reviewed.  

Page 5: Hira Ontario Ohio

 The list below is  a star ng point in iden fying hazards. Check all that apply. 

Step One: Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet                       

Natural Hazards     Technological Hazards  Agricultural and Food Emergency     Building/Structural Collapse       ‐ Farm Animal Disease     Cri cal Infrastructure Failure       ‐ Food Emergency     Dam Failure       ‐ Plant Disease and Pest Infesta on     Energy Emergency (Supply)  Drinking Water Emergency     Explosion/Fire  Drought/Low Water     Hazardous Materials Incident/Spills  Earthquake         ‐ Fixed Site Incident  Erosion         ‐ Transporta on Incident  Extreme Temperatures     Human‐Made Space Object Crash      ‐ Heat Wave     Mine Emergency      ‐ Cold Wave     Nuclear Facility Emergency  Flood     Oil/Natural Gas Emergency     ‐ Riverine Flood     Radiological Emergency     ‐ Seiche     Transporta on Emergency     ‐ Storm Surge         ‐ Air Emergency     ‐ Urban Flood         ‐ Marine Emergency  Fog         ‐ Rail Emergency  Forest/Wildland Fire         ‐ Road Emergency  Freezing Rain     Human‐Caused Hazards  Geomagne c Storm     Civil Disorder  Hail      Cyber A ack  Human Health Emergency     Sabotage      ‐ Epidemic     Special Event      ‐ Pandemic     Terrorism/CBRNE  Hurricane     War and Interna onal Emergency  Land Subsidence  Other:  Landslide  Other:  Lightning  Other:  Natural Space Object Crash    Other:  Snowstorm/Blizzard    Other:  Tornado    Other:  Windstorm    Other: 

Table 1. Hazard Iden fica on Worksheet 

5

Page 6: Hira Ontario Ohio

How likely is it that your community could be impacted by the hazards you iden ‐fied in the previous step?   The sources used for your hazard iden fica on can also be used for assessing the frequency and magnitude. Once you have collected informa on on the frequency of each of the hazards, they can be grouped into the categories below: 

 

Example: The hazards  for  the  imaginary  community of   Trillium were  iden fied as being floods,  explosions  and  earthquakes.  The    Trillium  historical  record  shows  that there have been floods every  year.  The  Fire Chief  said  that explosions happen every five  years or  so. A  local professor  said  that  there has not been a  strong earthquake  in  the history of  the area, but one may be possible. The  frequency 

Step Two: Risk Assessment ‐ Frequency                           

Frequency  Category  Percent Chance  Descrip on 

1  Rare  Less than a 1% chance of oc‐currence in any year. 

Hazards with return periods >100 years. 

2  Very Unlikely  Between a 1‐ 2% chance of occurrence in any year.   

Occurs every 50 – 100 years and includes hazards that have not occurred  but are reported to be more likely to occur in the near future. 

3  Unlikely  Between a 2 – 10% chance of occurrence in any year. 

Occurs every 20 – 50 years 

4  Probable  Between a 10 – 50% chance of occurrence in any year. 

Occurs every 5 – 20 years 

5  Likely  Between a 50 – 100% chance of occurrence in any year. 

Occurs >5 years. 

6  Almost Certain  100% chance of occurrence in any year. 

The hazard occurs annually. 

Hazard  Category  Frequency 

Flood  Almost Certain 

Explosion  Likely  5 

Earthquake   Rare  1 

Notes 

Flooding from ice break‐up in the spring occurs annually. Urban flooding during heavy rain also occurs in some  areas during the summer. 

Explosions occur within the community at least once every five years. 

Trillium is in a stable geologic area and has not experienced an earthquake in >100 years. 

Table 2. Frequency 

6

Page 7: Hira Ontario Ohio

Hazard Category Frequency Notes

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Table 3. Frequency Worksheet                                         

Use the work sheet below to record the frequency of the hazards that could affect your com‐munity. Print addi onal sheets if needed. 

7

Page 8: Hira Ontario Ohio

Risk Assessment ‐ Consequence 

Consequence is divided into six categories based on recommended prac ces:  Social  Impacts  ‐ The direct nega ve  consequences of a hazard on  the physical health of people.   Property Damage  ‐ The direct nega ve consequences of a hazard on buildings, structures and other forms of property, such as crops.  Cri cal  Infrastructure  Service Disrup ons/Impact  ‐ The nega ve consequences of a hazard on the  interdependent, interac ve, interconnected networks of ins ‐tu ons,  services,  systems  and  processes  that meet  vital  human needs,  sustain the economy, protect public safety and security, and maintain con nuity of and confidence in government.  Environmental Damage ‐ The nega ve consequences of a hazard on the environ‐ment, including the soil, water, air and/or plants and animals.  Business/Financial Impact ‐ The nega ve economic consequences of a hazard.  Psychosocial  Impacts  ‐ The nega ve response of community or a subset of the community to a hazard caused by their percep on of risk. This  includes human responses  such  as  self‐evacua on, mass panic  and other poten al undesirable responses.  The total consequence value can be obtained by adding the values obtained from each of the sub variables. Note: The social impacts sub variable is further divided into  the  fatality  rate,  injury  rate and evacua on  rate. Since human  impacts are o en  the most  ‘jarring’ result of an emergency and have an unquan fiable  im‐pact on the community, social impact was inten onally weighted higher than the other sub variables. 

