Chapter 3: The Planning Process The City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is an effort to direct the multi-hazard planning, development, and mitigation activities of the City of Tulsa. The City of Tulsa is responsible for overall coordination and management of the study. Simply stated, a mitigation plan is the product of a rational thought process that reviews the hazards, measures their impacts on the community, identifies alternative mitigation measures, and selects and designs those that will work best for the community. This plan addresses the following hazards: • • • •
Floods Tornadoes High Winds Lightning
• • • •
Hailstorms Severe Winter Storms Extreme Heat Drought
The planning for the City of Tulsa followed a ten-step process, based on the guidance and requirements of FEMA. The ten steps are shown in the graphic to the left, and are described on the following pages.
• • • •
Expansive Soils Wildfires Earthquakes Dam Failures
Mitigation Planning Process
Included in this Chapter: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10
Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan Step Two: Involve the Public Step Three: Coordinate with Others Step Four: Assess the Hazard Step Five: Assess the Problem Step Six: Set Goals Step Seven: Review Possible Activities Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan Step Nine: Adopt the Plan Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
78
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.1
Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan (Sep. 2005 – Apr. 2006) Citizens, community leaders, government staff personnel, and professionals active in disasters provided important input into the development of the plan and recommended goals and objectives, mitigation measures, and priorities for actions. The planning process was formally created by a resolution of the City Council of Tulsa. The resolution designated the Tulsa Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board to serve as the Tulsa Citizens’ Advisory Committee (TCAC) to oversee the planning effort. City of Tulsa Citizens’ Advisory Committee The TCAC consists of the following members:
Kyle Bierley
Gary Cheatham Northeastern State University
Dr. Judith Finn Attorney
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
79
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Ann Patton Ann Patton Company, LLC
Supporting the TCAC is the Tulsa Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC), which includes representatives of departments that have roles in multi-hazard planning, response, protection, and mitigation. Most of the detail work was done by management teams consisting of the following: City of Tulsa Technical Advisory Committee Bill Robison Sr. Special Projects Engineer, City of Tulsa Mitigation Plan Project Coordinator
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
80
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The TTAC met periodically during the year’s planning process. TTAC members also attended all meetings of the TCAC and meetings with elected officials.
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
81
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Consultant: Ronald D. Flanagan, CFM Principal Planner R.D. Flanagan & Associates Planning Consultants 2745 E. Skelly Dr., Suite. 100 Tulsa OK 74105
The TTAC and TCAC met _______ at City Hall during the planning process to review progress, identify issues, receive task assignments, and advise the consultants. A list of HMCAC meetings, TTAC meetings, and meetings and dates with governing bodies is shown in Table 3-1, below. Refer to Appendix C for meeting agendas.
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
82
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table 3–1: Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Committee Meetings and Activities Date
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
Activity
83
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.2
Step Two: Involve the Public (Oct. 2005 – Ongoing) In addition to the TCAC, the management team of TTAC undertook projects to inform the public of this effort and to solicit their input. All meetings of the TCAC were publicly posted as required by ordinances and rules of the jurisdiction. All meetings of the TCAC were televised over Channel 23, the Community Public Access Television Channel.
3.3
Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and Organizations (Oct. 2005 – Jan. 2006) Many public agencies, private organizations, and businesses contend with natural hazards. Management team members contacted them to collect their data on the hazards and determine how their programs can best support the Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation planning program. A sample letter and a list of agencies contacted are included below. The Emergency Operations Plan is administered under the Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency. The Public Works and Planning Departments play key roles during most emergencies. Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VI (FEMA) Housing & Urban Development US Army Corps of Engineers National Weather Service (NWS) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) US Fish and Wildlife Service US Geological Survey National Non-Profit American Red Cross, Tulsa Area Chapter Citizen Corps Council Salvation Army, Tulsa State Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management Oklahoma Water Resources Board • State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator • State Dam Safety Coordinator Oklahoma Conservation Commission Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Oklahoma Department of Labor Oklahoma Geological Survey Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Regional Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG) County Tulsa County Tulsa County Assessor Tulsa Health Department
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
84
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Mr. Jack Graham, CFM Natural Hazards Program Specialist FEMA, Region VI 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209
_______
Subject: City of Tulsa, Oklahoma Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Graham: The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have awarded the City of Tulsa a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant to update the 2004 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for their community.
