Hazard Mitigation Goals, Objectives & Action Items: City of Charlottesville Introduction This document presents detailed information regarding hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and mitigation action items developed for the 2023 update to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The “Mitigation Strategy” is five broad categories with corresponding goals and objectives. The mitigation strategy was developed through a cooperative effort of the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, consisting primarily of planners and emergency operations coordinators. The overarching goals of the hazard mitigation plan were reviewed and revised from the previous plan update. Those goals and objectives were then reviewed by the public in the Hazard Mitigation Public Workshop held by the TJPDC, which further modified the goals and objectives detailed in the Mitigation Strategy. Based on the goals and objectives identified through the cooperative planning process of the mitigation strategy, each jurisdiction developed actionable directives or “mitigation action items” to further the Mitigation Strategy before the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update. Mitigation actions are discrete projects, programs, or policies that are recommended for implementation in this plan. The action items differ from objectives in that they are measurable, have a party responsible for completion, and typically can be completed within a given timeframe. The action items presented in this plan represent the aspirations of the various localities in the region, with the understanding that they may be completed as resources are made available from a variety of sources. Mitigation actions are to be implemented by the lead party, as identified in the plan, often in partnership with other agencies and organizations. TJPDC staff compiled input from the Working Group into a listing of potential actions organized under each goal and objective. The list was provided to each jurisdiction and used in discussions with Local Emergency Plan Committees (LEPCs) and at Working Group meetings. Each action item in the plan is prioritized as high, moderate, or low to reflect the mitigation value of the action or the urgency it requires. Priorities were determined based on several criteria. Items that were included in the 2018 plan generally maintain the same priority. The online survey asked respondents to prioritize goals and objectives, and this information has been used to prioritize the associated action items. Locality staff considered the severity and urgency of the issue to be addressed, the locality’s capacity to complete the action, and the benefit to be realized compared to the estimated cost of completion. TJPDC staff recommended use of FEMA’s cost-benefit analysis toolkit to ensure that localities were considering factors like number of people affected by hazards, area affected, property damage, loss of life, and injury, as well as economic impacts of inaction or partial action. A broad range of benefits were considered; some actions provide benefits beyond mitigating the impacts of hazards. Localities are acquainted with these types of tradeoffs, and instead of prescribing a specific process that each locality should use after creating mitigation action items, TJPDC staff instead prioritized locality-specific analysis when generating and prioritizing mitigation action items. Localities were encouraged to communicate cross-departmentally to accurately measure costs, timeline, and priority. TJPDC staff encouraged an iterative and collaborative process within each locality, as well as with other localities concerning shared hazards or facilities. Most jurisdictions chose to roll over actions that were either incomplete, delayed, or modified from the 2018 plan. There were significant revisions of actions’ priorities, lead parties, and/or costs. These changes were primarily a result of localities experiencing significant staff turnover since 2018 and funding constraints. Many localities decided to revise older mitigation action items to supply a more realistic and achievable set of action items for the next 5 years. Locality staff indicated that revising goals, as well as coordinated efforts to revitalize LEPC meetings and other community engagement opportunities, serves as a realistic and operational foundational for hazard mitigation efforts in the coming years. Some localities added new action items in order to address new goals. The Mitigation Strategy, corresponding mitigation goals and objectives, and the detailed mitigation action items for the City of Charlottesville are found below. Mitigation Strategy Education and Outreach Infrastructure and Buildings • GOAL: Reduce the short and long-term impact of hazard events on buildings and infrastructure o OBJECTIVE: Diversify the energy system to provide multiple power source and fuel supply options and promote self-sufficient buildings with multiple energy options o OBJECTIVE: Diversity the communications system to provide alternative lines for use during loss of capacity o OBJECTIVE: Diversify the transportation system by increasing connectivity and providing modal options o OBJECTIVE: Elevate, retrofit and relocate existing structures and facilities in vulnerable locations o OBJECTIVE: Construct or upgrade drainage, retention, and diversion elements to lessen the impact of a hazard on an area o OBJECTIVE: Protect sensitive areas through conservation practices o OBJECTIVE: Ensure that each critical facility has a disaster plan in place Whole Community Mitigation Capacity Information and Data Development Mitigation Actions Key Code Each mitigation action item is accompanied by an activity code key in the top left corner of the Mitigation Action Items Table. The place or jurisdiction responsible for completing the item, the Mitigation Strategy goal that the mitigation action addresses, and the priority of the mitigation action item are detailed through the activity code key found below. Furthermore, the detailed list of action items includes the supporting goal, hazard to be mitigated, party responsible for implementation, timeframe of implementation, estimated cost, and potential funding sources. Furthermore, all action items are prioritized and listed in order from high, moderate, to low priority. Mitigation Action Item Description Table [Activity Code] Mitigation Action: [Jurisdiction] Goal: One of the goal categories listed above that is supported by the action Action Item Description: Brief description of action item Hazard (s): The hazard(s) the action is intended to mitigate Lead Party Responsible: Identify the local agency, department, or organization that is best suited to accomplish the action An estimate of the costs required to complete the project or Estimated Cost: continue the project for the course of 5 years; this amount should be estimated until a final dollar amount can be determined Funding Method: Potential sources of funds to complete the action, when applicable Implementation Timeframe for which the action is expected to be completed Schedule: Priority Placement in the order of importance and urgency Charlottesville’s Detailed Mitigation Action Items CHE1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Education and Outreach Action Item Description: Provide training for building inspectors and code officials on mitigation techniques and hazard-resistant building. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Neighborhood Development Services, Public Works Estimated Cost: $10,000 Funding Method: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, General Revenue Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: High CHE2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Education and Outreach Action Item Description: Ensure that all city schools have an emergency and disaster plan and regularly conduct disaster response drills. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Public School System, independent private schools Estimated Cost: N/A Funding Method: N/A Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: High CHM1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Complete Flood Resilience Plan Hazard (s): Lead Party Responsible: Estimated Cost: Funding Method: Implementation Schedule: Priority: CHM2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Complete Climate Adaptation plan Hazard (s): Lead Party Responsible: Estimated Cost: Funding Method: Implementation Schedule: Priority: CHM3 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Update floodplain regulations Hazard (s): Lead Party Responsible: Estimated Cost: Funding Method: Implementation Schedule: Priority: CHM4 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Incorporate hazard mitigation plan into community plans. Identify senior living/special needs residences in areas vulnerable for flooding. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Neighborhood Development Services Estimated Cost: None Funding Method: N/A Implementation 3-5 years Schedule: Priority: High CHM5 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Conduct Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) classes to equip individuals and groups to assist in the event of a disaster. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Emergency Services Coordinator Estimated Cost: $10,000 Funding Method: FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams, FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grant Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: High CHM6 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Provide incentives to institutions and homeowners for use of low-flow appliances. Hazard (s): Drought Lead Party Responsible: Neighborhood Development Services Estimated Cost: None Funding Method: N/A Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: High CHM7 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Continue to expand use of citizen alert system. (Code RED) Develop community promotion plan for Code RED. Hazard(s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Regional Emergency Management Coordinator, City OEM Estimated Cost: $5,000 Funding Method: General Revenue Implementation 6-12 months Schedule: Priority: High CHM8 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Inventory all shelters and public buildings to ensure emergency preparedness supplies and equipment are onsite. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Emergency Services Coordinator Estimated Cost: $40/location Funding Method: General Revenue Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: High CMI1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Build or repair roadway and pedestrian crossings so as not to impede floodwaters Hazard (s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: VDOT Estimated Cost: Unknown Funding Method: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, 406 Public Assistance Program Implementation When bridges are repaired/replaced Schedule: Priority: Moderate CMI2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Retrofit emergency service buildings for hazard resistance. Hazard (s): Structural Lead Party Responsible: Emergency Services Coordinator Estimated Cost: Unknown Funding Method: All hazards Emergency Operations Planning, Assistance to Local Firefighters Grant, Local Hurricane Grant Program, Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Implementation 3-5 years Schedule: Priority: Moderate CMI3 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Retrofit emergency service buildings for hazard resistance. Hazard(s): Structural Lead Party Regional Emergency Management Coordinator, City Responsible: OEM Estimated Cost: Unknown Funding Method: All hazards Emergency Operations Planning, Assistance to Local Firefighters Grant, Local Hurricane Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Implementation 3-5 years Schedule: Priority: Moderate CMM1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Support volunteer groups and encourage collaboration on public outreach and education programs on hazard mitigation. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: All City Departments, Emergency Services Coordinator Estimated Cost: None Funding Method: N/A Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Moderate CMM2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Mitigation Capacity Action Item Description: Create a strategy for using existing media outlets for communications during a hazard event. Hazard (s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: Office of Communications Estimated Cost: None Funding Method: N/A Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Moderate CLE1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Education and Outreach Action Item Description: Provide citizens with literature about flood and drought- smart landscaping. Hazard (s): Drought, Flooding Lead Party Responsible: Neighborhood Development Services, Public Works Estimated Cost: $5,000 Funding Method: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Annual DCR Flood Awareness Week Implementation 3-5 years Schedule: Priority: Low CLE2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Education and Outreach Action Item Description: Create educational campaign about floodplain locations, the benefits of open space and riparian corridors. Hazard (s): Multiple Lead Party Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: $50,000 Funding Method: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Community Flood Preparedness grant , Citywide Floodplain Management NFIP Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Low CLI1 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Improve the maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. Hazard(s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown Funding Method: Environmental Protection Agency – Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, EPA-Nonpoint Source Grant Program, 406 Public Assistance (following a federally declared disaster), USDA-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, USDA-Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Stormwater Utility Fee, Community Flood Preparedness Grants Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Low CLI2 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Reduce pollution discharge to and erosive conditions in receiving waters. Hazard(s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown, based on need Funding Method: Environmental Protection Agency – Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, EPA-Nonpoint Source Grant Program, 406 Public Assistance (following a federally declared disaster), USDA-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, USDA-Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Stormwater Utility Fee, Stormwater Local Assistance Fund Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Low CLI3 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Retrofit stormwater management basins Hazard(s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown, based on individual projects Funding Method: EPA – Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, EPA- Nonpoint Source Grant Program, 406 Public Assistance (after a federally declared disaster), USDA-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, USDA-Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Stormwater Utility Fee Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Priority: Low CLI4 Mitigation Action: City of Charlottesville Goal: Infrastructure and Buildings Action Item Description: Retrofit stormwater management basins