8

The consequence categories in this HIRA methodology are a scale of impact, ra‐ther than a priori za on. The same value in two categories does not mean that the consequences of the two are equal and interchangeable. 

Page 9: Hira Ontario Ohio

Consequence Variables 

Fatali es 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in fatali es within the community. 

1  Minor  Could result in fewer than five fatali es with‐in the community. 

2  Moderate  Could result in 5 – 10 fatali es within the community. 

3  Severe  Could result in 10 – 50 fatali es within the community. 

4  Catastrophic  Could result in +50 fatali es within the com‐munity. 

 

Injuries 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in injuries within the com‐munity. 

1  Minor  Could injure fewer than 25 people within community. 

2  Moderate  Could injure 25 – 100 people within the com‐munity. 

3  Severe  Could injure +100 people within the commu‐nity. 

Evacua on 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in an evacua on shelter‐in‐place orders, or people stranded. 

1  Minor  Could result in fewer than 100 people being evacuated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded. 

2  Moderate  Could result in 100 ‐ 500 people being evacu‐ated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded. 

3  Severe  Could result in more than 500 people being evacuated, sheltered‐in‐place or stranded. 

Table 4. Social Impacts, including fatali es, injuries and evacua on. 

9

Page 10: Hira Ontario Ohio

Consequence Variables 

Table 5. Property Damage 

Property Damage 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in property damage within the community. 

1  Minor  Could cause minor and mostly cosme c damage. 

2  Moderate  Localized severe damage (a few buildings de‐stroyed). 

3  Severe  Widespread severe damage (many buildings de‐stroyed). 

Table 6. Cri cal Infrastructure Failure/Service Impact (CI) 

Cri cal Infrastructure Service Impact (CI) 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to disrupt cri cal infrastructure ser‐vices. 

1  Minor  Could disrupt 1 cri cal infrastructure service. 

2  Moderate  Could disrupt 2 – 3 cri cal infrastructure services. 

3  Severe  Could disrupt more than 3 cri cal infrastructure services. 

Table 7. Environmental Damage 

Environmental Damage 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in environmental damage. 

1  Minor  Could cause localized and reversible damage. Quick clean up possible. 

2  Moderate  Could cause major but reversible damage. Full clean up difficult. 

3  Severe  Could cause severe and irreversible environmen‐tal damage. Full clean up not possible. 

10

Page 11: Hira Ontario Ohio

Consequence Variables 

Table 8. Business/Financial Impact 

Business/Financial Impact 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to disrupt business/financial ac vi es. 

1  Moderate  Could result in losses for a few businesses. 

2  Severe  Could result in losses for an industry. 

Table 9. Psychosocial Impact 

Psychosocial Impact 

Consequence  Category  Descrip on 

0  None  Not likely to result in significant psychosocial im‐pacts. 

1  Moderate  Significant psychosocial impacts including limited panic, hoarding, self evacua on and long‐term psy‐chosocial impacts. 

2  Severe  Widespread psychosocial impacts, e.g. mass panic, widespread hoarding and self‐evacua on and long‐term psychological impacts. 

To calculate the consequence for floods in Trillium, the emergency manager used historic accounts,  insurance  reports and scien fic  informa on. This  informa on showed  that flooding  in  Trillium  is  likely  to  result  in  an  evacua on of  approxi‐mately 200 people and  that  severe property damage was  to be expected. The emergency manager also found that during many past floods, roads were not ac‐cessible, several businesses had to be closed and there was isolated environmen‐tal damage due to erosion along the bank of the river.  Therefore, the magnitude worksheet sec on for floods would look like: 

Example: 

Social  Impacts 

Property Damage 

Cri cal Infrastructure 

Impact 

Environmental  Damage 

Business/Financial Impact 

Psycho‐social Impact 

Sub‐variable Total 

2 3 1 2 1 0 9

11

Page 12: Hira Ontario Ohio

Hazard 

Fatali

es 

Injuries 

Evacua

on 

Property 

Dam

age 

CI Impact 

Environmental 

Dam

age 

Business/

Finan

cial 

Impact 

Psycho‐ 

social 

Impact 

Total 

Table 10. Consequence Worksheet 

12

Page 13: Hira Ontario Ohio

Total Consequence 

Once  the  consequence  values  have  been added up, they are put into groups as shown in the table below. This gives equal weight to Consequence and Frequency. 