DRAFT
The planning process began _____, and is expected to be completed by _____, 2008. A Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee and a Staff Technical Advisory Committee have been appointed by the City of Tulsa to oversee the planning process. You are invited to participate in the planning process, provide input, and receive any data produced during the planning process. A preliminary schedule of the planning process is included as an attachment. We, or our consultants, will contact your agency to solicit information and studies, which may be relevant to the development of our multihazard mitigation plan. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service to you, please contact the Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Bill Robison at (918) 596-9475. Sincerely,
Bill Robison Senior Special Projects Engineer Department of Public Works City of Tulsa
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
85
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
County (continued) Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency Tulsa County Local Emergency Planning Committee City Office of the Mayor Department of Community Development Department of Public Works Tulsa Public School District Tulsa Police Department Tulsa Fire Department Businesses Hillcrest Medical Center Home Builders Association of Greater Tulsa OSU Medical Center St. Francis Medical Center St. John’s Medical Center Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce Education University of Oklahoma, Schusterman Campus Oklahoma State University, Tulsa Oral Roberts University Tulsa Community College University of Tulsa Neighboring Communities City of Bixby City of Broken Arrow City of Collinsville City of Jenks City of Owasso City of Sand Springs City of Skiatook City of Sperry
3.4
Step Four: Assess the Hazard (Dec. 2006 – Apr. 2006) The management team collected data on the hazards from available sources. Hazard assessment is included in Chapter 4, with the discussion of each hazard. Table 3–2: How and Why Hazards Were Identified
Hazard
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
How Identified
Why Identified
86
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard
Dam Failures
Drought
How Identified
Why Identified • Population and buildings below dam are very vulnerable in event of release or dam failure
Input from US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Input from Oklahoma Water Resources Board, (OWRB), Dam Safety Division Input from Tulsa Department of Public Works
• Dam break/release contingency plan needs updating • Warning systems need to be updated and refined • City considering redevelopment options for areas behind levees • Continuing mid-west and western drought and impacts on Oklahoma communities, including neighboring Bartlesville
Historical vulnerability to drought, the “Dust Bowl” era Recent (2002) drought and water shortages in Bartlesville, just north of Tulsa Widespread Oklahoma drought of 2005-2006.
Earthquakes
Historic records of area earthquakes Input from Oklahoma Geological Survey Input from USGS HAZUS Surveys of potential damages
Expansive Soils
Review of Natural Resource Conservation Service data Input from City Building Inspections Department Input from Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Extreme Heat
Review of number of heat-related deaths and injuries from EMSA and State/Local Health Departments Review of data from National Climatic Data Center and National Center for Disease Control & Prevention
• Acute awareness of Oklahoma’s population to the severe results of drought • Need to ensure adequate long-term-water resources for Tulsa’s metropolitan area population
• Tulsa area has a history of mild earthquakes • Tulsa County has experienced earthquakes on the average of once every 5 years
• Expansive soils are prevalent in the City of Tulsa. • Damage to buildings from expansive soils can be mitigated with public information and building code provision • TAEMA and local community service organizations have made heat-related deaths a high priority • High percentage of poor and elderly populations at risk • 44 heat-related deaths in Oklahoma in the last 5 years • 10% of City land is located in floodplains
Floods
Hailstorms
Review of FEMA floodplain maps Buildings in the floodplains Historical floods and damages (detailed in Chapter 4)
• 1984 flood caused $180 million in damage • 1984 flood killed 14 people • Flood damage occurs every year • Over $1 billion of property at risk • __ hail damage events in Tulsa over the last 5 years
Review of data from National Climatic Data Center
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
• Over $3 million in property damage
87
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard High Winds
Lightning
Severe Winter Storms
How Identified
Why Identified
National Weather Service data Loss information provided by national insurance companies
• __ high wind-related events in Tulsa since 1993, and over $_____ in damage • Oklahoma ranks 15th in lightning related casualties with __88 deaths and __243 injuries over a 36-year period
National Climatic Data Center information and statistics