Hazard(s): Flood Lead Party Responsible: Public Works Estimated Cost: Unknown, based on individual projects Funding Method: EPA – Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, EPA- Nonpoint Source Grant Program, 406 Public Assistance (after a federally declared disaster), USDA-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, USDA-Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Stormwater Utility Fee Implementation Ongoing Schedule: Planning Process Hazard Mitigation Planning Hazard Identification and Analysis Process The lead agency in the preparation of this plan is the Thomas The purpose of the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of the hazard identification process is to Jefferson Planning District Commission (PDC). The PDC is to prepare for natural disasters before they occur, thus describe all natural hazards that affect the Thomas Jefferson provides resources that ensure the plan takes an efficient Planning district and provide an analysis on their location, reducing loss of life, property damage, and disruption of regional approach and is supported by A Hazard Mitigation extent, severity, and probability of occurrence. Each commerce. Working Group, consisting of representatives from local individual hazard was identified, planning departments, emergency managers, and local The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires including a description of the hazard in general written from a administrators to help guide updates to the plan. Once adopted such a plan as a condition for eligibility in certain mitigation grant national perspective, followed by an in-depth analysis based on the Working Group members will help monitor and implement programs. The plan applies to all jurisdictions in the Thomas the particular impact the hazard has on the Thomas Jefferson the plan. Jefferson Planning District – Albemarle County, the City of Planning District. The Hazard Assessment Tool was used to Charlottesville, Greene County, Louisa County, Fluvanna evaluate each identified hazard according to the probability of County, Nelson County, and the Towns of Stanardsville, Louisa, occurrence and the severity in terms of impact to human life, Mineral & Scottsville. The original plan was adopted by all property, and business operations. Results of the 2023 risk jurisdictions in 2006, and the plan was further updated in 2012 assessment are outlined in the hazard vulnerability assessment and 2018. matrix below. The Following sections are included in the plan: Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Introduction – an overview of hazard HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS PROBABILITY RISK IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT mitigationgenerally and an outline of the plan EVENT Planning Process – the process through which Likelihood this Possibility of Physical Interruption of will occur death or injury losses and services Relative threat* theplan was developed, including public input damages Community Profile – general information 0 = N/A 0 = N/A 0 = N/A 0 = N/A 1 = Low 1 = Low 1 = Low 1 = Low SCORE 0 - 100% aboutcommunities in the planning district 2 = Moderate 3 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = High 2 = Moderate 3 = High Hazard Identification and Analysis – general Hurricane/high 3 2 2 2 74% information about potential hazards in the wind/windstorms planning district, the historic record of hazard Flooding 3 1 2 2 65% events, and theprobability of future events Winter storms/weather 3 1 1 2 56% Vulnerability Assessment – analysis of the Communicable 2 2 1 2 30% Disease/Pandemic human impact hazards could cause, with estimated Lightning 2 1 1 1 22% potential losses for various hazard scenarios Wildfire 2 1 1 1 22% Capabilities Assessment – a survey of current localcapacity to mitigate natural hazards Drought / Extreme 2 1 1 1 22% Heat Mitigation Strategy – goals, objectives, and action Dam Failure 1 2 2 2 22% items selected to mitigate hazards identified in the Tornado 2 1 1 1 22% region Earthquake 1 1 2 2 19% Landslide 1 1 1 1 11% AVERAGE SCORE 1.88 1.37 1.5 1.58 33% Hazard Mitigation Plan Notable Hurricanes in the Planning District VAISLA Lightning Flash Density/Mile 2015-2019 Hurricane Specific Area Damage Year Cat. phenomena poses the most significant risk to area residents. Wind Zeta All Heavy rain, localized flooding Oct. 20, 2020 3 Matthew All $30+ million in private + public structure damage, De. 18, 2018 5 crop damage. These events have resulted in 85 injuries and 2 deaths 2 deaths, evacuations, flooding/power outages Florence All TJPDC localities $200 million in damage, heavy rain/flooding/high Oct. 15, 2018 4 since 1995. Significant past wind events include the 2012 Derecho, winds/spawned tornadoes, 3 deaths Joaquin All Rain, localized flooding Oct 2, 2015 2 Arthur Fluvanna, Louisa, Albemarle Power outages, rain, flooding July 4, 2014 2 Sandy Nelson, Greene Power outages, rain, flooding Oct 29, 2012 3 because they develop quickly. Hurricane Cindy Fluvanna and Louisa Counties 3 deaths in U.S. July 7, 2005 1 related winds tend to have a greater impact in the eastern part of Ivan Fluvanna and Louisa Counties Estimated $18 billion in U.S. damages and 25 Sept. 18, 2004 5 Virginia. Few hurricanes have made a direct hit on the region. Most deaths are downgraded to tropical storms before they reach the planning Isabel All Preliminary estimate of over $4 billion in damages/costs; at least 40 deaths Sept 18, 2003 5 district. Note: Tornados are addressed on a Floyd All Flooding rains and high winds. 