Sub variable Total  Consequence  Descrip on 

1 ‐ 4  1  Minor 

5‐ 6  2  Slight 

7‐ 8  3  Moderate 

9 ‐ 10  4  Severe 

11 ‐ 12  5   Very Severe 

+13  6  Catastrophic 

Example: The emergency manager of Trillium calculated a total of 9  for floods as shown on page 10. According to  the ta‐ble, this would mean that flood has a consequence of 4 which is described as ‘severe’.  

Table 11. Total Consequence 

13

Page 14: Hira Ontario Ohio

Hazard Sub Variable Total

Consequence Total

Description

Table 12. Total Consequence Worksheet 

14

Page 15: Hira Ontario Ohio

Changing Risk 

The frequency and consequence can be  influenced by factors such as mi ga on ac ons and climate change. Changing Risk helps to account for these changes.  

Changing Risk = Change in Frequency + Change in Vulnerability 

15

Change in Frequency 1. Is the number of non‐emergency occurrences of the hazard increasing?  2.  Is human ac vity  (e.g. popula on growth, change of drainage pa erns)  likely to lead to more interac on with the hazard or an increase in frequency?  3.  Is there an environmental reason  (e.g. climate change) why the  frequency of this hazard may increase?  4.  Are  human  factors  such  as  business,  financial,  interna onal  prac ces more likely to increase the risk?  

If the answer is ‘yes’ to two or more, then the change in frequency = 2 If the answer is ‘yes’ to one or fewer then the change in frequency = 1 

 Change in Vulnerability 1. Is a large number of the popula on vulnerable or is the number of people vul‐nerable to this hazard increasing?  2. Does  cri cal  infrastructure  reliance  or  a  ‘just‐on‐ me’  delivery  system  (e.g. stores not keeping a supply of food and relying on frequent shipments) make the popula on more vulnerable?  3. Are  response agencies not aware of, prac ced and prepared  to  response  to this hazard?  4.  Are no preven on/mi ga on measures currently in use for this hazard?  

If the answer is ‘yes’ to two or more, then the change in vulnerability = 2 If the answer is ‘yes’ to one or fewer then the change in vulnerability = 1 

Page 16: Hira Ontario Ohio

Table 13. Changing Risk Worksheet 

16

Hazard 

Chan

ge in

  Frequency 

Total 

Chan

ge in

 Frequency 

Chan

ge in

                    

Vulnerability 

Total Chan

ge in

 Vulnerability 

Chan

ging Risk 

Total 

  1 

  1 

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

Page 17: Hira Ontario Ohio

Step Three: Risk Analysis 

Once  you  have  completed  the  Frequency, Magnitude  and  Changing Risk Work Sheets, you can now begin to priori ze your hazards by using the HIRA equa on: 

Risk = Frequency * Consequence * Changing Risk

Example: The Emergency Manager of Trillium found a frequency value of 6, a total conse‐quence value of 4 and a changing risk value of 4 for floods.  These numbers were entered into the equa on and mul plied together. The result was:  

                                                Flood Risk = 6*4*4 = 96  

17

Page 18: Hira Ontario Ohio

Hazard Frequency Magnitude Changing Risk Risk Total

Table 14. Risk Analysis Worksheet 

18

Page 19: Hira Ontario Ohio

Table 15. Priori za on Worksheet 

Once you have calculated the risk for the hazards, you may wish to group them based on their level of risk using the table below. This is par cularly useful if you have several hazards with the same risk values. 

Level of Risk  Descrip on 

< 10  Very Low 

11 ‐ 20  Low 

21 ‐ 30  Moderate 

31 ‐ 40  High 

41 ‐ 50  Very High 

>50  Extreme 

Enter your hazards  into the work sheet below according to their risk which you calculated from the Risk Analysis Worksheet. 

Level of Risk

Description Hazards

>50 Extreme

41 - 50 Very High

31 - 40 High

21 - 30 Moderate

11 - 20 Low

<10 Very Low

19

Page 20: Hira Ontario Ohio

Step Four: Monitor and Review 

Hazards and  risks may change over  me so  it  is  important  to  review your HIRA annually.  Date of Current HIRA:____________________   Date of Next Revision:____________________       Signature:_______________________________ 

20

Page 21: Hira Ontario Ohio

Vulnerable Groups Some people may be more  vulnerable  to  certain haz‐ards than others due to many different reasons such as disabili es, economic status and health and are there‐fore more  likely to suffer from the nega ve  impacts of a hazard.  These  groups may be more  vulnerable  to  a hazard  due  to  an  inability  to  self‐evacuate  or  to  take the proper safety precau ons, suscep ble  to a hazard due to their health, or a  lack of access to warnings or other reasons that increase their vulnerability to a spe‐cific hazard. Not all people who  iden fy themselves as belong to one of these groups may be at an  increased risk during  the occurrence of a hazard,  it will depend on the individual’s specific situa on.   

It  is  important  to  consider  vulnerable  groups once  the  hazards  have  been  iden fied.  As‐sessing  vulnerability  is a  key  considera on  in planning and  it can assist  in mi ga on ac on decision‐making.   Mi ga on Ac ons Mi ga on is defined as “ac ons taken to reduce the adverse impacts of an emer‐gency  or  disaster”  (EMO,  2011).  A HIRA  is  only  one  part  of  a  comprehensive emergency  management  program.  Once  the  risk  for  each  of  the  hazards  is known, it is vital that a empts be made to reduce their risks, beginning with the hazards iden fied as having extreme and very high levels of risk. 

Next Steps: Vulnerable Groups and Mi ga on Ac ons 

21

Page 22: Hira Ontario Ohio

Hazard  Possible Vulnerable Groups  Plans to Reduce Vulnerability 

Table 15. Vulnerable Groups Worksheet 

22

Page 23: Hira Ontario Ohio

Table 16. Poten al Mi ga on Ac ons Worksheet Hazard 

Acon 

Priority 

Esmated 

Timelin

Esmat‐

ed Cost 

Funding 

Sources 

Notes 

23

Page 24: Hira Ontario Ohio

2012

24

Page 25: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 53

SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & RISK

ASSESSMENT

Page 26: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 54

2.1 HIRA OVERVIEW & HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY

The State of Ohio is prone to many natural and manmade hazards. Ohio has experienced thousands of hazard events, resulting in millions of dollars in losses and casualties, and 44 Presidential disaster declarations. In 2003 as part of an overall effort to reduce future exposure to damages and meet the planning requirements of the DMA 2000, the State of Ohio began the development of the initial Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA). The HIRA has been subsequently reviewed and approved for the 2008 plan update.

A HIRA is a systematic way to identify and analyze hazards to determine their scope, impact and the vulnerability of the built environment to such hazards.

This section will cover 6 separate requirements of the 44 CFR 201.4 (identifying hazards, profiling hazard events, assessing vulnerability by jurisdiction, estimating potential losses by jurisdiction, assessing vulnerability of state facilities, and estimating potential losses of state facilities). The first four of the six requirements are integrated into each hazard for which is detailed. The last two (state facility vulnerability assessment and loss estimation) is discussed in this section. The following will provide a more in-depth explanation of these six elements and describe the steps taken to ensure the element was met.

Identifying hazards

The 44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(i) requires the risk assessment shall include an overview of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the state. This section of the plan presents a list of potential hazards that may likely impact the state. Due to the states northern geographical setting on Lake Erie, it is vulnerable to a wide array of hazards that threaten its communities, businesses, governments and environment. To determine the hazards that pose the greatest threat to the state, the OMPAT in conjunction with FEMA developed a list of potential hazards by conducting a review of several key resources, which include:

• Review of historical data on events that have occurred in the last 40 years;

• Review of 2003 plan data;

• Collaboration with various agencies that are the known “experts” on different hazards, including the Ohio Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency;

• Review of hazards identified in guidance materials provided by FEMA – Region V on identifying hazards; and

• Review of the local mitigation plans. Ohio currently has 93 approved single and multi jurisdictional plans with 11 in progress. The approved plans were used to assess the impacts hazards are having throughout the state.

Page 27: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 55

Risk Assessment

44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(i) – The risk assessment shall include an overview of the location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate. The risk assessment relies upon information about past hazard events from published sources such as NOAA, USGS, USACE and ODNR, among other agencies.

The risk assessment section for each hazard in this plan includes a description of the location of the hazard, past occurrences, and a discussion of probability of future hazard events.

Vulnerability Analysis by Jurisdiction

44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(ii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the state’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The state shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard events. The methodology for this section varies by hazard due to available data and will be more thoroughly discussed prior to the results of the section for each hazard.

Integration of LHMP data into the state HIRA was done, where determined appropriate. In the past three years, the LHMP focus has been on having communities undertake and complete plans. In the next SOHMP update, there will be a much better integration, and analysis of LHMP data (see Section 4.3 on a discussion of issues related to integration) as a result of the web portal project and associated reports/functions, etc. that will be developed. In the meantime, the HIRA information from LHMPs was reviewed by taking a representative sample (30 plans) and reviewing them to “ground truth” data and assumptions made in the SOHMP. Specifically the review entailed determining which hazards were identified as the most severe threats and comparing them to the data developed from the statewide risk assessment. Also, where there was a hazard with either a specific geographic extent (subsidence due to karst topography), or where there is a known high-risk area associated with a statewide hazard (Xenia and tornadoes), LHMPs were reviewed and applicable information was included in the SOHMP.

Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction

44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The methodology for this section varies by hazard due to available data and will be more thoroughly discussed prior to the results of the section for each hazard.

Similar to the requirement to utilize vulnerability analysis information from LHMPs, LHMP data was reviewed and incorporated using the method described above.

Page 28: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 56

Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities

44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(ii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the state’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. State-owned or operated critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas shall be addressed. The general methodology for the development of this section is discussed below any specific variations by hazard is addressed within the specific hazard.

The State of Ohio currently maintains a partial listing of state-owned facilities located in the Risk Management Section of the Department of Administrative Services. The listing, as it exists from DAS is not sufficient for a vulnerability assessment or loss estimation. A growing number of the facilities are geocoded and many of the addresses are not sufficient to allow for automated geocoding. Considering the state owns everything from 30 story skyscrapers to sheds, the decision was made to focus on structures whose value exceeds $1 million or more has a key purpose in disaster response. Special cases exist at multi-building compound, such as prisons, while other structures were included which had lower values (or limited importance) due to their proximity to a structure meeting the thresholds.

Subsequently, the state determined which of the state-owned structures were considered to be critical facilities during a disaster. Critical facilities are defined as any facility whose services are necessary to the recovery and response operations following a disaster. Then, as disasters occurred, the Mitigation Strategy, prepared in support of the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, included activities to geocode and obtain additional information on these identified facilities so vulnerability assessments and loss estimations could be completed.

The initial effort to geocode and collect basic building information focused on Franklin and Delaware counties. These counties encompass the state capital of Columbus. The center for most state operations is located in these counties. This initial effort was completed by URS Corporation HMTAP contract with their firm. Subsequent efforts included all counties declared in DR-1507-OH, DR-1556-OH, DR-1580-OH and DR-1720-OH. The Federal Coordinating Officers for these disasters allowed mitigation DAE’s to collect the same information URS collected for the declared counties.

The most recent effort was completed by a DAE activated to specifically complete another leg of the collection effort. After consultation with members of the Ohio EMA, the decision was made to start with the largest urban areas and work to the sparsely populated counties. The target leg of the effort was greater Cleveland. This included all the surrounding counties that encompass the Cleveland Metropolitan Statistical Area.

As resources become available, the next locations to address are the greater Cincinnati area followed by Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown. Once all urban areas are complete the process with move the most populated rural counties and work until all of Ohio has been geocoded.

Page 29: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 57

For those counties still pending geocoding, the values of the anticipated inventory are provided. Because the State is a dynamic entity which builds, purchases, sells and razes, structures the result is an ever changing inventory. Due to the uncertainty of the actual count and value of building, only those counties which have been geocoded are used for analysis

Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities

44 CFR 201.4 (c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments. The state shall estimate the potential dollar losses to state-owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. The general methodology for the development of this section is discussed below any specific variations by hazard is addressed within the specific hazard.

At this time, assessments have been completed in 20 of the 34 counties for state structures in Region 1 (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment will be completed as resources become available. Currently, there are a total of 118 state-owned structures. The value of geocoded structures in the region is $420,804,675. Out of those 85 are state-owned structures and 33 are classified as critical facilities. The value of geocoded state-owned and critical facilities in region one is $388,716,248 and $32,088,427 respectively. The county with the largest dollar exposure of state-owned facilities is Marion at $288,139,569, due to a high security prison. Seneca County has the highest dollar exposure to critical facilities at $3,271,799.

Out of Region 2, assessments have been conducted on 19 of the 25 counties (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment for the remaining counties will be completed as resources become available. Presently, there are a total of 377 state owned structures. The value of geocdoded structures in the region is $2,565,418,691. 323 structures are state-owned structures and 54 are classified as critical facilities. The value state owned and critical facilities in region one is $2,362,890,560 and $202,528,131 respectively. As would be expected, Franklin county which contains the state capital represents the lion’s share of the dollar value with $1,859,092,160 in state-owned structures and $154,972,529 in critical facilities.

Twenty-four of the 29 counties within Region 3 have been assessed for vulnerable state-owned structures and critical facilities (see Table 2.1.a and Appendix C). The assessment for the remaining counties will be completed in phases as resources become available. Presently, there are a total of 185 state-owned structures. The value of geocoded structures in the region is $174,461,204. 130 structures are state-owned structures and 45 are classified as critical facilities. The value of state-owned and critical facilities in region one is $312,328,458 and $34,776,160 respectively. The county with the largest dollar exposure of state-owned facilities is Belmont at $49,135,708 again due to a prison. Lawrence County has the highest dollar exposure to critical facilities at $2,115,090.

Page 30: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 58

UPDATE SUMMARY

The 2003 HIRA identified a comprehensive list of hazards, both manmade and natural, but only included a more complete risk assessment and vulnerability analysis for five hazards. The 2008 update includes risk assessments/vulnerability analyses on all 12 natural hazards, and one technological hazard (dam/levee failure). The developing these data was a collaborative process involving several state and Federal agencies who are deemed to be the “experts” in a particular hazard. For the 2008 update the existing analyzed hazards were reviewed for accuracy and availability of improved data. Based on the review is was determined that the tornado, winter storm, landslide and dam/levee failure hazards showed no significant changes since they were developed and decision was made to leave these unchanged until future events warrant action. The following major updates have been made:

• Severe Thunderstorms, Coastal Erosion, Wildfire, Land Subsidence, Droughts and Earthquakes are added;

• Hazardous Materials and Terrorism were removed after careful consideration of the sensitivity of the information and the potential for misuse;

• Natural Biohazards is refocused to address Invasive Species due in part to the Emerald Ash Borer infestation which occurred in the intervening time period.

Page 31: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 59

County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total County SO St. Value SO CF Value Total

Allen $20,294,446 $7,966,963 $28,261,409 Ashland $10,391,165 $13,976,980 $24,368,145 Adams $0 $760,627 $760,627

Auglaize $2,027,076 $1,529,944 $3,557,020 Ashtabula $40,124,846 $3,463,499 $43,588,345 Athens $32,505,169 $2,808,250 $35,313,419

Champaign $0 $1,147,740 $1,147,740 Butler $0 $5,505,878 $5,505,878 Belmont $49,135,708 $1,347,740 $50,483,448

Clark $0 $1,050,078 $1,050,078 Cuyahoga $50,772,179 $6,213,702 $56,985,881 Brown $65,208 $970,328 $1,035,536

Clinton $0 $2,197,818 $2,197,818 Delaware $23,872,985 $7,394,232 $31,267,217 Carroll $0 $611,224 $611,224

Crawford $0 $1,143,222 $1,143,222 Fairfield $17,986,893 $766,764 $18,753,657 Clermont $3,431,946 $253,692 $3,685,638

Defiance $0 $4,340,497 $4,340,497 Franklin $1,859,092,160 $154,972,529 $2,014,064,689 Columbiana $1,568,280 $859,423 $2,427,703

Darke $0 $868,109 $868,109 Geauga $383,336 $834,720 $1,218,056 Coshocton $0 $811,244 $811,244

Erie $96,117,027 $3,489,853 $99,606,880 Greene $4,660,889 $3,011,201 $7,672,090 Gallia $17,060,839 $2,091,100 $19,151,939

Fayette $222,581 $1,051,434 $1,274,015 Hamilton $44,379,039 $5,348,848 $49,727,887 Guernsey $7,604,726 $1,347,740 $8,952,466

Fulton $0 $978,140 $978,140 Knox $18,357,401 $804,670 $19,162,071 Harrison $0 $1,057,617 $1,057,617

Hancock $450,896 $1,819,770 $2,270,666 Lake $152,384 $2,409,217 $2,561,601 Highland $0 $597,712 $597,712

Hardin $0 $1,302,642 $1,302,642 Licking $22,315,457 $1,996,725 $24,312,182 Hocking $489,094 $817,921 $1,307,015

Henry $0 $792,984 $792,984 Lorain $101,265,777 $1,046,127 $102,311,904 Holmes $0 $394,405 $394,405

Huron $0 $586,443 $586,443 Mahoning $63,773,028 $351,783 $64,124,811 Jackson $500,000 $1,266,000 $1,766,000

Logan $0 $627,344 $627,344 Medina $1,059,595 $169,000 $1,228,595 Jefferson $500,000 $1,266,000 $1,766,000

Lucas $111,043,289 $1,893,190 $112,936,479 Montgomery $70,386,516 $5,887,936 $76,274,452 Lawrence $0 $2,115,090 $2,115,090

Madison $257,920,017 $1,581,407 $259,501,424 Pickaway $214,139,019 $2,292,098 $216,431,117 Meigs $0 $1,167,669 $1,167,669

Marion $288,139,569 $648,543 $288,788,112 Portage $5,133,427 $1,793,566 $6,926,993 Monroe $0 $1,389,960 $1,389,960

Mercer $0 $1,512,930 $1,512,930 Richland $21,422,096 $1,413,370 $22,835,466 Morgan $496,641 $1,508,239 $2,004,880

Morrow $0 $1,381,740 $1,381,740 Stark $38,275,862 $1,006,516 $39,282,378 Muskingum $1,634,022 $200,000 $1,834,022

Miami $0 $5,995,119 $5,995,119 Summit $60,369,325 $3,552,785 $63,922,110 Noble $57,142,664 $969,943 $58,112,606

Ottawa $32,968,327 $2,494,800 $35,463,127 Trumbull $8,858,101 $0 $8,858,101 Perry $0 $1,385,505 $1,385,505

Paulding $0 $866,022 $866,022 Warren $59,409,389 $2,879,191 $62,288,580 Pike $0 $822,565 $822,565

Preble $0 $1,887,841 $1,887,841 Wayne $0 $946,254 $946,254 Ross $5,781,342 $2,019,777 $7,801,119

Putnam $0 $1,479,060 $1,479,060 TOTAL $2,362,890,560 $202,528,131 $2,565,418,691 Scioto $109,023,716 $1,673,596 $110,697,312

Sandusky $2,390,700 $635,000 $3,025,700 Tuscarawas $19,764,050 $1,745,600 $21,509,650

Seneca $11,557,307 $3,271,799 $14,829,106 Vinton $0 $774,725 $774,725

Shelby $5,436,099 $3,024,399 $8,460,498 White Cell ~ Geocoded Washington $5,624,640 $1,742,468 $7,367,108

Union $60,567,524 $951,936 $61,519,460 Amber Cell ~ Data Only TOTAL $146,161,665 $28,299,539 $174,461,204

Van Wert $20,750 $1,147,740 $1,168,490

Williams $0 $3,425,334 $3,425,334

Wood $7,606,913 $4,723,866 $12,330,778

Wyandot $0 $699,287 $699,287

TOTAL $388,716,248 $32,088,427 $420,804,675Additional county inventories will be completed as oportunities arise.

Table 2.1.a

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3

Total State Owned Structure and Critical Facility Information by Region

Legend

Page 32: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 60

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY

The hazards evaluated in the SOHMP to determine whether they could potentially affect the state include:

1) Coastal Erosion 2) Droughts

3) Earthquakes 4) Floods

5) Storm Surges 6) Landslides

7) Land Subsidence 8) Natural Biohazards (Invasive Species)

9) Severe Thunderstorms 10) Windstorms

11) Hailstorms 12) Severe Winter/Ice Storms

13) Tornadoes 14) Wildfire

15) Tropical Cyclones 16) Snow Avalanches

17) Extreme Summer Weather 18) Expansive Soils

19) Tsunami 20) Volcano

21) Dam Failure 22) HAZMAT

23) Terrorism 24) Urban Fire

25) Nuclear Accidents

The list was more closely examined, paying special attention to the likelihood of future occurrence and the fact that many of the identified hazards are interrelated (i.e., landslides can be a result of flooding). Following this, the list of hazards was pared down to the hazards that are most likely to affect the state and are most likely to pose a more serious threat.

For the purpose of ranking hazards affecting the state, in order of importance for mitigating their effects, a hazard index was assigned (see Table 2.1.a) on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest priority for considering mitigation goals (highest, high, medium, low, and lowest). This index takes into account the anticipated frequency of occurrence (see Table 2.1.b), the specific consequences of impact (see Table 2.1.c) and if there has been a past declaration for that particular hazard. This is not meant to be a scientific process, but will serve as a way to prioritize mitigation goals based on the potential frequency and likely extent of damage from hazards known to affect the state.

It is important to note that HIRAs are developed for many different purposes. For the purposes of emergency planning and similar functions, a document called the 2007 Ohio HIRA has also been produced. The 2007 Ohio HIRA (Appendix Y) prioritizes hazards utilizing criteria developed to facilitate emergency planning. These criteria include frequency, duration, speed of onset, magnitude, impact on business, impact on people, and impact on property. This method assigns a numerical value to vulnerability based on the criteria of impacts on businesses,

Page 33: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 61

people, and property. The 2007 Ohio HIRA places more emphasis on life safety issues versus the HIRA performed for the SOHMP which places a similarly high priority on property/facility damage. Also, the 2007 HIRA evaluates manmade hazards. This data is valuable as it is another method to “ground truth” the data in the SOHMP HIRA.

Table 2.1.a

Impact

Frequency of

Occurrence

Highly Likely 5 (Highest) 4 (High) 4 (High) 3 (Medium)

Likely 5 (Highest) 4 (High) 3 (Medium) 2 (Low)

Possible 4 (High) 3 (Medium) 2 (Low) 2 (Low)

Unlikely 3 (Medium) 2 (Low) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest)

Highly

Unlikely2 (Low) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest) 1 (Lowest)

Source: FEMA, 1997

Hazard Index Ranking

Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Table 2.1.b

Highly Likely Near 100 Percent probability in the next year.

LikelyBetween 10 and 100 percent probability in the next year, or at least one

chance in the next 10 years.

PossibleBetween 1 and 10 percent probability in the next year, or at least one

chance in the next 100 years.

UnlikelyLess than 1 percent probability iun the next year of less than once chance

in the next 100 years.

Highly Unlikely Little to no probability in next 100 years.

Frequency of Occurrence

Source: FEMA, 1997

Page 34: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 62

Table 2.1.c

CatastrophicMultiple Deaths, complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more, more than 50 percent of property is severely damaged.

CriticalMultiple severe injuries, complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least 2 weeks, more than 25 percent of property is severely damaged.

LimitedSome injuries, complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week, more than 10 percent of property severely damaged.

NegligibleMinor injuries, minimal quality-of-life impact, shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less, less than 10 percent of property is severely damaged.

Consequences of Impact

Source: FEMA, 1997

Table 2.1.d

HazardPast Federal

DeclarationsFrequency Impcat Hazard Ranking

Coastal Erosion No Highly Likely Negligible 3

Droughts No Likely Negligible 2

Earthquakes No Possible Limited 2

Floods Yes Highly Likely Critical 4

Seiche / Coastal Flooding No Likely Limited 3

Landslides Yes Highly Likely Limited 4

Land Subsidence No Possible Negligible 2

Invasive Species No Highly Likely Limited 4

Severe Thunderstorms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4

Windstorms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4

Hailstorms No Likely Negligible 2

Severe Winter/Ice Storms Yes Highly Likely Critical 4

Tornadoes Yes Highly Likely Critical 4

Wildfire No Likely Limited 3

Tropical Cyclones No Unlikely Negligible 1

Snow Avalanches No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1

Extreme Summer Weather No Likely Negligible 2

Expansive Soils No Unlikely Negligible 1

Tsunami No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1

Volcano No Highly Unlikely Negligible 1

Dam Failure No Possible Critical 3

Hazardous Materials Events No Likely Negligible 2

Terrorism No Unlikely Critical 2

Urban Fire No Highly Likely Negligible 3

Hazard Ranking Assessment

Natural Hazards

Technological Hazards

Page 35: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 63

Once the hazard ranking was complete an assessment was conducted to narrow the field of hazards (see Table 2.1.d). Several hazards were deleted from the list based on the unlikelihood of occurrence and the potential for a negligible impact on the state should they occur. These include tropical cyclones, snow avalanches, extreme summer weather, expansive soils, tsunami events, and volcano events. Other hazards were combined, as many of them are factors in larger hazards. The final hazard list included 15 hazards, which are listed in order of importance below.

• Flooding (4) – which includes flash flooding, normal riverine flooding. There have been numerous past declarations for this disaster.

• Seiche / Coastal Flooding (4) – this is a geographically specific hazard for areas bordering Lake Erie. There have been no past declarations for this disaster.

• Tornadoes (4) – which includes windstorms. There have been several past declarations for tornados and high wind events as a result of severe thunderstorms.

• Landslides (4) – which includes road slips and mudslides. There have been several declarations for this type of disaster many as a result of severe flooding.

• Winter Storms (4) – which includes snowstorms, ice storms and any other winter precipitation. There have been declarations for this type of disaster.

• Severe Summer Storms (4) – these storms have a higher ranking than dam failure simply because there are many factors associated with severe thunderstorms. In Ohio the primary disaster factors for severe thunderstorms have been flooding, tornadoes, high wind events, and landslides all of which have been addressed separately. Other aspects of sever thunderstorms (hail and lightning) are not as pressing in the overall mitigation process.

• Invasive Species (4) – There have been no federal declarations for invasive species to date.

• Dam / Levee Failure (3) – Though dam-failure is not at the top of the ranking chart it is still considered an important hazard as it has a significant impact on flooding.

• Coastal Erosion (3) –Erosion from coastal storms and normal Lake Erie fluctuations.

• Wildfire (3) – there have been no federal declarations for wildfire to date.

• Land Subsidence (2) – there have been no federal declarations for land subsidence to date.

• Droughts (2) – there have been no federal declarations for droughts to date.

• Earthquakes (2) – there have been no federal declarations for earthquakes to date.

Page 36: Hira Ontario Ohio

State of Ohio Hazard Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment 64

• Hazardous Materials (2) – which includes nuclear accidents. There have been no federal declarations for HAZMAT events to date.

• Terrorism (2) – there have been no federal declarations directly referred to as terrorism in the past. However, in August 2003 there was a declaration related to power outage, which initiated in Cleveland and spanned across a good portion of the northern United States and southern Canada. This grid could be considered a major target in future terrorist activities and should be planned for accordingly.

This plan discusses each of the hazards in more detail with the exception of two technological hazards that were previously mentioned in the 2003 SOHMP – terrorism and hazardous materials. It is felt that these two hazards are better addressed in ongoing homeland security and emergency management planning efforts and are represented in the 2007 Ohio HIRA.

According to the Ohio HIRA, the following are the top ten hazards (ranking score in parenthesis): Windstorm/tornado (24.25), Flood/flash flood/seiche (22.75), emerging disease (21.75), earthquake (7.9 magnitude) (21.25), building/structure collapse (20.75), landslide/mudslide/subsidence (19.25), snow/ice/hail/sleet (19.25), terrorism (19), product defect or contamination (18.75), and extreme temperature (heat and cold) (18.5). These tend to correspond fairly well with the hazards profiled in the SOHMP HIRA, with the exception of earthquake (scenario in the Ohio HIRA different than in the SOHMP HIRA), invasive species, and terrorism.