• ___ lightning events in Tulsa since 1997 resulting in $_____ in damage and one injury • Severe winter storms are an annual event in the Tulsa area
Review of past disaster declarations Input from Tulsa County Emergency Management Agency and Tulsa Emergency Management Input from Tulsa Department of Public Works Input from area utility companies
• Wide-spread economic disruption • Massive public utility outages • Tulsa has had __ winter storm events since 1950 • Four winter storm-related Federal Disaster Declarations in the past 3 years, requiring over $___ million in Federal assistance. $___ million reported in Tulsa County alone. • Tulsa is located in “Tornado Alley”
Tornadoes
• An average of 52 tornadoes per year strike Oklahoma
Review of recent disaster declarations Input from Emergency Manager Review of data from the National Climatic Data Center
• Recent disaster events and damage • Oklahoma City tornado of 1999 killed 42 people and destroyed 899 buildings • All citizens and buildings are at risk • 8 deaths, and over $350 million in property damage in 50 years in Tulsa County
Wildfires
• Fires of the urban/rural interface threaten Tulsa properties
Input from Tulsa Fire Department Input from surrounding county & community fire departments Input from State Fire Marshal Input from Oklahoma State University Rangeland Conservation
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
• Several miles of Tulsa’s perimeter and a number of identified critical facilities are exposed and vulnerable to wildfires • 328 wildfires in Tulsa area between 1999-2003 result in over $48,000 in damage • Wildfires in 2005-2006 burn 1,667 acres in Tulsa County and Tulsa
88
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.5
Step Five: Assess the Problem (May 2006 – Aug. 2006) The hazard data was analyzed in light of what it means to public safety, health, buildings, transportation, infrastructure, critical facilities, and the economy. Some of the work for Steps 4 and 5 had been initiated by the Central Oklahoma Economic Development District. They prepared several analyses using their geographic information system. The discussion of the problem assessment is addressed for each hazard in Chapter 4. Damage Estimation Methodology The following methodologies were used in the development of damage cost estimated for buildings and contents for flooding and tornado/high wind damage, used in the City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: HAZUS Damage Estimation Model: FEMA’s HAZUS Damage Estimation Models were used to calculate damages from Flooding and Earthquakes. Structure Value: Value of buildings within the City of Tulsa was obtained from the Tulsa County Assessor’s office. For critical facilities, non-profit properties with structural improvements, such as churches, which are tax exempt and where no county assessor valuation was available, the buildings’ footprints were measured using aerial photography, GIS, and field investigation to determine size, in square feet. The value of structure was obtained by calculating the square footage times the value per square foot obtained by using FEMA publication State and Local Mitigation Planning: Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, August 2001, “Average Building Replacement Value per square foot,” p. 3-10, source: HAZUS Contents Value: Value of contents for all buildings was estimated using “Contents Value as Percentage of Building Replacement Value” table, page 3-11, Understanding Your Risks. Depth of Damage: Flooding damage estimates for building and contents are based on actual structures’ estimated flood depth determined by aerial topographic mapping and field investigations. Maps of the floodplains are included in Chapter 4. Flood damage curves, for structures (single-family, multi-family, office, commercial, industrial), and contents were estimated using Table A-3, “Damage Factors,” Economics Branch, Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood depth of damage curve estimates were used for riverine flooding and dam failures (Chapter 4). Tornado Damage: Damage estimates for the tornado scenario were based on: 1. Structure value: Tulsa County Assessor’s office. 2. Contents: FEMA’s Contents Value, Understanding Your Risks. 3. Damage to structure: based on percent damage experienced during typical events, using the Fujita Scale, damage characteristics, Table 4-1. Damage estimates were based on a “worst case” scenario, assuming about 25% of the buildings in the tornado path would experience substantial damage or total destruction;
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
89
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
35% would suffer 50% damage, and 40% would suffer slight to moderate or average 25% damage. Estimation of the value of tax-exempt structures, for which no county assessor valuation is available, was done using the same methodology as for flood damaged structures, described above—that is, using FEMA publication, State and Local Mitigation Planning: Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, August 2001, “Average Building Replacement Value per square foot,” p. 3-10.