4 deaths; over Sep-99 4 280,000 customers without electricity, 5,000 homes damaged. Fran Northwest Greene Co. was $5.8 billion damage; 37 deaths, loss of electricity August- 3 hardest hit. (state-wide) September 1996 Agnes Scottsville (34 feet), Howardsville More than 210,000 people were forced to flee for June 19-24, 1 Historic Hurricane Tracks 1980-2008 Camille and Columbia Massie Mill, Davis Creek, their lives and 122 were killed. 114 deaths in Nelson Co alone. Flooding & 1972 August 1969 5 Scottsville, Howardsville, Schuyler, landslides. $1.42 billion (unadjusted). Columbia, Piney River Hazel All Flooding, barns leveled, roofs pulled off. Oct 14-15, 4 1954 Number of Wind Events by Year 2015-2021 High/Strong Wind Events and Thunderstorms with Wind 2010-2020 Hurricane/Tropical Storms 2010-2020 Hurricane and Tropical Storm Record 2010-2020 Locality # Deaths Injuries Property Loss Crop Damage Albemarle/Cville (reported with Nelson) 2 0 0 $ 5,000.00 $ - Fluvanna (reported with Louisa) 1 0 0 $ 36,000.00 $ - Greene 1 0 0 $ 1,000.00 $ - Louisa (reported with Fluvanna) 1 0 0 $ - $ - Nelson (reported with Albemarle) 2 0 $ 1,000.00 $ - Source: National Climate Data Center Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA: Flooding and Dam Failure Dam Points Across Region 100 Year Floodplain (1% Chance of Flood) and property statewide. Flooding is associated with heavy or downstream from a weather event. Riverine flooding occurs along theregions larger river systems like the James or Rivanna Rivers. In the causes floodwaters to travel downstream. Examples of this kind of flooding can be found in the towns of Scottsville and Columbia. All of high. These categories factor in the dam size and the number of people in the floodway. It does not focus on the quality of the Dam Risk Level by County National Annual Flood Loss (mean claim value of flood insurance) Floods 2010-2021 Summary of Floods, Flood Record 2010-2021 Locality # Death Injuries Property Loss Crop Damage Albemarle 136 1 0 $50,000.00 $ Charlottesville 5 0 0 $ $ Fluvanna 6 0 0 $ $ Greene 79 0 0 $4,777,000.00 $312,000.00 HIRA Assessment Louisa 9 0 0 $ $ Nelson 65 $30,000.00 $ HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS 0 0 PROBABIL RISK IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT Region 300 1 0 $4,857,000.00 $312,000.00 EVENT ITY Source: National Climate Data Center (NOAA) Likelihoo Possibility of Physical losses Interruption Relative d this will death or injury and damages of services threat* occur SCORE 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Flooding 3 1 2 2 65% Dam Failure 1 2 2 2 22% Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA: Winter Weather in the region. Storms like nor’easter can causes significant snow Winter Weather Events by Type 2000-2020 accumulations, especially in areas at higher elevations. Winter Locality Blizzard Cold/Wind Freezing Heavy Ice Winter Winter Frost/ Chill Fog Snow Storm Storm Weather Freeze Albemarle 2 1 1 5 6 37 83 33 Fluvanna 1 3 48 40 3 Greene 2 4 7 7 39 79 34 Louisa 1 3 55 46 3 Nelson 2 2 5 7 34 65 33 Region 6 7 1 19 26 213 313 106 Winter Storm Events 2010-2020 Frequency of Snowfall Events Total Number of Winter Events by Year Locality # Death Injuries Property Damage Albemarle 10 0 0 $5,000.00 Winter Events in TJPDC Charlottesville 17 0 $ - Fluvanna $110,000.00 Region by Year (2010- 15 0 0 Greene 32 0 0 $- 2021) Louisa 21 0 0 $160,000.00 Nelson 25 0 0 $5,000.00 Region 120 0 0 $280,000.00 2020 2018 2016 Year 2014 HIRA Assessment 2012 PROBABIL HUMAN IMPACT PROPERTY IMPACT BUSINESS IMPACT RISK EVENT ITY 2010 Likelihoo Possibility of Physical losses Interruption Relative d this will death or injury and damages of services threat* 0 20 40 60 80 SCORE occur 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Winter Weather 3 1 1 2 56% Number of Winter Events Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA: Communicable Disease/Pandemic The most common infectious diseases impacting the region prior to Coronavirus were Campylobacteriosis and Salmonella. Both live in the Top Communicable Diseases in TJPDC TJPDC Health Opportunity Index intensities of birds and are spread to humans through consumption of (Excluding Chronic Hepatitis) contaminated foods, contact with infected animals, or by drinking contaminated water. Lyme disease is commonly spread through vectors such as ticks. The Covid-19 pandemic is the leading infectious disease in each locality, surpassing historical data from 2018 on the top reported cases of other contagious diseases. Rather than case rates ranging from 20- 60 per 100,000 people, Coronavirus cases have reached 9,000-14,000 cases per 100,000 people in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Region. Top Communicable Diseases in Virginia (Excluding Chronic Hepatitis) COVID-19 Case Information from 2019-January 2022 County Top Condition Locality Total Cases Cases Hospitalizations Deaths Albemarle Campylobacteriosis was the most per frequently reported disease with 25 100,000 cases. This equates to a rate of Albemarle 10,219 9,400 376 118 23.2 cases per 100,000 population. Charlottesville 6,518 13,546 162 64 Fluvanna Campylobacteriosis was the most frequently reported disease with 11 Fluvanna 3,415 12.751 133 32 cases. This equates to a rate of 41.6 cases per 100,000 population Greene 2,758 13,994 162 47 Louisa Salmonellosis was the most Louisa 4,410 11,991 175 54 frequently reported disease with 9 cases. This equates to a rate of Nelson 1,836 12,375 64 24 25.1 cases per 100,000 population. Greene Campylobacteriosis was the most frequently reported disease with 10 cases. This equates to a rate of 51.0 cases per 100,000 population. HIRA Assessment Nelson Lyme disease was the most HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS PROBABIL IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT RISK frequently reported disease with 8 EVENT ITY cases. This equates to a rate of Likelihoo Possibility of Physical losses Interruption Relative 53.5 cases per 100,000 population. d this will death or injury and damages of services threat* occur SCORE 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Charlottesville (city) Campylobacteriosis was the most frequently reported disease with 15 Communicable 2 2 1 2 30% cases. This equates to a rate of Disease/Pandemic 31.2 cases per 100,000 population. Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA: Wildfire Wildfire Location and Acreage Burned Wildfire Risk Index Wildfires are a relatively common occurrence in the rural portions of the PDC. Since 2017 there have been 466 fires that have burned a total of 3,276 acres of land. Most wildfires are small and are quickly brought under control by local firefighters and state Department of Forestry. Frequent causes of blazes are discarded cigarette butts and out-of-control brush pile burning. There have been a number of large notable fires but these have been mostly constrained to Federal Lands. For example, the Rocky Mountain Fire burned portions of Shenandoah National Park in Greene County. People and property are at increased fire risk as more people move into rural areas and extend the urban wildland fringe. Wildfire Acerage and Number of Events Wildfire Events 2017-2021 Causes of Wildfires 2017-2021 Locality # Of Fires Acres Albemarle 136 1215.9 Fluvanna 98 319.1 Greene 29 31.1 Louisa 130 1298.4 Nelson 63 412.1 HIRA Assessment TJPDC 466 3276.6 HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS PROBABILIT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT RISK EVENT Y Likelihood Possibility of Physical losses Interruption Relative this will death or injury and damages of services threat* occur SCORE 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Wildfire 2 1 1 2 22% Hazard Mitigation Plan US Drought Monitor (USGS) Snapshot (Dec 20, 2021) USGS Landslide Overview Map which are 10° above or below a baseline normal temperature. Both limited precipitation. Factors that influence drought severity include resources. Drought forecasts are produced by the U.S Drought of landslide. Deforestation and the removal of vegetation greatly Landslides in Region from 1969-2020 Region Historic Drought based on Percent Area Virginia Monthly High, Low and Average Temperatures HIRA Assessment HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS PROBABILIT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT RISK EVENT Y Likelihood Possibility of Physical losses Interruption Relative this will death or injury and damages of services threat* occur SCORE 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Drought/Extreme 2 1 1 2 22% Heat Landslide 1 1 1 1 11% Hazard Mitigation Plan HIRA: Tornado and Earthquake Regional Tornado Tracks 2011 Mineral Earthquake Epicenters and Magnitudes The Region averages about 1 tornado a year. Most tornados experienced in the region are EF0 or EF1 events. However, the exception was a major tornado produced by Tropical Storm Ivy (EF2) which touched down in Fluvanna County. July is the most active month for tornados as it has the most number of thunderstorms. quakes that do occur being a magnitude 2.5 or less. These quakes Virginia Earthquake Epicenter Density urc VDEM, 20 Haz d Mitig t n Tornados 1950-2020 Historic Earthquakes in the TJPDC Tornado Record 1920-2020 Class Property Damage Date EF2 $200,000 4/19/2019 EF0 $325,000 2/24/2016 EF1 Historic homes damaged in Louisa County 10/9/2011 F1 $500,000 8/30/2005 F2 $3,000,000 9/17/2004 F1 $500,000 5/13/2000 F1 $250,000 5/5/1989 F3 $250,000 7/25/1985 F1 $250,000 10/13/1983 F2 $250,000 8/9/1962 HIRA Assessment 11 people died and 4 were injured in HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS N/A Ivy/Mechum’s River 1959 PROBABILITY IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT RISK EVENT Leveled trees, tore off roofs, smashed Likelihood this will occur Possibility of death or injury Physical losses and damages Interuption of services Relative threat* N/A buildings in Ivy 1922 SCORE 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0-3 NA-High 0 - 100% Tornado 2 1 1 2 22% Earthquake 1 1 2 2 19% Hazard Mitigation Plan