3.6
Step Six: Set Goals (Sep. 2006 – Nov. 2006) Project and community hazard mitigation goals and objectives for Tulsa were developed by the TCAC to guide the development of the plan. The hazard mitigation goals for the jurisdictions are listed in Chapter 5 and Appendix B.
3.7
Step Seven: Review Possible Activities (Dec. 2006 – Mar. 2007) Wide varieties of measures that can affect hazards or the damage from hazards were examined. The mitigation activities were organized under the following six categories. A more detailed description of each category is located in “Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategies.” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Public Information and Education—Outreach projects and technical assistance Preventive Activities—Zoning, building codes, stormwater ordinances Structural Projects—Levees, reservoirs, channel improvements Property Protection—Acquisition, retrofitting, insurance Emergency Services—Warning, sandbagging, evacuation Natural Resource Protection—Wetlands and floodplain protection, natural and beneficial uses of the floodplain, and best management practices
The TTAC and the TCAC, after reviewing the potential mitigation activities, screened and selected the measures they felt were applicable, feasible, cost effective, and politically acceptable to their community. The measures specifically identified as potentially benefiting the community were combined into a new, more communityspecific list for review. To prioritize the list of possible mitigation measures, made up of over 227 identified mitigation measures, the TCAC members were given twenty votes each to select the individual measures they felt would best benefit the community’s efforts to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of hazards on lives and property. The votes were tallied, and the Mitigation Measures were ranked in descending order. The Mitigation Measures selected and prioritized by this voting process best reflected the values and goals of the community, and the Mitigation priorities generally reflected the disaster and damage experience of the community. The true challenge is to identify mitigation strategies and measures that represent the goals and political will of the community. Table 6-1, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures,
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
90
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
By Priority and Hazard is the comprehensive list of Mitigation Measures receiving at least one vote from the 20-vote selection process described above. After confirming the outcome with each advisory committee, the top ten priority measures became the focus for the next phase of the plan, the “Action Plan”.
3.8
Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan (Apr. 2007 – Jul. 2008) The top 10 high-priority Mitigation Measures constituted the Action Plan, and each Measure was further detailed to identify: • • • • • •
A brief description of the Mitigation Measure (Action Plan Item) The lead agency responsible for implementation Anticipated time schedule for completion Estimated project cost Possible sources of funding The Work Product, or Expected outcome
The Action Plan items should be developed in enough specificity to respond to a Notice of Intent/Interest (NOI) from the State when HMGP Funds become available, or to provide basic information to begin to put together a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Application.
3.9
Step Nine: Adopt the Plan (Aug. 2008) The Draft City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was submitted to the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and FEMA Region VI for review and approval. The SCAC approved the final plan, adopted it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and submitted it to, and was approved and adopted by the Tulsa City Council.
3.10 Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise (Sep. 2008 – Ongoing) Adoption of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is only the beginning of this effort. Community offices, other agencies, and private partners will proceed with implementation. The SCAC will monitor progress, evaluate the activities, and periodically recommend revisions to the Plan and Action Items, a minimum of every five years, as required by FEMA.
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
91
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan