City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Transcription

City of Cushing,
Oklahoma
Multi- Hazard
Mitigation Plan
August 29, 2007
R.D. Flanagan & Associates
Planning Consultants
CUSHING FIRE DEPARTMENT
323 N. Harrison
Cushing, Oklahoma 74023-3303 (918)225-3361
August 30,2004
Mr. Bill Penka, State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
P.O. Box 53365
Oklahoma City, OK 73 152
RE: City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Penka:
We are pleased to submit this City of Cushinn Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan-2007, as
hlfillment of the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant (FEMA- 1401-DR-OK).
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared in accordance with state and federal guidance,
addresses floodplain management, dam failures, tornadoes, high winds, hailstorms, lightning, winter
storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban and wild fires, earthquakes, and hazardous
materials events.
We look forward to implementing this plan to hrther protect the lives and properties of our
citizens from natural and man-made hazards. If we can answer any questions or be of hrther
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
&&
Brent Kerr
Fire Chief, Project Manager
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... xi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... xii
Background..................................................................................................................... xii
Purpose ........................................................................................................................... xii
Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee......................................................... xiii
The Planning Process .................................................................................................... xiii
Plan Summary ............................................................................................................... xiv
Highest Priority Mitigation Measures .............................................................................xv
Mitigation Action Plan .................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................. 1
1.1 About the Plan ...................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................1
1.1.2 Scope .....................................................................................................................2
1.1.3 Authority................................................................................................................2
1.1.4 Funding..................................................................................................................2
1.1.5 Goals......................................................................................................................3
1.1.6 Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................5
1.1.7 Point of Contact.....................................................................................................5
1.2 Community Description ....................................................................................................6
1.2.1 Geography .............................................................................................................6
1.2.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................9
1.2.3 History ...................................................................................................................9
1.2.4 Population and Demographics.............................................................................10
1.2.5 Local Utilities—Lifelines....................................................................................14
1.2.6 Economy..............................................................................................................14
1.2.7 Industry................................................................................................................15
1.2.8 Future Development ............................................................................................15
1.3 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................16
1.3.1 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning .................................................................16
1.3.2 Floodplain and Stormwater Management ...........................................................16
1.3.3 Building Codes ....................................................................................................16
1.3.4 Fire Insurance ......................................................................................................17
1.3.5 Fire Resources .....................................................................................................17
1.3.6 Police Resources..................................................................................................17
City of Cushing
i
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.4 Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs .............................................................................18
1.4.1 Community Rating System (CRS) ......................................................................18
1.4.2 Flood and Stormwater Management Plans..........................................................18
1.4.3 Capital Improvements Plans................................................................................18
1.4.4 Emergency Operations Plan ................................................................................19
1.4.5 Critical Facilities .................................................................................................21
1.4.6 Cushing Public Schools.......................................................................................21
1.4.7 Public Education and Information.......................................................................25
Chapter 2: The Planning Process .............................................................................. 26
2.1
Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan ..............................................................26
2.2
Step Two: Involve the Public ..............................................................................30
2.3
Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and Organizations .......................30
2.4
Step Four: Assess the Hazard ..............................................................................33
2.5
Step Five: Assess the Problem ............................................................................35
2.6
Step Six: Set Goals ..............................................................................................36
2.7
Step Seven: Review Possible Activities ..............................................................36
2.8
Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan .........................................................................38
2.9
Step Nine: Adopt the Plan ...................................................................................38
2.10 Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise........................................................38
Chapter 3: Natural and Man-Made Hazards .............................................................. 39
Introduction..............................................................................................................................39
Hazards Summary ...........................................................................................................40
Hazards Analysis: Probability and Vulnerability ............................................................44
Annual Average Damages...............................................................................................44
Secondary Events ............................................................................................................46
3.1 Floods .............................................................................................................................47
3.1.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................47
3.1.2 Historical Events .................................................................................................48
3.1.3 Vulnerable Population .........................................................................................52
3.1.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................53
3.1.5 Sources ................................................................................................................53
3.2 Tornadoes ........................................................................................................................54
3.2.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................54
3.2.4 Tornado Scenario.................................................................................................63
3.2.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................................65
3.2.6 Sources ................................................................................................................66
City of Cushing
ii
3.3 High Winds......................................................................................................................67
3.3.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................67
3.3.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................71
3.3.5 Sources ................................................................................................................72
3.4 Lightning .........................................................................................................................73
3.4.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................73
3.4.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................76
3.4.5 Sources ................................................................................................................77
3.5 Hailstorms........................................................................................................................78
3.5.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................78
3.5.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................81
3.5.5 Sources ................................................................................................................81
3.6 Winter Storms..................................................................................................................82
3.6.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................82
3.6.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................86
3.6.5 Sources ................................................................................................................86
3.7 Extreme Heat ...................................................................................................................87
3.7.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................87
3.7.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................92
3.7.5 Sources ................................................................................................................92
3.8 Drought............................................................................................................................93
3.8.1 Hazard Profile......................................................................................................93
3.8.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................98
3.8.5 Sources ................................................................................................................98
3.9 Expansive Soils .............................................................................................................100
3.9.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................100
City of Cushing
iii
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.9.2 Historical Events ...............................................................................................101
3.9.3 Vulnerable Population .......................................................................................102
3.9.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................102
3.9.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................104
Urban Fires ....................................................................................................................105
3.10.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................105
3.10.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................110
3.10.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................110
Wildfires ........................................................................................................................112
3.11.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................112
3.11.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................119
3.11.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................119
Earthquakes ...................................................................................................................120
3.12.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................120
3.12.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................126
3.12.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................127
Hazardous Materials Events ..........................................................................................128
3.13.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................129
3.13.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................137
3.13.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................137
Dam Failures ................................................................................................................139
3.14.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................139
3.14.4 Dam Break Scenario..........................................................................................144
3.14.5 Conclusion.........................................................................................................145
3.14.6 Sources ..............................................................................................................145
Transportation Hazards .................................................................................................146
3.15.1 Hazard Profile....................................................................................................146
City of Cushing
iv
3.15.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................159
3.15.5 Sources ..............................................................................................................159
Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies .............................................................................. 161
The Research, Review, and Prioritization Process........................................................161
Mitigation Categories ....................................................................................................162
4.1 Cushing Hazard Mitigation Goals .................................................................................163
4.1.1 Mission Statement .............................................................................................163
4.1.2 Mitigation Goal .................................................................................................163
4.1.3 General Goals for all Natural Hazards ..............................................................163
4.1.4 Specific Goals for Particular Natural Hazards ..................................................163
4.2 Public Information and Education.................................................................................167
4.2.1 Map Information................................................................................................167
4.2.2 Library ...............................................................................................................168
4.2.3 Web Sites...........................................................................................................168
4.2.4 Outreach Projects...............................................................................................170
4.2.5 Technical Assistance .........................................................................................170
4.2.6 Real Estate Disclosure.......................................................................................170
4.2.7 Educational Programs........................................................................................171
4.2.8 Public Information Program Strategy................................................................172
4.2.9 Conclusions .......................................................................................................174
4.2.10 Recommendations .............................................................................................174
4.3 Preventive Measures......................................................................................................176
4.3.1 Planning.............................................................................................................176
4.3.2 Zoning................................................................................................................178
4.3.3 Open Space Preservation...................................................................................178
4.3.4 Building Codes ..................................................................................................178
4.3.5 Floodplain Development Regulations ...............................................................179
4.3.6 Stormwater Management...................................................................................181
4.3.7 Critical Facility Protection ................................................................................183
4.3.8 Water Conservation ...........................................................................................183
4.3.9 Power Outages from Winter Storms..................................................................184
4.3.10 IBHS Fortified Home Program .........................................................................185
4.3.11 Extreme Heat Protection....................................................................................187
4.3.12 Smoke Detectors................................................................................................188
4.3.13 Proper Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Materials .......................................188
4.3.14 Hurricane Clips..................................................................................................189
4.3.15 Mobile Home Tie-Downs..................................................................................189
City of Cushing
v
4.3.16 Lightning Warning Systems ..............................................................................190
4.3.17 Conclusions .......................................................................................................190
4.4 Structural Projects .........................................................................................................191
4.4.1 Reservoirs and Detention ..................................................................................191
4.4.2 Safe Rooms........................................................................................................191
4.4.3 School Safe Rooms............................................................................................192
4.4.4 Levees and Floodwalls ......................................................................................192
4.4.5 Channel Improvements......................................................................................193
4.4.6 Crossings and Roadways...................................................................................193
4.4.7 Drainage and Storm Sewer Improvements........................................................193
4.4.8 Drainage System Maintenance ..........................................................................194
4.4.9 Conclusions .......................................................................................................194
4.5 Property Protection........................................................................................................196
4.5.1 Acquisition and Relocation ...............................................................................196
4.5.2 Building Elevation.............................................................................................197
4.5.3 Barriers ..............................................................................................................197
4.5.4 Retrofitting ........................................................................................................197
4.5.5 Insurance............................................................................................................200
4.5.6 The City’s Role..................................................................................................200
4.5.7 Lightning Protection Systems............................................................................202
4.5.8 Surge Protectors.................................................................................................202
4.5.9 Landscaping for Wildfire Prevention ................................................................202
4.5.10 Conclusions .......................................................................................................203
4.6 Emergency Services ......................................................................................................204
4.6.1 Threat Recognition ............................................................................................204
4.6.2 Warning .............................................................................................................205
4.6.3 Response............................................................................................................206
4.6.4 Critical Facilities Protection ..............................................................................207
4.6.5 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation.............................................................208
4.6.6 Debris Management...........................................................................................208
4.6.7 CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) ............................................209
4.6.8 StormReady Communities.................................................................................209
4.6.9 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) ...................................................................210
4.6.10 Incident Command System (ICS)......................................................................211
4.6.11 Mutual Aid / Interagency Agreements ..............................................................211
City of Cushing
vi
4.6.12 9-1-1 and 3-1-1 ..................................................................................................212
4.6.13 Site Emergency Plans ........................................................................................212
4.6.14 Conclusions .......................................................................................................212
4.7 Natural Resource Protection..........................................................................................213
4.7.1 Wetland Protection ............................................................................................213
4.7.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control...................................................................214
4.7.3 River Restoration...............................................................................................215
4.7.4 Best Management Practices...............................................................................215
4.7.5 Dumping Regulations........................................................................................216
4.7.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................216
Chapter 5: Action Plan.............................................................................................. 218
Chapter 6: Plan Maintenance and Adoption ........................................................... 226
Appendix A: Glossary of Hazard Mitigation Terms ................................................A–1
Appendix B: Hazard Mitigation Committee Meeting Agendas ..............................B–1
Appendix C: Cushing Hazardous Material Sites.....................................................C–1
City of Cushing
vii
List of Tables
Table ES–1: High Priority Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, By Priority and Hazard .............xv
Table 1–1: City of Cushing Population Data.................................................................................10
Table 1–2: City of Cushing Housing Units, by Type ....................................................................10
Table 1–3: City of Cushing Properties by Improvement Type......................................................14
Table 1–4: Utility Suppliers for Cushing.......................................................................................14
Table 1–5: Cushing Fire Department Resources ...........................................................................17
Table 1–6: Cushing Critical Facilities ...........................................................................................24
Table 2–1: Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens and Technical Advisory Committee Meetings
and Activities .........................................................................................................................29
Table 2–2: How and Why Hazards Were Identified......................................................................33
Table 3–1: Summary of Damages in Cushing, Oklahoma between 1995 and 2004 .....................44
Table 3–2: Hazard Analysis for City of Cushing, Oklahoma........................................................45
Table 3–3: Summary of Hazard Analysis Ranking Criteria ..........................................................45
Table 3–4: Secondary Hazard Events ............................................................................................46
Table 3–5: City of Cushing Streams and Drainage Areas .............................................................48
Table 3–6: Cushing Floodplain Building Vulnerability ................................................................52
Table 3–7: Fujita Scale ..................................................................................................................56
Table 3–8: Tornadoes in Oklahoma and in Cushing since 1950 and since 1995 ..........................59
Table 3–9: Tornado Fatalities in the United States........................................................................63
Table 3–10: Cushing Tornado Scenario Data................................................................................65
Table 3–11: Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength...............................................................................68
Table 3–12: Saffir-Simpson Scale .................................................................................................68
Table 3–13: Fatalities and Property Damage Caused by High Winds From 1995 to 2003...........69
Table 3–14: History of Lightning Events, Fatalities, and Damages from 1995 to 2003 ...............75
Table 3–15: Locations of Injurious Lightning Strikes...................................................................75
Table 3–16: Fatalities and Reported Damages Caused by Hail From 1995 to 2003.....................80
Table 3–17: History of Extreme Cold and Severe Winter Storms, Fatalities, and Damages from
1995 to 2003 ..........................................................................................................................85
Table 3–18: Deaths from Extreme Heat ........................................................................................90
Table 3–19: City of Cushing Expansive Soils .............................................................................102
Table 3–20: Oklahoma Urban Fire Damages and Injuries & Deaths 1997-2001........................107
Table 3–21: Cushing, OK Urban Fire Damages and Injuries & Deaths 1997-2001 ...................108
Table 3–22: Oklahoma Critical Facility Fires 1997-2001 ...........................................................109
Table 3–23: Cushing, OK Critical Facility Fires, 1997-2001......................................................109
Table 3–24: Oklahoma Grass and Crop Fires, 1997-1999 ..........................................................114
Table 3–25: Oklahoma Wildland Fires, 1997-1999 ....................................................................115
City of Cushing
viii
Table 3–26: Cushing History of Wildfire Events and Damages from 1997 to 2001...................118
Table 3–27: Comparison of Mercalli and Richter Scales ............................................................122
Table 3–28: U.S. Hazardous Materials Incidents 1991-2002 ......................................................130
Table 3–29: Cushing Hazardous Materials Incidents 1990 – 2003 .............................................132
Table 3–30: Cushing Hazardous Materials Sites .........................................................................136
Table 3–31: Lake Cushing Dam Break Scenario.........................................................................145
Table 3–32: Hazardous Material Transport Placards...................................................................151
Table 4–1 STAPLEE Prioritization and Review Criteria ............................................................161
Table 4–2: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Web Sites ..........................................................................169
Table 5–1: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, By Priority and Hazard ....................................222
City of Cushing
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1–1: Major Streets and Highways ........................................................................................7
Figure 1–2: Land Use.......................................................................................................................8
Figure 1–3: Age 65 and Older Population Locations ....................................................................11
Figure 1–4: Low Income Areas .....................................................................................................12
Figure 1–5: Mobile Home Park Locations.....................................................................................13
Figure 1–6: Warning Siren Locations............................................................................................22
Figure 1–7: Critical Facilities ........................................................................................................23
Figure 3–1: City of Cushing Basin Map ........................................................................................49
Figure 3–2: City of Cushing Floodplain Map................................................................................50
Figure 3–3: Historical Tornado Paths in Payne County ................................................................55
Figure 3–4: Historical Tornado Damages......................................................................................62
Figure 3–5: Tornado Scenario .......................................................................................................64
Figure 3–6: City of Cushing Expansive Soils..............................................................................103
Figure 3–7: Cushing Hazardous Materials Sites..........................................................................135
Figure 3–8: City of Cushing Hazard Dam Locations ..................................................................141
Figure 3–9: City of Cushing Transportation Corridor Hazards ...................................................158
Figure 4–1: Public Service Notice for Flooding ..........................................................................175
City of Cushing
x
Acknowledgements
The City of Cushing Multi-Hazards Mitigation Plan was developed with assistance from a Hazard
Mitigation Grant from the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and local funding from the City of Cushing. The Cushing
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2004, was prepared by the City of Cushing, Oklahoma,
under the direction of the Cushing City Council. Numerous agencies, organizations and
individuals participated in the study, including:
Cushing Board of Commissioners
Chairman, Board of Commissioners
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Lynda Smith / Roger Floyd
Tommy Johnson / John Fechner
John Henckel / Dr. Gary Detrich
Evert Rossiter / Loren West
Joe Manning Jr. / Barbara Colclasure
Cushing Hazard Mitigation
Citizen Advisory Committee
Chairman
Vice-Chair
Member
Member
Member
Boyd Vratil
Tim O’Dell
Oren Jones
Paul Mitchell
James Shields
Cushing Staff Technical Advisory Committee
City Manager
City Engineer, Asst. City Mgr.
Fire Chief/Project Manager
Deputy Fire Chief
Director of Emergency Management
Police Chief
Andrew Katz
Stephen R. Spears, P.E.
Brent Kerr
Chris Pixler
Bob Noltensmeyer
Terry Brannon
Consultants
R. D. Flanagan & Associates
2745 E. Skelly Drive, Suite 100
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105
(918) 749-2696
fax: (918) 749-2697
E-mail:
web site
City of Cushing
Ronald D. Flanagan, CFM, Principal
David Wakefield
Sterling Overturf, Greg Pollard
Nancy Mulcahy
Dave Lister, Patrick Fox
John Flanagan
[email protected]
www.rdflanagan.com
xi
Executive Summary
Oklahoma’s location at the intersection of the hot arid zone to the west, the temperate
zone to the northeast, and the hot humid zone to the southeast make it subject to a wide
variety of potentially violent weather and natural hazards.
Making people and businesses as
safe as possible from a variety of
natural hazards is the first step in
making the area attractive for new
and expanding businesses. This
Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan is a citywide effort to identify
potential hazards and develop a
sound plan to mitigate their
impacts, with the goal of saving
lives and property. This plan
fulfills the requirements of the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and
the Oklahoma Department of
Emergency Management (ODEM).
Cushing City Commissioners holding a Public Hearing
on the City of Cushing’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Approval of this plan will qualify
the City of Cushing to apply for HMGP disaster mitigation funds following a federal
disaster declaration, as required under Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 2000.
Background
The City of Cushing is vulnerable to natural and man-made hazards. The Hazard
Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee of Cushing has identified 15 hazards affecting
the city, including floods, tornadoes, high winds, lightning, hailstorms, severe winter
storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires, earthquakes,
transportation, hazardous materials events, and dam failures.
Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to:
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Assess the ongoing mitigation activities in the community
Identify and assess the hazards that pose a threat to citizens and property
Evaluate additional mitigation measures that should be undertaken
xii
•
Outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects
The objective of this plan is to provide guidance for community activities for the next
five years. It will ensure that the City of Cushing and other partners implement activities
that are most effective and appropriate for mitigating natural hazards and hazardous
materials incidents.
Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee
Citizens and professionals active in
disasters provided important input
in the development of the plan and
recommended goals and
objectives, mitigation measures,
and priorities for actions. The
Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizen
Advisory Committee (CHMCAC)
is comprised of citizen leaders of
the community appointed by
elected officials. The Cushing
Planning Commission was
designated as the CHMCAC for
the City of Cushing.
The City of Cushing Staff
Technical Advisory Committee
The Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee met monthly in Cushing City Hall
(TAC) provided technical advice
and guidance to the CHMCAC,
and consisted of the Fire Chief/Project Manager, City Manager/Public Works,
Emergency Manager, and Police Chief.
The Planning Process
The planning for the City of Cushing followed a ten-step process, based on guidance and
requirements of FEMA for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, and the Community Rating System (CRS).
1. Organize to prepare the plan
2. Involve the public
3. Coordinate with other agencies and organizations
4. Assess the hazard
5. Assess the problem
6. Set goals
7. Review possible activities
8. Draft the action plan
9. Adopt the plan
10. Implement, evaluate, and revise
City of Cushing
xiii
Plan Summary
The Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan provides guidance to help citizens protect life
and property from natural hazards. The plan identifies the hazards that are most likely to
strike the city, provides a profile and risk assessment of each hazard, identifies mitigation
measures for each hazard, and presents an action plan for the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
Chapter 1 provides a profile of the City of Cushing that includes a community
description, a discussion of existing hazard mitigation programs, and detailed information
on vulnerable facilities and populations.
Chapter 2 presents detailed information documenting the planning process including
citizen and agency involvement, methodologies used in the plan for damage estimates,
and a risk assessment of how and why hazards were identified.
Chapter 3 provides an assessment of 15 natural and man-made hazards, methodologies
used in the plan for damage estimates and risk assessments, and a table describing how
and why each hazard was identified. Each assessment includes a hazard profile, catalogs
historical events, identifies the vulnerable populations, and presents a conclusion.
Chapter 4 sets disaster-specific goals and objectives and organizes proposed mitigation
strategies under six mitigation categories: public information and education, preventive
activities, structural projects, property protection, emergency services, and natural
resource protection.
Chapter 5 outlines an action plan for the implementation of high priority mitigation
projects, including a description of the project, the responsible party, how much it will
cost, funding sources, and timelines for implementation.
Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the plan maintenance process and documentation of
the adoption. Plan maintenance includes monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan
with involvement of the public.
Appendix A provides a glossary of terms commonly used in disaster management and
hazard mitigation.
Appendix B provides the agendas from CHMCAC meetings and supporting staff
meetings.
Appendix C provides a detailed list of the companies in Cushing with hazardous
materials on site in 2003, the contact information for those facilities, and the response
information for the on-site reported chemicals.
City of Cushing
xiv
Highest Priority Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 contains the top ten high priority mitigation measures for the City of Cushing,
as defined by the CHMCAC. The complete list of recommended mitigation measures is
found in Tables 5–1 and 5-2 at the end of Chapter 5.
Table ES–1: High Priority Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, By Priority and Hazard
Rank
1
Hazard
Category
Floods, Tornadoes, High Winds,
Lightning, Hail, Severe Winter
Storms, Extreme Heat, Drought,
Structural
Urban Fires, Wildfires,
Projects
Earthquakes, Fixed Site Haz
Mat Events, Dam Failures,
Transportation Events
Mitigation Measure
Provide new/retrofit facilities for the 911 Center and
the Emergency Operations Center.
Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers,
install safe rooms in daycare centers, and provide
manufactured home parks with community
shelters/safe rooms.
2
Tornadoes, High Winds
Preventive
Measures
3
Tornadoes, High Winds, Hail
Preventive
Measures
Provide damage-resistant glass replacements for City
Hall. When replaced, install break resistant glass in
government offices, and critical facilities.
4
Severe Winter Storms, Extreme
Heat, Urban Fires, Wildfires,
Earthquakes, Fixed Site Haz
Mat Events, Dam Failures,
Public
Information
and
Education
Obtain funding to develop/continue a program to
inform the public on proper evacuation plans for
government buildings, businesses, offices, and
residences.
5
Storms, Extreme Heat, Urban
Emergency
Fires, Wildfires, Earthquakes,
Services
Fixed Site Haz Mat Events,
Dam Failures, Transportation
Events
Install street addresses on all buildings and curbs.
6
Expansive Soils, Urban Fires,
Wildfires, Earthquakes, Fixed
Site Haz Mat Events, Dam
Failures, Transportation Events
Public
Information
and
Education
Develop distribution centers in local libraries and City
Hall where information and safety guidance on natural
and man made hazards can be provided to citizens
7
Tornadoes, High Winds,
Lightning
Preventive
Measures
Designate individuals at city recreation facilities and
schools that are educated in storm spotting and safety,
who have the authority to take proper action.
8
Tornadoes
Preventive
Measures
Provide technical assistance in obtaining grants for
storm shelters/safe rooms in mobile home parks
9
Wildfires
Preventive
Measures
Develop a contingency plan for evacuating population
endangered by a wildfire.
City of Cushing
xv
Rank
10
Hazard
Category
Fixed Site Haz Mat Events
Public
Information
and
Education
Mitigation Measure
Institute a countywide public awareness and collection
program for household pollutants, illustrating their
dangers and identifying disposal information through
media, schools, public offices, police, and fire stations.
Mitigation Action Plan
The mitigation action plan includes strategies for implementing the mitigation measures,
including information on the responsible agency, time frame, cost estimate, funding
sources, and a statement of the measurable results.
For further information, contact:
Brent Kerr, Fire Chief
Hazard Mitigation Plan Project Manager
The City of Cushing
323 N. Harrison
Cushing, OK 74023
(918) 225-3361
City of Cushing
xvi
Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.1 About the Plan
This document is the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Cushing. It is a
strategic planning guide developed in fulfillment of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to the
Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.
This act provides federal
assistance to state and local
governments to alleviate
suffering and damage from
disasters. It broadens existing
relief programs to encourage
disaster preparedness plans
and programs, coordination
and responsiveness, insurance
coverage, and hazard
mitigation measures.
This plan is developed in
accordance with guidance
from, and fulfills requirements
for, the following programs:
Cushing City Council Public Hearing involving the City of
Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
1. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
2. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA).
3. National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS).
The plan addresses natural and hazardous materials events.
1.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to:
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Assess the ongoing mitigation activities in the City of Cushing (Chapter 1).
Describe the planning process used to develop the City of Cushing Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan (Chapter 2).
Identify and assess the hazards that pose a threat to citizens and property (Chapter
3).
1
•
•
Evaluate mitigation measures that should be undertaken to protect citizens and
property (Chapter 4).
• Outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects (Chapter 5).
Identify activities and strategies to maintain and update the City of Cushing’s MultiHazard Mitigation Plan at a minimum of every five years, as required by FEMA
(Chapter 6).
The objective of this plan is to provide guidance for community activities for the next
five years. It will ensure that Cushing and other partners implement activities and
measures that are most effective and appropriate for mitigating natural and man-made
hazard events and incidents.
1.1.2 Scope
The scope of the Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is citywide. It addresses all
natural and common man-made hazards (hazardous materials and transportation hazard
events) deemed a threat to the citizens of Cushing. Both short-term and long-term hazard
mitigation opportunities are addressed, beyond existing federal, state, and local funding
programs.
1.1.3 Authority
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5165, enacted under Section 104 the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, P.L. 106390, provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. A major
requirement of the law is the development of a local hazard mitigation plan. Section 322,
in concert with other sections of the Act, provides a significant opportunity to reduce the
Nation’s disaster losses through mitigation planning.
1.1.4 Funding
Funding for the Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was provided by a $17,542.00
grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Oklahoma
Department of Emergency Management (ODEM). A 75% FEMA grant ($12,557.00)
through ODEM, with a 25% ($4,185.00) local share, and an additional $800.00 to cover
local administrative costs has been provided to develop the Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
Grant
Federal
Local
Total
HMGP
$13,357*
$ 4,185
$17,542
* Includes $800.00 to Cushing for costs of grant administration.
City of Cushing
2
Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Funding
$4,185
Federal Share
Local Share
$12,557
Total Funding: $16,742
An additional $800 was provided for administrative costs
1.1.5 Goals
The staff and the Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee of the City of Cushing
developed the goals for the Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, with input from
interested citizens. The local goals were developed taking into account the hazard
mitigation strategies and goals of the federal and state governments.
National Mitigation Strategy and Goal
FEMA has developed ten fundamental principles for the nation’s mitigation strategy:
1. Risk reduction measures ensure long-term economic success for the community
as a whole rather than short-term benefits for special interests.
2. Risk reduction measures for one natural hazard must be compatible with risk
reduction measures for other natural hazards.
3. Risk reduction measures must be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given
location.
4. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with risk
reduction measures for technological hazards and vice versa.
5. All mitigation is local.
6. Emphasizing proactive mitigation before emergency response can reduce disaster
costs and the impacts of natural hazards. Both pre-disaster (preventive) and postdisaster (corrective) mitigation is needed.
7. Hazard identification and risk assessment are the cornerstones of mitigation.
8. Building new federal-state-local partnerships and public-private partnerships is
the most effective means of implementing measures to reduce the impacts of
natural hazards.
City of Cushing
3
9. Those who knowingly choose to assume greater risk must accept responsibility
for that choice.
10. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with the
protection of natural and cultural resources.
FEMA’s goal is to:
1. Substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk so that the public
demands safer communities in which to live and work
2. Significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and
destruction of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards
State of Oklahoma Mitigation Strategy and Goals
The State of Oklahoma has developed a Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan to guide
all levels of government, business, and the public to reduce or eliminate the effects of
natural, technological, and man-made disasters. The goals and objectives are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Improve government recovery capability.
Provide pre- and post-disaster recovery guidance.
Protect public health and safety.
Reduce losses and damage to property and infrastructure.
Preserve natural and cultural resources in vulnerable areas.
Preserve the environment.
Focus only on those mitigation measures that are cost effective and provide the
best benefit to communities.
The key measures to implement these goals include:
1. Enhance communication between state and federal agencies and local
governments to facilitate post-disaster recovery, and pre- and post-disaster
mitigation.
2. Coordinate federal, state, local, and private resources to enhance the preparedness
and mitigation process.
3. Ensure consistency between federal and state regulations.
4. Protect critical facilities from hazards.
5. Support legislation that protects hazardous areas from being developed.
Cushing’s Goal
To improve the safety and well-being of the citizens residing and working in the City of
Cushing by reducing the potential of deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental
and other losses from natural and technological hazards in a manner that creates a
disaster-resistant community, enhances economic development opportunities, and
advances community goals and quality of life, resulting in more livable, viable, and
sustainable community.
City of Cushing
4
Goals for mitigation of each of the hazards are presented in Chapter 4.
1.1.6 Definition of Terms
A glossary of terms that are commonly used in hazard mitigation is included in Appendix
A.
1.1.7 Point of Contact
The primary point of contact for information regarding this plan is:
Brent Kerr, Fire Chief/Project Manager
The City of Cushing
323 N. Harrison
Cushing, OK 74923
(918) 225-3361
Stephen R. Spears, P.E., City Engineer
Assistant City Manager
City of Cushing
P.O. Box 311
Cushing, OK 74023
Office:
(918) 225-6171
Fax:
225-2395
Cell:
223-7391
City of Cushing
5
1.2 Community Description
The City of Cushing is faced with a
variety of hazards, both natural and
man-made. In recent history, winter
storms, dam releases, lightning,
floods, and tornadoes have made
the national headlines. Any part of
the city can be impacted by these as
well as high winds, drought, hail,
fire, hazardous materials events,
and other threats. In some cases,
such as flooding and dam failure,
the areas most at risk have been
mapped and delineated. A base
map of the City of Cushing with its
major features and highways are
shown in Figure 1–1.
City of Cushing
Cushing has a 2000 Census
population of 8,371, comprising 12.3% of 68,190 Payne County residents. Cushing
experienced a rapid population growth rate of 14.9% since 1990, with an annual average
of 1.5%.
1.2.1 Geography
Latitude: 35.9794 N
Longitude: 96.7614 W
FIPS Code: 18850
The City of Cushing is set among the rolling green hills of Payne County in north-central
Oklahoma located 45 miles directly west of Tulsa and 54 mile northeast of Oklahoma
City. The Cimarron River, although north of the city limits, creates a large floodplain
near Cushing and can be a frequent source of flooding for the area. Large tracts of
undeveloped land remain as well as several accessible routes linking the town to major
metropolitan areas. The City of Cushing’s Land Use is shown in Figure 1-2.
The topography consists of hills, bluffs, and open prairie lands that mark the dividing line
between the ridges of the Ozarks in the East and the broad plains of the West. Scrub oak
forests and junipers mark the landscape. Cattle ranches combined with cropland
distinguish the rural land uses in this area with the City of Tulsa just to the east. Oil and
natural gas wells are common throughout the area.
City of Cushing
6
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
Pine Ave
"
!
Oak St
Broadway St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
33
North Howerton
Noble
Wilson
Main St
33
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Eseco
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
0
0.5
MILES
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line
Water Features W
Railroads
City Limit
1
E
S
Cottonwood
Creek
Figure 1-1
City of Cushing
Major Streets
and Highways
"
!
18
Fairlawn
Harmony Rd
"
!
Norfolk Rd
Little Rd
Grandstaff Rd
Linwood Rd
Deep Rock
Kings Hwy
Battle Ridge
Cimarron
River
"
!
Main St
33
33
9th St
Eseco
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
State Highways
Roads
County Line
Water Features
City Limit
0
0.5
1
MILES
N
W
E
S
Figure 1-2
City of Cushing
Land Use
1.2.2 Climate
Cushing lies at an elevation of approximately 916 feet above sea level. It is far enough
south to miss the extreme cold of winter, with the climate being essentially continental,
characterized by rapid changes in temperature. The winter months are usually mild.
Temperatures occasionally fall below zero, but only last a very short time. Temperatures
of 100°F or higher are often experienced from late July to early September. January’s
average temperature is 35.2° F and July’s average is 82.0° F.
Cushing will receive a wide variety of precipitation throughout any given year. It
averages 38.1 inches of rainfall and 9.9 inches of snow each year. Most of this
precipitation comes in the form of convective thunderstorms that produce heavy amounts
of rain in a short duration. Heavy winds, flash floods, and hail are all associated with
these seasonal storms.
April, May, and June account for 55% of all severe weather during a typical year, with
77% of the severe weather occurring between the months of March and July. June is the
most active month of the year for hail, wind, floods, and tornadoes.
1.2.3 History
In the land run on September 22, 1891, William R. Little located a homestead of 160
acres on the present site of Cushing. Soon thereafter Little filed an application with the
Guthrie Land Office to commute to cash 80 acres of his land as a town site. A plate was
filed with the application. Little described his homestead as rolling prairie. He said it was
most valuable for agriculture purposes, excepting the 80 acres he desired for a town site.
He said that to his knowledge there were on the homestead no indications of coal, salines,
or other minerals. Dennis T. Flynn, representative in Congress, had suggested the name
of Cushing for the Post Office, for Marshall Cushing, a private secretary to John
Wanamaker, Postmaster General in Harrison's Cabinet.
By 1915, Cushing was nationally known for its oil field. That year the Cushing Fields
produced more than 300,000 barrels per day amounting to 17% of total quantity of oil
marketing in the U.S. The activity was unbelievable. Thirty to forty brick buildings were
under construction at one time in downtown Cushing. Special trains from Tulsa brought
men and equipment to Cushing, which then were transported to the oilfield by means of
wagons and teams. Men slept everywhere they could on floors of buildings, in the depots
and in rented rooms throughout the town. Almost every home rented rooms or had
sleeping quarters for the people. Tents were placed everywhere on every vacant lot in
town to house men and equipment for horses and teams.
Many of the downtown structures remaining today were built in the 1920’s. Notable
buildings include the once largest funeral parlor / furniture manufacturer in the state built
by C.C Walters, and the Cushing Hotel, still the tallest building in town, was built in
1918 and considered in its time a showplace of hotels. The City has maintained the
historic feeling of downtown and just recently restored the downtown streets and
sidewalks with a style reminiscent of their historic appearance.
City of Cushing
9
1.2.4 Population and Demographics
The City of Cushing has an estimated 2000 population of 8,371. Cushing residents total
12.3% of the population of Payne County. A map, showing the age 65 and older areas, is
shown in Figure 1-3; low-income areas are shown in Figure 1-4. Cushing demographic
data is shown in Table 1-1. Mobile Homes & Mobile Home Parks are shown in Figure 15.
Table 1–1: City of Cushing Population Data
Source: 2000 Census
Subject
Number
Total Population
8,371
65 years and older
1,472
Poverty Status in 1999 (individuals)
1,193
Hispanic
226
According to the 2000 Census, the City of Cushing has a total of 3,613 housing units.
The Median Value for a Residential Property is $46,400 according to the 2000 U.S.
Census. The Residential Value for properties in Cushing is $167,643,200. Census data,
shown in Table 1-2, and Payne County Assessor’s Office data, shown in Table 1-3, are
structured differently and do not necessarily agree, so they are shown in separate tables.
Table 1–2: City of Cushing Housing Units, by Type
Source: 2000 Census
Housing Unit Type
Single-family
Number
3,112
Multi-family
343
Mobile homes
158
Boat, RV, van, etc.
0
Total housing units
3,613
According to the Payne County Assessor’s Office, there are 4,225 properties within the
City of Cushing. Numbers of properties with improvements (buildings, garages, pools,
storage, and so forth), by type, are shown in Table 1-3. An average value of $341,533
was determined by calculating square-footage for structures identified as
commercial/industrial in the Tornado Scenario. The estimated value for commercial/
industrial properties in Cushing is $231,900,907. No land values are included. The
locations of mobile homes and mobile home parks are shown on the map in Figure 1–5.
City of Cushing
10
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
Main St
Wilson
33
18
Pine Ave
Noble
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
Broadway St
"
!
33
Oak St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Eseco
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
0
0.5
MILES
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line
Water Features W
Railroads
City Limit
Payne County
Lincoln County
1
E
S
Percent of Population
Age 65 and Older
32.3% - 63.6%
63.7% - 100%
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
Cottonwood
Creek
Figure 1-3
City of Cushing
Age 65 & Older
Population Locations
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
Broadway St
Wilson
Main St
33
18
Pine Ave
Noble
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
"
!
33
Oak St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Elm Creek
Little Rd
Eseco
0.00 - 4.16
4.17 - 10.31
10.32 - 18.81
18.82 - 33.01
33.02 - 55.20
LEGEND
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
0
State Highways
Roads
County Line
Water Features
Railroads
City Limit
Linwood Rd
LEGEND
% Population in Poverty
By Census Block Group
0.5
1
MILES
N
W
E
S
Cottonwood
Creek
Figure 1-4
City of Cushing
Low Income Areas
Source: 2000 U.S. CENSUS
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
Wilson
Main St
33
18
Pine Ave
Noble
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
"
!
33
Oak St
Broadway St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
Eseco
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
0
0.5
1
MILES
Mobile Home Parks
State Highways
Roads
W
County Line
Water Features
Railroads
City Limit
N
E
S
Cottonwood
Creek
Figure 1-5
City of Cushing
Mobile Home Parks
Table 1–3: City of Cushing Properties by Improvement Type
Source: Payne County Assessor’s Office
Improvement Type on
Property
Number of
Properties
Residential
3535
Commercial
679
Agriculture
11
Total
4225
1.2.5 Local Utilities—Lifelines
Lifelines are defined as those infrastructure facilities that are essential to the function of
the community and the well being of its residents. They generally include transportation
and utility systems. Transportation systems include interstate, US, and state highways,
railways, waterways, ports and harbors, and airports. Utility systems include electric
power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, water, and wastewater. The following
table shows a list of companies or entities that supply utilities for Cushing.
Table 1–4: Utility Suppliers for Cushing
Utility
Supplier
Electric
City of Cushing
Water
City of Cushing
Sewage Treatment
City of Cushing
Natural Gas
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, Exoko, and
Reliant Energy Company
Telephone
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Cushing’s water system consists of two separate and independent water sources. The
primary water supply is the 591-acre Cushing Lake served by a 4,000,000 gpd treatment
plant. Two separate water lines (12 inch and 20 inch) deliver treated water to the City's
two 1,000,000 gallons reservoirs. The second system is the Cushing's deep water well
field with a capacity of 3,000,000 gpd expandable to 6,000,000 gpd. The combined total
production capacity of the water system, is 6,500,000 gpd. Current maximum demand for
City water is approximately 2,000,000 gpd.
1.2.6 Economy
Cushing is known for its convenient proximity to Oklahoma City, Stillwater, and Tulsa
while maintaining a small town atmosphere. The City of Cushing is a participant in the
Oklahoma Main Street Program, dedicated to revitalizing and maintaining the central
business districts of communities in Oklahoma.
Of Cushing’s population over the age of 16 years, 47.9% are in the labor force and only
2.5% are unemployed. Of the people employed, about 73.3% are private wage and salary
workers, 19.5% are government workers, and 7.1% are self-employed in unincorporated
City of Cushing
14
businesses. The median household income in 1999 was $26,483, and the median family
income was $32,284.
1.2.7 Industry
The City of Cushing maintains its rich history in the oil industry. At one time, the city
maintained one of the most productive oil fields in the world and the region was part of
the nation’s second largest oil refinery locations. Today, the City’s main industry is in the
petroleum storage industry. Nearly a dozen companies have pipelines and storage
facilities in the Cushing area. The major employers in the area are the Cushing Regional
Hospital (280), the Cushing Public Schools system (286) and the City Government (137).
The Cimarron Correctional Facility is a medium security prison built by the City and sold
to CCA for profit. It employs 250 workers. The City’s income is maintained chiefly by
the sale of electricity to its citizens. Sales taxes provide a minimal portion of the city’s
income. The largest sector of the established businesses is in retail trade and the largest
employing industry is in the educational, health and social services fields.
Cushing maintains three industrial parks within the City limits to accommodate industry
and attract growth to the City. Andrew Little Industrial Park is located in NE Cushing at
Linwood Avenue and Pine Street. South Industrial Park is located along the southern
edge of the City on Little Avenue and Eseco Road. The Cushing Municipal Airport is one
of several businesses occupying the industrial park. The third industrial park is located
along State Highway 18 at Grandstaff Road in north Cushing.
1.2.8 Future Development
The Cushing Metropolitan Area is growing at an annual rate of 0.11%. Comparatively,
the State of Oklahoma is growing at 1% annually. The population of Cushing peaked in
the 30’s at 9,301. It has since seen increases and decreases, most recently growing from a
community of 7,218 in 1990 to 8,371 in 2000.
As a participant in Oklahoma’s Main Streets Program and the Oklahoma Certified Cities
Program, Cushing is taking appropriate actions to continue attracting investors to its
Central Business District. Cushing continues to be a major location for the petroleum
storage industry and pipeline operations, with development presently occurring in the
storage tank fields primarily south of town.
Growth Trends
Cushing is primarily experiencing residential growth towards the east and southeast. New
single-family construction building permits have steadily increased in the past 3 years.
Since 1996, 68 single-family building permits have been approved with combined
average costs exceeding $960,000. Much of the development is occurring south of 9th
Street and east of Linwood Ave. Commercial development includes petroleum storage
tank development in tank farms further south and east of the community. Development
outside the floodplain is encouraged in these areas experiencing growth. Wal-Mart is
building a new SuperCenter on the north side of OK Hwy 33 on Cushing’s east side.
City of Cushing
15
1.3 Regulatory Framework
This section contains a summary of the current ordinances for land use, zoning,
subdivision, stormwater management, stream management, and erosion management in
the City of Cushing. It also lists the current building codes and fire insurance rating.
1.3.1 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning
The Planning Team reviewed relevant community studies, plans, reports, and technical
documents in the inventory, evaluation and plan phases of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan development. The Comprehensive Plan was used to determine community growth
patterns and identify areas of future development. The Capital Improvements Plan was
used to determine priorities of public infrastructure improvements, and timing of
potential future development. These plans were used to identify areas of future growth
and development so that hazardous areas could be identified, evaluated, planned for, and
appropriate mitigation measures taken.
Cushing’s Comprehensive Plan defines policies for providing guidance and direction of
the city’s physical development. It covers ordinances for land use, zoning and
subdivision, and the development of standards for transportation and public facilities.
1.3.2 Floodplain and Stormwater Management
Cushing has been a National Flood Insurance Program community since July 16, 1980,
Community Number 400165.
1.3.3 Building Codes
Existing Building Code and ordinances were evaluated to determine their adequacy in
meeting the needs of the community in addressing the natural and man-made hazards the
community is likely to experience. The Flood Ordinance was evaluated as to its adequacy
in addressing current and future floodplain and stormwater management needs.
The City of Cushing currently enforces the following 2003 ICC Codes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
International Building Code
International Fire Code
International Fuel Gas Code
International Mechanical Code
International Plumbing Code
International Property Maintenance Code
NFPA Life Safety Code
Currently in adoption phases of the 2002 NEC (electric code)
16
1.3.4 Fire Insurance
Cushing has a fire insurance rating of 6. Ratings range from 1 to 10, where lower
numbers have better ratings.
1.3.5 Fire Resources
The City of Cushing Fire Department is unique to the State of Oklahoma due to the
petroleum industry activity in the City’s vicinity. The City of Cushing owns equipment
unique and necessary to an oil field response including one of only two foam pumpers in
the state. The Safety Alliance of Cushing (SAC) is an organized committee of local
pipeline company representatives, state and local emergency management officials, the
local and state police and fire departments, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Payne and
Lincoln County Sheriff's Departments, city officials, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation formed to address planning, safety and response issues. The incident
command system is actively used by the City of Cushing’s Fire, Police and EOC
operations as well as the privately owned correctional facility in town. Resources
available to the Cushing Fire Department are presented in Table 1-5.
1.3.6 Police Resources
The Cushing Police Department has 18 Full-time Sworn Officers, 19 Vehicles with
radios, 4 Dispatchers, 12 Walkie-Talkies, 1 K-9 Unit, and a OLETS Teletype System in
place.
Table 1–5: Cushing Fire Department Resources
Community
Phone #
Alternate #
Fire Stations
Base Stations
Mobile Radios
Pagers
Hand-Held Radios
Paid Manpower
Volunteers
Pump Engines
a. 250 GPM
b. 500 GPM
c. 750 GPM
d. 1000 GPM
e. 1250 GPM
Ladder Trucks
Elev.Platforms
Brush Pumpers
Tanker Trucks
Rescue Calls (Yes/No)
Crash-Fire Rescue(Yes/No)
Underwater Rescue(Yes/No)
Rescue Squads (Yes/No)
City of Cushing
Cushing Fire Department
918-225-3361
918-225-4234
1
1
18
23
15
22
0
6
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ambulances (ALS/BLS)
0/3
Trained EMTs
23
First Responders
0
Sedans
2
Utility Trucks
1
Pick-up Trucks
1
SCBAs/Spare Bottles
15/8
Generators
6
Light Systems
1
Wreckers
1
Gasoline Trucks
1
Boats
1
Mutual Aid with:
a. Stillwater
b. Ripley
c. Perkins
d. Glenco
e. Agra
f. Lincoln Co. FD’s
g. Drumright
h. Creek Co. FD’s
i. Yale
j. S.A.C.
k. Ingalls
l.
Other Resources: Jaws of Life, float pump, Foam Truck,
Mobile Cascade System, 3 Class-A Haz-Mat Suits,
Command Vehicle, Trench and Confined Space Rescue
Vehicle, Winch Truck
17
1.4 Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs
Communities can do a number of things to prevent or mitigate the impacts of natural
disasters. Such actions range from instituting regulatory measures (e.g., building and
zoning codes) and establishing Emergency Operations Plans and EOCs, to purchasing
fire trucks and ambulances and constructing large and small infrastructure projects like
levees and safe rooms. Most communities have already made considerable investments in
these critical areas. The sections that follow in the remainder of this Chapter survey the
regulations, plans and infrastructure that the community has in place for avoiding or
mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. This survey is based on FEMA’s State and
Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide (FEMA 386-1, September 2002), and covers
the following topics: Public Information and Education, Prevention, Structural Projects,
Property Protection, Emergency Services, and Natural Resource Protection.
There are several national hazard mitigation programs developed by FEMA and other
agencies that are designed to help communities organize their mitigation activities to
achieve tangible results in specific areas, such as flood protection and fire hazard
abatement. This section also looks at Cushing’ participation and progress in these
national programs.
Cushing’s location as a community in Oklahoma makes it especially vulnerable to the
threat of severe weather, hazardous material incidents, and flooding. To counter these
hazards, Cushing has a host of programs that range from informing people about
protection measures, warning the public of impending threats, requiring protection
measures to be incorporated in new buildings, and constructing flood control projects.
Cushing has a large portion of the corporate boundaries in a floodplain. All efforts to
mitigate the impact of hazards have helped, but they have not eliminated all potential
problems.
1.4.1 Community Rating System (CRS)
The CRS is a part of the National Flood Insurance Program that helps coordinate all
flood-related activities of a community. The City of Cushing does not participate in the
Community Rating System.
1.4.2 Flood and Stormwater Management Plans
The City of Cushing, due to the small number of properties impacted by drainage and
flooding problems, has not developed Master Drainage Plans.
1.4.3 Capital Improvements Plans
Cushing has received a Community Development Block Grant to inventory infrastructure
features for Capital Improvement Planning. The following are improvements the City has
completed or are on-going projects.
City of Cushing
18
Airport: The City has recently completed improvements to the runway and an airport
expansion project.
Parks: The City of Cushing has recently replaced the municipal swimming pool at
Memorial Park and completed repairs to the tennis courts. A Pavilion has been added in
Northwest Park and a baseball complex is under design.
Cushing Public Library: In the late 1930’s the citizens of Cushing decided to modernize
the existing public library and relocated it from the top floor of City Hall to a newly
constructed building. The development occurred as a WPA project with a cost of $84,000
to build. Today, one of the functions of the library is to serve as a public storm shelter
during tornado season. A recently completed project has replaced all ceiling tiles in the
library and design plans to add a new roof to the building are underway.
Police Department: The City of Cushing has recently replaced the base radio system used
by emergency responders including the Police and Fire Departments. Currently, two fullsize police package vehicles with all add-on equipment are being acquired by the City.
Construction of a new police station and firing range is also being considered.
Fire Department: The City of Cushing has recently replaced one ambulance and acquired
another new ambulance. The Department is also planning to make an addition to the
station and replace the 1250 GPM Fire Engine and Equipment.
Street Improvements: The City has an ongoing street rehabilitation program replacing
streets where overlays are needed improvements. A storage building has been constructed
for sand/salt storage at the service center yard. The city has also purchased a street
sweeper and a grader.
Storm Drainage: The Central Business District is one of several areas in the City
scheduled for maintenance and repair of the drainage systems.
Electric: Recently, the City has replaced the Blower Room roof at the Electric Production
Plant and completed three planned phases of electric line replacement.
Sewer: The City has replaced the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant and 3,500 feet of
the main line from Lions Park to the Plant. The City has plans to extend the treatment
lines to the airport and continues to rehabilitate existing sanitary sewer collection lines.
Water: The water supply and treatment improvements have been completed and
replacement of several existing lines is ongoing.
1.4.4 Emergency Operations Plan
The Emergency Operations Plan was evaluated during the planning process to ensure
that it adequately addressed the hazards identified in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
and that the Plan took the EOP into account during the planning process. The 2000
Mitigation Assistance Plan was reviewed, and its information, findings, and
recommendations were incorporated into the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
City of Cushing
19
Cushing Emergency Management has established emergency operations and procedures.
The Emergency Management Office has recently applied to participate in the National
Weather Service accredited program StormReady. Requirements for the program include
an established warning point and 24-hour functioning emergency operations center,
multiple means of both, receiving severe weather forecasts and providing warnings to
alert the public, systems to monitor local weather conditions, promotion of public safety
information, and a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe
weather spotters and holding emergency exercises. The Cushing Emergency Management
Office has provided advanced training to 17 volunteer Storm Spotters who are capable of
providing accurate warning information from the field as well as supporting damage
assessments in the aftermath of an emergency. All volunteers have in their vehicles,
radios in place for communication. The EOC is located in the Fire Department basement
and is equipped with radios, telephones and internet access. NWS and commercial radar
are available as well as live NexRad radar and measurements including rainfall, wind
speed/direction and temperature are provided in real time in the Emergency Operations
office by the Oklahoma’s First-response
Information Resource System using
Telecommunications (OKFIRST). Radar
interpretation is performed by four trained
individuals. All equipment in the weather
center has an emergency generator back up
system.
The City of Cushing has 23 warning sirens
strategically placed around the community.
A full-activated test is performed once a
month on a regularly scheduled basis. The
sirens can be activated at the weather
center or at the fire department. The City
also has a cable over ride system to alert
the public by television of an impending
hazard event. Cushing’s Emergency
Manager has a paging system available on
a personal cell phone and uses the Cushing
Police Department Dispatcher as a 24-hour
warning point. Area municipalities with
The Cushing Public Schools EOP provides
mutual aid agreements also advise Cushing
guidance and procedures specific to each
school for staff to follow during emergency
Emergency Management with information
events.
on severe weather situations. The City of
Cushing has funded and is in the ongoing
process of upgrading and maintaining it’s
city-wide outdoor warning siren systems. The City of Cushing’s Warning Sirens are
shown in Figure 1–6.
City of Cushing
20
1.4.5 Critical Facilities
Critical facilities are defined differently by different organizations and agencies, but are
usually classified as those facilities that, if put out of operation by any cause, would have
a broadly adverse impact on the community as a whole.
FEMA includes the following as critical facilities:
•
•
•
•
Structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable,
explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials;
Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who may not
be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a disaster;
Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and
emergency operations centers that are needed for disaster response activities
before, during, and after an event; and
Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal
services to affected areas before, during and after an event.
This may also include buildings designated as emergency shelters, schools, childcare
centers, senior citizen centers, major medical facilities, disability centers, and City Hall.
Since 9/11, FEMA has also added banks and other financial institutions to their critical
facilities list.
The City of Cushing’s critical facilities are shown in Figure 1–7 and listed in Table 1-6.
1.4.6 Cushing Public Schools
The City of Cushing public school system is proactively involved in hazard mitigation
activities including planning and implementing mitigation measures. The City’s School
Superintendent has applied for a HMGP grant to remove plate glass windows and replace
them with safety glass. All windows currently installed will have a safety film applied to
them designed to prevent dangerous glass shards from forming when the plate is broken.
In addition, all broken windows will be replaced with new safety glass. Several of the
schools have implemented safety measures including limited entry access, school “lockdown” drills and guest sign-in and badges. Each school also has an Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP) integrated into the City’s EOP. In addition, the City of Cushing is
educating the School Board on safe rooms and the new State Law and funding
opportunities
City of Cushing
21
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
18
#
Y
Pine Ave
#Y
#
Y
#
Y
#Y
#
Y
33
#Y
#Y
Cottonwood
Creek
Little Rd
Elm Creek
"
!
#Y
Oak St
Broadway St
#
Y #
Y 3rd St #Y
#Y 6th St
#
Y 9th St
9th St
Eseco
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
#
Y
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Vine St
Wilson Ave
"
!
Main St
#
Y
Linwood Rd
#
Y
33
18
Little Rd
Grandstaff Rd
Noble
Kings Hwy
#
Y
0
0.5
MILES
Sirens
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line
W
Water Features
S
Railroads
City Limit
1
E
Figure 1-6
City of Cushing
Warning Siren
Locations
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
18
30
Grandstaff Rd
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
11
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
#Y
#Y
38
#Y
32
#Y
28
#Y
14
35
#
Y#
Y
Eseco
5
#
Y
#
Y
0
0.5
Critical Facilities MILES
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line
W
Water Features
S
Railroads
City Limit
Y
Cottonwood 12 #
Creek
40
#Y
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
33
Wilson
31
6
"
!
19
#17
Y
23
#
26
Y
2 20 9
#Y St 27
#Y Oak
#Y10
Y#
1#
Y
Y #
#
Y
4
Y 29Broadway St
33
34
Y#
# 18#
Y
#
Y16 3rd St #Y21 #Y3 #Y15#Y #Y 7
36 13
#Y
#
Y #
Y 22 #Y37 6th St
39
8#
#Y 25
Y#Y 9th St
#Y
Wilson Ave
9th St
Noble
Main St
33
18
#
Y
Little Rd
"
!
#
Y
0#
Y
Pine Ave
24 Vine St
1
E
Payne County
Lincoln County
Figure 1-7
City of Cushing
Critical Facilities
Table 1–6: Cushing Critical Facilities
ID
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Name
Cushing Water Treatment Plant
Cushing Police
Payne County Sheriff
Cushing City Hall
Cushing Power Generation
Cushing Fire Dept.
Emergency Operations Center
Cushing Regional Hospital
Maintenance Center
Cushing Regional Airport
Cimarron Correctional Facility
Valley Hope Rehabilitation Center
Cushing Youth Center
Cushing Middle School
Cushing High School
Deep Rock Elementary School
Harmony Elementary School
Harrison Elementary School
Sunnyside Elementary School
Wilson School
Cushing Senior Citizen Center
Bank of Cushing
Bank of Cushing
Commercial Federal Bank
Spirit Bank
Cushing Child Care
Cushing Day Care Nursery
Cushing Head Start
Early Bird Headstart
Gazaway Child Care Home
Kiddie Korner Day Care
Kirk Child Care Home
Moore Child Care Home
Presbyterian Preschool
Shirley's Child Care Center
Small Miracles Christian
Susan Todd's Child Care
Thompson Child Care Home
Timmons Child Care Home
Wallis Child Care Home
Zuniga Child Care Home
Eskew Child Care Home
Bozworth Child Care Home
Choate Child Care Home
Cushing Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Cushing
Address
1100 N. Maitlen Dr.
100 Judy Adams Blvd.
323 N. Harrison
323 N. Harrison
1027 E. Cherry St.
514 W. Cherry
11 W. Airport
3700 SW Kings Highway
100 S. Jones
800 S. Little
316 N. Steele Ave.
1700 E. Walnut St.
2601 N. Linwood Ave.
1601 S. Harmony Rd.
610 S. Noble Ave.
1919 S Kings Hwy
1140 E. Cherry St.
203 E. Cherry St.
2106 E. Main St.
224 E. Broadway St.
421 E. Main St.
300 N. Harrison Ave.
223 S. Wilson
800 S. Little
503 N. Highland
111 W. Vine St.
1536 E. 9th St.
825 E. Maple
301 N. Linwood Ave.
1523 S. Little Ave.
301 E. Moses
704 E. Scissortail
930 S. Little Ave.
1732 N. Little Ave.
1229 E. Cherry St.
1441 E. Cherry St.
2250 S. Kings Hwy
127 W. 5th St.
848 E. 6th.
3303 N. Harmony Rd.
814 S. Holmes
2701 Esesco Rd.
24
Phone
(918) 223-2915
(918) 225-1212
(918) 225-1212
(918) 225-0277
(918) 225-3035
(918) 225-3361
(918) 225-3361
(918) 225-2915
(918) 225-0790
(918) 225-6979
(918) 225-3336
(918) 225-1736
(918) 225-2761
(918) 225-1311
(918) 225-6622
(918) 225-4497
(918) 225-4697
(918) 225-4433
(918) 225-1635
(918) 225-4683
(918) 225-5333
(918) 225-2012
(918) 225-2010
(918) 225-4440
(918) 225-3434
(918) 225-0253
(918) 225-2761
(918) 762-3041
(918) 225-1029
(918) 225-2024
(918) 225-0343
(918) 285-5557
(918) 225-0981
(918) 225-0626
(918) 225-4349
(918) 225-5683
(918) 225-7552
(918) 225-6038
(918) 225-1389
(918) 225-5149
(918) 225-3229
(918) 225-2816
(918) 225-6267
(918) 225-6124
(918) 225-4634
1.4.7 Public Education and Information
A successful public information and education program involves both the public and
private sectors. Public information and education activities advise and educate citizens,
property owners, renters, businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect
people and property from them. Public information activities are among the least
expensive mitigation measures, and at the same time are often the most effective thing a
community can do to save lives and property. All mitigation activities—preventive,
structural, property protection, emergency services, and natural resource protection—
begin with public information and education.
The City of Cushing is in the process of implementing several Public Education and
Information programs to help inform the public and businesses about various hazards and
how to prepare and/or avoid them. These measures include:
● Develop a “Helping Your Neighbors” program through the school system to
encourage children to think of people who require special assistance (e.g., elders,
infants, and persons with disabilities) during severe weather conditions (e.g.,
winter storms and extreme heat.)
● Educate the public on the dangers of carbon monoxide pollution and the use of
appropriate heating systems during power outages
● Develop public information and education programs and provide materials about
construction methods and mitigation measures that protect a building’s roof, all
outside openings, and the building envelope for overall structural resistance to
tornadoes, high winds, and minor earthquakes.
● Encourage utilities to provide lightning prevention information materials and
programs to their customers.
● Educate the community about proper lightning safety through public service
announcements and other media outlets.
● Prepare and distribute a public information document letting people know that
they are in the dam failure inundation area.
● Develop public information and education plans for responding to natural hazards
and hazardous materials events.
City of Cushing
25
Chapter 2:
The Planning Process
The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a citywide effort to coordinate the multi-hazard
planning, development, and mitigation activities of the City of Cushing. The City of
Cushing was 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
Expansive Soils
Urban Fires
Wildfires
Earthquakes
Hazardous Materials Events
Dam Failures
Transportation
The planning for the City of Cushing followed a ten-step process, based on the guidance
and requirements of FEMA. The ten steps are described below.
2.1
Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan
(January 2004-February 2004)
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.
Cushing Planning Commission & Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory
Committee
The planning process was formally created by a resolution of the governing body of
Cushing. The resolution created the Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee (CHMCAC) to oversee the planning effort.
The Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee consists of members of the
Planning Commission. The CHMCAC members are:
City of Cushing
26
Boyd Vratil – Member, Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee; thirty-one years experience in tank farm operations; responsible
for managing over nine million barrels of tank storage; helped set up local oil
company coops in fire fighting and oil spills; strong background in DOT 195,
193, LEPC, Tank Farm fire fighting, containing oil spills and government
regulations.
Tim O’Dell – Member, Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee; Currently serving as Warden of the Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing, Born in Russellville, Kentucky; attended Western
Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky Universities. Has served in law enforcement
and corrections since 1969 with positions including Radio Dispatcher, Jail
Guard, Traffic and Patrol Officer, Chaplain Chief, Deputy Warden for
Programs and Operations, Chief of Security and has been Warden at four
different correctional facilities. He is happily married with three children and
three grandsons
Oren Jones – Member, Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee; Entered Cushing Fire Service December 1959; Retired as Fire
Chief, March 1981. Employed by City of Cushing April 1981 to September
1984 as Rehabilitation Coeds Officer for a $1.7 Million Community
Development Block Grant for the West side of Cushing. Retained as Code
Enforcement Officer until retirement in May of 1999. Also served as
Emergency Manager for the City of Cushing from April 1981 to May 1999.
Paul Mitchell – Member, Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee; Support Services Coordinator for Cushing Regional Hospital
James H. Shields – Member, Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory
Committee; Director of School Plant for Cushing Public Schools; Jim has
worked as an educator since 1971, the first 12 years as a teacher and coach
and the last 21 years as director of school plant. He has a Bachelor of Science
from Oklahoma State University and a Masters Degree from Central State
University.
City of Cushing
27
Supporting the Citizens Committee is the Staff Technical Advisory Committee (STAC),
which includes representatives of departments that have roles in hazards planning,
response, protection, and mitigation. Most of the detail work was done by a management
team of the following staff and consultants:
Staff Technical Advisory Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dennis Fisher – Fire Chief/Project Mgr.
Brent Kerr – Deputy Fire Chief
Andrew Katz – City Manager
Stephen Spears – Asst. City Manager &
City Engineer
Bob Noltensmeyer – Emergency Manager
Bill Myers – Police Chief
Terry Brannon – Asst. Police Chief
Mitigation Planning Process
The STAC met periodically during the year’s
planning process. STAC members also
attended all meetings of the Citizens Advisory
Committee and meetings with elected officials.
Consultants:
•
Ronald D. Flanagan, CFM, Principal
Planner, R.D. Flanagan & Associates,
The STAC met monthly at the Cushing City
Hall during the planning process to review
progress, identify issues, receive task
assignments, and advise the consultants. A list
of CHMCAC meetings, STAC meetings, and
meetings and dates with governing bodies is
shown in Table 2-1. Refer to Appendix B for
meeting agendas.
City of Cushing
28
Table 2–1: Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens and Technical
Advisory Committee Meetings and Activities
Date
Activity
Jan. 9, 2004
City Council approved and accepted FEMA/ODEM HMGP Grant.
Jan. 20, 2004
Cushing City Council meeting approving the MHMG contract and the
formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee to oversee the planning phases.
Feb. 5, 2004
City Council adopts Resolution appointing the City of Cushing Hazard
Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee (CHMCAC).
Feb. 5, 2004
Cushing Citizen Advisory Committee meeting: Discussion of Resolution.
Discuss definitions and overview of Hazard Mitigation. Review and
discussion of the 2000 Stafford Act requirements, the 10-Step Planning
Process, Overview of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, selection of Hazards to
be investigated, timelines, and future meeting dates and times.
Mar. 4, 2004
CHMCAC meeting: Discussion of ICS, Review material and maps, Discuss
Community Mitigation Activities
April 8, 2004
CHMCAC meeting: Review HMP material including community info –
Chapter 1, and Identified Hazards – Chapter 3. Document input on historic
hazard events, discuss hazard/community risk assessment results
May 6, 2004
CHMCAC meeting; review hazards, risk and vulnerable populations; review
damage scenarios.
June 17, 2004
CHMCAC meeting, City Hall, Discuss 911 addressing, Enhanced 911, FBI
maps and aerial photos; review and discuss possible mitigation strategies for
each hazard, including Public Information and Education, Preventive
Measures, Structural Projects, Property Protection, Emergency Services,
and Natural Resource Protection.
July 15, 2004
CHMCAC Meeting; hand out identified Mitigation Measures fro each strategy
and hazard for CAC to screen for applicability to Cushing.
July 27, 2004
Consultants receive selected/screened Mitigation Measures from CHMCAC
and TAC.
Sept. 9, 2004
CHMCAC meeting; Screened Mitigation Measures handed out to CAC,
members to prioritize Measures.
Nov. 12, 2004
CHMCAC meeting; review prioritized Mitigation Measures, finalize Mitigation
Measures, Action Plan items. Approve Plan, establish Public Hearing dates
before the Planning Commission and City Commission.
Dec. 15, 2004
Public Hearing before the Cushing Planning Commission; adoption of MultiHazard Mitigation Plan as amendment to Comprehensive Plan; recommend
adoption by City Council.
Dec. 20, 2004
Public Hearing before the Cushing City Council, adoption of Resolution
approving City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Dec. 28, 2004
Submission of City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to Oklahoma
Department of Emergency Management for review and approval, and
submission to FEMA.
City of Cushing
29
2.2
Step Two: Involve the Public
(January 2004 – Ongoing)
In addition to the CHMCAC, the management team of STAC undertook many projects to
inform the public of this effort and to solicit their input. All meetings of the CHMCAC
were publicly posted as required by ordinances and rules of the jurisdiction. Public
meetings were held at the beginning of the planning process. Workshops were held to
review the hazards and to develop and identify mitigation measures for each natural and
technological hazard. Opportunities for public review and input into the process and plan
were provided at each publicly posted meeting of the CHMCAC and the Public Hearings
before the Planning Commission and City Council.
2.3
Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and Organizations
(January 2004 – February 2004)
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 Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation
planning program. A list of agencies contacted and sample letters are included below.
The Emergency Operations Plan is administered under the Cushing Emergency
Management Agency. The Public Works and Planning Departments play a key role
during most emergencies.
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
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
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
City of Cushing
30
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Regional
Central Oklahoma Economic Development District (COEDD)
County
Payne County
Payne City/County Health Department
Payne Area Emergency Management Agency
Cushing
Office of the City Manager
Department of Community Development
Department of Public Works
Police Department
Fire Department
City of Cushing
31
Cushing Fire Department
323 N. Harrison
Cushing, OK 74023-3303
(918) 225-3361
Lonnie Ward
FEMA. Region VI
800 N. Loop 288
Denton, TX 76209
April 8, 2004
Subject: City of Cushing, Oklahoma Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Dear Lonnie Ward:
The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency have awarded the City of Chickasha a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) grant to develop a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for their community.
The planning process began January 20, 2004, and is expected to be completed by
October 31, 2004. A Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee and a Staff
Hazard Mitigation Technical Advisory Committee have been appointed by the City of Cushing
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 multi-hazard mitigation plan.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service to you, please contact our
Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Mr. Dennis Fisher at (918) 225-3361.
Sincerely,
Dennis Fisher
Deputy Fire Chief
Encl: Mitigation Planning Schedule
City of Cushing
32
2.4
Step Four: Assess the Hazard
(January 2004 – March 2004)
The management team collected data on the hazards from available sources. Hazard
assessment is included in Chapter 3, with the discussion of each hazard.
Table 2–2: How and Why Hazards Were Identified
Hazard
Floods
How Identified
•
•
•
Tornadoes
•
•
•
•
Why Identified
Review of FEMA and City
floodplain maps
Buildings in the floodplains
Historical floods and damages
(detailed in Chapter 2)
•
Review of recent disaster
declarations
Input from Emergency Manager
Consensus of Hazard Mitigation
Citizens Advisory Committee
Review of data from the National
Climatic Data Center
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.7% of the City of Cushing is
located in the floodplains
Over $2 million of property at risk
Cushing is located in “Tornado
Alley”
An average of 52 tornadoes per
year strike Oklahoma
Cushing has had 16 tornado
events in or close to city since
1937
Oklahoma City tornado of 1999
killed 42 people and destroyed
899 buildings
All citizens and buildings are at
risk
High Winds
•
•
National Weather Service data
Loss information provided by
national insurance companies
•
16 high wind-related events in
Cushing since 1993, and over
$179,000 in damage
Lightning
•
National Climatic Data Center
information and statistics
•
Oklahoma ranks 15th in lightning
related casualties
Cushing has had 4 lightning
events since 1992
88 deaths and 243 injuries over
36 years due to lightning
•
•
Hailstorms
•
and State Disaster Declarations
•
•
Severe Winter
Storms
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Review of past disaster
declarations
Input from Safety Alliance of
Cushing (SAC) and Cushing
Emergency Management
Input from area utility companies
33
•
•
•
•
Grapefruit size hail fell on
Cushing in 1977
Fourteen hail events in Cushing
since 1993
Severe winter storms are an
annual event in the Cushing area
Wide-spread economic
disruption
Massive public utility outages
Three winter storm-related
Federal Disaster Declarations in
the past 3 years, requiring over
$330 million in Federal
assistance
Hazard
Extreme Heat
How Identified
•
•
Drought
•
•
Why Identified
Review of number of heat-related
deaths and injuries during hot
Oklahoma summers
Review of data from National
Climatic Data Center and
National Center for Disease
Control
•
Historical vulnerability to drought,
the “Dust Bowl” era
Recent (2002) drought and water
shortages in Bartlesville, just
north of Tulsa
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expansive
Soils
•
•
•
•
Urban Fires
•
Input from COEDD
Input from City Building
Inspections Department
Review of Natural Resource
Conservation Service data
Input from Oklahoma
Department of Transportation
•
Input from State Fire Marshal
•
•
•
•
Wildfires
•
•
•
Earthquakes
•
•
•
Hazardous
Materials
Events
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Input from area Rural Fire Depts.
Input from surrounding county &
community fire departments
Input from State Fire Marshal
•
Historic records of area
earthquakes
Input from Oklahoma Geological
Survey
Input from USGS
•
Input from Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC)
Input from SAC
Input from Oklahoma Dept. of
Environmental Quality
Input from Emergency First
Responders (Cushing Fire and
Police Departments)
•
34
•
•
•
•
•
Four extreme heat events in
Cushing since 1993
High percentage of poor and
elderly populations at risk
44 heat-related deaths in
Oklahoma in the last 5 years
Continuing mid-west and western
drought and impacts on
Oklahoma communities
Three drought events in Payne
County in last 7 years
Acute awareness of Oklahoma’s
population to the severe results
of drought
Need to ensure adequate longterm-water resources for the City
of Cushing
Some expansive soils are
present in the City of Cushing
Damage to buildings from
expansive soils can be mitigated
with public information and
building code provision
Older, deteriorating frame homes
with substandard heating
Severe winter storms
Continuing loss of life and
property due to house fires
Fires of the urban/rural interface
threaten Cushing properties
134 wildfire runs for Cushing Fire
Department in 2005-2006
Several miles of Cushing’s
perimeter are exposed and
vulnerable to wildfires
Payne County has a history of
mild earthquakes
Since 1977 Payne County has
experienced earthquakes on the
average of once every 5 years
21 hazardous materials sites
scattered throughout the
community
39 hazardous material events in
last 15 years
Major trafficways expose
Cushing to potential trafficway
hazardous materials incidents
Hazard
Dam Failures
How Identified
•
•
•
Transportation
•
•
•
2.5
Why Identified
Dam releases and floods in 1986
and 1989
Input from US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE)
Input from Oklahoma Water
Resources Board, (OWRB), Dam
Safety Division
•
Input from Oklahoma
Department of Transportation
Input from Bureau of
Transportation Statistics
Input from Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population and buildings below
dam are very vulnerable in event
of release or dam failure
Dam break/release contingency
plan needs updating
Warning systems need to be
updated and refined
Various dam release rates
should be GIS mapped, and
properties at risk identified
Population and Property in
transportation corridors are
vulnerable to incidents
Hazardous material incidents are
common in transportation
incidents
Cushing is the oil and gas
pipeline crossroads of US
Step Five: Assess the Problem
(January 2004 – April 2004)
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 COEDD. They prepared several analyses using their
geographic information system. The discussion of the problem assessment is addressed
for each hazard in Chapter 3.
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
Cushing’s 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 Cushing was obtained from the
Payne 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
City of Cushing
35
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: In addition to the HAZUS Model, flooding damage estimates for
building and contents were confirmed using actual structures’ estimated flood depth,
determined by aerial topographic mapping, and field investigations. Maps of the
floodplains are included in Chapter 3.
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: Payne County Assessor.
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;
35% would suffer 50% damage, and 40% would suffer slight to moderate or average 25%
damage.
2.6
Step Six: Set Goals
(January 2004 – April 2004)
Project and community hazard mitigation goals and objectives for Cushing were
developed by the CHMCAC to guide the development of the plan. The hazard mitigation
goals for the City are listed in Chapter 4.
2.7
Step Seven: Review Possible Activities
(April 2004 – August 2004)
A wide variety 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 4: Mitigation
Strategies.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
6. Natural Resource Protection—Wetlands and floodplain protection, natural and
beneficial uses of the floodplain, and best management practices
City of Cushing
36
MITIGATION MEASURE PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
The Hazard Mitigation Staff Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory
Committee, to determine and prioritize the most appropriate risk reduction strategies for
the individual jurisdiction, developed mitigation measures for the community. The
Mitigation Measures were adopted in Public Hearings as Amendments to the
community’s Comprehensive Plan, and adopted by the City Council.
Mitigation Measure Categories
During the course of the Planning Process, the hazards likely to impact the community
were identified and analyzed. Based on historical records and probability analysis
(Hazards Analysis Matrix, page 3-6), the committees reviewed the previously listed six
Mitigation Activity Categories for each hazard.
Possible mitigation activities for each hazard likely to affect the community were
identified in each of the Mitigation Activity Categories (listed above). Each committee,
after reviewing the list, screened and selected the measures they felt were applicable,
feasible, cost effective, and politically acceptable to their community. These measures,
specifically identified as potentially benefiting the community, were combined into a
new, more community specific list for review.
Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology
Scientific methodology for the evaluation of benefit-cost ratios, of one mitigation
alternative compared to another, was used when possible and practical. For example,
where frequency of disaster events is well established, such as the 10, 50, 100, and 500year flood events, accepted methodologies were used to evaluate building acquisition vs.
other alternatives, such as channelization, flood-proofing, or upstream detention ponds.
Acquisition candidates, when the preferred alternative, were subjected to the FEMA
Riverine Benefit-Cost Module. For other hazards where no scientific methodology existssuch as the evaluation of B/C of Public Information and Education—the desires of the
community were persuasive.
Establishment of Local Priorities
The Citizens Advisory Committee, professional staff, and elected officials fully
understood that acquisition of Repetitive Loss Properties is FEMA’s and the State of
Oklahoma’s highest natural hazard mitigation priority, and that the State’s second priority
was construction of school safe rooms. It is understood that Public Information and
Education about natural and man-made hazards is a State priority under the 5% initiative
and would be funded when grant monies are available.
To prioritize the list of possible mitigation measures, sometimes consisting of over one
hundred identified mitigation measures, the Citizens Advisory Committees’ 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. Mitigation Measures that received no votes were considered being
dropped from the list, but a simple request by a Committee member could keep the
City of Cushing
37
Measure on the list, albeit at the bottom. The Mitigation Measures selected and
prioritized by the voting process, best reflected the values and goals of the community.
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 5-1, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures,
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”.
2.8
Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan
(September 2004 – November 2004)
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, and
• 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.
2.9
Step Nine: Adopt the Plan
(December 2004 – January 2005)
The CHMCAC, the Cushing Planning Commission, approved the final plan, adopted it as
an amendment to the comprehensive plan, and submitted it to the Cushing City Council
for adoption. The Cushing City Council adopted a Resolution approving the City of
Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2.10
Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise
(January 2005 − 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 CHMCAC will meet quarterly to monitor progress, evaluate the
activities, and recommend revisions to the action items. The Cushing Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan will be updated every five years and submitted to FEMA for review prior
to the expiration of the 5-year approval period.
City of Cushing
38
Chapter 3:
Natural and Man-Made Hazards
Introduction
Natural weather-related events, such as floods, tornadoes, severe drought, extreme heat,
high winds, wildfires, and lightning only become disasters when people and their
development are located in nature’s path. When there is human occupation in high-risk
areas, many disaster-related losses can be predicted. Our predictions can be used to create
proactive measures for natural hazard events, and therefore the impact of some events can
be significantly decreased or eliminated.
Each natural hazard has its own characteristics, time of year and geographic area of
probable occurrence, severity, and risk level. Although natural hazards may be
individually identified and categorized, many are interrelated, and a natural hazard event
may involve multiple hazards. Severe thunderstorms, for example, may spawn high
winds, lightning, hailstorms, tornadoes, and flooding.
It is often difficult to identify and attribute damages and costs—to assess the risk of one
particular hazard. Attempts to do so will inevitably be incomplete. However, risk
assessment will grow in accuracy as new technology is continually refined.
This chapter contains a risk identification and assessment of 15 hazards. The natural and
man-made hazards addressed, for purposes of this study, are those hazards deemed most
likely to impact Cushing. They include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
City of Cushing
Floods
Tornadoes
High Winds
Lightning
Hail
Extreme Heat
Drought
9. Expansive Soils
10. Urban Fires
11. Wildfires
12. Earthquakes
13. Hazardous Materials Events
14. Dam Failures
15. Transportation
39
Each hazard section includes the following information:
•
•
•
•
Hazard Profile – Causes, effects, normal frequency (how often it is likely to
occur at a particular location), the extent of the hazards, and available
measurement scales or methods of the severity of the events, if any; the
geographical extent of the hazards; and the identification of any topographic or
geological conditions that would make a particular area prone to a hazard.
Historical Events – Notable past occurrences of the hazard, including national,
state, and local examples, if any. Where available, cost of damage, in terms of
lives and property are included.
Vulnerable Population – The people, geographic locations, and types of property
subject to the particular hazard are identified. For each hazard with a specific
geographic location, such as floodplains, dam break path, levee failure, the
number, types, value of building and contents, and vulnerable populations are
identified.
The planning team used data from the Cushing’s 2000 Census SF3 Data, GIS
modeling, and FEMA methodology recommended in FEMA 386-2, to estimate
the potential dollar losses from the hazards most likely to impact the Cushing
area.
Conclusion – The information provided on each of the hazards is condensed into
a brief summary/conclusion statement.
Hazards Summary
Floods
The accumulation of water within a water body and the overflow of the
excess water onto adjacent lands. The floodplains are the lands adjoining the
channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other watercourse or water body
that is susceptible to flooding.
Having four or more floods in the last century designates a high history of
flooding occurrences in Cushing. Yet, significant areas of Cushing’s
property and/or population do not reside in the 100-year floodplain. A
maximum threat flood would affect less than 1% of the city. Only 26
properties would potentially be at risk of a 100-year event and losses are
estimated to be only $700,000 to those contents and structures. Flooding,
however, is not perceived to be a major problem for Cushing.
Tornadoes
A rapidly rotating vortex or funnel of air extending to the ground from a
cumulonimbus cloud. When the lower tip of a vortex touches earth, the
tornado becomes a force of destruction.
Eight tornadoes have been reported in Cushing since 1950. It is estimated an
average-sized tornado striking Cushing would damage or destroy over 10%
of properties in the city and cause over $43M in damages.
City of Cushing
40
High Winds
Wind is the motion of air relative to the earth’s surface. Extreme windstorm
events are associated with cyclones, severe thunderstorms, and
accompanying phenomena such as tornadoes and downbursts.
High winds are hazards that can be expected nearly every year in Cushing
and will like affect more than 10% of the cities’ property and population.
The people most vulnerable to high wind-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage are those residing in mobile homes (see Figure 1-5 for
location of mobile home parks) and deteriorating or poorly constructed
homes. A worst-case scenario of high wind would affect up to 25% of the
community and there is a high probability another disaster level incident will
occur within the next decade.
Lightning
Lightning is generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud.
When that buildup interacts with the best conducting object or surface on the
ground, the result is a discharge of a lightning bolt. The air in the channel of
a lightning strike reaches temperatures higher than 50,000˚ Fahrenheit.
Oklahoma is vulnerable to frequent thunderstorms and convective weather
patterns, and therefore its vulnerability to lightning is a constant and
widespread threat during the thunderstorm season. The entire community is
at risk from lightning-caused fires, damages and casualties, as indicated by
Payne County’s 18 reported events since 1993. Three of these events
occurred in Cushing, causing $14,000 in damage. All future development
areas are also vulnerable to lightning strikes and their associated damaging
effects.
Hail
A hailstorm is an outgrowth of a severe thunderstorm in which balls or
irregularly shaped lumps of ice fall with rain. Extreme temperature
differences from the ground upward into the jet stream produce strong
updraft winds that cause hail formation.
Hailstorms can be expected nearly every year in Cushing. Payne County has
been hit by hail 268 times since 1955, and Cushing 15 times since 1993. The
entire population is vulnerable, as are all areas of future development. A
severe hailstorm would likely affect more than 10% of the cities’ property
and/or population. A worst-case scenario of a hailstorm would affect up to
25% of the community and there is a high probability another disaster level
incident will occur within the next decade.
City of Cushing
41
Severe Winter
Storms
A severe winter storm is one that drops four or more inches of snow during a
12-hour period, or six or more inches during a 24-hour period. An ice storm
occurs when freezing rain falls from clouds and freezes immediately upon
contact.
Winter storms are the greatest hazard to Cushing as they occur frequently
and affect the entire community. Infrastructure vulnerability, transportation
problems and secondary events, such as widespread utility failures, are
consequences of winter storms. Cushing has been in three federally declared
disasters due to winter storms in since 2001.
Extreme Heat
Extreme summer weather is characterized by a combination of very high
temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions. A heat wave occurs when
such conditions persist over time.
Extreme heat impacts the entire population and can be expected every
summer in Cushing. Even though the population at most risk to extreme heat
(17.6% of Cushing’s population is over 64 and 14.2% is low income)
property damage due to extreme heat is minimal.
Drought
A climatic dryness severe enough to reduce soil moisture and water below
the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and human life systems.
Duration and severity are usually measured by deviation from norms of
annual precipitation and stream flows.
Droughts affect a large segment of the population, but are a minimal threat to
property. Crop losses and mandatory water rationing are possible affects of
severe drought. Two drought events have impacted Payne County in the last
5 years and Oklahoma is currently at the beginning of what is considered by
authorities to be a multi-year drought cycle.
Expansive
Soils
Soils and soft rock that swell and shrink with changes in moisture content are
commonly known as expansive soils.
Expansive soils develop gradually and are seldom a threat to the population.
Approximately 82% of the land area within the city of Cushing has low
shrink/swell potential. The soils in the remaining 18% of land area have
moderate shrink/swell potential.
Urban Fires
A fire that burns a home or other improved structure. Fire generates a black,
impenetrable smoke that blocks vision and stings the eyes, making it often
impossible to navigate and evacuate the building on fire.
Urban fires affect a very small area or group of the population. The low
impact is likely due to the efforts of local fire fighters.
City of Cushing
42
Wildfires
A fire that burns along the ground, moving slowly and killing or damaging
trees; a fire burning on or below the forest floor in the humus layer down to
the mineral soil; a fire rapidly spread by wind and moves by jumping along
the tops of trees.
A wildfire may affect a large area, but only a small group of the population.
The low impact is likely attributed to the efforts of local fire fighters. Like
the rest of the United States and Oklahoma, the rural and urban/wildland
interface areas of Cushing are at “moderate” risk to wildfires, and at “high”
to “severe” risk during times of high wind and drought, as demonstrated in
the devastating wildfire outbreaks of 2005-2006. One group that may be
more heavily affected includes farmers and ranchers, due to the destruction
of crops and grazing land.
Earthquakes
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the ground caused by the
fracture and movement of rock beneath the Earth's surface.
Earthquakes, although seemingly trivial in Oklahoma, do occur. Although
relatively safe from locally generated earthquakes, the region’s underlying
geology exposes Cushing to some risk from a severe earthquake in the New
Madrid Seismic Zone. HAZUS estimates no functional losses and only a few
damaged structures would result if a historic Oklahoma earthquake occurred
today.
Hazardous
Material
Events
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that, if released or misused, can
pose a threat to the environment or human health. They come in the form of
explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive
materials.
Thirty-nine hazardous material events within the City of Cushing have been
reported since 1991. With the massive networks of pipelines in Cushing and
major petroleum and other companies within the city working with
chemicals such as propane, chlorine, diesel fuels and caustic soda, Cushing
is at a high risk for hazardous material events.
Dam Failures
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a dam as “a
barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control,
or diversion of water.” A dam failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure
resulting in downstream flooding.
The effects of the Cushing Lake Dam failing would impact approximately
five structures near Cushing. No critical facilities would be impacted.
Damages due to a dam break could exceed $500,000. The chances of a dam
failure are very small as the Cushing Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard
dam and Annually inspects and updates the dam and keeps Emergency
Action Plan up to date and on file at OWRB.
City of Cushing
43
Transportation Transportation is the physical movement of an object through components of
a system and its subsystems. Transportation includes the use of aviation,
highway, railroad, pipeline, and marine systems to convey movement of
objects and people.
Cushing is considered the “Pipeline Capital of the World with a massive
network of pipeline in and around the city Cushing. Two State Highways
provide major route access into Cushing. Each highway crosses a floodplain
outside the city limits, potentially isolating access to the town during a major
flood event. Railroads no longer exist within the city limits. With
approximately 30% of Cushing residents living within a ¼ mile of major
transportation corridors, a transportation event would likely not impact much
of Cushing’s property and population.
Hazards Analysis: Probability and Vulnerability
The ODEM guidelines for hazard analysis provides a process for use in assessing and
evaluating hazards and promotes a common base for performing the analysis by defining
criteria and establishing a rating and scoring system. Table 3-1, below, shows the results
of the hazard analysis for Cushing, and Table 3-2 provides a summary of the ranking
criteria.
Annual Average Damages
Although available data is limited, for the 10-year period from 1995 through 2004,
information on total damage to property and loss of lives and injuries, average annual
damages are able, with the noted caveat, to be projected. Damages, by hazard event, are
listed below, in Table 3-1.
Table 3–1: Summary of Damages in Cushing, Oklahoma between 1995 and 2004
Hazard
Events
Events/
Year
Total
Property
Damage
$0
$0
$193,600
$1,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
Property
Damage/
Event
$0
$0
$10,756
$1,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
Property
Damage/
Year
$0
$0
$19,360
$120
$0
$0
$0
$0
Injuries
Injuries/ Injuries/
Deaths/ Deaths/
Deaths
Event
Year
Event
Year
Floods
3
0.3
0
0
0
Tornadoes
0
0
0
0
0
High Winds
18
1.8
0
0
0
Lightning
1
0.1
0
0
0
Hail
8
0.8
0
0
0
Winter Storms
12
1.2
0
0
0
Extreme Heat
2
0.2
0
0
0
Drought
2
0.2
0
0
0
Expansive Soils
Insuff. Data
Urban Fires
78
15.6
$693,470 $14,447 $138,694
2
0
0.4
Wildfires
114
22.8
$15,195
$262
$3,039
0
0
0
Earthquakes
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
HazMat Events
4
0.4
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
Dam Failures
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
Transportation
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
* Fire data not available for 1995, 1996, 2002, and 2003; Damages were also not available for 2000 and 2001
City of Cushing
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3–2: Hazard Analysis for City of Cushing, Oklahoma
Disaster
Winter Storm
Hailstorm
High Wind
Tornado
Drought
Extreme Heat
Earthquake
Lightning
Hazardous Material Events
Transportation
Flood
Urban Fire
Wildfire
Expansive Soils
Dam Failure
History
(2)*
Vulnerability
(5)*
Maximum
Threat
(10)*
Probability
(7)*
Score
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
205
190
190
190
180
180
159
155
130
90
70
70
70
44
24
Values:
* Criteria weighted by value in column title.
High
Medium
Low
10
5
1
Table 3–3: Summary of Hazard Analysis Ranking Criteria
Criteria
Description
Scoring
History
If a certain kind of disaster occurred in the past, conditions
causing the event can occur again.
In the past 100 years, if an event
has occurred:
0-1
Low
2-3
Medium
4+
High
Vulnerability
The number of people and value of property in jeopardy
determine vulnerability. Vital facilities, such as hospitals, office
buildings and emergency facilities, and population groups of
special concern should be included in vulnerability
determination.
Population exposed:
< 1%
Low
1%-10%
Medium
>10%
High
Property damaged or destroyed:
< 1%
Low
1%-10%
Medium
>10%
High
Maximum
Threat
Maximum threat is the worst case scenario of a hazard. Its
impact is expressed in terms of human casualties and property
loss. Secondary events need to be factored in where
necessary.
Area of city impacted:
< 5%
Low
5%-25%
Medium
>25%
High
Probability
Probability is the likelihood a worst case event will occur.
History and probability are similar, however two criteria are
used to distinguish between newly developing hazards and
hazards with a lack of historical information.
Chance per year of disaster:
< .1%
Low
.1%-10%
Medium
>10%
High
City of Cushing
45
Secondary Events
Many disasters set off other types of events in a cascade of effects that lead to a highly complex
situation. It is generally more useful to consider all secondary events as a part of the overall
situation created by the primary event. Secondary hazard events are shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3–4: Secondary Hazard Events
Primary Event
Flood
Tornado
High Wind
Lightning
Hail
Winter Storm
Extreme Heat
Drought
Expansive Soil
Urban Fire
Wildfire
Earthquake
Haz. Material Event
Dam Failure
Transportation
City of Cushing
Dam
Expansive
Failure Drought
Soil
Flood
●
Haz.
Material
Event
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
46
Power
Failure
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Urban
Fire
Water
Supply
Failure
Wildfire
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
3.1 Floods
Flooding is defined as the accumulation of water within a water body and the overflow of
the excess water onto adjacent floodplain lands. The floodplains are the lands adjoining
the channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other watercourse or water body that is
susceptible to flooding.
3.1.1 Hazard Profile
Effects
Floods are the most common and widespread of all natural disasters in the United
States—except fire.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Flooding has caused the deaths of more than 10,000 people since 1900.
United States property damage from flooding now totals over $1 billion each
year.
In 1987 FEMA concluded that over 9 million households and $390 billion in
property are at risk from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood.
In most years flooding accounts for or is involved with three quarters of Federal
Disaster declarations.
Floods claim about 140 lives each year, making them the most deadly kind of
weather in the United States.
Floods are also responsible for more damage to property each year than any other
type of weather hazard.
Flash floods usually result from intense storms dropping large amounts of rain within a
brief period. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration, but topography,
soil conditions, and ground cover play an important role.
Frequency
Flash floods occur with little or no warning and can reach full peak in a few minutes.
Waters from flash flooding move at very fast speeds and can roll boulders, tear out trees,
destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges. Walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 30
feet and carry large amounts of debris. Most flood deaths are due to flash floods.
The drainage basins affecting the City of Cushing are shown on Figure 3-2.Within the
City of Cushing’s 7.6 square miles, two tributaries of the Cimarron River significantly
impact Cushing’s floodplains. They are Skull Creek and Cottonwood Creek. All of
Cushing’s creeks and their drainage areas are listed in Table 3-5, below. The combined
floodplains of the Cimarron River tributaries comprise only 0.28 square miles, or 0.37%,
of the land within the City limits, and are shown on Figure 3-2.
City of Cushing
47
Table 3–5: City of Cushing Streams and Drainage Areas
Stream
Total Drainage Area at
Cushing (sq. mi.)
Structures located in
the 100-Year
Floodplains
2.45
3.74
0.19
0.16
0.93
0.15
7.62
6
20
0
0
0
0
26
Skull Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Cabin Creek
Euchee Creek
Wildhorse Creek
Short Creek
Total
Extent of Impact
The probable impact of flooding can be assessed by mapping urban development, soil
conditions, the 100-year floodplains, researching the extent of past floods, looking at
historical rainfall data and the condition of drainage ways and stormwater facilities, and
estimating the likely contribution to flooding from recent and future development. This
was accomplished using FEMA’s Hazus model.
The City of Cushing has 26 structures located in the 100-year floodplains of these
waterways. The Hazus model determined that a 100-year flood would result in $703,345
in damage to community assets. (For a fuller discussion of the assumptions used in Hazus
for Cushing, see Section 3.1.3 Vulnerable Population, below.)
Cushing is developing towards the southeast. Since 1996, 68 single-family building
permits have been approved, with much of the development occurring south of 9th Street
and east of Linwood Ave., essentially in the Cottonwood Creek drainage basin. Without
the detailed modeling and analysis provided by a basin-wide Master Drainage Plan, it is
not possible to accurately predict the effects of a 100-year and 500-year flood on future
development or to future buildings and development that have been permitted to the
minimum standard. The preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for all watersheds within
the city has been included as Action Item No. 5 in Cushing’s mitigation measures. (See
Table 5-1, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, by Priority and Hazard, below.)
3.1.2 Historical Events
Oklahoma’s most frequent and most costly natural hazard is flooding. There are
numerous flooding events on record, often with serious impacts:
1908. The wettest June in Oklahoma history caused widespread flooding on the
Arkansas River and $250,000 in damage (1908 dollars).
June 11-13, 1923. Floodwaters destroyed Tulsa’s waterworks and forced the
evacuation of 4,000.
City of Cushing
48
Short
Creek
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Skull
Creek
Noble
Wilson
Main St
33
Creek
Harmony Rd
Pine Ave
Oak St
Broadway St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
North Howerton
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
"
!
Cabin
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
Euchee
Creek
"
!
33
Cottonwood
Creek
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
Eseco
Cottonwood
Creek
Wildhorse
Creek
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
0
0.5
Drainage Basins MILES
N
State Highways
Roads
W
County Line
Water Features
S
Railroads
City Limit
1
E
Figure 3-1
City of Cushing
Drainage Basins
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
Wilson
Main St
33
18
Pine Ave
Noble
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
"
!
33
Oak St
Broadway St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Linwood Rd
Elm Creek
Eseco
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
0
0.5
1
MILES
FEMA 100-Yr Floodplain
FEMA 500-Yr Floodplain
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line
W
Water Features
Railroads
S
City Limit
Cottonwood
Creek
E
Figure 3-2
City of Cushing
Regulatory
Floodplains
April 6-7, 1927. Heavy rainfall in southeastern Kansas resulted in an 8- to 10-foot
wall of water—with registered flows of 750,000 cubic feet per second—roaring down
the Arkansas River valley below Muskogee and emptying into the Mississippi River.
Nearly every levee from Fort Smith to the Mississippi was destroyed. Losses totaled
$4,000,000 (1927 dollars).
May 18-22, 1943. A deluge that dumped 24 inches of rain in six days on the area
between McAlester to Muskogee resulted in the flood of record for many
communities along the Arkansas River.
May 16-21, 1957. The wettest May in Oklahoma history caused widespread flooding
on Arkansas, Cimarron and Canadian Rivers.
May 10, 1970. The Mother’s Day Flood in Tulsa caused $163,000 in damages
($340,000 in 1994 dollars) on rapidly developing Mingo and Joe Creeks.
October 11, 1973. 15.68 inches of rain fell in Enid—a State daily and 24-hour
rainfall record. Twelve inches of rain fell in 3 hours causing flash floods that killed
nine people.
April, May and September, 1974. April and May floods left $744,000 in damages
($2.11 million in 1994 dollars) on Bird Creek. Violent storms June 8 caused
widespread flooding on Joe, Fry, Haikey and Mingo Creeks in Tulsa County, with
more than $18 million in damages ($40.24 million in 1994 dollars). On September 19,
Mingo Creek flooded again.
May 31, 1976. On Memorial Day, a 3-hour, 10-inch deluge centered over the
headwaters of Mingo, Joe and Haikey Creeks in Tulsa caused a flood that killed three
and caused $40 million in damages (1976 dollars) to more than 3,000 buildings.
October, 1983. Remnants of Hurricane Tico produced 10-15 inches of rain, causing
extensive flooding from Rush Springs to Shawnee, with damages estimated at $84M,
including $77M to agriculture (1983 dollars).
May 26-27, 1984. More than 12 inches of rain fell in Tulsa, causing extensive
flooding, especially on Mingo Creek. Fourteen people were killed, 5,500 homes and
over 7,000 vehicles were damaged.
October 1986. Keystone Reservoir filled to capacity, forcing the Corps of Engineers
to release water at the rate of 310,000 cubic feet per second. Downstream flooding
was extensive, with $1.3 million in damages to 64 buildings.
Cushing and Payne County Flooding
Cushing is built on high ground, with the land sloping away in all directions.
Consequently, it does not have a history of stream or river flooding.
May 21, 1961- A 4-inch deluge virtually isolated Cushing for a brief time. Highways
were under water and telephone and telegraph circuits were disrupted. Water ran
windowsill high in a residential section of town. Pumps were rushed to the Municipal
City of Cushing
51
Light and Power plant when the basement flooded. Water gushed through city streets
making them impassible and a few businesses had water spilling across their floors.
Two people were rescued at their homes from the rising water by Cushing
firefighters.
June 24, 1999- Severe thunderstorms caused floodwaters to completely submerge a
park at the corner of Cherry Street and Michigan Avenue.
3.1.3 Vulnerable Population
All buildings in the Cimarron River basins, regardless of location, are at some risk of
suffering riverine flood or local drainage damage.
FEMA and this study has identified those areas within the watersheds of the Cottonwood
Creek and Skull Creek basins in Cushing that have a one-percent chance of flooding in
any given year according to FEMA’s Q3 delineated floodplain boundaries. These areas,
commonly referred to as the 100-year floodplain, are designated as the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The SFHA
identifies the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) minimum national standard,
and reflects existing development conditions at the time of the study.
The City of Cushing has 26 structures located in the 100-year floodplains as shown in
Table 3-6. Residential structure values used in the assessment were from the 2000 U.S.
Census. Commercial structures were assigned values at $60/ft2, secondary structures at
$30/ft2 and mobile homes at $25,000 apiece. It is estimated that the average structure will
experience 3 feet of flooding, which will result in 32% damage to the structure and 35%
damage to contents. A percentage of the total structural and content values were applied
to damages from the 100-year flood to two large commercial structures only partially
located in the floodplain.
Table 3–6: Cushing Floodplain Building Vulnerability
Structures in the Floodplain
Number or Value
FEMA SFHA
26
Value of Floodplain Buildings
$1,328,517
Value of Contents
$794,917
Total Value of Buildings Located in the Floodplain
$2,123,434
Damage to Buildings from 100-Year Flood
$425,125
Damage to Contents from the 100-Year Flood
$278,220
Total Damages from the 100-Year Flood
$703,345
Flood Insurance as of 9/30/02 (Source FEMA)
Policies in Force
8
$ Flood Insurance in Force
$585,300
Paid Premiums
$2,564
Total Number of Losses Paid
4
Loss Payments
City of Cushing
$959
52
Cushing is developing towards the east and southeast. A new Wal-Mart SuperCenter is
being constructed on the north side of OK Hwy 33 (Main St.) on the road to Drumright.
Northeast of the city, the Sac and Fox Tribe and SEM Green of Tulsa are planning to
develop a large oil refinery. In the southeast quadrant, 68 single-family building permits
have been approved since 1996, with much of the development occurring south of 9th
Street and east of Linwood Ave., essentially in the Cottonwood Creek drainage basin. To
avoid future flooding along this creek, the City of Cushing should consider conducting a
master drainage plan for the watershed.
3.1.4 Conclusion
With few exceptions, the City of Cushing’s floodplains are relatively free of urban
development. Cushing joined the National Flood Insurance Program in 1980. All
residents of Cushing are eligible to purchase flood insurance.
As is evident from Table 3-6, above, only four flood loss claims have been filed in
Cushing, and then only for a total of $959.00. Because of its location on a ridgeline, and
so few properties being impacted by streams, flooding is not perceived to be a major
problem in Cushing. Additional and more detailed study is necessary to identify
appropriate mitigation measures for the 26 structures in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard
Area, and those upstream on Cottonwood Creek that may be in an unmapped floodhazard area. To avoid future flooding, the City of Cushing should consider conducting a
master drainage plan for Cottonwood Creek.
3.1.5 Sources
Cushing Daily Citizen, Sunday, May 22, 1961
FEMA Flood Insurance Statistics at Website: http://www.fema.gov/nfip/10110309.shtm
City of Cushing
53
3.2 Tornadoes
A tornado is a rapidly rotating vortex or funnel of air extending to the ground from a
cumulonimbus cloud. When the lower tip of a vortex touches earth, the tornado becomes
a force of destruction. The path width of a tornado is generally less than a half-mile, but
the path length can vary from a few hundred yards to dozens of miles. A tornado moves
at speeds from 30 to 125 mph, but can generate winds exceeding 300 mph.
Severe thunderstorms produce
about 1,000 tornadoes each year
in the United States. FEMA
reports that 106 federal disaster
declarations over the past 20
years have included tornado
damage.
Effects
The path width of a tornado
averages about 200 yards and
therefore can have a substantial
impact on human life and
property. Damage from the
average tornado includes roof
surfaces, mobile homes pushed
off their foundations, and
Each year Oklahoma has more tornado events per
automobiles pushed off the road.
square mile than any other state
More severe tornadoes can lift
300-ton objects and toss homes more than 300 feet.
Normal Frequency
Oklahoma, along with Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas, is located in “Tornado
Alley,” the most tornado-prone area of the nation. Oklahoma experienced an average of
60 tornadoes per year over the past 50 years. Between 1975 and 1995, there were eight
federal tornado-related disaster declarations in the state. Oklahoma experiences more
tornadoes each year on average than does any other state, except Texas. Texas has twice
as many, but is also more than twice the size of Oklahoma.
Tornadoes are most likely to occur between March 15 and June 15 and over 80% occur
between the hours of 3:00 and 9:00 PM.
Cushing has been hit by eight tornadoes in the last 54 years, four of those occurred on
May 21, 1961. This equates to a frequency of 0.15 per year. Cushing can expect a tornado
on the average of at least one every seven years. More recent data shows that no
tornadoes have been reported in Cushing since 1988. Figure 3–3 shows historic tornado
City of Cushing
54
paths from 1950 to 2003 in Payne County and surrounding areas, which demonstrates the
random nature of tornado strikes.
Stillwater
Payne County
Cushing
Figure 3–3: Historical Tornado Paths in Payne County
Measurements
Almost 70% of all tornadoes are measured F0 and F1 on the Fujita Tornado Scale (see
Table 3-7, below), causing light to moderate damage, with wind speeds between 40 and
112 miles per hour. F4 and F5 tornadoes are considerably less frequent, but are the big
killers. Sixty-seven percent of all tornado deaths were caused by F4 and F5 storms, which
represent only 1% of all tornadoes.
Extent of Impact
Payne County has experienced 42 tornado events since 1950, the great majority of them
in the F0 to F1 range on the Fujita scale.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, Cushing has been impacted by eight
tornado events in the last 53 years resulting in over $80,000 in property damage. These
events are shown in Figure 3-4 and described briefly below, along with other recorded
tornado events in Payne County. Based on this data, it can be estimated that a typical F1
or F2 tornado event will strike Cushing every 6.5 years, will be 200 yards wide and 2
miles long, and do about $10,000 in damage. On the other hand, if a typical F4 tornado
were to go through the center of downtown Cushing (see Section 3.2.4, “Tornado
Scenario”), it would impact approximately 486 structures and cause over $43.5 million in
damages.
City of Cushing
55
Table 3–7: Fujita Scale
Category
Wind Speed (mph)
Damage
F0
Gale tornado (40-72)
Light: Damage to chimneys, tree branches, shallow-root
trees, sign boards
F1
Moderate tornado (73-112)
Moderate: Lower limit is beginning of hurricane wind
speed--surfaces peeled off roofs, mobile homes pushed
off foundations or overturned, cars pushed off roads
F2
Significant tornado (113-157)
Considerable: Roofs torn off frame houses, mobile
homes demolished, boxcars pushed over, large trees
snapped or uprooted, light-object missiles generated
F3
Severe tornado (158-206)
Severe: Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed
houses, trains overturned, most trees in forest uprooted,
cars lifted off the ground and thrown
F4
Devastating tornado (207-260)
Devastating: Well-constructed houses leveled, structures
with weak foundations blown off some distance, cars
thrown and large missiles generated
F5
Incredible tornado (261-318)
Incredible: Strong frame houses lifted off foundations
and carried considerable distance to disintegrate,
automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of
100 yards, trees debarked
Oklahoma has a long history of deadly and damaging tornadoes. Some of the deadliest
tornado events include:
May 8, 1882- Twenty-one people died in a McAlester tornado.
April 25, 1893- Thirty-eight people died in the 10 Mile Flats area near Norman in the
worst recorded tornado disaster of the 19th century in Oklahoma.
May 10, 1905- Ninety-seven people died when an F-5 tornado hit Snyder, causing
$250,000 in damage to more than 100 homes.
May 2, 1920- Seventy-one people died and 100 injured when an F-4 tornado hit
Peggs in Cherokee County. The town’s wooden jail was left standing, while a store
made of concrete block next door was leveled.
November 19, 1930- Twenty-three people died and 125 were injured when a tornado
hit Bethany in Oklahoma County.
April 27, 1942- Fifty-two died in a tornado that traveled from Claremore in Rogers
County to Pryor in Mayes County.
May 2, 1942- Sixteen people were killed in a tornado that traveled from
Pottawatomie County to Creek County. Just south of Cushing 16 buildings were
destroyed, including a rock house, by a tornado reported to be a half-mile wide.
June 12, 1942- Thirty-five died in an Oklahoma City Tornado.
City of Cushing
56
April 12, 1945- 102 people died in a violent series of tornadoes. Sixty-nine died in
Antlers, 13 in Muskogee, including many at the Oklahoma School for the Blind.
Eight people died at Tinker Air Force Base, five in Roland, four near Hulbert, and
three in Latimer County.
April 9, 1947- Oklahoma’s deadliest tornadoes killed 184 people. Texas and Kansas
lost 68 people, and 116 died in Oklahoma. The tornados traveled 221 miles from
White Deer, Texas, through Oklahoma, destroying a large portion of Woodward, to
St. Leo, Kansas.
May 25, 1955- The deadliest single tornado in U.S. history killed 114 people,
including 20 in Blackwell, and 80 in Udall, Kansas, where the town was leveled.
May 5, 1960- Three separate tornadoes killed a total of 26 people, including 16
people from the Wilburton to Keota tornado, five from the Shawnee to Tulsa event,
and 5 when a tornado hit Roland. An F-5 tornado reported touched down in southern
Creek County, traveled 29 miles northeast crossing Sapulpa. No injuries or deaths
occurred, but $2.5 million in property damages were accrued throughout the county.
May 5, 1961- Sixteen people were killed when a tornado tracked from Reichert to
Howe in LeFlore County.
May 21, 1961- Tornadoes slammed through rural areas just south of Cushing
damaging at least a half a dozen homes and demolishing scores of barns,
outbuildings, and buckling oil storage tanks. Cushing’s warning sirens were used for
the first time in an emergency.
May 24, 1973- Six injuries, 22 demolished homes, 18 demolished trailers, and 49
damaged buildings resulted from a tornado crossing Union City. The tornado was a
quarter-mile wide and stayed on the ground for 28 minutes. Damage was
approximately $2 million.
It was the first tornado to leave a “velocity signature” on radar and produced a
breakthrough in severe storm forecasting. It was also the first tornado intercepted and
photographed by storm chasers.
June 8, 1974- Eighteen people were killed – including three in Tulsa, and damage to
1,400 buildings – when some 25 to 30 tornadoes formed in 19 Oklahoma counties.
The same storm system spawned an F-4 tornado in southern Kansas that killed six,
and injured 220.
According to the NCDC, there were 45 tornado-related fatalities from 1995 to the
year 2000, and 42 of those occurred in 1999 during the worst tornado incident in
recent Oklahoma history. (The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management
states in their All-Hazards Mitigation Plan that there were 46 fatalities from tornadoes
in 1999).
May 3, 1999- A series of severe thunderstorms swept out of the southwest, and
produced many tornadoes that greatly intensified as they moved across the state. The
map shows tornado touchdowns, paths, and direction of movement. The visual
representation makes it clear that this incident was indeed a huge outbreak.
City of Cushing
57
One of the tornadoes in the outbreak was an F5, which occurred southwest of
Oklahoma City, was measured at 318 mph, the fastest wind speed ever recorded for a
tornado, stayed on the ground about four hours, and left a path approximately thirtyeight miles long (see map above). This storm was the first F5 tornado to affect
metropolitan Oklahoma City. The path included 6.5 miles of continuous F4 damage
as well as several areas of F5 level destruction. Several homes were completely
removed from their slabs.
The National Weather
Service reported that there
were 57 tornadoes in the
state during the outbreak.
The Oklahoma Hospital
Association reported 742
people were treated at 30
hospitals, and 44 people
were killed. Approximately
10,000 homes and
businesses were affected by
the storms, with total losses
exceeding $1 billion. The
state Department of
Emergency Management
reported that in Oklahoma,
3,009 homes, 117
businesses, and 10 public
buildings were destroyed,
The May 3, 1999 tornadoes caused over $1 billion in
including 645 in Oklahoma
damage. The May 8, 2003 tornado path (shown in red)
caused $100 million.
City, 6 in Tulsa and 95% of
the town of Mulhall. Sixteen
Oklahoma counties were declared Federal disaster areas.
May 8, 2003- At about 5 pm, the path of the estimated F-4 tornado hit Moore,
Midwest City, Del City, and Oklahoma City, many of the same areas damaged by the
killer tornado of May 3, 1999 (see map above). The National Weather Service
estimated the tornado’s path to be 19 miles long. Local hospitals reported 145
injuries. Initial estimate of damage include 432 homes destroyed and another 2,457
damaged. About 20 businesses were destroyed. The 4 million square-foot Oklahoma
City General Motors automobile plant sustained substantial damage and was knocked
out of production, and the Xerox plant and five schools were damaged. In addition,
the City of Moore reported three churches destroyed, and damage to a fire station and
elementary school. The Lincoln National Bank in Oklahoma City was leveled.
Oklahoma Gas and Electric reported that 4,000 customers in Oklahoma City, Moore,
and Midwest City were without power. The Insurance Commissioner estimated
damage at more than $100 million.
City of Cushing
58
In Oklahoma since 1950, there have been over 200 fatalities and almost 4,000 injuries
from tornadoes. Table 3-8 below, shows the Oklahoma tornado frequency and impact
data in two time periods, reported by the National Climatic Data Center.
Table 3–8: Tornadoes in Oklahoma and in Cushing
since 1950 and since 1995
Oklahoma
Events
Deaths
Injuries
Property Damage
1950-2003
3183
263
4068
$3,145,060,000
1995-2003
723
46
919
$1,638,646,000
Cushing
Events
Deaths
Injuries
1950-2003
8
0
0
$82,500
1995-2003
0
0
0
$0
Property Damage
Cushing and Payne County Tornadoes
Payne County reported 42 tornado events between 1950 and 2007, killing two people,
injuring 41, and doing $9.57 million in damage. These tornadoes included eleven F0
events, sixteen F1 twisters, eleven F2s, four F3s and four F4 events.
Cushing, itself, has had 16 tornadoes reported within 10 miles of the city since 1937, with
8 tornadoes either hitting the city or passing within a mile of its downtown. These are
shown in Figure 3-4 and described briefly below, along with other recorded tornado
events near Cushing:
April 25,1893- An F4 tornado 400 yards wide and 20 miles long moved from
northeast of Guthrie along the Cimarron River to Perkins and Ripley. Four people
were killed and 25 injured.
May 12, 1896- An F3 twister 200 yards wide and 20 miles long passed from near
Langston to 4 miles southeast of Stillwater and on to Ingalls injuring 5 people and
severely damaging 5 farms.
May 25, 1904- An F2 tornado injured 5 people and destroyed 5 homes at Glencoe.
April 29, 1924- An F2 tornado 100 yards wide and 2 miles long killed one person
and injured 3 others just south of Ingalls. Downburst winds did $200,000 damage
across the county.
June 9, 1937- Tornado 10 miles long and 440 yards wide injured 3 people 7 miles
north of Cushing.
May 2, 1942- An F4 tornado 400 yards wide and 50 miles long killed 7 people and
injured 20. The twister moved northeast from 2miles south of Cushing to north of
Owasso. Most of the damage was in Tulsa County.
March 18, 1948- An F2 tornado 200 yards wide and 2 miles long destroyed and
unroofed buildings for 7 blocks along Main St. in Stillwater. The twister injured 1
person and did $50,000 in damage.
May 23, 1952- An F1 tornado struck 4 miles northwest of Cushing.
City of Cushing
59
May 1, 1954- An F3 tornado 100 yards wide and 25 miles long moved northeast from
near Glencoe to west of Pawnee, striking 30 farms and damaging 26 farm homes.
Seven people were injured.
May 26, 1955- During the Great Plains tornado outbreak, an F0 tornado touched
down near Cushing.
May 2, 1959- An F1 tornado was reported 1 mile north of Cushing.
May 21, 1961- An F2/F3 tornado was spotted just south of Cushing and on the city’s
east side.
May 26, 1963- An F1 tornado was reported at Cushing.
June 23, 1969- An F3 tornado 400 yards wide and 12 miles long moved northeast
from near Perkins to Ripley, damaging 13 homes and doing $500,000 in damage.
April 30, 1970- An F1 tornado, 50 yards wide, touched down briefly 8 miles east of
Cushing, unroofing one house and damaging 5 others.
June 8, 1974- An F4 tornado 400 yards wide and 45 miles long struck Payne, Creek,
Pawnee and Osage Counties, killing 14 people and injuring 150. The tornado touched
down 3 miles southwest of Drumright in Payne County and did damage in Drumright,
Sperry and Skiatook.
June 13, 1975- An F4 tornado 400 yards wide and 6 miles long injured 8 people as it
moved southeast through Stillwater. The twister destroyed 24 trailer homes, damaged
100 others in a trailer park, damaged 6 frame homes and leveled one brick house.
July 3, 1976- An F1 tornado 1 mile long and 33 yards wide hit 8 miles north of
Cushing.
May 2, 1979- An F2 tornado 50 yards wide and 1 mile long touched down 3 miles
north of Perkins, unroofing one home.
April 26, 1984- An F2 tornado 70 yards wide and 6 miles long moved northeast 6
miles south of Stillwater, destroying 6 trailers and 2 barns and injuring 8 people.
March 3, 1985- An F1 tornado was spotted 6 miles north of Cushing.
September 15, 1987- An F1 tornado 5 miles long and 30 yards wide was spotted near
Perkins and 1 mile southeast of Cushing.
March 28, 1988- An F0 tornado was seen 6 miles north of Cushing.
June 26, 1988- An F1 tornado 1 mile long and 40 wide was reported 1 mile northeast
of Cushing.
June 19, 1992- An F0 tornado touched down 4 miles northeast of Cushing.
November 29, 1998- A small tornado touched down northwest of Cushing and
remained on the ground for 2 miles damaging trees, storage buildings, and several
rural residences. Five sheet metal storage buildings and barns were either damaged or
destroyed. Minor damage also occurred to a house and mobile home. The house had a
porch, shutters and roof shingles missing. The mobile home had many windows
City of Cushing
60
blown out. In addition to the tornado, straight-line winds caused minor damage to a
rural home in southern Payne County 8 miles west of Cushing
November 10, 2004- A tornado was sighted 2 miles south of Cushing.
The National Weather Service advises that tornadoes strike at random, and therefore all
areas within the community are equally at risk. However, tornadoes follow the path of
least resistance. People living in valleys, which normally are the most highly developed
areas, have the greatest exposure.
Damage is a factor of both severity and what is in the path of the tornado. An F4 tornado
in a densely populated area will do enormous damage, as in the recent Oklahoma City
area storm.
The characteristics of a structure can make it more or less vulnerable to tornado damage
and its occupants more or less safe from injury if the building is hit. For example, mobile
homes can be more easily damaged than permanent structures, buildings with crawl
spaces are more susceptible to lift, and foundation and roof type can increase or decrease
the structure’s vulnerability. (A mobile home is defined by Florida’s Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles as a dwelling that is built on an integral chassis, in a
factory, transportable in one or more sections, and that is eight feet or more in width.)
Table 3-9, below, shows the numbers of tornado-related fatalities in the United States for
each year from 1995 to 2003 and where the deaths occurred. It illustrates that those who
live in mobile homes are significantly more vulnerable to the effects of a tornado than
any other identifiable population. While the number of mobile homes is a small fraction
of total residential dwellings, more people who lived in mobile homes died from tornado
strikes than did those who lived in permanent or conventional homes. In fact, nearly 47%
of all tornado deaths during this time period occurred in mobile homes.
As tornadoes can strike virtually anywhere in Oklahoma’s “Tornado Alley,” and
communities in broad valleys and plains have the greatest exposure, the City of Cushing
is highly vulnerable to the tornado hazard.
City of Cushing
61
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
33
18
Pine Ave
(
X
Broadway St
9th St
6th St
5/21/61
0 Miles
0 Yards
5/21/61
F3
0 Miles
0 Deaths
0 Yards
0 Injuries
F2
$25,000
( 0 Deaths
X
in damages
0 Injuries
$2,500
Texaco Rd
in damages
Little Rd
0
0.5
Historic TornadoesMILES
N
Tornado Paths
State Highways
Roads
W
County Line
Water Features
S
Railroads
City Limit
1
E
(
X
Linwood Rd
Wilson Ave
(
X
LEGEND
#
S
Oak St
9th St
9/15/87
5 Miles
30 Yards
Eseco
F0
0 Deaths
0 Injuries
$0
in damages
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Vine St
3rd St
Elm Creek
6/26/88
<1 Mile
40 Yards
F1
0 Deaths
0 Injuries
$25,000
in damages
(
X
(
X
Wilson
5/26/63
0 Miles
0 Yards
F1
0 Deaths
Injuries
Main St
" 0$2,500
!
in damages
Skull
Creek
Little Rd
Grandstaff Rd
"18
!
Noble
Kings Hwy
5/2/59
0 Miles
0 Yards
F1
0 Deaths
0 Injuries
$2,500
in damages
"33
!
5/21/61
0 Miles
0 Yards
F2
0 Deaths
0 Injuries
$0
in damages
Cottonwood
Creek
5/21/61
0 Miles
0 Yards
F3
( 0 Deaths
X
0 Injuries
$25,000
in damages
LEGEND
Fujita Scale
F0
#
S F1
#
S F2
#
S F3
Payne
F4
#County
S
S
#
Lincoln County
Figure 3-4
City of Cushing
Historic Tornado
Damages
Table 3–9: Tornado Fatalities in the United States
(source: National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center)
Year
Vehicle
Permanent
Home
Mobile
Home
In the
Open
Other
Total for
Year
1995
4
15
8
0
3
30
1996
2
8
14
0
1
25
1997
3
23
30
7
4
67
1998
15
40
65
3
7
130
1999
6
35
39
6
9
95
2000
4
4
29
2
1
40
2001
3
15
17
3
2
40
2002
4
15
32
2
2
55
2003
0
24
25
3
2
54
Totals
41
179
259
26
31
536
3.2.4 Tornado Scenario
A typical tornado path is reported to be approximately 600 feet in width, and 2.0 miles in
length. The typical path in Payne County tends to be generally from southwest to
northeast. The area of destruction is about 181 acres per event. About 16 square miles of
Oklahoma’s 69,919 square miles are impacted by tornadoes each year. In Oklahoma, the
chances of a tornado hitting any one area in any given year is about .0002, and for an F4
or F5, about .0000024. Bigger and more devastating tornadoes can and do occur, as
evidenced by the 1999 Oklahoma City tornado, which stayed on the ground for 38 miles.
Typical Cushing Tornado Scenario
To anticipate the damage that might be expected from a typical “worst case” tornado
event, a hypothetical tornado path, based on the typical event discussed above, was
randomly placed through the center of the community. Shown in Figure 3-5, the scenario
touches down in a residential area in southwest Cushing near 9th and Cleveland Ave. It
maintains a northeast trajectory passing over a municipal park on Cottonwood Creek and
continues into residential neighborhoods. The scenario intersects State Highway 33 near
Linwood Road where much of the commercial property damages occur. The path of
destruction subsides approximately 1,000 feet north of Highway 33 and Mailten Drive
just north of Cushing High School.
The typical tornado as presented in this scenario could affect 415 single-family
residences, 68 commercial businesses including 2 critical facilities, 5 petroleum storage
tanks and 4 additional Tier II Sites, 3 public facilities, 2 of which are identified as critical
facilities, for a total of 486 structures. Critical facilities damaged in the scenario include
minor damages to Cushing Regional Hospital, the Cushing Youth Center and Harrison
Elementary and major damages to Cushing Child Care. Total assets in the tornado path,
including buildings and contents, totals $81.8 million. The damage, by building type,
contents, and percent damage to each building is summarized in Table 3-10.
City of Cushing
63
.
!
!
.
!
.
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
(
(
!
( !
!
( !
Main
(
(
(!
(
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
( !
(!
!
(!
!
(!
!
( !
(!
!
( !
(!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
( !
(!
(
(!
(!
( (!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
( !
( !
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
( !
(!
( !
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(
!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(
(!
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(
!
(!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(
(!
(
(!
((
(!
(!
!!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
( !
( !
(
(!
!
(
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
( !
!
(!
(!
Broadway
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
( !
( !
(!
!
(!
( !
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
( (
!
(!
(!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
( (!
(!
(!
!!!!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(((( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
!
!
( ((
((!
(!
(!
(!
!
( !
(
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(
!
((
(!
!
(
(
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
( !
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
!
(
!
!
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
(
(
(
!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(
!
(
(!
(!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
!
!
(
(!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(!
!
(!
(
!
(
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
!
(!
!
( (!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
!
!
(
(
!
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
(
(!
!
!
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
(!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(
!
(
(
(
!
(!
!
!
(!
(!
(!
!
!
(!
(!
(
(
!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
( !
!
( !
!
(!
!
(
!
(!
!
((
(
!
(
!
( !
0
0.05
9th
!
( (
!
(
Little
!
.
13
!
.
!
.
3
!
.
!
.
! 8,22
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.27
!
.
.
!!
!
. .
3
21
!
.
Linwood
!
.
!
.
Independence
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.!
!
.
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
. !
.
!
.
Harrison
!
. !
.
Central
!
.
18
.
!
.!
Highland
!
.
!
.
!
.
0.1
0.2
Miles
!
.
L E G E N D
´
!
(
Commercial Structure
!
(
Residential Structure
!
.
!
.
Critical Facilities
Tornado Path
Tier II Sites
300-Foot Buffer
City Limits
600-Foot Buffer
Figure 3-5
City of Cushing
Tornado Scenario
Table 3–10: Cushing Tornado Scenario Data
Total Buildings In Tornado Scenario Path
Type
Number
Single-Family
Commercial
Public
Total
Building
Value
Contents
Value
Total Value
415
$19,256,000
$9,628,000
$28,884,415
68
$23,224,256
$23,224,256
$46,448,580
3
$3,236,637
$3,236,637
$6,473,277
486
$45,716,893
$36,088,893
$81,805,786
Destroyed
Type
Number
Single-Family
Commercial
Public
Total
Building
Damage
Contents
Damage
Total
Damage
104
$4,814,000
$2,407,000
$7,221,000
17
$5,806,064
$5,806,064
$11,612,128
1
$0
$809,159
$809,159
122
$10,620,064
$9,022,223
$19,642,287
$1,684,900
$5,054,700
50% Damage
Single-Family
Commercial
Public
Total
145
$3,369,800
24
$4,064,245
$4,064,245
$8,128,490
1
$0
$1,132,823
$1,132,823
170
$7,434,045
$6,881,968
$14,316,013
25% Damage
Single-Family
Commercial
Public
Total
166
$1,925,600
$962,800
$2,888,400
27
$2,322,426
$2,322,426
$4,644,852
1
$809,159
$1,294,655
$2,103,814
194
$5,057,185
$4,579,881
$9,637,066
Total Damages, Tornado Scenario
Single-Family
Commercial
Public
Total
415
$10,109,400
$5,054,700
$15,164,100
68
$12,192,735
$12,192,735
$24,385,470
3
$809,159
$3,236,637
$4,045,796
486
$23,111,294
$20,484,072
$43,595,366
3.2.5 Conclusion
Depending on the severity of the tornado, damage can range from light damage to trees
and roofs (Fujita Category F0) to complete destruction of well-built houses (Fujita
Category F4 and F5). Mobile homes and houses with crawl spaces are more susceptible
to lift and are therefore at the greatest risk of damage.
Oklahoma is located in “Tornado Alley,” the most tornado-prone area of the United
States. In the last 50 years, there have been over 200 fatalities and over 2,000 injuries
from tornadoes.
City of Cushing
65
According to the National Climatic Data Center, Cushing was impacted by eight tornado
events in the last 53 years resulting in over $80,000 in property damage. On average, the
city has experienced one tornado every seven years for the last 53 years. If a typical
Oklahoma tornado were to go through the center of downtown Cushing (see Section
3.2.4, “Tornado Scenario”), it would affect approximately 486 structures and cause over
$43.5 million in damages.
3.2.6 Sources
Bohr, Gregory S. Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak, p. 1-2. Southern Regional Climate
Center at Louisiana State University, May 1999.
Cushing Daily Citizen, Sunday, May 22, 1961
Extreme Weather and Climate Events at Website:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
National Climatic Data Center.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 38–46. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 1997.
Situation Report #1, October 11, 2001, at Website:
http://www.odcem.state.ok.us/archives/state/2001/1009weather/1011sitreport.htm
Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, 2001.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, p. 109. National Disaster
Education Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
The Central Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak of May 3, 1999, at Website:
www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/intro.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Tornado Project Online, at Website:
http://www.tornadoproject.com/front.htm
The Tornado Project, PO Box 302, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819.
National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center, at Website:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/index.html
City of Cushing
66
3.3 High Winds
Wind is defined as the motion of air relative to the earth’s surface. Extreme windstorm
events are associated with cyclones, severe thunderstorms, and accompanying
phenomena such as tornadoes and downbursts. Winds vary from zero at ground level to
200 mph in the upper atmospheric jet stream at 6 to 8 miles above the earth’s surface.
The mean annual wind speed in the mainland United States is reported by FEMA to be 8
to 12 mph, with frequent speeds of 50 mph and occasional wind speeds of greater than 70
mph. Tropical cyclone winds along coastal areas from Texas to Maine may exceed 100
mph.
The entire United States is at
risk from damaging winds.
Winds are always part of
severe storms such as
hurricanes, tornadoes, and
blizzards but do not have to
accompany a storm to be
dangerous. Down-slope
windstorms, straight-line
winds, and microbursts can
all cause death, injury, and
property and crop damage.
Property damage and loss of
life from windstorms are
High winds generated by Oklahoma’s huge spring and autumn
increasing due to a variety
storms can be devastating to older homes and trailers
of factors. Use of
manufactured housing is on an upward trend, and this type of structure provides less
resistance to wind than conventional construction. All states do not have uniform
building codes for wind-resistant construction. Inferior construction practices result in
buildings particularly susceptible to high winds.
Effects
The deteriorating condition of older homes and the increased use of aluminum-clad
mobile homes will likely cause the impacts of wind hazards to increase. The general
design and construction of buildings in many high wind zones do not fully consider wind
resistance and its importance to survival. Near-surface winds and associated pressure
effects exert pressure on structure walls, doors, windows, and roofs, causing the structural
components to fail.
Debris carried by extreme winds can directly contribute to loss of life and indirectly to
the failure of protective building envelope components. (The building envelope consists
City of Cushing
67
of the walls, foundation, doors, windows, and roof—all surfaces that make up the barrier
between the indoors and the outdoors.) Upon impact, wind-driven debris can rupture a
building.
Measurements
Various wind scales and resultant damages include the Beaufort, Saffir-Simpson, and the
Fujita measurement scales. The tables below containing the Beaufort and Saffir-Simpson
scales show that there is little consensus of opinion as to what wind speeds produce
various damages. (The Fujita Scale is shown in Table 3-7, above.)
The impact of a high wind event can be scientifically measured using two separate and
widely used scales of wind strength, the Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength and the SaffirSimpson Scale. The quality of construction & the enforcement of building codes within
the jurisdiction can greatly influence the extent of a high wind event.
Table 3–11: Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength
Force
Wind Speed (mph)
Damages
9
47-54
Strong gale: Chimneys blown down, slate and tiles
torn from roofs
10
55-63
Whole gale: Trees broken or uprooted
11
64-75
Storm: Trees Uprooted, cars overturned
12
75+
Severe Storm: Devastation is widespread, buildings
destroyed
Table 3–12: Saffir-Simpson Scale
Category
Wind Speed
(mph)
Storm Surge
(feet)
1
74-95
4-5
Minimal: Trees, shrubbery, unanchored mobile
homes, and some signs damaged, no real damage to
structures
2
96-110
6-8
Moderate: Some trees toppled, some roof coverings
damaged, major damage to mobile homes
3
111-130
9-12
Extensive: Large trees are toppled, some structural
damage to roofs, mobile homes destroyed, structural
damage to small homes and utility buildings
4
131-155
13-18
Extreme: Extensive damage to roofs, windows, and
doors, roof systems on small buildings completely fail,
some curtain walls fall
5
155+
18+
City of Cushing
Damages
Catastrophic: Roof damage is considerable and
widespread, window and door damage is severe,
extensive glass failure, entire buildings could fall
68
Extent of Impact
Between 1956 and 2006, Payne County experienced 194 high wind events, almost all
connected to thunderstorm activity. Since 1993, Cushing has had 16 reported
thunderstorm/high wind events resulting in $179,000 in damage. Based on this data, it
can be estimated that Cushing will experience an average of about one high wind event
per year that does approximately $11,000 in damage..
The quality of construction and the enforcement of building codes within a jurisdiction
can greatly influence the extent of damage from a thunderstorm/high wind event.
Over the past 20 years, 193 Federal disaster declarations involved wind-induced damage.
From 1975 to 1994 in the United States, there were a total of 649 deaths and 6,670
injuries from disastrous winds. Wind is the fourth-leading cause of property damage.
Table 3–13: Fatalities and Property Damage Caused by High Winds
From 1995 to 2003
Location
Events
Deaths
Payne County
56
0
$240,000
Cushing
12
0
$30,000
5,768
4
$174,999,000
Oklahoma
United States
510
Damage
$5,877,500,000
In that 20-year period, deaths from winds in the United States were highest in 1975 with
103 deaths, 31 of them occurring on November 10 in Michigan. The second highest
number was in 1983 with 98 deaths. There was also the highest number of wind-related
injuries in 1983, totaling 622.
From 1981 to 1990, the insurance industry
spent nearly $23 billion on wind-related
catastrophic events. Out of the primary
sources of high winds (hurricanes, tropical
storms, severe thunderstorms, and winter
storms), severe local windstorms accounted
for 51.3% of the expenditures.
In Oklahoma, wind events are generally
associated with the huge convective
thunderstorms that move through the region
in the spring and fall months generating
A downburst did extensive damage in
tornadoes, downbursts and high winds. It is
Midtown Tulsa on June 6, 2006
not unusual for winds produced by these
storms to reach speeds of 80-100 mph, with winds of 50-70 mph being commonplace.
City of Cushing
69
Downbursts, like the one that struck Tulsa on June 6, 2006, can topple trees, damage
houses and power lines, and break up sidewalks and streets.
Cushing and Payne County High Wind Events
Between 1956 and 2006, Payne County experienced 194 high wind events, almost all
connected to thunderstorm activity. Since 1993, Cushing has had 16 reported
thunderstorm/high wind events resulting in $179,000 in damage. Among these were the
following:
April 26, 1984- Three people were injured during a thunderstorm/high wind event in
Payne County.
August 4, 1994- Isolated severe thunderstorms developed across Payne County
during the early evening hours producing dime-size hail and damaging winds. Severe
thunderstorm winds ripped the front door off of Cushing’s Police Department
building.
April 10, 1995- 63-mph winds did $5,000 in damage in Cushing.
June 13, 1997- Severe thunderstorm winds destroyed a hay barn just south of
Cushing. Debris from the barn was then blown onto a truck, breaking its windows,
and into a neighboring house. Power poles were broken and numerous limbs were
downed throughout the city.
July 17, 1997- Severe thunderstorm winds downed numerous tree limbs in Cushing.
Nighttime thunderstorms moved through northern and central Oklahoma, producing
large hail, severe winds, and flash flooding. At Glencoe in Payne County hail reached
the size of golf balls.
September 21, 1998- Severe thunderstorms developed over much of western and
central Oklahoma from late morning through late evening of the 21st, and were
responsible for 1 fatality and 18 injuries. Three tornadoes were also sighted. In
Cushing, a tree was blown down near Mazzio's Pizza on State Highway 33.
November 29, 1998- A small tornado touched down northwest of Cushing and
remained on the ground for 2 miles damaging trees, storage buildings, and several
rural residences. Five sheet metal storage buildings and barns were either damaged or
destroyed. Minor damage also occurred to a house and mobile home. The house had a
porch, shudders, and roof shingles missing. The mobile home had many windows
blown out. In addition to the tornado, straight-line winds caused minor damage to a
rural home in southern Payne County 8 miles west of Cushing.
May 26, 2000- Minor roof damage was sustained to the Wal-Mart on East Main.
Severe thunderstorms first developed across portions of western and northern
Oklahoma during the evening of the 25th, resulting in 4 confirmed tornadoes, one
rated F2, and other areas of straight-line wind damage and large hail.
July 20, 2000- Damage resulted from a line of severe thunderstorms which moved
southward out of central Kansas and entered north central Oklahoma during the early
morning.
April 22, 2001- Thunderstorm winds of 66 mph.
City of Cushing
70
March 17, 2003- Several severe thunderstorms developed over western Oklahoma
during the afternoon of the 17th and tracked slowly eastward during the evening,
before dissipating over central portions of Oklahoma. Four tornadoes accompanied
the severe weather outbreak, with two of them resulting in F1 damage. Winds were
67 mph.
May 16, 2003- Thunderstorm with tornadoes produced 58-mph winds.
May 24, 2003- Thunderstorm winds of 67 mph.
August 23, 2003- Numerous tree limbs and the roof of a barn were blown off by high
winds measured up to 64 mph at the Cushing weather tower. A total of $5,000 in
damages was reported.
April 20, 2004- 58-mph wind was measured at the Cushing weather tower.
April 21, 2004- “National Day of Prayer” banner was blown down by high winds and
driving rain, which caught on a passing truck. The banner’s pole struck a mini-van
driving behind the truck. Traffic through the area was diverted for 30 minutes.
June 2, 2004- 80-mph wind in Cushing. Tree damage was reported around town.
Several homes sustained roof damage along with 3 businesses which lost part of their
roofs. Power was lost to over 50,000 customers in the region.
May 4, 2006- 58-mph thunderstorm winds were reported in Cushing.
The highest wind speeds other than tornadoes occur in coastal regions because of
hurricane-related windstorms. However, the Midwest is also at risk from high winds
because of the powerful thunderstorms that frequent the region.
The people most vulnerable to high wind-related deaths, injuries, and property damage
are those residing in mobile homes and deteriorating or poorly constructed homes. Refer
to Figure 1–5: Mobile Home Park Locations, in Chapter 1. However, all of Cushing is at
risk in the case of a high wind event due to possible structural and economic damages
caused by downed trees and power lines. All future development areas are also at risk.
3.3.4 Conclusion
Almost the entire United States has some risk of high wind events, but the factors that
contributes most to wind-related deaths, injuries, and property damage is the structure
type, quality of construction, and the state of deterioration of the buildings where people
reside. Mobile homes, older homes, and poorly designed and constructed buildings are
the most vulnerable.
Uniform building codes for wind-resistant construction and demand for quality
construction practices would result in buildings being less susceptible to high winds.
City of Cushing
71
3.3.5 Sources
Mileti, Dennis S. Disasters By Design, p. 85. J. Henry Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
National Climatic Data Center: World’s Largest Archive of Weather Data, at Web
address: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. National Climatic Data Center.
National Weather Service: Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services, at Web
address: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml.
Wind and the Built Environment: U.S. Needs in Wind Engineering and Hazard
Mitigation. National Research Council, 1993.
City of Cushing
72
3.4 Lightning
Lightning is generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud. When that
buildup interacts with the best conducting object or surface on the ground, the result is a
discharge of a lightning bolt. Thunder is the sound of the shock wave produced by the
rapid heating and cooling of the air near the lightning bolt. The air in the channel of a
lightning strike reaches temperatures higher than 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
In the United States, an
average of 73 people
are killed each year by
Lightning, which makes
it deadlier than
tornadoes or hurricanes.
Only the combined
weather casualty totals
from flash floods and
river floods exceed
fatalities caused by
lightning strikes.
Lightning is the most
constant and
widespread threat to
people and property
Lightning is one of the deadliest natural hazards, and can
during the thunderstorm
strike 10 miles out in front of an advancing rain column
season. Lightningcaused casualty and damage events are less variable from year to year than other weather
causes.
Lightning can strike ten miles out from the rain column, and lightning deaths often occur
under a clear sky ahead of the storm. This is because people wait until the last minute to
seek shelter—hoping to finish the game, the painting, the lawn mowing, and so on.
Effects
According to the National Weather Service, when lightning strikes a human being,
serious burns or death are the obvious outcomes. Of the people struck by lightning 20%
die from their injures. For those who survive, their injuries can lead to permanent
disabilities. Seventy percent of the survivors suffer serious, long-term effects, including
memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, numbness, dizziness, stiffness in joints,
irritability, fatigue, weakness, muscle spasms, depression, and an inability to sit for long
periods.
Lightning strikes can also cause high-voltage power surges that have the ability to
seriously damage equipment and valuable data if surge protection devices are not
City of Cushing
73
installed. Property damage from power surges and resulting fires can destroy not only the
electronics in private homes, but also unprotected PBXs, telecommunications equipment,
wireless systems, and radio base stations.
Frequency
Each year in this country, about 400 children and adults are struck by lightning during
outdoor activities and an average of 90 people are killed, and 17, 400 fires are caused.
National Geographic claims that lightning strikes the surface of the earth about 100 times
every second. The National Lightning Detection Network states researchers have
typically defined a flash as consisting of all cloud to ground discharges which occur
within 10km of each other within a one second interval. Their research reveals:
•
•
•
One lightning casualty occurred for every 86,000 flashes in the United States
One death occurred for every 345,000 flashes
One injury occurred for every 114,000 flashes
Lightning casualties and damages increase gradually through the spring, when the
thunderstorm season begins for most of the country, and peak during the summer months.
The months most notorious for lightning incidents were June with 21% of the strikes,
July with 30%, and August with 22%. Sunday, Wednesday, and Saturday are the days
that the most injurious lightning strikes occur, and between the hours of 12:00 noon and
6:00 PM.
Extent of Impact
Payne County has reported 18 lightning events between 1993 and 2006 that did a total of
$290,000 in damage, or $16,000 damage per event. Between 1992 and 2006, Cushing and
its nearby surroundings reported four strikes resulting in $15,000 in damage. Based on
this limited data, Cushing can expect one significant lightning event every 4 years, which
does $3,750 in damage. Although the entire community is at risk from lightning, the
probable extent of a damaging strike depends upon the type of facility that is hit, the age,
condition and density of structures in the strike area, the community’s fire response
capability, and the presence or absence of lightning warning and protection systems. The
most vulnerable facilities to lightning are the dozens of oil storage tanks outside
Cushing’s city limits to the north and southeast, and the half-dozen tanks within the city
to the northeast of Main St. and Linwood Rd.
From 1959 to 1995 in the United States, there were 3,239 deaths, 9,818 injuries, and
19,814 reports of property damage attributed to lightning strikes. Among the biggest
damage reports were lightning strikes causing forest fires and strikes damaging
manufacturing plants and agricultural facilities.
According to NOAA, Oklahoma ranked 15th among states in the total number of
casualties during the 36-year period of their study, with 88 deaths and 243 injuries
reported. It ranked 5th nationally in the number of damage reports with 826.
City of Cushing
74
Payne County and Cushing Lightning Events
Payne County has reported 18 lightning events between 1993 and 2006. Four lightning
events have been reported for Cushing between 1992 and 2006.
April 19, 1992- In Cushing, lightning struck a propane gas company, causing an
explosion that ripped the roof off the building. Lightning also struck the antenna
system of Cushing City Hall, destroying the Fire Department and Police Departments
radio and antenna system.
September 7, 1999- Thunderstorm-generated lightning ignited fires at Mid-Continent
Pipeline, located 7 miles east of Cushing, where two tank batteries were damaged.
May 24, 2000- Lightning struck the chimney of a house on 9th Street in Cushing.
Damages from the storm event totaled $1,200.
September 16, 2004- Lightning struck a crude oil storage tank 2 miles southeast of
Cushing causing a fire. The 80,000 barrel capacity tank only had 8,700 barrels of
crude in it at the time.
Table 3–14: History of Lightning Events, Fatalities, and Damages
from 1995 to 2003
Location
Events
Deaths
Amount of Damage
Payne County
14
0
$225,000
State of Oklahoma
321
10
$17,020,000
459
$336,400,000
United States
The National Lightning Safety Institute reports that in 35 years of studying lightning
fatalities, injuries, and damage reports in the United States, the reported locations of
injurious lightning strikes broke down as shown in the following table.
Table 3–15: Locations of Injurious Lightning Strikes
Location
Percentage
Not reported
40
Open fields and recreation areas (not golf courses)
27
Under trees (not golf courses)
14
Water related (boating, fishing, swimming)
8
Golfing and on a golf course under trees
5
Heavy equipment and machinery related
3
Telephone related
2.4
Radio, transmitter and antenna related
0.6
Anyone out-of-doors during a thunderstorm is exposed and at risk to lightning. More
people are killed by lightning strikes while participating in some form of recreation than
any other incident, source, or location. The next largest group of fatalities involves people
City of Cushing
75
located under trees, then those in proximity to bodies of water. Other common incidents
involve golfers, agricultural activity, telephone users, and people in proximity to radios
and antennas.
Each year, an estimated 17,400 fires are attributed to lightning, resulting in
approximately 10 civilian deaths, 75 injuries, and $ 138 million in property damage.
The most lightning deaths occur in Florida, Michigan, Texas, New York, and Tennessee.
The most lightning injuries occur in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,
and New York. Oklahoma ranks 5th in the number of damages, and 15th in the number of
lightning deaths and injuries.
Oklahoma is vulnerable to frequent thunderstorms and convective weather patterns, and
therefore its vulnerability to lightning is a constant and widespread threat during the
thunderstorm season. The entirety of the City of Cushing, including all future
development areas, is vulnerable to the lightning hazard. This is particularly true for the
petroleum product tank farms located in and around Cushing, as evidenced by the
lightning-caused tank fire of September 16, 2004.
3.4.4 Conclusion
Lightning is deadlier than tornadoes and hurricanes combined, occurring with more
consistency every year during the thunderstorm season than any other natural hazard.
People outside can have a false sense of security, thinking they are still safe because a
storm front has not yet reached their location. In fact, lightning can strike ten miles out
from the rain column, putting people that are still in clear weather at risk.
Lightning strikes occur most frequently during the summer months between 12:00 noon
and 6:00 PM. However, the general rule of safety is that anyone outside during a
thunderstorm should take cover.
Electronic equipment, from personal computers to enterprise-level communications
systems, can also be seriously damaged by power surges from lightning. Surge protection
should be included in any electronic system to minimize the risk of damage from
lightning. The most vulnerable facilities to lightning in Cushing are the dozens of oil
storage tanks outside the city limits to the north and southeast, and the half-dozen tanks
within the city to the northeast of Main St. and Linwood Rd.
Because it is located in an area that is subject to large convective thunderstorms spawning
tornadoes and lightning, and as the home of many petroleum product pipelines and tank
farms, Cushing is highly vulnerable to the lightning hazard.
City of Cushing
76
3.4.5 Sources
Lightning Fatalities, Injuries, and Damage Reports in The United States From 19591994. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-19, 1997 and at Web Address:
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/papers/techmemos/NWS-SR-193/techmemo-sr193.html.
Mulkins, Phil. “If you can hear thunder—find cover now!” Tulsa World, May 23, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 30. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 1977.
City of Cushing
77
3.5 Hailstorms
A hailstorm is an outgrowth of a severe thunderstorm in which balls or irregularly shaped
lumps of ice fall with rain. Extreme temperature changes from the ground upward into
the jet stream produce strong updraft winds that cause hail formation.
The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm. High
velocity updraft winds keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The greater the intensity
of heating at the Earth’s surface, the stronger the updraft will be. Higher temperatures
relative to elevation result in increased suspension time, allowing hailstones to grow in
size.
Hail can occur in any strong
thunderstorm, which means
hail is a threat everywhere.
Hail is one of the most
destructive hazards to
agricultural crops and
animals, and the major
natural cause of automobile
damage.
Effects
When hail hits, it can
Hailstones can cause widespread damage to crops and automobiles,
damage cars, shred roof
and also serious bodily injury
coverings, and lead to water
damaged ceilings, walls, floors, appliances, and personal possessions.
Large hailstones can also cause serious bodily injury.
Normal Frequency
The middle area of the Great Plains is most frequently affected by hailstorms. Multiple
impacts of concurrent severe thunderstorm effects (extreme winds, tornadoes, and hail)
are very likely in this region. Outside of the coastal regions, most of the United States
experiences hailstorms at least two or more days each year. A localized area along the
border of Colorado and Wyoming experiences hailstorms eight or more days each year.
About 2% of United States crop production is damaged by hail each year, and in the
Great Plains States it has sometimes reached 20%. The development of hailstorms from
thunderstorm events causes nearly $1 billion in property and crop damage each year.
Extent of Impact
Between 1956 and 2006, Payne County communities reported a total of 251 hailstorms.
with the largest hailstones falling near Perkins on April 26, 1984 (4.0 inches) and on
City of Cushing
78
Stillwater on June 2, 1988 (3.25 inches). The county has had 14 hail events with
hailstones of over 2.5 inches in diameter. Between 1993 and 2007, Cushing was hit by 14
separate hailstorm events, with stones ranging in size between 0.75 and 1.75 inches. Over
the 14 events, hailstones averaged 1.03 inches in size. Damage of $5,000 was reported for
these Cushing hailstorms. From this data, it can be estimated that Cushing will likely
experience an average of one hail event per year, with hailstones of about 1 inch to 1.25
inches in diameter. The damages expected from a hail event are a function of the
diameter of the hailstones and wind speed, or hailstone velocity. There have been
numerous instances of hailstones reaching four inches in diameter, or softball size. When
hailstones reach such dimensions, they can be extremely dangerous to property,
agriculture and the vulnerable populations of the jurisdiction. A worst-case event for
Cushing would be a sustained hailstorm with stones 4.0 inches in diameter. Such an event
would result in some injuries and severe, but not catastrophic, damage to houses,
commercial buildings and automobiles.
The Midwest hailstorm and tornado event in April 1994 lasted four days. According to
Property Claims Services in Rahway, New Jersey, it produced 300,000 damage claims
against insurers, more than Hurricane Andrew or the Northridge earthquake.
According to NOAA, the most expensive thunderstorm event in United States history
occurred in April-May of 1995 in the Texas-Oklahoma region. Hailstones up to four
inches in diameter caused 109 hailstone-related injuries and contributed to over $2 billion
in damage in Fort Worth, Texas.
Egg and golf ball sized hail fell in the Cushing area on March 17, 1977. Several funnels
were scene near Stillwater and Drumright along with damaging straight-winds, blowing
dust and scattered heavy rain.
Between 1959 and 1992,
Oklahoma reported 1,152
hailstorm events. These storms
resulted in six injuries, $32
million in property damage, and
$250,000 crop damage. If these
seem to be conservative figures
for a span of 43 years, keep in
mind that these amounts only
reflect damages that were
reported. Most likely many more
events were not reported.
An April 2004 thunderstorm left Oklahoma City streets layered
with hail.
As shown in the table below,
Oklahoma has experienced 3,439 hailstorm incidents with hail of at least 1” in diameter
in the eight-year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2003. This is an average
City of Cushing
79
of 382 hailstorms each year, or more than one per day. Damage to buildings and crops
was over $40 million.
Table 3–16: Fatalities and Reported Damages Caused by Hail
From 1995 to 2003
Location
Number of Events
Number of Deaths
Payne County
24
0
$0
Cushing
5
0
$0
3439
0
$41,715,000
4
$5,065,209,000
Oklahoma
United States
Amount of Damage
Payne County and Cushing Hail Events
Between 1956 and 2006, Payne County communities reported a total of 251 hailstorms.
Cushing and its immediate surroundings were hit by hail 14 times between 1993 (when
the National Climatic Data Center began reporting for localities) and 2006.
March 1977- Cushing was hit by a major hailstorm with grapefruit-size hail. Many
residents remember the storm as a citywide event that damaged or destroyed nearly
every roof in town.March 28, 1993- .88-inch hail fell at Cushing.
April 2, 1994- Hail 1.25 inches in diameter caused $5,000 in damage.
August 4, 1994- Severe thunderstorm winds ripped the door off Cushing’s Police
Department building. Hail was .75 inches in diameter.
August 7, 1994- .75-inch hail fell at Cushing.
March 14, 1996- Hail 1.5 inches in diameter fell 2 miles north of Cushing.
March 30, 1996- Cushing hit by .75-inch hail.
May 22, 1999- Hail 1 inch in diameter fell 6 miles north of Cushing.
May 24, 2000- 1.75-inch hail falls at Cushing.
May 25, 2000- For the second day hail 1.75 inches in diameter fall at Cushing with
winds between 80-100 mph.
September 7, 2001- .75-inch hail at Cushing.
April 20, 2004- Cushing reports 1-inch hail.
May 23, 2004- Cushing’s east side hit by .75-inch hail.
May 29, 2004- Thunderstorm produces tornadoes and hail. Cushing reports .88-inch
hail.
May 4, 2006- .75-inch hail at Cushing.
City of Cushing
80
Hailstorms occur in every state on the mainland United States, but most frequently in the
middle area of the Great Plains during the late spring and early summer when the jet
stream migrates northward.
Peak periods for hailstorms, late spring and early summer, coincide with the Midwest’s
peak agricultural seasons for wheat, corn, barley, oats and rye, tobacco and fruit trees.
Long-stemmed vegetation is especially vulnerable to damage by hail impacts and winds.
Severe hailstorms also cause considerable damage to buildings and automobiles but
rarely result in loss of life.
Oklahoma has significant exposure to hailstorms, and virtually all buildings and crops in
the storm are at risk.This is also true for the City of Cushing. The entire community is at
risk to a hail event, including all future development areas.
3.5.4 Conclusion
Hailstorms can occur anywhere in the mainland United States because hail is spawned
from thunderstorms. The states in the middle of the Great Plains are the most likely to
have severe thunderstorms and therefore have the most hail events. The peak season for
hail events is in the late spring and early summer.
In Oklahoma, there is significant exposure to hailstorms, due to the massive convective
thunderstorms that a common to the region. There are an average of 382 hailstorms each
year with hailstones at least 1 inch in diameter, and some measuring 1.75 inches in
diameter. Cushing has been hit by hailstones as large as grapefruit. All buildings and
crops are at risk, including future development areas.
3.5.5 Sources
Institute for Business and Home Safety, at Web address: www.ibhs.org. Institute for
Business and Home Safety, Tampa Florida, August 1999.
NCDC Storm Event Database, at Web address: www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms. National Climatic Data Center.
Cushing Daily Citizen, March 18, 1977
City of Cushing
81
3.6 Winter Storms
A severe winter storm is one that drops four or more inches of snow during a 12-hour
period, or six or more inches during a 24-hour period. An ice storm occurs when freezing
rain falls from clouds and freezes immediately upon contact.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issues winter storm advisories when at least five
inches of snow or any amount of ice is projected to occur over a 24-hour period. A winter
storm warning means forecasters expect at least seven inches of snow or half an inch of
ice.
A winter storm can range
from moderate snow over a
few hours to blizzard
conditions with blinding
wind-driven snow that lasts
several days. Many winter
depressions give rise to
exceptionally heavy rain and
widespread flooding.
Conditions worsen if the
precipitation falls in the form
of snow because it occupies
seven to ten times more
space than the same quantity
Cushing is vulnerable to ice storms produced by warm, moist Gulf air
colliding with arctic air from the Canadian Shield
of rain. The aftermath of a
winter storm can impact a
community or region for weeks, and even months.
Effects
Winter storms bring the following hazards:
•
•
•
•
Extreme cold, causing wind chill factors dangerous to humans and animals
Snow accumulation, causing blocked transportation routes and possible residual
flooding
Reduced visibility and slick surfaces, causing hazardous driving and walking
conditions
Power lines and tree limbs coated with heavy ice, causing power and telephone
service disruptions
Winter storms cause great inconvenience, injuries and deaths. Everyone is affected by the
loss of mobility. Streets and highways are slick and hazardous, and even walking from
house to car can be dangerous. Public transportation is often blocked. Residents,
commuters, travelers and livestock may become isolated or stranded without adequate
City of Cushing
82
food, water and fuel supplies. People are often inconvenienced or at risk of physical harm
from loss of power to their homes. Above-ground electrical and telephone lines and tree
limbs are often coated in a heavy build-up of accumulating ice, which break when under
the stress of sufficient weight. Falling trees also often down power lines. When electrical
lines are damaged, other utilities such as natural gas, water and sewer systems can
become inoperable. The City of Cushing is, at the time of this report, Investigating the
feasibility of burying overhead electric power lines, and include prioritized list (e.g.,
feeders to critical facilities would be a top priority).
Physical damage to homes and facilities can occur from wind damage, accumulation of
snow, ice, and hail from accompanying winds. Even small accumulations of snow can
wreak havoc on transportation systems due to a lack of snow clearing equipment and
experienced drivers.
Winter storms are often deceptive killers because most deaths are indirectly related to the
storm. The cold temperatures that accompany winter storms cause their own secondary
hazards. House fires occur more frequently in winter due to lack of proper safety
precautions when using alternate heating sources (unattended fires, disposal of hot ashes,
improperly placed space heaters, and so on). Fires during winter storms present a great
danger because water supplies may freeze and impede firefighting efforts.
Normal Frequency
Using Oklahoma winter storm data from 1995 to 2003, the state averages 14 winter storm
events each year. Occurrences of daily low temperatures below freezing range from an
average of 140 days per year in the western panhandle to 60 days in the Red River plain
in extreme southeastern Oklahoma. Occurrences of daily high temperatures below
freezing range from an average of 15 days per year in portions of north central and
northwest Oklahoma to 3 days per year in the southeast.Extent of Impact
Cushing has experienced 21 severe
winter weather events between
1995 and 2003. In Payne County
as a whole, these storms did a total
of $10 million in damage. Based
on this data, Cushing can expect 2
winter storm events each year that
cause damage in the tens of
thousands of dollars.
The extent of a winter storm in
Oklahoma can vary greatly,
influenced by a variety of factors.
The local weather conditions can
influence the extent of a storm, as
January 30, 2002, winter storm caused widespread
damage in Stillwater
can the way ice and snow
accumulate. Even a relatively
minor winter storm, with ice buildup on elevated roadways and bridges, can become
City of Cushing
83
dangerous, interfering with the mobility of the public, power company officials, first
responders and emergency management officials due to slick, hazardous and/or
impassable roads. There can also be catastrophic winter storms in Oklahoma which
impact entire jurisdictions because of downed power lines and trees from ice
accumulation on wires and branches. Ice damage to trees and power lines can lead to
days, if not weeks, of isolation from the power grid, thus greatly expanding the extent of
this natural hazard. The extent of the impact of a winter storm can be lessened by
identification of at risk populations, by weather warnings and notifications, by the
establishment of warming rooms and utility bill assistance programs, road condition
alerts, ensuring backup electric power generation is available for critical facilities,
burying power line, and so forth.
Between 1988 and 1991, a total of 372 deaths, an average of 93 each year, were
attributed to severe winter storms. The super storm of March 1993, considered among the
worst non-tropical weather events in United States history, killed at least 79 people,
injured more than 600, and caused $2 billion in property damage across portions of 20
states and the District of Columbia.
In Oklahoma, 114 winter storm events with snow, ice,
sleet, freezing rain and drizzle were reported during the 8year period from January 1993 to July 2001. There were
two deaths, more than $86 million of property damage,
and $7 million of crop damage resulting from these winter
storms.
Recently, Oklahoma has been slammed by major severe
winter storms resulting in National Disaster Declarations.
On Christmas Day, 2000, Oklahoma was hit by the most
costly winter storm in its history. As of December 2001,
$122.26 million in disaster aid was sent to Oklahomans to
facilitate their recovery from this storm.
The terrible power of severe winter weather was
demonstrated again in Oklahoma on January 30, 2002,
when an ice storm hit the state. Ice laden limbs of trees
fell on power lines, knocking out electricity to
approximately 250,000 people, and claiming the lives of
four persons. The Governor declared 44 counties a
Disaster Area, including Payne County.
The winter storm of January
2007 left thousands in
McAlester and other cities
without power for over a
week.
A severe winter storm again hit Oklahoma during the week of January 15, 2007. Freezing
rain and snow blanketed much of the State, with counties in the southeast being
particularly hard hit. The city of McAlester was without power for over one week. In all,
23 people had died as a result of the storm between January 12-18, 2007.
City of Cushing
84
Table 3–17: History of Extreme Cold and Severe Winter Storms, Fatalities, and Damages
from 1995 to 2003
Region
Number of
Events
Number of
Injuries
Number of
Deaths
Amount of Damage
Payne County
21
0
0
$10,082,000
State of Oklahoma
125
0
2
$395,373,000
3077
619
$2,989,116,000
United States
Cushing and Payne County Winter Storm Events
The National Climatic Data Center does not list any specific winter storms for Payne
County, but other records indicate there were 21 reported winter storm events in the
county between 1995-2003, doing over $10 million in damage.
The leading cause of death during winter storms is from automobile or other
transportation accidents. Exhaustion and heart attacks caused by overexertion are also
likely causes of winter storm-related deaths. Indigent and elderly people account for the
largest percentage of hypothermia victims.
Almost the entire United States is at some risk from winter storms. The level of risk
depends on the severity of local winter weather. Every area that has streets, trees, or
power lines is vulnerable to the effects of winter storms.
Oklahoma is particularly vulnerable to severe winter storms due to its proximity the Gulf
of Mexico. The Gulf can supply strong, warm, and wet air masses that move northward
across Texas and Oklahoma to collide with the cold air of the southward-dipping jet
stream carrying high winds and artic temperatures. This mixture can and often does
produce a deadly combination of heavy rain turning to freezing rain, ice storms, snowfall,
hail, high winds, and frigid temperatures worsened by damp air. Ice storms occur when
rain falls out of a warm, moist upper layer of the atmosphere into a dry layer with
freezing or sub-freezing air near the ground. Rain freezes on contact with the cold ground
and accumulates on exposed surfaces.
Most of those who died in Oklahoma were located outdoors, but those uneducated on the
risk of indoor toxic air pollution concentration levels created from powering gas and
some electric generators indoors may also prove susceptible.
As witnessed to by the 21 winter storm events between 1995 and 2003 within Payne
County and the over $10 million in damages, communities in the County are vulnerable
to winter storms. The City of Cushing has a high vulnerability to a winter storm event, as
do all future development areas.
City of Cushing
85
3.6.4 Conclusion
Severe local storms are probably the most common widespread hazard. In latitudes and
locations subject to northern winter jet streams pulling artic air into their area, severe
winter storms have the potential to cause significant loss of life, property damage,
transportation problems, and utility service failure over a large area.
Secondary effects of winter storms include house fires from increased and improper use
of alternate heating sources. Frozen water supplies can impede firefighting efforts.
Oklahoma has its share of severe winter storms accompanied by ice because of its
location between the Gulf of Mexico and the arctic jet stream. Warm, wet air from the
south interacts with the cold arctic air to create freezing rain.
As witnessed to by the 21 winter storm events between 1995 and 2003, the City of
Cushing has a high vulnerability to a winter storm event, as do all future development
areas.
3.6.5 Sources
FEMA Fact Sheet: Winter Storms, p. 30. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
March 1999.
Information on Federally Declared Disasters, “Ice Storm Disaster Aid Reaches $122
Million,” at Web address: www.fema.gov./diz01/d1355n23.htm. Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management Update on Federally Declared
Disasters at Web address: http://www.odcem.state.ok.us/ .
King County Office of Emergency Management, “Severe Local Storms,” at Web address:
www.metrokc.gov/prepare/hiva/storm.htm. Office of Emergency Management, King
County, Washington.
Marler, J.W. “About 250,000 in State Still Without Electricity,” Tulsa World, February 1,
2002.
Myers, Jim. “FEMA head adds counties to aid list,” Tulsa World, February 8, 2002.
NCDC Storm Event Database, at Web address: www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms. National Climatic Data Center.
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and
Vulnerability Assessment,” p 5. Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management,
September 2001.
Wack, Kevin. “Prepare for Deep Powder,” Tulsa World, February 3, 2002.
City of Cushing
86
3.7 Extreme Heat
Extreme summer weather is characterized by a combination of very high temperatures
and exceptionally humid conditions. A heat wave occurs when such conditions persist
over time.
Approximately 200 people die each year
in the United States because of extreme
heat. Extreme summer temperatures are
also hazardous to livestock and crops,
and can cause water shortages,
exacerbate fire hazards, and prompt
excessive demands for energy. Even
roads, bridges, and railroad tracks are
susceptible to damage from extreme
heat.
Cushing’s average temperature in July is 82 degrees
Fahrenheit
Effects
Human bodies dissipate heat by varying the rate and depth of blood circulation and by
losing water through the skin and sweat glands. Perspiration is about 90% of the body's
heat dissipating function. Sweating, by itself, does nothing to cool the body unless the
water is removed by evaporation. High relative humidity retards evaporation, so under
conditions of high temperature (above 90 degrees) and high relative humidity, the body is
pressed to maintain 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit inside.
When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove, or when the body cannot
compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body's
inner core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop.
Heat also affects local workforce capabilities. Workers exposed to these elements must
be monitored for heat exhaustion and heat stroke.
During the summer months, consistent high temperatures and stagnant airflow patterns
cause a build-up of hydrocarbons to form a dome-like ceiling over large cities. The
abundance of factories, automobiles, lawn equipment, and other internal combustion
machines emit high particulate matter that builds and worsens with the increase in
temperature. The resulting stagnant, dirty, and toxic air does not move away until a
weather front arrives to disperse it.
When the particulate matter reaches a pre-determined level, cities issue ozone alerts and
implement measures to reduce the use of cars and the output of the offending chemicals.
Ozone alerts usually include advisories for the elderly and those with breathing
difficulties to stay indoors in air-conditioned environments.
City of Cushing
87
Damage to property during extreme heat is more a factor of expanding and contracting
soil and is covered in the section, “Expansive Soils.”
Normal Frequency
The average high temperature for July in the Cushing area is 93 degrees, which puts the
area in the “Extreme Caution” category on the National Weather Service (NWS) Heat
Index scale, without factoring in the relative humidity.
Measurements
The Heat Index and Heat Disorders table (see below) relates index ranges with specific
disorders, particularly for people in the higher risk groups. The heat index illustrates how
the human body experiences the combined effects of high temperature and humidity. It
more accurately reflects what the body experiences than simply measuring the air
temperature. For example, when the air temperature is 98° Fahrenheit and the relative
humidity is 50%, the human body experiences the discomfort and stress equivalent to
113° Fahrenheit.
Extent of Impact
Cushing and Payne County have experienced major heat waves four times in the past 13
years: in 1994, 1996, 2001 and 2006. Sustained periods of temperatures above 100
degrees Fahrenheit can be expected at least once every three years. Sustained high
temperatures are a hazard that impacts the entire community, but particularly the aged,
the poor, the obese, those with heart problems, and people who work out of doors. The
impact of the extreme heat hazard can be mitigated by notifications and warnings to
vulnerable populations, the establishment of cooling rooms, utility cost assistance
City of Cushing
88
programs, backup electric generation for critical facilities, Medical Reserve Corps
training, and similar measures.
In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the
United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the summer of 1936,
temperatures across two-thirds of the United States rose well above 110 degrees
Fahrenheit, and to as high as 121 degrees in some places. The heat wave lasted for 13
days, killing about 5,000 people in the U.S., and nearly 800 in Canada. In the disastrous
heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died.
A 1988 drought and heat wave affecting the central
and eastern United States caused approximately $40
billion in livestock and crop damage. Another in 1993
in the southeastern United States caused
approximately $1 billion in livestock and crop
damage and an undetermined number of deaths.
The Central Plains and Corn Belt States experienced a
heat wave July 15 through 19, 1995, when
temperatures climbed above 120 degrees Fahrenheit.
A significant portion of the Eastern States was in the
danger category during the same period, with
temperatures ranging from 105 to 120 degrees
Fahrenheit. This heat wave caused 670 deaths.
In Oklahoma, July is generally the hottest month of
the year, closely followed by August. The NWS
compiled a 106-year record of monthly and annual
average temperatures in Oklahoma, and the dust bowl
years of 1921, 1931, and 1936 show the highest
average temperatures across a 12-month period for
the past 100 years.
Outdoor workers are among
the most vulnerable
The table below shows that 46 deaths resulted from
50 extreme heat episodes from 1998 to 2002 in Oklahoma compared with 1,166 deaths in
the United States. The table also illustrates the percentage of fatalities that were people
over 60 years of age.
City of Cushing
89
Table 3–18: Deaths from Extreme Heat
Year
Oklahoma
United States
Over 60
1995
0
1,021
73%
1996
10
36
84%
1997
0
81
65%
1998
24
173
68%
1999
10
502
67%
2000
5
158
68%
2001
9
166
62%
2002
0
167
52%
2003
3
36
61%
Totals
61
2,340
Extreme heat does not limit itself to local jurisdictions and historical data often only
identifies impacted counties. Events where temperatures exceed 100° F for extended
periods during the summer months are common. Payne County has been named in
several extreme heat events during the 1990’s including June of 1994, when the State’s
record high temperature of 120° F was tied in southern Oklahoma and temperatures in
Cushing reached in excess of 100° F. The first week of July of 1996, temperatures
exceeded 102° F everyday of the week. A 67-year old man was found dead in his home
with a broken air conditioner in Cushing, Oklahoma. He was one of seven deaths across
the state from the heat wave. All the victims from the event were elderly. Payne County
experienced daily temperature means 4-5 degrees above normal from July 4-31, 2001.
This heat wave caused eight deaths in Central Oklahoma including one in nearby
Stillwater, Payne County. The event was combined with an average of about one-third
normal rainfall, resulting in a simultaneous drought.
Humidity has worsened over the past 40 years in northeast Oklahoma due in part to the
construction of new lakes. If the humidity readings are factored in to the air temperature
records, the Heat Index for this area in July and August could easily move into the
“Dangerous” or even “Extremely Dangerous” levels in those two months. Therefore, this
part of the state is quite vulnerable to the natural hazard of extreme heat during a large
part of virtually every summer season.During 2005-2006, Oklahoma experienced the
worst drought in its history—a result of months of high temperatures and low
precipitation. One result was a record number of wildfire outbreaks (see Section 3.8
Drought and 3.11 Wildfire, below).
Cushing and Payne County Extreme Heat Events
Cushing and Payne County have experienced four major extreme heat events in the past
13 years.
City of Cushing
90
June 27, 1994- Temperatures were above 110 degrees in southwest Oklahoma with
readings in excess of 100 in northwest and central Oklahoma during the afternoon
hours on the 27th. The high temperature of 120 degrees from the Oklahoma Mesonet 4
miles south of Tipton tied the record for the highest temperatures ever recorded in the
state.
July 1-7, 1996- Temperatures were over 100 degrees F, rising to 110 degrees on July
6 in central Oklahoma. Seven deaths were attributed to the excessive heat. All of the
victims were elderly and all but one were in homes without air conditioning. In
Cushing, a 67-year-old man was found in his home on July 5th. The high temperature
recorded in Oklahoma City that day was 107.
July 4-31, 2001- An extended period of excessive heat affected all of western and
central Oklahoma in July. Daily mean temperatures ranged from the mid 80s to near
90 degrees, which is 4 to 5 degrees above normal. Most areas experienced high
temperatures at or above 100 degrees, particularly western and north central
Oklahoma. Eight fatalities resulted from the heat. A 78 year-old male died on July 6
in Stillwater while loading equipment at a storage facility.
June 18, 2006- A 21-month old boy succumbed (indirect) to the heat when left in a
car for an hour in Stillwater. High temperatures were in the mid 90s.
July 16-August 13, 2006- Temperatures reached triple digits across much of
Oklahoma beginning in mid-July and continuing through the end of the month. Many
locations reached 105 degrees or greater with higher heat index values. The heat
caused 10 fatalities, most of them in homes without fans or working air conditioners.
In August, temperatures remained in the 100s, causing the deaths of 5 more women
and 3 men, almost all of them either working out of doors or in homes without air
conditioners.
Every person is subject to health problems during a heat wave. However, the following
groups are more likely to suffer:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elderly (> 65 years of age)
Infants (< 1 year of age)
Homeless
Low income
People who are socially isolated
People with mobility restrictions or
mental impairments
•
•
•
People taking certain medications (i.e.,
for high blood pressure, insomnia, or
depression)
People engaged in vigorous physical
exercise or outdoor labor
People under the influence of drugs or
alcohol.
In general, the poor and elderly populations of a community are less able to afford high
utility bills and air conditioning units, leaving them with an increased vulnerability to
extreme heat events. Another segment of the population at risk are those whose jobs
consist of strenuous labor outside exposed to high temperatures and humidity.
City of Cushing
91
Studies indicate that, other things being equal, the severity of heat disorders tend to
increase with age. Heat cramps in a 17-year-old may become heat exhaustion in a person
who is 40 and heat stroke in a person over 60. Sweating is the body’s natural mechanism
for reducing high body temperature, and the body temperature at which sweating begins
increases with age.
More deaths from extreme summer weather occur in urban centers than in rural areas.
Poorer air quality in big cities exacerbates severe conditions. The masses of stone, brick,
concrete, and asphalt that are typical of urban architecture absorb radiant heat energy
during the day and radiate that heat during nights that would otherwise be cooler. Tall
buildings may effectively decrease wind velocity, thereby decreasing the contribution of
moving air to evaporative and convective cooling.
The City of Cushing, including all future growth areas, is vulnerable to extreme heat on a
yearly basis. This is especially true of the 17% of the City’s population that is 65 years of
age and older, as well as the 14% living in poverty. Areas with a concentration of these
population segments are depicted in Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4, respectively.
3.7.4 Conclusion
Oklahoma can expect to be hit by the hazard of extreme heat every summer. The severity
of the hazard is dependent on a combination of temperature, humidity, and access to air
conditioning. The most vulnerable groups are:
•
•
•
•
•
The poor (See Figure 1–4: Low Income Areas, in Chapter 1)
The elderly (See Figure 1–3: Population 65 Years and Older, in Chapter 1)
Those with heart problems
The obese
Those who work outside
The most effective proven way to mitigate casualties from extreme heat is through public
information and education, although other community programs such as cooling stations
and air conditioner loan programs can also produce an impact.
3.7.5 Sources
National Weather Service, Natural Hazard Statistics at Web address:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml.
City of Cushing
92
3.8 Drought
Seattle’s Emergency Management Office defines drought as “climatic dryness severe
enough to reduce soil moisture and water below the minimum necessary for sustaining
plant, animal, and human life systems.”Drought is caused by a deficiency of
precipitation, which can be aggravated by high temperatures, high winds, and low
relative humidity. Duration and severity are usually measured by deviation from norms of
annual precipitation and stream flows.
Drought is an insidious hazard
of nature, characterized as a
“creeping phenomenon.” It is
often difficult to recognize the
occurrence of drought before
being in the middle of one.
Drought analysis is more
subjective than that for floods,
because droughts do not occur
spontaneously. They evolve
over time as certain
conditions are met and are
spread over a large
The “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s, the greatest natural disaster in
geographical area. Drought
Oklahoma history, drove over 800,000 people off the land
severity depends on its
duration, intensity, geographic extent, and the regional water supply demands made by
human activities and vegetation. This multi-dimensional nature makes it difficult to
define a drought and to perform comprehensive risk assessments. This leads to the lack of
accurate, reliable, and timely estimates of drought severity and effects, and ultimately
slows the development of drought contingency plans.
Effects
Adverse consequences of drought occur because of deficiencies in the following:
•
•
•
•
Public and rural water supplies for human and livestock consumption
Natural soil water or irrigation water for agriculture
Water for hydroelectric power, forests, recreation, and navigation
Water quality
The most direct impact of drought is economic rather than loss of life or immediate
destruction of property. Drought affects water levels for use by industry, agriculture, and
individual consumers.
Water shortages affect fire-fighting capabilities through reduced water flows and
pressures. Drought also affects power production, so when water levels drop, electric
City of Cushing
93
companies cannot produce enough power to meet demand and are forced to buy
electricity from other sources.
Most droughts dramatically increase the danger of wild land fires. When wild lands are
destroyed by fire, the resulting erosion can cause heavy silting of streams, rivers, and
reservoirs. Serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power production then occurs.
(See the section, “Wildfires.”)
Drought is often accompanied by extreme heat. Wildlife, pets, livestock, crops, and
humans are vulnerable to high heat accompanying drought. When temperatures reach 90
degrees and above, people and animals are vulnerable to sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat
exhaustion. (See the section, “Extreme Heat.”)
Normal Frequency
Drought is a normal part of virtually all climates. However, an ample water supply is
critical to the economic well being of the United States and of Oklahoma. During
droughts, crops do not mature, wildlife and livestock are undernourished, land values
decrease, and unemployment increases.
Given that six major drought events have occurred in Oklahoma over the past 50 years
and that nine notable droughts have occurred nation-wide in the twentieth century, one
may logically conclude that Oklahoma can expect a drought every decade and that we
can expect droughts to occur more frequently than the country as a whole. However,
long-term forecasts of droughts are difficult and inexact. There is no commonly accepted
way of determining the probability that is analogous to the 100-year or 1-percent-annual
flood chance.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is preparing the National Drought Atlas to
provide information on the magnitude and frequency of minimum precipitation and
stream flow for the contiguous United States. On average the July-to-January period is
the lowest six-month period of stream flow throughout the U.S. and is used to
characterize drought. The mean monthly flow from July to January has a once-in-20years chance of falling below a level that would classify it as a drought. In other words,
the average occurrence of drought is once every twenty years. Oklahoma, with one per
ten years over the past fifty years, is obviously at a greater than normal risk from drought.
Measurements
A variety of measures are used to predict the severity and impact of droughts, but each
one measures different aspects or types of drought. Any single index cannot describe
everything about the original data, and the indices are only approximations of real-world
phenomena.
Extent of Impact
Because of the gradual nature of drought’s onset, and its uneven impacts, it is often
difficult to determine the beginning and end of a drought event. Cushing and Payne
County have experienced drought three times in the past 7 years, characterized by
primarily by crop damage and wildfire. Cushing’s municipal water supply is strong, with
ownership of the 591-acre Cushing Lake and several deep water well fields. The City’s
City of Cushing
94
water supply and treatment capacity is three times it current maximum demand.
Economic damage due to crop loss and wildfire remains, however, a significant threat to
the community. Property and crop damage due to drought in Oklahoma between 2000
and 2007 reached $594 million ($32.5 million to property and $561.6 million to crops).
The impacts of drought can be lessened by early warning and notification systems,
backup sources of water supply, cooperative agreements with neighboring jurisdictions,
local ordinances for rationing water use, clearing brush and Eastern Redcedar from
structures in the urban/rural interface, and participating in the national Firewise program.
The National Weather Service’s drought monitor map illustrates the pervasive nature and
degrees of dryness and prolonged droughts in several areas of the country. Following is
the link for the current Drought Monitor map for the U.S., which is updated weekly.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html.
Nine notable droughts occurred during the twentieth century in the United States.
Damage estimates are not available for most, however estimates indicate that the 19761977 drought in the Great Plains, Upper Midwest, and far Western States caused direct
losses of $10-$15 billion. The 1987-1989 drought cost $39 billion including agricultural
losses, river transportation disruption, economic impacts, water supply problems, and
wildfires.
City of Cushing
95
Approximately 20% of the contiguous United States is currently suffering from the
effects of prolonged severe to extreme drought. Parts of the east coast have been
particularly hard hit, and the drought in those areas is so severe that months of abovenormal rainfall would be necessary to end it, according to the National Weather Service.
In Oklahoma, five major drought events were reported over the past 50 years resulting in
damage to crops estimated at $900 million.
Major droughts in Oklahoma, as determined from stream flow records collected since the
early 1920s, have predominately occurred during four periods: 1929-1941, 1951-1957,
1961-1972, and 1975-1982.
Droughts can be recorded at local and regional levels. Unfortunately, data is often not
kept at the municipality level. Payne County endured an extended period of unusually dry
weather beginning in August of 2000 and continued for 2 months. In Oklahoma, crop
damages from this extended event reached nearly $400 million. An extreme heat event
combined with an average of one-third normal rain levels impacted Payne County in July
of 2001 and caused eight heat related deaths in the State, six of which were in nearby
Oklahoma County. Other regional events have likely impacted the jurisdiction in the past,
but have not been recorded at the local level.
One of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. history and the most severe and devastating
to Oklahoma was the decade-long drought in the 1930s that has become known as the
Dust Bowl. Reaching its peak from 1935 through 1938, high temperatures and low
rainfall combined to destroy crops and livestock. High winds literally blew the land
away, causing massive soil erosion. Hundreds of small rural communities were ruined
and about 800,000 people were displaced. The total expenditure by the American Red
Cross for drought relief in Oklahoma in 1930-1931 was the third largest ever in the
nation.
August 2000. Oklahoma began the new century with drought conditions. In early
August 2000, an extended period of unusually dry weather lasted for 2 months. Many
parts of the state did not receive rain in August, and portions of southern and south
central Oklahoma remained dry for almost 90 days, starting in June. Total agricultural
losses were estimated between 600 million and 1 billion dollars statewide. Reservior
levels across southwest and south central Oklahoma averaged 50 percent of normal.
Seven counties near the Texas border (not including Grady) were declared federal
disaster areas.
July 2001 – A month of excessive heat and little rainfall brought drought to central
Oklahoma and killed eight people.
March 2002- Lack of rainfall and an infestation of insects took a toll on western
Oklahoma's wheat crop. State officials said 26 percent of the wheat crop was in very
poor shape and conditions were so dry in the Panhandle that soil erosion was
beginning to occur. The state's “wheat belt” region, the area around and west of U.S.
81, had received less than 50 percent of its normal rainfall since October of 2001,
according to Derek Arndt of the Oklahoma Climatological Survey.
March 2005-April 2006 – A sustained period of dry weather and high temperatures
spread drought across much of Oklahoma, especially the east central and southeast
City of Cushing
96
portions of the state. The winter of 2005-2006 was the second driest since records
began being kept in 1895. High winds, combined with dry soil conditions, helped
spread the worst series of wildfire outbreaks in Oklahoma history. (See 3.11 Wildfire,
below) By April 2006, the severe drought had become “extreme drought” in some
areas. Over 40 cities in Oklahoma had to impose some form of water rationing or
restrictions on water use.
As illustrated in the following graph, Oklahoma has gone through six drought cycles,
state-wide, since the early 1900s, with the latest being an almost 20-year period of wet
weather lasting from about 1983 to 2003. If these trends continue, and the recent wet
phase of the cycle is followed by a more or less equal number of dry years, then the State
may well be facing a period of prolonged drought in the coming decades.
Payne County and Cushing Drought
Cushing and Payne County have reported drought conditions for two of the last five
years—in 2001 and 2006. During 2001, Payne County and Cushing suffered moderate
drought in July and August, a period of severe drought in September, and moderate
drought again from October to December. During 2006, Cushing and Payne County
experienced moderate drought in February and March, a period of severe drought in
April, and moderate to severe drought in May and June. By August 2006, over 50
communities in Oklahoma had been forced to impose either mandatory or voluntary
water rationing. In April 2006, Cushing was forced to impose outdoor watering
restrictions.
The primary impacts of drought in Payne County have been to farming and ranching. A
secondary impact for both Payne County and Cushing, which have a good number of
residential estates within their jurisdictions, is urban interface wildfire. Following upon a
very wet spring in 2005, the drought conditions of 2005-2006, combined with
City of Cushing
97
unseasonably warm, windy weather from November to January, resulted in the worst
wildfire season in state history. Over 1,600 acres in Payne County were burned by
wildfire. This fire complex resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration.
In all droughts, agriculture feels the impact, especially in non-irrigated areas such as dry
land, farms, and rangelands. Other heavy water users such as landscapers are also
negatively impacted. Water related activities of residential users might be restricted.
Droughts also cause power shortages in Oklahoma because much of the state’s power
comes from hydroelectric plants. Therefore, heavy power users are affected.
Generally, in times of severe drought, states rely on the Federal Government to provide
relief to drought victims when water shortages reach near-disaster proportions. Forty
separate drought relief programs administered by 16 Federal agencies provided nearly $8
billion in relief as a result of the series of drought years during the mid-1970s. Federal
assistance efforts totaled more than $5 billion in response to the 1987–1989 drought.
However, since the mid-1970s, most states have taken a more active role and drought
contingency plans are now in place in at least 27 states.According to the University of
Nevada’s Drought Monitor, the primary impact currently to Payne County is the effect on
wheat production, although other factors listed above may come into play for individual
homeowners and businesses.
3.8.4 Conclusion
There are signs that drought is becoming an increasing problem in the United States,
including Oklahoma. However, it is difficult to predict drought probabilities for the near
future because of the nature and complexity of the hazard.
The severe droughts of the 1930s led to the construction of Oklahoma’s numerous
hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, as well as to the implementation of new farming
practices and conservation policies. However, more recent drought response and recovery
activities in Oklahoma, both on state and local levels, have not been as ambitious or
successful. Planning for the state’s critical and emergency water resources needs should
not be carried on only during drought crises. There is a “need to focus more on long-term
water management and planning issues; to integrate the activities of numerous agencies
with drought-related missions into a coherent national approach; and to achieve better
coordination of mitigation, response, and planning efforts between State and Federal
officials.”
The City of Cushing, including its future growth areas, is at moderate risk from drought.
Future growth areas, particularly, are at moderate risk from a secondary impact of
drought, urban interface wildfire, and at high risk from wildfire during times of high heat,
high wind, and prolonged drought.
3.8.5 Sources
King County Office of Emergency Management, “Droughts,” at Web address:
www.metrokc.gov/prepare/hiva/drought.htm. Office of Emergency Management, King
County, Washington.
City of Cushing
98
Nascenzi, Nicole. “Drought, insects threaten state wheat crop,” Tulsa World. March 14,
2002.
Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.). Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory and Case
Studies. Natural Resource Management and Policy, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1993
“NOAA Reports Droughts May Linger in East / West,” at Web address:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/. NOAA Magazine, March 14, 2002.
September 2001.
Oklahoma Water Resources Bulletin, p. 5, at Web address:
http://www.state.ok.us/~owrb/features/drought.html. Oklahoma Water Resources Board,
March 27, 2002.
“Record Warm Winter in Much of Mideast and Northeast: Drought worsens along
Eastern Seaboard,” at Web address: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/. NOAA Magazine,
March 14, 2002.
Summers, Laura. “Drought Threatens Hulah Lake,” Tulsa World, April 3, 2002.
Tortorelli, R.L. Floods and Droughts: Oklahoma, National Water Summary 1988-89: US
Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2375.USGS. Water Resources of Oklahoma.
“Worst drought seen in parts of U.S.,” at Web address: www.msnbc.com/news/ (article
no longer available).
City of Cushing
99
3.9 Expansive Soils
Soils and soft rock that tend to swell or shrink due to changes in moisture content are
commonly known as expansive soils. Expansive soils are often referred to as swelling
clays because clay materials are most susceptible to swelling and shrinking. Dry clays are
capable of absorbing water and will increase in volume in an amount proportional to the
amount of water absorbed.
Changes in soil volume present a
hazard primarily to structures
built on top of expansive soils.
Most engineering problems
caused by volume changes in
swelling clays result from human
activities that modify the local
environment, and which
commonly involve swelling clays
beneath areas covered by
buildings and slabs or layers of
concrete and asphalt. Damage to
the built environment results
from differential vertical
movement that occurs as clay
moisture content adjusts to the
changed environment.
Cushing property is underlain by soils with shrink-swell
potentials ranging from low to very high
The total annual cost of 1)
expansive soil-related damage and 2) preventative design of moderate to high-risk
structures throughout the United States has been conservatively estimated at just under
$2.5 billion. Recent estimates put the annual damage as high as $7 billion.
Because the hazard develops gradually and seldom presents a threat to life, expansive
soils have received limited attention despite their costly effects. Many problems are not
recognized as being related to expansive soils or may be considered only nuisances and
therefore never repaired.
Effects
The most extensive damage from expansive soils occurs to highways and streets. The
increase in soil volume also causes damage to foundations. The most obvious
manifestations of damage to buildings are sticking doors, uneven floors, and cracked
foundations, floors, walls, ceilings, and windows. If damage is severe, the cost of repair
may exceed the value of the building.
City of Cushing
100
Normal Frequency
Out of the 250,000 homes built each year on expansive soils, 10% sustain significant
damage during their useful lives, some beyond repair, and 60% sustain minor damage.
For all types of building construction, annual losses of $740 million are estimated.
Measurements
The risk associated with expansive soil is related to swelling potential in a qualitative
manner: high, moderate to slight, and little to no swelling potential. Probability and
frequency analyses have not been prepared because of the nature of occurrence of this
hazard, which is consistent with other geologic hazards that occur rarely or slowly over
time.
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service have an ongoing program to evaluate the expansive tendencies
of soils and shale formations in the state. Data on shrink-swell potential for each major
soil type is kept for 77 counties.
Extent of Impact
The impact of expansive soils on the City of Cushing can be loosely assessed by
surveying its underlying soils. Soils with “low” shrink/swell properties underlie about
82% of the city, while those of “moderate” make up about 18%. Soils with a “high” and
“very high” potential are not present. These figures are slightly misleading, because a
higher percentage of the land in the City’s future growth area to the southeast is
composed of “moderate” shrink/swell soils. That being said, property damage can vary
greatly across a jurisdiction, based on long-term weather conditions, the type and quality
of construction, and materials used in construction. The extent of damage from expansive
soils can be reduced by mapping the soils in the jurisdiction and notifying property
owners and prospective buyers and builders of potential soil hazards and the techniques
that can be used to limit their impacts. The area extent of the Expansive Soils is shown on
the map in Figure 3-6.
In Oklahoma, numerous foundation failures and pipeline breaks have resulted from soil
shrinkage during the unusually hot and dry summers of 1998 and 2005-2006. During the
drought of 2005-2006, soil shrinkage led to water main and sewer pipe breaks and leaks
in many Oklahoma cities, including Holdenville, Okmulgee, Muskogee and Ada. For
example, expansive soils are having a serious impact on Ada’s aging water infrastructure,
particularly during the drought and high temperature conditions of 2006. In July, 2006,
Ada lost about 2.5 MGD from its water distribution system due to breaks, leaks and
unmonitored (but authorized) use. Similar problems have plagued Okmulgee’s water
distribution system. Both cities have instituted aggressive pipeline maintenance programs
to counter the effects of soil shrinkage during periods of prolonged drought.
As Cushing is constructed almost entirely on soils with low shrink-swell potential, it has
virtually no history of damage from expansive soils.
City of Cushing
101
The effects of expansive soils are most prevalent in regions of moderate to high
precipitation, where prolonged periods of drought are followed by long periods of
rainfall. The most problematic soil type for expansive soils is found in the semiarid Westcentral United States.
Houses and small buildings are impacted more by expansive soils than larger buildings.
Large buildings are not as susceptible because their weight counters pressures from soil
swelling. The greatest damage occurs when small buildings are constructed when clays
are dry (such as during a drought) and then subsequent soaking rains swell the clay. Other
cases of damage involve increases of moisture volume from broken or leaking water and
sewer lines, over-watering of lawns and landscape, and modifications of the surface that
produce ponding.
In Oklahoma, the principal geologic areas that have high shrink-swell potential are the
Cretaceous shales that crop out in the southern part of the state.
Expansive soils for the City of Cushing, as defined by the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) in their Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), are
shown in Figure 3–6. Soils classified with “low” shrink/swell properties are the most
common type of soil in Cushing. They cover 6.24 square miles, or 82% of the total land
area. Soils listed as “moderate” cover 1.38 square miles of Cushing, or 18% of the total
land area. The majority of soils in Cushing are associated with the Steedman-Gowen
complex.
Table 3–19: City of Cushing Expansive Soils
Expansion Potential
Area
(square miles)
Low
6.24
Moderate
1.38
High
0
Very High
0
3.9.4 Conclusion
For large areas of the United States, little information is reported other than field
observations of the physical characteristics of clay of a particular stratigraphic unit.
Therefore, fixed criteria for determining the swelling potential have not been devised.
However, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service have an ongoing program to evaluate the
expansive tendencies of soils and shale formations in the state.
Houses and one-story commercial buildings are more apt to be damaged by the expansion
of swelling clays than are multi-story buildings, which usually are heavy enough to
counter swelling pressures. However, if constructed on wet clay, multi-story buildings
may be damaged by shrinkage of the clay if moisture levels are substantially reduced.
City of Cushing
102
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Grandstaff Rd
Vine St
Main St
33
18
Pine Ave
Noble
"
!
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
"
!
33
Oak St
Broadway St
3rd St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Elm Creek
Little Rd
Eseco
0
0.5
MILES
N
State Highways
Roads
County Line W
Water Features
City Limit
Low
Moderate
Payne County
Lincoln County
1
E
S
Cottonwood
Creek
Shrink/Swell
Soil Properties
Texaco Rd
LEGEND
Linwood Rd
6th St
Figure 3-6
City of Cushing
Expansive Soils
Source: NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database
As a result of this study, expansive soils have not been found to pose a significant threat
to the property or residents of the City of Cushing, as the community is built almost
entirely on soils with low shrink-swell potential. This conclusion applies, with modest
reservations, Cushing’s likely future development areas in the southeast quadrant, where
the soils are also low to moderately expansive, with a higher percentage of the latter.
3.9.5 Sources
Landslides and Expansive Soils in Oklahoma, at Web address: www.ou.edu/special/ogspttc/earthsci/landsl.htm. Oklahoma Geological Survey, Earth Sciences, October, 1998.
(Source no longer available)
City of Cushing
104
3.10 Urban Fires
Home fire is the fifth leading unintentional cause of injury and death in the United States,
behind motor vehicle crashes, falls, poisoning by solids or liquids, and drowning. It also
ranks as the first cause of death for children under the age of 15 at home. Roughly 80%
of all fire deaths occur where people sleep, such as in homes, dormitories, barracks, or
hotels. The majority of fatal fires occur when people are less likely to be alert, such as
nighttime sleeping hours. Nearly all home and other building fires are preventable, even
arsons.
Cooking is the leading cause
of home fires in the U.S. It is
also the leading cause of home
fire injuries. Cooking fires
often result from unattended
cooking and human error,
rather than mechanical failure
of ovens and stoves.
Eighty-three percent of all
civilian fire deaths occur in
residences, and careless
smoking is the leading cause
of those fire deaths. In 2002
Frame houses are particularly vulnerable to urban fire
alone, lighted tobacco products
caused an estimated 14,450 residential fires, 520 civilian deaths, 1,330 injuries, and $371
million in residential property damage.
Heating is the second leading cause of residential fires and the second leading cause of
fire deaths. However, heating fires are a larger problem in single-family homes than in
apartments. Unlike apartments, the heating systems in family homes are often not
professionally maintained.
Arson is both the third leading cause of residential fires and residential fire deaths. In
commercial properties, arson is the major cause of deaths, injuries and dollar loss. Arson
resulted in an estimated $664 million in property damage in 2005. (Source: U.S. Fire
Administration)
In addition, fires are an excellent example of how natural hazards interact in ways that
spiral out of control. Lightning, high winds, earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods can all
trigger or exacerbate fires. Flammable liquid containers or pipelines may be breached.
Downed power lines may provide an ignition source. Leaking gas lines and damaged or
leaking propane containers, tanks or vehicles may explode or ignite. In addition, when the
power is out, unsafe alternative heating sources, candles, or improperly used generators
may trigger fire and asphyxiation dangers. Moreover, the disaster conditions may hinder
or prevent firefighters from being able to suppress or even reach a fire event.
City of Cushing
105
Effects
The leading cause of death in a fire is asphyxiation by a three-to-one ratio over burns.
Fire consumes the oxygen and increases the concentration of deadly carbon monoxide
and other toxic gases in the air. Inhaling carbon monoxide can cause loss of
consciousness or death within minutes. The heat from a hostile fire exceeds anything to
which a person is normally exposed. A fully developed room fire has temperatures over
1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Fire generates a black, impenetrable smoke that blocks vision
and stings the eyes, making it often impossible to navigate and evacuate the building on
fire.
Normal Frequency
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, for the 10-year period from 1991 to 2000,
there were an annual average 1,903,450 fires in the United States, and an average of
4,453 Americans lost their lives and another 26,445 were injured as a result of fire.
Extent of Impact
From 1999 to 2003, the City of Cushing
experienced a total of 69 structural fires,
one firefighter injury, and $680,920 in fire
damage (excluding critical facilities).
During the same period, there were 3 fires
in critical facilities causing $800 damage. If
these numbers are representative, the City
can expect about 14 fires each year
resulting in $10,000 damage per fire, and
one critical facility fire per year doing about
$160 in damage. Various factors determine
Fire Fighters responding to a house fire, one of
thousands that occur every year across the state
the extent of an urban fire’s impact. The
contents of a structure can influence the
extent of an urban fire, as can local weather conditions. The impact can also be affected
by notification techniques and procedures, fire department response speed, structure type
and age, density of surrounding development, presence of flammable substances, water
pressure and availability, and the use of smoke alarms. In recent years, the extent of
urban fire has been greatly reduced because of advancements in fire protection,
firefighting technology and training of local fire management officials. Improvements in
building codes and technology have also enhanced Cushing’s ability to contain and
mitigate the damage caused by urban fire.
In the United States during 1991, structural fires caused 4,465 civilian deaths and 21,850
injuries, and resulted in an estimated $8.3 billion in damage. In 1995, 3,640 people died
in reported home fires—roughly 10 people per day. In addition, thousands of people were
injured in home fires, many hospitalized for severe burns; some disfigured for life.
In Oklahoma, during the 12-year period from 1988 through 1999,there were a total of
97,148 residential fires (average of 8,095 per year), and fire losses of $858 million
(average of $71 million per year).
City of Cushing
106
Table 3-20 displays information supplied by the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal concerning
fire-related damages and injuries & deaths for the State during the period from 1997
through 2001.
Table 3–20: Oklahoma Urban Fire Damages and Injuries & Deaths 1997-2001
Source: Oklahoma State Fire Marshal
1997
1998
# Fires $ Damage # Fires
Single
Family
5,582 $ 63,567,418 4,739
1999
$ Damage
# Fires
$ 59,810,514 4,702
2000
$ Damage
# Fires
$ 63,298,169 4,872
2001
$ Damage
# Fires
$ 73,074,144 4,696
Total
$ Damage
# Fires
$ Damage
$ 75,029,279 24,591 $ 334,779,524
Apartments
614
5,930,910
588
8,556,574
616
6,346,000
638
11,808,357
618
19,665,196 3,074
$ 52,307,037
Mobile
Homes
639
5,597,896
577
5,994,955
607
7,328,767
594
7,330,420
708
9,393,585 3,125
$ 35,645,623
Nursing/
Retirement
99
110,285
76
1,096,920
131
247,355
89
101,690
83
Commercial
250
8,672,329
270
8,374,856
295
10,162,666
309
7,232,400
Warehouse
367
5,625,529
330
5,426,015
384
7,675,201
387
Industrial
196
8,594,943
193
10,755,305
202
10,267,410
61
1,095,680
74
3,212,255
95
673,620
Office
Total
297,065
478
$ 1,853,315
238
5,160,925 1,362
$ 39,603,176
5,533,638
368
6,320,392 1,836
$ 30,580,775
194
49,822,712
137
8,794,832
922
$ 88,235,202
71
1,187,603
59
1,194,408
360
$ 7,363,566
7,808 $ 99,194,990 6,847 $ 103,227,394 7,032 $ 105,999,188 7,154 $ 156,090,964 6,907 $ 125,855,682 35,748 $ 590,368,218
Fire Related Injuries & Deaths
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
Civilian
Injuries
339
218
191
167
175
1,090
Civilian
Deaths
85
60
0
70
59
274
Firefighter
Injuries
195
378
282
174
128
1,157
Firefighter
Deaths
1
1
1
2
1
6
Total
Injuries
534
596
473
341
303
2,247
Total
Deaths
86
61
1
72
60
280
The City of Cushing, during the period from 1997 through 2001, experienced a total of
69 structural fires, one injury, and $680,920 in fire damage. (Oklahoma State Fire
Marshall data reports no property damage values for Cushing in 2000 and 2001). Table 321 shows the type, number, damages, and injuries during the 5-year period.
City of Cushing
107
Table 3–21: Cushing, OK Urban Fire Damages and Injuries & Deaths 1997-2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
# Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage* # Fires $ Damage* # Fires $ Damage
One & Two
Family
10
$ 114,720
11
$ 238,450
10
$ 276,600
14
$0
8
$0
53
$ 629,770
Apartments
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
$-
Mobile
Homes
0
-
2
40,500
0
-
0
-
0
-
2
$ 40,500
Nursing/
Retirement
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
$-
Commercial
1
1,000
1
100
1
1,000
2
0
3
0
8
$ 2,100
Warehouse
1
500
2
8,050
1
0
0
-
1
0
5
$ 8,550
Industrial
0
-
0
-
0
-
1
0
0
-
1
$0
Office
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
$-
Total
12
$ 116,220
16
$ 287,100
12
$ 277,600
17
$0
12
$0
69
$ 680,920
* Cushing had no property damage values reported in Oklahoma State Fire Marshall data for 2000 and 2001.
Fire Related Injuries
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
Civilian
Injuries
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civilian
Deaths
0
0
0
0
0
0
Firefighter
Injuries
1
0
0
0
0
1
Firefighter
Deaths
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
0
0
0
0
1
Schools are also vulnerable to fire. In Oklahoma, during the period from 1997 through
2001, there were a total of 471 school fires, causing more than $10 million in damage.
Critical Facilities are also vulnerable to fire, and are of special importance because the
impact of a fire may be especially dangerous. Critical facilities deserving special
attention include nursing and retirement homes, hospitals and clinics, child care centers,
correctional institutions, schools and colleges. Oklahoma fires in Critical Facilities, from
1997-2001 are shown in Table 3-22 and those specific to Cushing are shown in Table 323.
City of Cushing
108
Table 3–22: Oklahoma Critical Facility Fires 1997-2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
# Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage
School
86
$ 2,070,830
89
$ 859,065
98
$ 1,790,836
92
$ 4,695,110
106
$ 1,152,423
471
$ 10,568,264
Public
Assembly
176
4,131,005
174
2,351,460
199
8,077,604
143
3,415,147
162
2,356,661
854
$ 20,331,877
Hospital
27
69,399
27
89,941
35
576,120
16
14,615
20
12,402
125
$ 762,477
Jail
22
309,805
23
1,599,750
57
17,830
14
80,360
16
684,275
132
$ 2,692,020
Child Care
10
108,575
7
134,360
38
61,050
15
39,850
8
50,640
78
$ 394,475
Total
321
$ 6,689,614
320
$ 5,034,576
427
$ 10,523,440
280
$ 8,245,082
312
$ 4,256,401 1,660 $ 34,749,113
Table 3–23: Cushing, OK Critical Facility Fires, 1997-2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
# Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage # Fires $ Damage
School
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
Public
Assembly
0
--
0
--
1
0
0
--
0
--
1
--
Hospital
1
$700
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
1
$700
Jail
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
0
--
Child Care
0
--
0
--
1
$100
0
--
0
--
1
--
Total
1
$700
0
--
2
$100
0
--
0
--
3
$800
Real progress has been made nationally and locally in reducing the number of urban fires
and fire-related fatalities. Nationally, in 1977 there were 3,264,500 fires, and 5,865
fatalities. By 2002, both figures have been reduced by almost half to 1,687,500 fires, and
2,670 fire-related deaths.
In residences, the majority of fatal fires occur when people are less alert or sleeping.
Victims are disproportionately children or elderly. Of the fires that kill children, two out
of every five are started by children playing with fire.
States with the largest populations tend to have the greatest number of fire-related
fatalities. The western United States is susceptible because of prolonged warm winds that
can spread sparks and embers. Areas where seismic events are more likely to occur are
also susceptible, particularly in areas where natural gas distribution systems can rupture.
Floods can also trigger fires.
City of Cushing
109
Some of the vulnerabilities peculiar to Oklahoma are related to flooding and lightning
events, both of which can trigger urban fires. In many cases, communities with aging
infrastructures may be more susceptible to urban fire due to the flammability of materials
used in construction and number of structures built before current fire safety, plumbing
and electrical codes were implemented. The National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) makes the statement in their Housing Economics publication:
“An overarching cause of residential fire deaths is the age of the dwelling.
Both known studies that have looked at this question have found that older
structures burn much more frequently than newer ones.”
Consequently, while any building is vulnerable to fire, particular attention needs to be
paid to lower-income neighborhoods with older residences and aging commercial
structures.
All areas of Cushing are exposed to personal injury and property damage as a result of
urban fire, including all future growth areas.
3.10.4 Conclusion
All areas of Cushing are exposed to personal injury and property damage due to
fires.Fires occur year-round, but the rate of residential fires during the U.S. holiday
season and in January is twice that of the summer months. Fatalities tend to be distributed
according to population density. Advances in building codes have made large inroads
into the number of fire casualties and damages. In addition, public information and
education on fire safety and smoke alarms have proven very successful in reducing
residential fires and fire related deaths. Information campaigns can be particularly
effective if geared around those times of year and those populations outlined above.
In part due to its active fire prevention program, particularly in the schools, Cushing has
an excellent fire department, response rate and fire casualty record, and an ISO rating of
5. Although almost 60% of the city’s housing base was constructed before 1960, the
community’s vulnerability to urban fire is low to moderate. As the most common type of
disaster, however, efforts should remain strong to continue this trend and provide the
resources required to keep the citizens safe from fire dangers.
3.10.5 Sources
1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, at Web address:
zpub.com/sf/history/1906earth.html. San Francisco History.
Helmer, Bessie Bradwell. The Great Conflagration, at Web address:
www.chicagohs.org/fire/conflag/. The Great Chicago Fire and the Web of Memory, The
Chicago Historical Society, 1996.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 264, 266–267. Federal Emergency
Oklahoma State Fire Marshal, “Fire Statistics 1997-2000,” at web address:
http://www.state.ok.us/~firemar/index.htm. Office of the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Fire,” p. 51. National Disaster
Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
City of Cushing
110
The Oakland Berkeley Hills Fire: Abstract, at Web address:
http://www.firewise.org/pubs/theOaklandBerkeleyHillsFire/abstract.html. Firewise.
City of Cushing
111
3.11 Wildfires
As more people make their homes in woodland settings in or near forests, rural areas, or
remote mountain sites, they face the real danger of wildfire. Wildfires often begin
unnoticed and spread quickly, igniting brush, trees, and homes.
Wildfires can move on three different levels. A surface fire is the most common type and
burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground
fire is usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor in the humus
layer down to the mineral soil. A crown fire spreads rapidly by wind and moves by
jumping along the tops of trees.
Wildfire is a serious and growing hazard over much of the United States, posing a great
threat to life and property, particularly when it moves from forest or rangeland into
developed areas. However, periodic forest, grassland, and tundra fires are a natural
process in the environment, as natural and as vital as rain, snow, or wind. Naturally
occurring or non-native species of trees, brush, and grasses fuel wildfires.
Fire suppression is now recognized to
have created a larger fire hazard, because
live and dead vegetation accumulates in
areas where fire has been excluded. In
addition, the absence of fire has altered or
disrupted the cycle of natural plant
succession and wildlife habitat in many
areas. Consequently, United States land
management agencies are committed to
finding ways of reintroducing fire into
natural ecosystems (such as prescribed
burning) while recognizing that fire
fighting and some types of fire
suppression are still important.
Wildfire, like this one in Stephens County, is
mainly a hazard for homes and properties on
the rural/urban interface zone
The four categories of wildfires experienced throughout the United States are:
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Wildland fires are fueled by natural vegetation and typically occur in national
forests and parks.
Interface or intermix fires are fires that are fueled by both wildland vegetation
and the built-environment.
Firestorms are events of such extreme intensity that effective suppression is
virtually impossible. They occur during extremely dry weather and generally burn
until conditions change or available fuel is exhausted.
Prescribed fires are those that are intentionally set or selected natural fires that
are allowed to burn for beneficial purposes.
112
Causes
Topography, fuel, and weather are the three principal factors that impact wildfire hazards
and behavior. Other hazard events have the potential to cause wildfires, such as
earthquakes, lightning, and high winds. For example, in 1991, winds gusting to 62 mph
downed power lines, resulting in 92 separate wildfires in Washington.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) figures for 1990 indicate that 25.7% of wildfires reported
were caused by arson, 24% were caused by debris burns, and 13.3% were caused by
lightning.
Lightning can cause particularly difficult fires when dry thunderstorms move across an
area that is suffering from seasonal drought. Multiple fires can be started simultaneously.
In dry fuels, these fires can cause massive damage before containment.
Effects
Wildfires leave problems behind them, even when the last ember is extinguished. Postfire effects can trigger additional consequences that cascade into other serious hazard
events. The loss of ground-surface cover from a fire and the chemical transformation of
burned soils make watersheds more susceptible to erosion from rainstorms. Subsequent
unchecked debris flows can then carry mud, rock, chemicals, and other debris into water
supplies, reducing water quality. (See the section, “Historical Events” for examples.)
It is impossible to fully assess the economic impact of wildfires due to incomplete
reporting. However, the U.S. Forest Service compiles statistics for wildfires on federal
lands and is the primary federal source of information.
Normal Frequency
According to the National Interagency Fire Center statistics for fires on federal lands
from 1985 to 1994, an average of nearly 73,000 fires occur each year, resulting in over 3
million acres burned, 900 homes lost, and more than $411.5 million expended in
suppression costs.
Extent of Impact
Between 1997 and 2001, Cushing’s fire department responded to 114 grassfires or
wildfires, which did a total of $15,495 in damage. Based on this limited data, Cushing
can expect about 23 wildfires a year with about $3,000 in damage per event. However,
wildfires have been increasing in number and economic impact nation-wide, largely due
to the rapid spread of both trailer homes and rural estates on the peripheries of most
American cities. Lavish “McMansions” and “starter castles” set on 5 acres of grass or
woodland have become a suburban norm for affluent professionals. Cushing and Payne
County are no exception. In the winter of 2005-2006, drought and high winds combined
to spread several wildfire outbreaks into wind-whipped firestorms. Between midNovember 2005 and mid-January 2006, Payne County lost 1,667 acres to wildfires that
also did $200 damage to a building in Cushing. During 2005 and 2006, the Cushing Fire
Department responded to a total of 134 brush and grass fires—an average of 67 wildfires
each year. While the 2005-2006 wildfires cannot be considered “normal,” they do
illustrate the growing frequency and impact of this hazard.
City of Cushing
113
The extent of a wildfire threat can be estimated by analysis of a number of variables,
including plant and soil moisture content, humidity, temperature, the presence of drought
conditions, and wind speed. State and local emergency managers routinely study such
factors and issue burn bans and other warnings to lessen the risk of wildfire. Wildfire risk
and extent can also be reduced by such measures as educational outreach, clearing
combustible plants and materials from around homes and other structures in the
urban/wildland interface, eliminating Eastern Redcedar, and participating in the national
Firewise program.
The single worst event in terms of deaths in United States history occurred in Wisconsin
in 1871, killing 1,182 people.
Between October 25 and November 3, 1993, 21 major wild land fires broke out in
California, fanned by hot, dry Santa Ana winds. The fires collectively burned over
189,000 acres and destroyed 1,171 structures. Three people died and hundreds were
injured. Combined property damage was estimated at approximately $1 billion.
In 1994, one of the worst years since the early 1900s, 79,107 fires burned over four
million acres and cost $934 million for suppression. Tragically, 34 firefighters lost their
lives. On July 6, 1994, 14 firefighters died in one terrible incident during the South
Canyon Fire just west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Another wildfire burned 2,000
acres of forest and scrub on the steep slopes of Storm King Mountain, Colorado, leaving
it exposed to erosion. The following September, torrential rains created debris flows from
the burned area and inundated a 3-mile stretch of Interstate 70 with tons of debris. The
flows engulfed 30 cars, sweeping two into the Colorado River. Some travelers were
seriously injured, but fortunately there were no deaths.
In May 1996, an 11,900-acre fire burned most of the Buffalo Creek and Spring Creek
watersheds. These small watersheds feed into the Strontia Springs Reservoir, which
supplies more than 75 percent of the municipal water for the cities of Denver and Aurora.
Two months after the fire, a severe thunderstorm caused flooding from the burned area,
killing two people. In addition, the Denver Water Department immediately experienced a
deterioration of water quality from floating burned debris and high levels of manganese.
Two years after the fire, phosphate levels in the water remained high.
From October 25 to November 4, 2003 over a half-dozen wildfires stretched from San
Diego County north to the suburbs of Los Angeles. Over 743,000 acres burned
destroying approximately 3,570 homes and killing more than 22 people. The entire
community of Cuyamaca, California was destroyed. The 281,000-acre Cedar Fire was the
largest individual blaze in California history.
In Oklahoma during 1994, there were 16,781 grass, crop, and wild land fires that burned
61,634 acres. Four fire fighters died that year.Oklahoma wildfires between 1997-1999 are
presented in Table 3-24 and Table 3-25, below. The State’s recent wildfire history is
covered in greater detail in the section that follows.
Table 3–24: Oklahoma Grass and Crop Fires, 1997-1999
City of Cushing
114
Year
Runs
Acres Burned
1997
13,598
583,647
20,740,345.00
1998
16,268
129,953
11,749,340.00
1999
13,906
283,805
6,859,246.00
43,772
997,405
39,348,931.00
14,590.6
332,468.3
13,116,310.33
Total
Average
$ Loss
Table 3–25: Oklahoma Wildland Fires, 1997-1999
Year
Runs
1997
1,381
34,552
2,936,920.00
1998
1,790
46,718
38,087,200.00
1999
2,170
51,573
25,750,000.00
5,341
132,843
66,774,120.00
44,281
22,258,040.00
Total
Average
Acres Burned
1,780.3
$ Loss
Oklahoma Wildfires
Fall 2000 Wildfires
In 2000, an unseasonably wet late spring was followed by several months of dry weather
during which the state averaged about 19% of normal rainfall. By mid-September, the
soil across much of the state was dry down to 8 inches. In late July 2000, a wildfire near
Oklahoma City burned 80 acres and injured two firefighters. On August 20, a fire near
Binger, in Caddo County, burned 3,200 acres, destroying three homes and part of a Girl
Scout lodge.
Arbuckle Mountains Wildfire - Between September 8-19, 2000, there was a rash of
wildfires. One fire, which began near the Carter/Murray County line on September 8,
spread north into the Arbuckle Mountains, burning for two weeks and consuming 11,500
acres in Carter, Murray and Garvin Counties. In all, six homes and one business were
destroyed, totaling $1 million in damage.
Guthrie Wildfire – On September 19, 2000, a large wildfire began 9 miles south of
Guthrie and burned for 6 miles, consuming 35 homes and causing $750,000 in damage.
In all, the Fall 2000 Wildfire Complex burned almost 1 percent of the State of Oklahoma.
Late November 2005-March 2006: Oklahoma’s Worst Outbreak of Wildfires
In the late summer and autumn of 2005, drought conditions throughout the state set the
stage for the worst outbreak of wildfires in Oklahoma history.
The winter of 2005 was the driest on record in Oklahoma. The drought, combined with
high winds, unleashed a series of devastating wildfires. Between November 2005 and
March 2006, Oklahoma had 120 consecutive days without moisture. The result was 2,800
fires and over 560,000 burned acres. As of April 2006, 869 structures had been damaged
by wildfires, and 300 destroyed. A Federal disaster declaration was made on January 10,
City of Cushing
115
2006, and Individual Assistance funds were made available to 26 Oklahoma counties.
Public Assistance funds were made available to all 77 Oklahoma counties.
The wildfire outbreaks clustered around three time periods: late November to early
December 2005, late December 2005 to early January 2006, and March, 2006.
Late November to Early December 2005 Wildfires – Strong surface low pressure in the
southern and central plains caused sustained wind speeds of 20-35 mph, with gusts up to
45-65 mph. There were two large wildfire outbreaks on November 27-30, 2005. In the
northeast part of the state, wildfires hit Cherokee, Mayes, McIntosh, Muskogee,
Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Osage, Pittsburg, Tulsa and Wagoner Counties, burning 35,000
acres, killing one person, injuring 11, and destroying 35 homes and many outbuildings
and automobiles.
In south central Oklahoma, several large wildfires burned in Cotton, Garvin and Stephens
Counties. A 15-mile area near Velma in Stephens County began burning on November 27
and continued into early December, forcing the evacuation of the town. Twenty fire
departments responded to the fire. Altogether, the Stephens County fire destroyed 16
homes, two barns and many outbuildings. Damage totaled $1 million. In Cotton County,
a wildfire near Walters destroyed six homes and several barns, causing $650,000 damage.
In Garvin County, two wildfires burned 6,000 acres. Fourteen fire departments and 100
firefighters responded. Three homes and several outbuildings were destroyed. Losses
were $350,000. Near Pauls Valley, 500 acres burned, resulting in $50,000 in damage. On
November 29, a fire near Wilson in Carter County killed one woman.
Late December 2005 to Early January 2006 Wildfires – Another rash of wildfires began
on December 25, 2005, and continued, more or less without interruption through the first
week of 2006. The string of wildfires began on Christmas Day in Choctaw, Creek and
Sequoyah Counties, but were soon raging throughout the state. On January 8, 2006, the
Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management set up an Incident Command Post at
Shawnee to coordinate firefighters who were coming in from Alabama, Tennessee,
Florida and North Carolina. Among the many fires were the following:
December 27, 2005 – 10,000 acres burned in Hughes County, killing one person and
destroying 8 homes, 14 barns and 20 outbuildings. A wildfire in Choctaw County
burns 1,000 acres, destroys 4 homes and injures two people. Tulsa County wildfire
burns 3 homes, 3 structures and $300,000 in damage. Muskogee County, 2,000 acres
west of Muskogee is burned, destroying 1 house, 1 mobile home, 2 barns and an
automobile. $225,000 in damage. There are also grassfires in Rogers, Okmulgee and
McIntosh Counties.
January 1, 2006 – Oklahoma County, northeast of Oklahoma City, several homes are
destroyed by wildfire and two neighborhoods evacuated. In Muskogee County,
16,000 acres burn southwest of Muskogee, destroying 4 homes, several barns and
much hay. $500,000 in damage. In Creek County, 10,000 acres are burned near
Bristow, doing $200,000 damage. There are also wildfires in Pittsburg, Okfuskee,
Haskell and Tulsa Counties.
City of Cushing
116
January 3, 2006 – In Beaver
County, two fires burned 14,000
acres, while in Creek County, near
Shamrock, a wildfire burns an
abandoned school and vacant
house and damages two homes.
January 8, 2006 – In McIntosh
County, 7,000 acres are burned,
doing $50,000 in damage. In
Payne County, 7 miles northwest
of Perkins, a grassfire ignites red
cedar trees. Fires were reported at
North Stillwater Fire, January, 2006.
Davis, Welty, Bristow, Okemah,
Slick, Stroud, Guthrie, Sapulpa,
Sparks, Bethel, Skiatook, Wainright, Prague, Stigler, Prue, and Mayesville.
February 4, 2006 – In Okmulgee County, a wildfire kills one person.
February 27, 2006 – Muskogee County, 750 acres are burned and dozens of homes
threatened.
March 2006 Wildfires – On March 1, 2006, high winds, drought conditions, and
temperatures in the 90s cause another rash of wildfires across the state. In Stephens
County, a wildfire 8 miles long injures several firefighters and kills one, burns 10,000
acres, destroys 65 homes, badly damages 21, and numerous outbuildings, farm equipment
and vehicles are lost. Damage is $15 million. In Lincoln County, three firefighters are
injured when a wildfire causes a propane tank to explode. In Creek County, southwest of
Mannford, a wildfire burns hundreds of acres, destroying 4 homes, causing $250,000 in
damage. Wildfires are reported in Wagoner and Sequoyah Counties. Fires continued to
plague the state throughout the month.
March 7, 2006 – Wildfires are reported in Muskogee, Wagoner and Nowata
Counties.
March 8, 2006 – Osage County, 1,000 acres burn near Burbank.
March 10, 2006 – In Texas County, 7,000 acres burn east of Guymon, while in Tulsa
County, wildfire destroys 2 mobile homes, a tractor trailer, fire trucks and storage
buildings, causing $150,000 damage.
March 15, 2006 – Wildfires burn in Osage, Rogers, Creek, Wagoner and Cherokee
Counties
March 26, 2006 – Despite recent rains, warm and windy conditions lead to wildfire
outbreaks near Bristow, and at Scipio in Pittsburg County, as well as in Muskogee,
Okfuskee, Okmulgee and Wagoner Counties.
April 2, 2006 – Texas County wildfire burns 600 acres.
Payne County and Cushing Wildfires
Cushing had a total of 114 reported wildfires from 1997 to 2001, with known property
damages totaling $15,495. Table 3-26 shows the number of wildfires and amount of
damage for each year for Cushing. An empty cell indicates either zero or that there is no
data available. Cushing was heavily impacted by the 1996 wildfire events in Oklahoma.
City of Cushing
117
Wildfires that year destroyed 26 homes and injured 12 fire fighters in the state of
Oklahoma.
Table 3–26: Cushing History of Wildfire Events and Damages
from 1997 to 2001
Year
Number of
Events
Amount of
Damage
1997
13
$3,505
1998
25
$620
1999
20
$11,370
2000
34
$0 *
2001
22
$0 *
Totals
114
$15,495
* Cushing had no property damage values reported in
Oklahoma State Fire Marshall data for 2000 and 2001.
Cushing, like many Oklahoma communities, was hit by grassfires during the catastrophic
drought and wildfire season in the winter and spring of 2005-2006. Cushing’s Fire
Department responded to 67 grass and brush fires in both 2005 and 2006.
Wildfires occur in virtually all of the
United States. The western states, with
their more arid climate and prevalent
conifer and brush fuel types, are subject to
more frequent wildfires. Wildfires are the
most destructive in California, but they
have become an increasingly frequent
phenomenon nationwide. People are
becoming more vulnerable to wildfires by
choosing to live in wild land settings, and
the value of exposed property is increasing
at a faster rate than population.
A Payne County resident watches as wildfire
burns near his home in November 2005.
Because more people are choosing to build
expensive homes on acreage in rural settings, surrounded by grasslands and forest, the
danger of wildland/urban interface fire has increased enormously. The wildland fire
danger in the Cushing urban fringe is made even higher by the spread of Eastern
Redcedar, which grows close to the ground, has fine foliage, thin bark and contains
volatile oils. When it catches fire, the Eastern Redcedar explodes into flame, showering
sparks to the wind.
As evidenced by the 2005-2006 wildfire outbreaks, the rural and urban/rural interface
areas of Cushing are vulnerable to wildfires. Future development areas, in particular, will
be at high risk to wildfires. Proper mitigation activities, particularly the implementation
of the Firewise program, should be undertaken to protect these growth areas.
City of Cushing
118
While historical wildfire activity in the Cushing area has been sparse, the community is
still vulnerable to wildfires, especially the population of the community that resides in the
urban/rural interface and those that live in rural settings in Payne County outside the city
limits.
3.11.4 Conclusion
Wildfires are a serious and growing hazard because people continue to move their homes
into woodland areas. The value of the property exposed to wildfires is increasing more
rapidly, especially in the western states.
There were fire suppression measures taken in the past that caused an even greater fire
hazard because ground cover that had been burning at natural intervals was able to build
up. Western ecosystems have adapted to and have become dependent on wildfires, which
play an essential role by thinning forests and creating stands of different plant species.
Land management agencies are now changing their policies concerning the control of
naturally occurring wildfires.
Like the rest of the United States and Oklahoma, Cushing is vulnerable to wildfire.
3.11.5 Sources
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 234, 236, 239. Federal Emergency
Oklahoma State Fire Marshal, “Fire Statistics 1997-2000,” at web address:
http://www.state.ok.us/~firemar/index.htm. Office of the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Wildfire,” p. 135. National
Disaster Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
USGS Wildland Fire Research, at Web address:
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/Wildfire/fire.html. U.S. Geological Survey, August 23,
2000.
City of Cushing
119
3.12 Earthquakes
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the ground caused by the fracture and
movement of rock beneath the Earth's surface. Most severe earthquakes take place where
the huge tectonic plates that form the Earth's surface collide and slide slowly over, under,
and past each other. They can also occur along any of the multitude of fault and fracture
lines within the plates themselves.
The faults most likely to affect Oklahoma are the New Madrid Fault, centered in the
Missouri Bootheel region, and the Meers Fault, located in southwestern Oklahoma near
Lawton.
As the Earth’s crust moves
and bends, stresses are built
up, sometimes for hundreds of
years, before suddenly
breaking or slipping. This
abrupt release of accumulated
tension can be devastating to
human communities on the
surface.
The destructiveness of an
earthquake depends upon a
number of factors, including
the magnitude of the tremor,
direction of the fault, distance
Although located in the relatively quiet Central Plains
from the epicenter, regional
Province, Cushing’s nearness to the New Madrid, Missouri,
geology, local soils, and the
fault exposes the city to VI intensity tremors
design characteristics of
buildings and infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and pipelines.
Earthquake intensity can be significantly affected by the stability of underlying soils. For
example, during the Northridge, California earthquake, three times as much damage was
done to single-family homes and buried utilities in ground failure zones than in nearby
areas where the footing was more solid. Also, the intensity of West Coast tremors is
dissipated by the relative “warmth” of the region’s geology. By contrast, the thick
Pennsylvanian sandstone and limestone strata of the central United States are much more
efficient conductors of tremors. Consequently, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake in the New
Madrid Fault would have a much wider impact than a comparable event on the California
coast.
Urbanization is probably the most important factor in translating earthquake magnitude
into human impacts. In the continental United States, Alaska has the greatest number of
large earthquakes—over a dozen above 7.3 magnitude between 1899 and 1999. However,
City of Cushing
120
these severe quakes resulted in relatively little loss of life or damage, since all but one
occurred in uninhabited areas.
Effects
Earthquakes can cause poorly compacted, clay-free soils to temporarily lose strength and
behave like viscous fluids rather than solids. This “liquefaction” can result in ground
failure and damage to structures and buried utilities.
Normal Frequency
In the United States, California experiences the most frequent damaging earthquakes, and
Alaska has the greatest number of large earthquakes.
Oklahoma has experienced an
average of 50 earthquakes each
year since records have been
kept by the Oklahoma
Geological Survey. Most of
these earthquakes were so small
that they could not be felt by
people. Only about two or three
per year have been large enough
to be felt and most were so small
they caused no damage.
The Meers Fault has had two
major ruptures in the last 3000
years, the last one about 1600
Earthquake risks for the continental U.S.
years ago. If the fault has a
1500-year periodicity, it could
be due for a major event in the next one or two hundred years.
Cushing and its adjacent counties experienced 85 earthquakes between 1977 and 2001,
more than three per year. Only one of these events was felt, the 2.5 magnitude earthquake
in Noble County on January 24, 1991. The most likely major earthquake event that could
impact the area would probably originate in the New Madrid Fault Zone, which has been
relatively quiet for 150 years. Seismologists estimate the probability of a 6 to 7
magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid area in the next 50 years to be higher than 90
percent.
Measurements
Modern seismological technology has greatly enhanced the capability of scientists to
sense earthquakes. Before the development of today’s delicate sensors, only “felt”
earthquakes were captured in the historical record.
Scientists use two standard measures to classify an earthquake’s severity: magnitude and
intensity. These measures are sometimes referred to as the Richter Scale (magnitude) and
the Modified Mercalli (intensity).
City of Cushing
121
Magnitude is an Arabic number representing the total amount of energy released by the
earthquake source. It is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on
seismographs that have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthquake is thus
represented by a single, instrumentally determined value.
Intensity, expressed as a Roman numeral, is based on the earthquake’s observed effects
on people, buildings and natural features. It varies depending on the location of the
observer with respect to the earthquake’s epicenter. In general, the intensity decreases
with distance from the fault, but other factors such as rupture direction and soil type also
influence the amount of shaking and damage. The Modified Mercalli and Richter Scales
are compared in the following table.
Table 3–27: Comparison of Mercalli and Richter Scales
Mercalli
Richter
I
Description
Vibrations are recorded by instruments. People do not feel any Earth movement.
II
0-4.3
A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or on the upper floors of tall buildings.
III
Shaking felt indoors; hanging objects swing. People outdoors might not realize that an earthquake
is occurring.
IV
Dishes rattle; standing cars rock; trees might shake. Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging
objects swing. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle. A few people outdoors may feel movement.
4.3-4.8
V
Doors swing; liquid spills from glasses; sleepers awake. Almost everyone feels movement. Dishes
are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. Trees shake.
VI
People walk unsteadily; windows break; pictures fall off walls. Everyone feels movement. Objects
fall from shelves. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls might crack. Trees and bushes shake. Damage
is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural damage.
4.8-6.2
VII
Difficult to stand; plaster, bricks, and tiles fall; large bells ring. Drivers feel their cars shaking.
Some furniture breaks. Loose bricks fall from buildings. Damage is slight to moderate in well-built
buildings; considerable in poorly built buildings.
VIII
Chimneys fall; branches break; cracks in wet ground. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that
are not bolted down might shift on their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and chimneys
might twist and fall. Well-built buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe
damage. Water levels in wells might change.
IX
6.2-7.3
General panic; damage to foundations; sand and mud bubble from ground. Well-built buildings
suffer considerable damage. Houses that are not bolted down move off their foundations. Some
underground pipes are broken. The ground cracks. Reservoirs suffer serious damage.
X
Most buildings destroyed; large landslides; water thrown out of rivers and lakes. Some bridges are
destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are
bent slightly.
XI
Roads break up; large cracks appear in ground; rocks fall. Most buildings collapse. Some bridges
are destroyed. Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad tracks are badly bent.
7.3-8.9
XII
Total destruction; "waves" seen on ground surface; river courses altered; vision distorted. Almost
everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. Large amounts of rock may move.
Extent of Impact
Payne County has experienced 10 earthquakes since1900, but only one of these was a
“felt” event, and that one was in December 1900 at Cushing. Based on this data, Payne
County can expect one earthquake every 10 years that will not be felt and will do
minimal damage.
FEMA’s HAZUS software application provides a methodology to estimate earthquake
losses at a regional scale. Building and population statistics from the U.S. Census are
City of Cushing
122
combined with estimated replacement values for local infrastructure to calculate potential
damages and losses from a specified earthquake event. The historic 5.5 magnitude El
Reno earthquake event of April 9, 1952, was used as a “worst case” input event in the
HAZUS model and run for the City of Cushing. A 5.5 magnitude event would destroy
one unreinforced masonry building and about 92 buildings will be at least moderately
damaged. Unreinforced masonry would comprise 58% of the moderate damages, mobile
homes would comprise 36% and wooden homes would receive the remaining 4% of
moderate damages. Essential facilities, including schools, hospitals, EOC’s, Police and
Fire Stations would receive no damages but would be impacted functionally for the
duration of the event day.
World history is punctuated with hundreds of earthquake catastrophes. In 1556 the
Shansi, China, earthquake killed 800,000 people. An earthquake in Lisbon in 1775 took
70,000 lives. More recently, a moderate 6.7-magnitude earthquake struck Northridge,
California, on January 17, 1994, killing 57 people, injuring 9,000, and causing over $25
billion in damage. A year later, in Kobe, Japan, a 6.9 magnitude tremor killed 5,100
people, injured 27,000, destroyed 100,000 buildings, and did $120 billion in damage.
In the United States, California and Alaska have earthquakes the most frequently, but the
largest earthquake felt in the United States in historical times occurred in Missouri, along
the New Madrid Fault. There, in 1811 and 1812, three earthquakes larger than a
magnitude 8 totally destroyed the town of New Madrid, caused the land to roll in visible
waves, raised and sank land as much as 20 feet, and formed and emptied lakes. The
tremors rang bells in church steeples as far away as Boston, Massachusetts. These
earthquakes were probably the first ones felt by residents in Oklahoma in historical times.
Intensity VII earthquakes hit the New Madrid area again in January 1852 and June 1862.
Oklahoma Earthquakes
The earliest documented quake in what is now Oklahoma occurred on October 22, 1882,
near Ft. Gibson, Indian Territory. The Cherokee Advocate reported that “the trembling
and vibrating were so severe as to cause doors and window shutters to open and shut,
hogs to squeal, poultry to run and hide, and cattle to low.” Other felt quakes occurred
near Cushing, in Payne County, in December 1900, and in Rogers County on November
8, 1915. Other Oklahoma earthquakes include the following:
June 20, 1926- A 4.3 magnitude earthquake just west of Marble City in Sequoyah
County.
December 28, 1929- A 4.0 magnitude, VI intensity quake struck El Reno in Canadian
County.
June 1, 1939- A 4.4 magnitude, IV intensity quake occurred at Spaulding in Hughes
County.
April 9, 1952- The largest earthquake on record in the state—a VII-intensity event
that registered 5.7 on the Richter Scale—happened near El Reno. It was apparently
caused by slippage along the Nemaha Fault. The tremor toppled chimneys and
smokestacks, cracked bricks on buildings, broke windows and dishes, and was felt as
far away as Austin, Texas, and Des Moines, Iowa.
City of Cushing
123
October 30, 1956- A 4.1-magnitude, VII-intensity earthquake struck Catoosa,
causing minor damage in Tulsa and Beggs.
June 17, 1959- A 4.2 magnitude, VI intensity quake occurred at Faxon in Comanche
County.
April 27, 1961- A 4.1 magnitude, V intensity quake hit Wilburton in Latimer County.
May 2, 1969- A 4.6 magnitude, V intensity quake occurred at Wewoka, in Seminole
County, causing cracks in plaster walls.
November 15, 1990- A 4.0 magnitude, VI intensity quake struck Lindsey in Garvin
County.
January 18, 1995- A 4.2 magnitude, VI intensity quake shook Antioch in Garvin
County.
September 6, 1997- A 4.4 earthquake shook Ada, in Pontotoc County, and rattled
dishes as far away as Holdenville. The epicenter was 10 miles southeast of Ada, near
Stonewall, at a depth of 15 km.
April 28, 1998- One of the largest earthquakes recorded in Oklahoma, measuring 4.2
on the Richter Scale, occurred near Lawton, at Richard’s Spur, in Comanche County.
The quake rattled dishes and caused a 14-foot crack to appear in the second floor of
the Comanche County courthouse building.
October 30, 1998- A 3.5 earthquake located 25 miles northwest of Ponca City was
felt in Grant, Garfield and Kay Counties.
February 8, 2002- A 3.8 magnitude earthquake was detected 5.6 miles north of
Lawton. The quake passed from northeast to southwest with a rolling motion that
lasted about 1.5 seconds. The tremor was described as moderate, that shook houses
with a kind of rolling sensation rather than hard shaking. Pictures were knocked over
on dressers.
Cushing and Payne County Earthquakes
Payne County has experienced 10 reported earthquakes between 1898 and 1998. Four of
these were in the vicinity of Cushing, in the southeastern part of the county. One
earthquake has been reported in the Stillwater area, west of Cushing:
December 1900- An earthquake was felt in Cushing and surrounding area. The
earthquake, which occurred at 7:30 in the morning, was felt by everyone in the town.
It was a loud rumbling noise followed by a sound similar to an explosion. Persons in
buildings felt as if they were sinking while dishes and portable articles rattled. The
first shock was followed by a second one a week later.
April 1, 1901- Small earthquake, no magnitude or intensity data.
April 8, 1901- Small unfelt earthquake, no magnitude or intensity data.
November 29, 1935- Small earthquake, no magnitude or intensity data.
April 28, 1977- 2.0 magnitude earthquake.
July 31, 1979- 2.4 magnitude earthquake.
December 4, 1983- Small, unfelt tremor near Cushing.
City of Cushing
124
March 19, 1988- Small earthquake, no magnitude or intensity data.
April 28, 1992- 1.9 magnitude quake recorded at Stillwater, 2 miles southwest of
Country Club Rd. and 19th Ave.
October 3, 1992- Small earthquake, no magnitude or intensity data.
Most earthquake injuries and fatalities occur within buildings from collapsing walls and
roofs, flying glass, and falling objects. As a result, the extent of a community’s risk
depends not just upon its location relative to a known fault, and its underlying geology
and soils, but also on the design of its structures. Buildings constructed to earlier seismic
standards (or to no standard) can pose major threats to life and the continued functioning
of key public services during an earthquake disaster. Un-reinforced masonry structures
are the most vulnerable, while wood frame structures typically perform well. Of special
concern are the design and construction of critical facilities such as hospitals and
transportation facilities, oil and gas pipelines, electrical power and communication
facilities, and water supply and sewage treatment facilities.
Oklahoma is in the relatively stable Central Plains Province. It does has a sustained level
of seismicity due to the complex seismic zone that includes the Meers, Nemaha, Central
Oklahoma, Choctaw, Chickasha, and Windingstair Faults.
As shown in the on the next page, the majority of Oklahoma earthquakes occur in south
central Oklahoma where the Ouachita, Arbuckle and Wichita mountains converge. They
are concentrated in Garvin, Grady, McClain, and Canadian Counties. Note that
earthquakes in the northeastern part of the state are relatively rare.
HAZUS, a software
application developed by
the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and
the National Institute of
Building Sciences
provides a methodology
to estimate earthquake
losses at a regional scale.
Building and population
statistics from the U.S.
Census are combined with estimated replacement values for local infrastructure to
conclude an estimate on potential damages and losses to be expected within the region
from a specified earthquake event.
The historic, 5.5 magnitude, El Reno earthquake event of April 9, 1952 was used as the
input event in the HAZUS model run for the City of Cushing. Affecting most of the State
and parts of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas, this is Oklahoma’s
largest earthquake event.
City of Cushing
125
For Payne County, HAZUS estimated 19,000 buildings in the region with a total building
replacement value of $3.701 billion. Approximately 99% of the buildings (and 83% of
the building values) are for residential buildings. Replacement value of all transportation
and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be $802 and $276 million respectively for a
total of $1,078 million. These systems include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports,
ferry and airports as transportation systems and potable water, wastewater, natural gas,
crude & refined oil, electric power and communications as utility systems.
Using these estimates, HAZUS assesses that one unreinforced masonry building would
be destroyed and about 92 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. Unreinforced
masonry would comprise 58% of the moderate damages, mobile homes would comprise
36% and wooden homes would receive the remaining 4% of moderate damages from the
event. Essential facilities, including schools, hospitals, EOC’s, Police and Fire Stations
would receive no damages but would be impacted functionally for the duration of the
event day. This includes possible school closings and use of fire, police and hospital
resources. Functional losses to these facilities are considered minimal, and would be
restored to 100% after day 1 of the event. Transportation system damages and economic
losses associated with these systems are estimated at 0%. Ground failure, an improbable
effect, would be the single source for damages to transportation components. All utility
system facilities, pipeline activity, electric power and potable water should be at 100%
following the event with the exception of minor single leaks to area water, waste of gas
lines. It is estimated 0 households out of 21,280 would be affected with a power failure or
loss of water. If debris was to be expected from the earthquake, 80% would be brick and
wood and the remainder would be reinforced concrete and steel. The scenario estimates
casualties for three peak occupancy loads throughout the day, 2:00 AM (residential
occupancy peak), 2:00 PM (non-residential occupancy peak) and 5:00 PM (commute
peak). No casualties and only 4 minor injuries are expected from the event at any time of
the day and shelter requirements for displaced households are expected to be minimal and
would continue operating at 100%.
Cushing’s exposure to seismic risk is low. Any earthquake risk would most likely come
from its proximity to the New Madrid and Meers Faults. Local earthquakes have been
relatively infrequent and of small magnitude, causing little damage. According to Dr.
James Lawson, chief geophysicist of the Oklahoma Geological Survey’s Seismic
Observatory at Leonard, the risk of an earthquake in the New Madrid Fault Zone should
not be over emphasized. He believes a major seismic event there would have no greater
impact on Cushing than a locally generated earthquake. An 8-magnitude event in New
Madrid would likely produce only VI-intensity tremors in northeastern Oklahoma, and
would not be as severe as the Ft. Gibson quake of 1882.
3.12.4 Conclusion
Oklahoma is classified at moderate risk from earthquakes, due to its proximity to the
South Central Oklahoma and New Madrid Seismic Zones. Almost all of the South
Central Oklahoma earthquakes are too small to be felt and cause no visible damage.
Unfelt earthquakes can, however, adversely affect the integrity of local buildings,
infrastructure, and lifelines.
City of Cushing
126
In the last 25 years, only six earthquakes have been recorded in Payne County. Although
relatively safe from locally generated earthquakes, the region’s underlying geology
exposes Cushing, and its future development areas, to some risk from a severe earthquake
in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. When Cushing’s infrastructure and critical facilities
are reviewed for integrity against tornadoes and high winds, an analysis of their ability to
ride through a VI-intensity earthquake without serious damage should be included.
3.12.5 Sources
Oklahoma Geophysical Observatory Examines Earthquakes in Oklahoma, at Web
address: http://www.ogs.ou.edu/earthquakes.htm . University of Oklahoma, 1996.
September 2001.
Program Statement, at Web address: www.cusec.org. Central United States Earthquake
Consortium.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Earthquake,” p. 41–49. National
Disaster Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
von Hake, Carl A. Earthquake History of Oklahoma, Abridged from Earthquake
Information Bulletin, Vol.8, Number 2. USGS National Earthquake Information Center,
March–April 1976.
Cushing Herald, December, 1900
City of Cushing
127
3.13 Hazardous Materials Events
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that, if released or misused, can pose a
threat to the environment or human health. These chemicals are used in industry,
agriculture, medicine, research, and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the
form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive
materials. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents
or chemical accidents at plant sites.
In recent years, the increased
usage of chemically dependent
products and the introduction
of new chemicals, materials
and substances into commerce
has resulted in a corresponding
increase in the number of
accidents and spills involving
toxic and hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials, for
regulatory purposes, are
divided into two general
categories: fixed sites, and
transportation facilities.
Cushing’s location on State Highways 33 and 18 and the
abundance of pipelines in and around Cushing make it
vulnerable to hazardous materials events
Fixed sites (Tier 2) include buildings or property where hazardous materials are
manufactured or stored, and are regulated nationally under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in Oklahoma by the Department of
Environmental Quality. The federal government has established detailed systems for
keeping track of Tier 2 hazardous materials sites. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act of 1986 defines a Tier 2 site as any location that has, for
any 24 hour period, either 1) specified threshold amounts of defined Extremely
Hazardous Substances, or 2) any other substance requiring a Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for amounts greater than 10,000 pounds.
Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 CFR 119
for natural and other gases transported by pipeline, and 49 CFR 195 for liquids
transported by pipeline. For intrastate commerce, the transportation of hazardous
materials is regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
The responsibility for receiving reports on hazardous materials and toxic waste events
was given to the National Response Center (NRC),
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrcback.html, staffed by the U.S. Coast Guard. The NRC serves
as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological,
biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States
City of Cushing
128
or its territories. The NRC also acts as a 24-hour contact point to receive earthquake,
flood, hurricane, and evacuation reports.
Many products containing hazardous chemicals are used and stored in homes routinely.
These products are also shipped daily on the nation’s highways, railroads, waterways,
and pipelines. In most cases, disasters involving hazardous materials are confined to a
localized area, whether an accidental release occurs at a fixed facility or in association
with a transportation incident.
As many as 500,000 products pose physical or health hazards and can be defined as
hazardous chemicals. Each year, over 1000 new synthetic chemicals are introduced. In an
average city of 100,000 residents, 23.5 tons of toilet bowl cleaner, 13.5 tons of liquid
household cleaners, and 3.5 tons of motor oil are discharged into city drains each month.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency sorts hazardous materials into six
categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Toxic Agents (irritants, asphyxiates, narcotics)
Other Toxic Agents (hepatoxic, nephratoxic)
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous Substances
Toxic Pollutants
Extremely Hazardous Substances
Effects
Hazardous materials affect people through inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with
skin. They can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health problems, and damage to
buildings, homes and other property.
Normal Frequency
The National Response Center reports an average of approximately 32,185 hazardous
materials events occur each year in the United States as shown in Table 3-28. Annually,
on the average, about 15,000 hazardous materials incidents are transportation related, and
12,000 are from fixed site locations. Most hazardous materials events occur during
transport. Transportation of hazardous materials on highways involves tanker trucks or
trailers and certain types of specialized bulk cargo vehicles. Because of the distances
traveled, it is not surprising that trucks are responsible for the greatest number of
hazardous materials events.
Most hazardous materials events occur during transport. Transportation of hazardous
materials on highways involves tanker trucks or trailers and certain types of specialized
bulk cargo vehicles. Because of the distances traveled, it is not surprising that trucks are
responsible for the greatest number of hazardous materials events.
The United States Fire Administration reports that in 2000, the nation’s 26,354 fire
departments responded to 319,000 hazardous materials incidents, up 7.2% from 1999.
City of Cushing
129
The National Response Center lists 39 hazardous materials incidents in Cushing between
1990 and 2003.
Table 3–28: U.S. Hazardous Materials Incidents 1991-2002
Source: National Response Center
Incident Type
Fixed
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
11,404 12,536 13,556 14,656 15,080 12,067 10,388 10,961 11,230 11,813 12,441 11,917
Unknown
Sheen
3,794
3,784
4,416
5,087
5,147
4,433
4,228
4,809
4,802
4,016
4,147
3,426
Vessel
2,914
2,690
2,886
3,598
3,967
4,091
3,778
3,886
3,877
3,945
4,378
3,919
Mobile
1,832
1,850
2,782
3,456
3,133
2,511
2,490
2,718
2,835
3,597
3,216
2,942
Pipeline
1,794
2,030
1,918
1,945
1,530
1,737
1,740
1,657
1,404
1,618
1,841
1,621
Platform
2,331
2,166
1,617
1,671
1,770
2,106
1,943
1,570
1,465
1,428
1,355
1,233
Railroad NonRelease
248
441
502
493
455
446
586
823
1,049
1,335
1,235
1,124
Railroad
966
1,162
1,425
1,530
1,578
1,645
1,883
2,266
2,252
1,332
1,241
1,200
Continuous
333
323
476
215
183
177
170
304
376
938
238
393
Aircraft
138
203
264
265
225
173
207
181
241
248
297
278
Drill/Exercise
0
0
88
188
228
349
349
503
532
669
789
908
Unknown
0
0
6
21
8
46
14
3
52
84
0
0
Storage Tank
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,379
3,140
3,044
Terrorist
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
51
33
42
180
TOTAL
INCIDENTS
25,754 27,185 29,936 33,125 33,304 29,781 27,776 29,699 30,166 32,435 34,360 32,185
Extent of Impact
Cushing has 21 fixed hazardous materials sites (see Table 3-30, below). Between 1990
and 2003, there were 39 hazardous materials incidents in Cushing, almost all of which
involved crude oil (35 of 39 events) being spilled from pipelines (27 of 39) onto land (26
of 39). There were 9 hazardous materials incidents at fixed sites, all but three involving
crude oil. Two spills were of low PH water. The various toxic spills were contained and
did not result in death or injury. Based on this record, Cushing can expect 3 limitedimpact fixed hazmat events every year.
The extent of a fixed site hazardous material event can range from relatively harmless to
catastrophic with numerous long-term health and environmental effects. The extent of
this hazard is predominately influenced by the amount of the chemical involved, local
weather conditions, response team training and equipment, enforcement of community
regulations and codes, identification of hazardous material storage sites and pipelines,
and advanced warning systems (e.g., warning sirens with voice capability, Reverse 911,
etc.).
City of Cushing
130
In 1984, a deadly cloud of methyl isocyanate killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India.
Shortly thereafter, there was a serious chemical release at a sister plant in West Virginia.
These incidents underscored demands by industrial workers and communities in several
states for information on hazardous materials. Public interest and environmental
organizations around the country accelerated demands for information on toxic chemicals
being released “beyond the fence line”—outside the facility.
Oklahoma was ranked 31st by the EPA in controlled toxic releases reported from
industrial practices in the year 2000. Over 43 million pounds of toxic substances were
released by air emissions, water discharges, underground injections, landfills and disposal
facilities by industries in Oklahoma during 2000.
In Oklahoma in 2001, there were 28,000 Tier 2 sites reported to the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality. Cushing accounted for twenty of those sites.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Oklahoma experienced 854
hazardous material releases due to transportation related accidents during the 10 years
from 1987 through 1996. The incidents included 1 death and 35 injuries and totaled
$2,908,048 in damages. The statistics rank Oklahoma 34th in the nation for hazardous
material releases due to transportation accidents for the 10 year period between 1987 and
1996.
On March 26, 1997, an explosion at Chief Supply Chemical Company, 5 miles northwest
of Haskell on U.S. 64, sent up a column of smoke that could be seen for 50 miles. The
fire continued to burn through the night of March 28. One employee was critically burned
and later died. Chief Supply closed down.
Most of the hazardous material events in Cushing since 1990 have been crude oil leaks
from pipelines. Typically, these events were due to corrosion in the pipe. The event on
April 18, 1991 resulted in 1800 barrels of oil leaking into Skull Creek. The creek was
temporarily dammed to contain the oil.
Hudson Oil Refinery Superfund Site
The Hudson Oil Refinery operated in Cushing
from 1922 to 1982. The site was bisected into the
North Refinery and South Refinery by State
Highway 33 on the west side of Cushing. The
refineries produced liquid propane gas, gasoline,
aviation fuel, diesel fuel, and fuel oils.
Little is known about the operations or waste
management practices of the facility prior to 1977.
Because the refinery was not properly purged at
shutdown in 1982, chemicals remained in the lines
and vessels for almost 20 years.
In 2001 the EPA completed an Engineering
City of Cushing
131
North Refinery tower
Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to investigate above-ground contamination
remaining on the North Refinery and identified a potential exposure threat to human
health through ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation of over 70 hazardous chemicals.
Asbestos containing material associated with the piping and vessels at the facility was
friable, weathered, and deteriorated posing an increasing risk of release to the air. Given
the unstable physical and chemical conditions at the site, there was also an increasing
threat to nearby residents and motorists on State Highway 33 of fire and explosion from
improperly stored chemicals.
An Action Memorandum for a Non-Time Critical (NTC) removal action at the site was
signed on September 25, 2001. On September 23, 2002, the EPA initiated work on the
NTC removal action at the site. The refinery superstructure included 22 towers, 216
process vessels, eight buildings located within the
project area, cooling towers, tetra-ethyl lead (TEL)
buildings (North and South refineries), and
associated aboveground piping. Miscellaneous items
included contents of collection basins of the cooling
towers and caustic sump, miscellaneous containers
and drums, aboveground storage tanks outside the
refinery superstructure, and structurally unsafe
buildings. The structures and piping were demolished
by spring, 2003 with assistance from the Cushing
Fire Department. On June 18, 2003, EPA conducted
a site walk with the Oklahoma Department of
Site of North Refinery after
Environmental Quality in accordance with the
demolition of facility in 2003
Superfund Removal Contract to confirm that the
project was complete as well as consistent with the
contract requirements and the EPA approved remedy. Demolition contractors
demobilized from the site in July 2003.
Table 3–29: Cushing Hazardous Materials Incidents 1990 – 2003
NRC
Report#
Incident
Date
Street
8668 02/16/1990 SW Quarter
City
State ZIP
Cushing OK
28546 06/25/1990 (null)
Cushing OK
54825 01/14/1991 (null)
Cushing OK
54831 01/14/1991 (null)
Cushing OK
68611 04/18/1991 (null)
Cushing OK
72830 05/21/1991 SW Quarter of SE Quarter Cushing OK
of Section 15 Cushing Tank
Farm
93917 10/26/1991 Linwood Ave.
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
119392 05/26/1992 1 mi south of Hwy 33 on
Harmony Rd on west side of
road
119806 05/30/1992 SW Quarter
Cushing OK
122152 06/16/1992 Off Hwy 33 on Little St.
City of Cushing
Cushing OK
Suspected
Responsible
Company
Type Of
Incident
Medium
Affected
Material
Name
(null) Koch Gathering
Systems
(null) Mid-Continent
Pipeline
Pipeline
Systems
(null) Kerr-McGee
(null) Conoco Pipeline
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Water
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Pipeline
Water
Water
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
74023 Amoco Pipeline
74023 Kerr-McGee
Fixed
Unknown
sheen
Land
Land
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Systems
74023 Koch Gathering
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
132
NRC
Report#
Incident
Date
Street
City
State ZIP
141021 10/17/1992 NE Quarter
143047 11/02/1992 (null)
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
144442 11/11/1992 (null)
Cushing OK
151382 01/03/1993 (null)
154361 01/21/1993 Tence tank farm
159927 02/26/1993 (null)
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
171222 04/21/1993 SE Quarter
Cushing OK
173953 05/15/1993 (null)
Cushing OK
208915 11/20/1993 RR 1 Box 2505 So.
Lynwood Rd
257561 08/27/1994 (null)
Cushing OK
298245 07/03/1995 (null)
314172 11/13/1995 RT 1Box 15
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
360675 09/11/1996 2 mi SE of Cushing
Cushing OK
Municipal Golf Course
363854 10/09/1996 .5 mi SW of Amoco facsw Cushing OK
Quarter of Section
14/TWNSP17 N / Range 5E
369308 12/03/1996 North side of Cushing
Cushing OK
392458 06/23/1997 Koch Cushing Terminal
Little St. and Linwood St. on
County Line Rd.
392605 06/24/1997 S/W 1/4
413687 11/29/1997 2.5 south of Hwy 33 on
Lynwood St.
440832 06/09/1998 Shinn-Pennce Tank Farm,
Harmony Rd
488462 06/19/1999 1/4 east of Hwy 180N,
Grand Staff Rd.
493903 08/04/1999 In city limits—the caller did
not have more accurate
location
499889 09/23/1999 .5 miles north of Harmony
and Fairlawn intersection
499889 09/23/1999 .5 miles north of Harmony
and Fairlawn intersection
502865 10/19/1999 SE Corridor
524980 04/03/2000 RT 1 Box 2467
591302 01/15/2002 Unknown sheen incident at
intersection of Deep Rock
Rd. and Lynwood Ave.
602904 05/08/2002 1001 Deep Rock Rd.
608395 06/04/2002 Remediation site/old
refinery, 1001 East Deep
Rock Rd.
626794 10/20/2002 South Lynwood St.
City of Cushing
Suspected
Responsible
Company
Systems
(null) Amoco Pipeline
Systems
Systems
(null) Kerr-McGee
(null) Amoco
Systems
74030 Mid-Continent
Pipeline
Pipeline
(null) Shell Pipeline Co.
Type Of
Incident
Medium
Affected
Material
Name
Pipeline
Pipeline
Land
Land
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Water
Oil Crude
Fixed
Fixed
Pipeline
Water
Land
Land
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Water
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Water
Oil Crude
Unknown
sheen
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Land
Oil Crude
Land
Land
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Water
Oil Crude
74023 Texaco Pipeline
Co.
(null) Williams Pipeline Pipeline
74023 Koch Pipeline Co., Fixed
LP
(null) Notti Gathering
Pipeline
Co.
Pipeline
Subsurface Oil Crude
Pipeline
Systems
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Pipeline
Water
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
Pipeline
Fixed
Land
Land
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
Fixed
Land
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
(null) (null)
Fixed
Land
Unknown oil
Cushing OK
(null) Sunoco
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
74079 Equilon
Pipeline
Land
Natural gas
Cushing OK
74079 Equilon
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
(null) Dynegy Crude
Gathering SV
(null) (null)
Pipeline
Unknown
sheen
Land
Water
Oil Crude
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
Cushing OK
(null) Kerr-McGee
(null) Kerr-McGee
Fixed
Fixed
Water
Water
Low PH water
Low PH
Groundwater
Cushing OK
(null) TEPPCO Crude
Pipeline
Pipeline
Land
Oil Crude
Cushing OK
133
A hazardous materials accident can occur anywhere. Communities located near chemical
manufacturing plants are particularly at risk. However, hazardous materials are
transported on our roadways, railways, pipelines, and waterways daily, so any area is
considered vulnerable to an accident. A recent study by the Department of Homeland
Security (2004) estimated that a worst-case chlorine tank explosion at an industrial site in
a major population center could result in thousands of deaths, severe injuries and
hospitalizations, as well as the evacuation of thousands of workers and residents.
As discussed above, Oklahoma is at some risk from accidental releases of hazardous
materials involving transportation incidences because it is literally the crossroads of
America. The state has 111,000 miles of highways, 926 miles of which are interstate
highways, including Interstates 35, 40, and 44. There are also approximately 4,000 miles
of railway, thousands of miles of pipeline, and over 150 navigable river miles linking
barge traffic to the Mississippi River.
Trucks and/or railroads will transport future disposals of the nations high-level nuclear
waste at the Yucca Mountain disposal site if all legislation is approved. Interstates 35 and
40 are among the routes proposed as well as rail lines in northeast Oklahoma. Nuclear
facilities near Oklahoma where shipments will originate include Arkansas Nuclear One in
Arkansas and Comanche Peak in Texas. The Department of Energy estimates 3,472
shipments of toxic, high-level, nuclear waste will travel through Oklahoma if trucks are
used as the main transports. If trains are used as the main transport, an estimated 478
shipments will travel through Oklahoma en route to Yucca Mountain.
One of the reasons Cushing is vulnerable to fixed-site hazardous materials incidents is
because it is the center of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S.
Cushing Grain Elevator
Although not commonly considered a
hazardous material, grain dust has been
the source of many grain elevator
explosions and deaths. In December
1977 a grain dust explosion took the top
100 feet off a structure at the Westwood,
Louisiana grain elevator. Thirty-six
people were killed and nine injured. Five
days later, a grain elevator blast in
Galveston, Texas, killed 18 and injured
22. A series of explosions killed seven
workers in Haysville, Kansas, in 1998.
During a 10-year period in the 1980s and
1990s there was an average of 13 grain
elevator explosions per year in the
United States.
City of Cushing
134
Cushing grain elevator
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Noble
Wilson Ave
9th St
6
# #
# #
# #
Little Rd
#
Y
#
Y
17
LEGEND
0
Tier 2 Sites
Storage Tanks
State Highways
Roads
County Line
Water Features
Railroads
City Limit
0.5
1
MILES
N
W
E
S
Harmony Rd
"
!
#Y
33
21
20
#Y
###
# # # #
# # # # #
#
# # #
# ## # # # # #
#
# # #
# ##
#
#
##### #
#
#
# #
# # # #
#
#
# # # # # ## # #
Texaco Rd # #
#
# #
#
#
####
Eseco
#
10 Pine
Y Ave
##
#
#
#
Y
#
18
# # #5 #
#Y#Y Y
#Y
1 8 19
Oak St
Wilson
16 #Y
#
Y Broadway St
#
Y #
11
Y
3rd St
4 15 3 #Y 6th St
Elm Creek
#
Y
2
Linwood Rd
9th St
#
#
#
Linwood Rd
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
14 #Y
#Y
Vine St
Main St
33
18
12
#
Y
# #
##
#
Y
13#Y
"
!
# #
# #
9
Grandstaff Rd
Skull
Creek
#Y7
18
Cottonwood
Creek
# # #
# # #
#
# ##
#
#
# ## # #
#
# #
# ##
# #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ## # # # #
# # # #
# # #
#
# ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
Payne County
# # # # #
Lincoln County
Figure 3-7
City of Cushing
Hazardous Material
Locations
Dust from most grains is combustible and can cause an explosion. Some grain dusts are
more dangerous than others, especially corn or sugar. In order to be combustible the dust
must be in a confined space and reach a concentration of at least .020 ounces per cubic
foot. A human would not be able to see more than three feet in a dust cloud that
concentrated.
The cascading effect is possibly the most damaging aspect of a grain dust explosion. Fuel
for secondary explosions is generated when grain dust settled on floors or walls is thrown
into the air by the primary explosion. Often the secondary explosion causes more damage
than the primary. This enables dust explosions to jump from room to room or silo to silo.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires grain handling
facilities of 10 or more employees have an emergency operations plan. A written
housekeeping program to prevent the accumulation of combustible grain dust is
mandatory. Although not required by OSHA, mechanical equipment within the facility
must be kept in good operating condition. Poorly working equipment can be the ignition
source of a dust explosion.
Hazardous materials sites for Cushing are shown on the map in Figure 3–7. Cushing Tier
II hazardous materials sites are listed in Table 3–30 and a detailed list can be found in
appendix C “Hazardous Material Sites”.
Table 3–30: Cushing Hazardous Materials Sites
ID
NAME
ADDRESS
1
American Welding Supply
1502 E Main
2
Cudd Pumping
701 E. Grandstaff
3
Cushing Memorial Pool
5th & Little Ave
4
Cushing Metals
600 W Cherry
5
Cushing Water Plant
1100 N. Maitlen Dr.
6
Evans Cushing
2400 S. Little
7
Kerr-McGee
1001 East Deep Rock Road
8
MFA Propane - Cushing
1520 E. Main
9
MFA Propane - Cushing 2
1.75 miles N of hwy 33 & 18
10
Oilwell Fracturing
1020 N. Linwood
11
SW Bell - Cushing
401 E. Broadway
12
Williams Cushing
1.25 mi on Linwood Rd
13
Hudson Refinery - North
West Highway 33
14
Hudson Refinery - South
West Highway 33
15
Cushing Grain Elevator – Ahrberg Milling
200 S. Depot
16
Arkla Gas/Centerpoint Energy
202 N. Harrison
17
Cushing Regional Airport
Tom Maloney Dr.
18
Bills E-Z Out
1107 E. Main
19
Git-N-Go
2003 E. Main
20
Oklahomas Oilwell Cementing
1218 S. Highland
21
Oilwell Fracturing Service
403 N. Harmony Rd.
City of Cushing
136
3.13.4 Conclusion
Varying quantities of hazardous materials are manufactured, used, or stored at an
estimated 4.5 million facilities in the United States, from major industrial plants to local
dry cleaning establishments or gardening supply stores.
The estimated annual damage from hazardous materials events in the United States is
$22.4 million. Most victims of chemical accidents are injured at home. These incidents
usually result from ignorance or carelessness in using flammable or combustible
materials.
Based on Cushing’s hazardous materials information, including percentage of the
population at risk and other factors, the community is at moderate risk from hazardous
materials incidents, however the number of critical facilities at risk should be a factor
included in mitigation plans.
3.13.5 Sources
Booth, Richard (City of Tulsa, Planning and Research Division). Telephone interview by
Michael Flanagan, March 26, 2002.
Brasfield, Randy (Hazardous Materials Chief, Tulsa Fire Department). Telephone
interview by Michael Flanagan, April 16, 2002.
EPA Region 6 SuperFund Polution Reports, at Web address:
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/polreps.nsf/0/440bedd4697ca41c86256d2d0070b09e?OpenD
ocument
FEMA Backgrounder: Hazardous Materials, formerly available at Web address:
http://www.fema.gov/library/hazmat.htm. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Virtual Library & Electronic Reading Room, 1998.
Grain Dust Peril, Industrial Fire World – July/August 1998.
Grain Handling Safety, Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission, Workers’ Health
and Safety Division.
Guy, Bill (Editor, Haskell News). Telephone interview by Michael Flanagan, March 20,
2002.
McElhenney, John (Engineer, INCOG, Tulsa, OK). Telephone interview by Michael
Flanagan, March 26, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 274, 277, 280. Federal Emergency
September 2001.
City of Cushing
137
Superfund—Region 6: South Central, at Web address:
http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/hudson_oil.htm.
The Haskell News, March 27 and 29, 1997.
The Tulsa World, p. A-1, February 10, 1997.
The Tulsa World, p. A-1, July 13, 2002.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Nuclear Waste Transportation Risks
What is the Toxics Release Inventory Program, at Web address:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/whatis.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
Planning Scenarios: Executive Summaries, Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/hsc-planning-scenariosjul04_exec-sum.pdf
City of Cushing
138
3.14 Dam Failures
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a dam as “a barrier
constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control, or diversion of
water.” Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. A dam
failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure resulting in downstream flooding.
The amount of water impounded in the reservoir behind a dam is measured in acre-feet.
An acre-foot is the volume of water that covers an acre of land to a depth of one foot, or
approximately 325,000 gallons. As a function of upstream topography, even a very small
dam may impound or detain many acre-feet or millions of gallons of water.
The National Inventory of
Dams (NID) listed about
77,000 dams in the United
States in their 1997-1998
update. More than 3,300
high and significant hazard
dams are located within one
mile of a downstream
population center, and more
than 2,400 are located
within two miles.
The overtopping or forced release of a dam due to heavy
Dam failures are primarily
rain or abnormal river flows is a threat to downstream properties
caused by hydrologic or
structural deficiencies. A hydrologic deficiency is inadequate spillway capacity, caused
by excessive runoff from heavy precipitation. Structural deficiencies include seepage,
erosion, cracking, sliding, and overturning, mainly caused by the age of a dam and lack
of maintenance. The operation of a reservoir can also influence the safety of the structure.
There can be varying levels of dam failure. Partial dam failures include 1) inadequate
spillway capacity that causes excess flow to overtop the dam and 2) internal erosion
through the dam or foundation. Complete failure occurs if internal erosion or overtopping
results in a total structural breach, releasing a high-velocity wall of debris-laden water
that rushes downstream, damaging or destroying everything in its path.
Effects
In the event of a dam failure, the potential energy of the water stored behind even a small
dam can cause great property damage and, if there are people downstream, loss of life.
The following factors influence the impact of a dam failure:
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Level of failure (partial or complete)
Rapidity of failure (sudden or gradual)
Amount of water released
Nature of the development and infrastructure located downstream
139
A break in a dam produces an extremely dangerous flood situation because of the high
velocities and large volumes of water. The severity of impact on areas downstream and
the height to which waters will rise are largely functions of valley topography and the
volume of water released.
Besides dam failures, there are hazardous actions that have to be taken to prevent dam
failures, such as sudden releases of water when the dam is threatened with overtopping.
In this case, a dam may have failed in its purpose to protect downstream people and
property, without having literally or physically failed.
Measurements
Any artificial water barrier structure that has a height of 25 feet or more from the natural
streambed and 50 acre feet or more of storage capacity qualifies as a dam and is under the
jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB).
There are 4,524 dams in Oklahoma (including private structures), with approximately
half (2,300) operated by the National Resources Conversation Service (NRCS).
Emergency Action Plans have been filed for 160 of the most important dams in the state.
The OWRB classifies dams as
high-hazard, significant-hazard,
and low-hazard, depending on the
amount of water stored and
downstream populations. The state
has 165 high-hazard dams, which
must be inspected every year.
There are 88 dams having
significant hazard potential, which
are inspected every three years.
The rest are classified as low
hazard, and are inspected every
five years. Dams in the Cushing
area are shown in Figure 3-8.
Cushing Municipal Lake Dam
High-hazard dams are so designated due to the presence of occupied dwellings
immediately downstream. If a high-hazard dam fails, there probably will be loss of life.
This determination does not mean that a dam is in need of repair—it could be in excellent
condition or in poor condition. “High-hazard” simply reflects a dam’s potential for doing
damage downstream if it were to fail (because of population density and property
exposure).
The areas impacted are delineated using dam breach analyses that consider both “sunny
day” failures and failures under flood conditions.
City of Cushing
140
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"18
!
Harmony Rd
Grandstaff Rd
Linwood Rd
Kings Hwy
(
X
Skull
Creek
Little Rd
Cim
Ri arr
ve on
r
CUSHING LAKE
Cabin
Creek
Vine St
Main St
Pine Ave
Wilson
Broadway St
3rd St
6th St
9th St
Wilson Ave
9th St
Little Rd
Elm Creek
Eseco
"33
!
Oak St
Linwood Rd
33
18
Noble
"
!
Cottonwood
Creek
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
(
X
LEGEND
Hazard Class
#
S Low
#
S Significant
#
S High
0
L E G E Dam
N DLocations
#
S
1
MILES
State Highways
Roads
County Line W
Water Features
Railroads
City Limit
2
N
E
S
Figure 3-8
City of Cushing
Hazard Dam
Locations
Extent of Impact
The extent of a dam failure can be influenced by several factors. The amount of water
behind the dam, the height of the dam itself and way in which a dam fails. The extent of a
dam failure can be assessed before an event occurs. Using a GIS environment, a water
body’s volume can be measured with a high degree of accuracy. The inundation area of a
dam and depth of flooding can be determined using readily available DEM or
topographic maps. The extent of this inundation can be minimal to uninhabited farmland
or can be catastrophic in nature in an urban environment.
Cushing Lake Dam is located on Big Creek, about 1 mile from its junction with the
Cimarron River. The lake is 591 acres in size, has a 48-ft-high dam and a storage capacity
of 3,304 acre-feet of water. There are a total of five structures below the dam that would
be affected by a failure of Cushing Lake Dam. These include an out-of-use waterworks
facility, three commercial structures and a mobile home. It is estimated that each
structure would receive 5 feet of flooding. Total damages to the structures in the
inundation area would be $539,654.
The deadliest dam failure in United States history occurred in Johnstown, Pennsylvania
in 1889, with 2,209 people killed. Between 1960 and 1997, there have been at least 23
dam failures causing one or more fatalities. Some failures also caused downstream dams
to fail. There were 318 deaths as a result of these failures.
On March 12, 1928,
California’s St. Francis Dam
broke, sending a 140ft high
wall of water crashing down
San Francesquito Canyon
towards Ventura, killing 470
people. It took the wall of
water 5 1/2 hours to reach the
ocean. A total of 900
buildings were destroyed. It
was the second-worst disaster
in California history, after the
San Francisco earthquake, in
terms of lives lost.
In February 1972, a privately
owned tailings dam in
St. Francis Dam in California after catastrophic March, 1928,
Buffalo Creek, West Virginia
break
failed, devastating a 16-mile
valley with 6,000 inhabitants. As a result of the failure, 125 people were killed and 3,000
were left homeless. In 1976, Teton Dam in Idaho failed, causing $1 billion in property
damage and leaving 11 dead. In May 1977, Laurel Run Dam in Pennsylvania failed,
resulting in 43 lives lost. Six months later, Kelly Barnes Dam in Georgia failed, killing 39
people, most of them college students.
City of Cushing
142
In response to the Buffalo Creek disaster, Congress enacted the National Dam Inspection
Act in 1972, which authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers to inventory
and inspect all non-federal dams. After the Teton Dam failure, President Carter issued a
memorandum on April 23, 1977, directing a review of federal dam safety activities by an
ad hoc panel of recognized experts.
Despite the strengthening of dam safety programs since the 1970s, dams continue to fail,
causing loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage. In July 1994, Tropical
Storm Alberto caused over 230 dam failures in Georgia, resulting in three deaths.
In Oklahoma, there have been only three significant, documented dam failures. On
October 3, 1923, heavy rain caused a dam failure at Lake Overholser, which displaced
15,000 residents. Cleveland, in Pawnee County, suffered losses in the half-million dollar
range when the town was inundated by the Cleveland Dam break on September 4, 1940.
Both events resulted from sudden and heavy rainfall. After 14.6 inches of rain fell in the
Wewoka area on the night of April 13-14, 1945, heavy flows on Coon Creek overtopped
and breached the earth-filled Wewoka Dam, sending a wall of water into Wewoka Creek.
Eight people in the path of the deluge were killed and the town of Wewoka was under 4
feet of water near the train depot. Eighty people were forced from their homes. Dams can
“fail” in ways other than being breached. Sometimes, in order to prevent overtopping and
catastrophic failure, dams are forced to make emergency releases of huge amounts of
water. In late September and early October, 1986, the remnants of Hurricane Paine
dumped nearly 2 feet of rain northwest of Tulsa, causing the Arkansas, Caney, and
Neosho Rivers to flood. To prevent the Arkansas River from overtopping Keystone Dam,
the Corps of Engineers had to open the floodgates and release 300,000 cfs of water down
through Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks and Bixby. No one knew if the World War II era sand
levees would hold, and a catastrophic failure of the levee system was widely feared. In
fact, the Sand Springs levee was breached, but volunteers plugged it with sandbags. On
the west bank, the river swamped Garden City up to the rooftops. More than 1,800 Tulsaarea homes and businesses were invaded with water. Tulsa County damages were
estimated at $63.5 million (in '86 dollars), Sand Springs’ at $32.5 million, and Bixby’s at
$13.4 million.
A similar emergency release from Copan and Hulah Lakes during the same storm
resulted in the worst flood in Bartlesville’s history. The Caney River rose to 30 feet
above normal, which was 17 feet above flood stage, flooding half of the city, including
the downtown area. Damage was so extensive that the region was declared a Presidential
Disaster Area.
The number of fatalities resulting from dam failures is highly influenced by the number
of people occupying the predicted dam failure floodplain and the amount of warning they
are provided. Most dams in the United States are privately owned, located on private
property, and not directly in the visual path of most Americans. This factor contributes to
the challenge of raising the issue of dam safety in the public consciousness and getting
the information on dam safety to those who need it.
City of Cushing
143
One dam can have an impact on Cushing—Cushing Municipal Lake on Big Creek.
Cushing Municipal Lake, nearly 4.5 river miles downstream of Big Creek’s headwaters
drains to the Cimarron River, is operated by the City of Cushing.
Cushing Municipal Lake
Location:
On Big Creek, 5 miles west of Cushing, on Highway 33
Source:
Big Creek
Flows into:
Cimarron River drainage basin
Owner/operator:
City of Cushing
Year built:
1950
Length:
1320 feet
Height:
48 feet
Construction material:
Masonry and earth-fill
Use of Dam:
Cushing water supply
Capacity:
3,304 acre feet of water
Land area:
591surface acres of water
Flood damage history: None to date
Results of failure:
Floodplain inundation of farmland for 2.15 stream miles before
entering the Cimarron River.
3.14.4 Dam Break Scenario
The most probable scenario involving a major dam in the Cushing area would most likely
involve the high hazard dam on Cushing Lake. A dam break would send a wall of water
rushing down the spillway valley along Big Creek, destroying or damaging almost
everything in its path.
There are a total of five structures in the Cushing area that would be affected by a dam
failure on Cushing Lake. These include an out-of-use waterworks facility, 3 other
commercial structures and a mobile home. It is estimated that each structure would
receive 5 feet of flooding, which, according to FEMA’s “Structure Damage Factors”,
results in 16% damage to commercial structures, 43% damage to mobile homes, 28%
damages to commercial contents and 41% damage to mobile home contents. Crop losses
are not included in the scenario, but depending on the season would also sustain damages.
Total damages to the structures in the inundation area are summarized in Table 3-31.
The event would likely send floodwaters up Cabin Creek’s floodplain, but would only
impact undeveloped forestlands. Also, homes located immediately north of the dam
would remain unaffected by a dam break event due to their location on a ridgeline that
sits some 40 feet in elevation above the dam.
City of Cushing
144
Table 3–31: Lake Cushing Dam Break Scenario
Buildings in the Dam Break
Buildings in the Dam Failure Area
Number or Value
5
Value of Dam Inundation Buildings
$1,215,409
Value of Contents
$1,202,909
Total Value of Buildings Located in the Dam
Inundation Area
$2,418,318
Damages due to Dam Failure
Damage to Buildings from Dam Failure
$201,215
Damage to Contents from a Dam Failure
$338,439
Total Damages from the Dam Failure
$539,654
3.14.5 Conclusion
People, property, and infrastructure downstream of dams could be subject to devastating
damage in the event of failure. The areas impacted are delineated using dam breach
analyses that consider both “sunny day” failures and failures under flood conditions. The
downstream extent of impact areas and the height to which waters will rise are largely
functions of valley topography and the volume of water released during failure.
If a dam is classified as high hazard, then the failure of that dam would most likely result
in loss of life. This classification does not mean the dam is necessarily at risk of failing.
The most important factor for public safety is the timeliness and effectiveness of warning
given to vulnerable downstream populations. Dams are often not visible from the
neighborhoods of most Americans and therefore dam safety is not in the public
consciousness.
Cushing and its future development areas have a low vulnerability to dam break.
3.14.6 Sources
Kuhnert, Nathan (Hydrologist Oklahoma Water Resources Board). Telephone interview
by Michael Flanagan, January 10, 22, 2002, March 18, 19, 2002.
September 2001.
Partners in Dam Safety, at Web address: http://www.fema.gov/fima/damsafe/. FEMA,
National Dam Safety Program, Dam Safety Progress Through Partnerships.
Rooftop of River: Tulsa’s Approach to Floodplain and Stormwater Management, “Setting
and History: Learning the Hard Way,” p. 1–7 and at Web address:
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/rooftop/index.shtml. City of Tulsa, 1994.
National Inventory of Dams, at Web address:
http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm.
City of Cushing
145
3.15 Transportation Hazards
Transportation is defined as the physical movement of an object through components of a
system and its subsystems. Transportation includes the use of aviation, highway, railroad,
pipeline, and marine systems to convey movement of objects and people. In 1967, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) was created in order to administer and protect the
nation’s transportation systems. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was
established within the DOT as an independent agency responsible for investigating
transportation incidents and promoting transportation safety.
Oklahoma alone consists of over 111,000
miles of highways including Interstates 35,
40 and 44, over 180 navigable river miles
allowing barge traffic to navigate from the
Mississippi River up the Arkansas and
Verdigris Rivers, approximately 6,000 miles
of rail track and an undisclosed quantity of
pipelines. Each mode of transportation is
used in the transport of hazardous materials.
When in transport, hazardous materials are
characterized by nine separate classes of
hazards. They are as follows: 1) explosives,
2) gases, 3) flammable liquids, 4) flammable
solids, 5) oxidizers and organic peroxides, 6) toxics, 7) radioactive materials, 8) corrosive
materials, and 9) miscellaneous dangerous goods. By far the greatest percentage of any
hazard shipment (72%) falls under the flammable liquids category. Gases and corrosive
materials are next with 8.8% and 8.7% respectively. Radioactive materials are shipped
the least and account for only 0.6% of all hazardous material shipments. More
specifically, 40.9% of hazardous material shipments are comprised of gasoline (UN#
1203).
In 1997, a joint commodity flow survey was undertaken with collective participation
from the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics and the U.S. Department of Transportation. In the results of the
five major modes of hazardous material transport, truck carriers represented 63.9% of all
hazardous material transports, pipelines accounted for 18.4%, rails accounted for 7.1%,
water accounted for 5.8%, and air accounted for 1.8%.
Roads: The national highway system is made up of 46,677 miles of Interstate Highways,
114,511 miles of other National Highways and is used by 505,900 active interstate motor
carriers. There were over 3.95 million miles of public roads in the United States in 2000,
of which 3.09 million miles were in rural communities (rural communities are defined as
those places with fewer than 5,000 residents, and urban communities are defined as those
areas with 5,000 or more people). Local governments controlled over 77 percent of total
highway miles in 2000; States controlled about 20 percent; and the Federal Government
owned about 3 percent. Hence, the Nation’s highway system is overwhelmingly rural and
City of Cushing
146
local. Truck shipments represent the greatest mode of transport for hazardous materials
accounting for 63.9% of all shipments and totaling nearly 870,000 tons of hazardous
materials in 1997.
Oklahoma has 930 miles of interstate highways, or 2% of the nations total interstates. The
state also contains 22,708 bridges as of August of 2001. Cushing has State Highways 33
and 18 in town. Floodplains cross these highways outside of town and may potential
interfere with response efforts if bridges or roads become impassable during an event.
Air: There are 8,228 certified air carrier aircrafts in the United States operated by 75
carriers of international, national and regional level. Airports are defined into hub classes
based on the number of enplaned passengers using airline services. Hubs are classified by
large, medium, small, and non-hub where large hubs see over 6.3 million passengers and
non-hubs receive less than 319,451 passengers over a 12-month period. There are 72
airports in the nation considered as large hubs. These 72 airports see almost 75% of all
the airline passenger traffic in the nation.
Oklahoma airports, in the year 2000, performed 61,512 departures enplaning over 3.4
million passengers. The two largest airports, Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma
City and Tulsa International saw 1.73 and 1.66 million passengers respectively
classifying them both as Medium Air Traffic Hubs for the year 2000. Oklahoma also has
several Air Force bases including Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City, Altus AFB in Altus,
and Vance AFB in Enid. The City of Cushing has one major airport with a 5,200’
concrete runway and a heliport located at the Cushing Regional Hospital.
Rail: North American railroads operate over
173,000 miles of track, and earn $42 billion in
annual revenues. U.S. freight railroads alone are
the world’s busiest, moving 70% of all
automobiles produced in the U.S. by train, 30%
of the nation’s grain harvest, 65% of the nations
coal and operating on over 143,000 miles of
track. In the U.S., railroads account for more
than 40% of all freight transportation. Railroad
companies are categorized into four classes.
Class I railroads are the U.S. line haul freight
railroads with operating revenues in excess of
$266.7 million. The seven Class I railroads in
2002 are as follows: The Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe Railway, CSX Transportation,
Grand Trunk Corporation, Kansas City Southern
Railway, Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Railroad, and
Union Pacific Railroad. Combined, these companies have 477,751 freight cars in service
and operate on 123,070 miles of tracks when trackage rights are included. Non-Class I
railroads include the three sub-classes: Regional, Local Linehaul and Switching &
Terminal. In 2001, there were 563 Non-Class I railroad companies operating on 45,000
miles of track.
City of Cushing
147
Although no rail lines remain in Cushing, Oklahoma Class I rail carriers include
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and Kansas City Southern for freight.
Amtrak connects Oklahoma City to an Amtrak hub in Fort Worth, Texas for passenger
travel. Regional rails include the South Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad. Local rails include
the Arkansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc., AT&L Railroad, De Queen & Eastern
Railroad, Grainbelt Corp., Hollis & Eastern Railroad, Kiamichi Railroad Co., Sand
Springs Railway Company, Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc., and Tulsa-Sapulpa Union
Railway Co.
Water: Inland waterways carry an estimated 15% of
the nations bulk freight by volume. A fully loaded
barge with 1,500 tons is the equivalent to the load of 58
trucks on the highway. Of the bulk freight, 59.1% of
bulk weight waterborne transports are comprised of
crude petroleum followed by an 11.6% bulk weight of
food and farm products. Of the 50 states, Oklahoma is
ranked 39th according to total tons of domestic and
foreign loads of waterborne traffic. Louisiana, Texas and California respectively were the
top three states for domestic and foreign shipments in U.S. waterborne traffic for the year
2001. Oklahoma waterborne commerce in 2001 was responsible for 4.1 tons of domestic
products and received no measurable amount of foreign products.
The navigation channel along the Arkansas River known as the McClellan-Kerr
Navigation System is made up of 15 lock chambers between the Mississippi River to the
final lock at Webbers Falls, Oklahoma. The Oklahoma portion channel spans 173 miles
and terminates at the Port of Catoosa east of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Pipelines: The pipeline
network supporting
energy transportation in
the United States
includes approximately
1.9 million miles of
natural gas and
hazardous liquid
pipelines and has more
than 3,000 companies
operating in all 50
states. Pipelines
represent 18.4% of all hazardous material transportation in the U.S. Natural gas
distribution, with over 1.8 million miles of pipelines, represents the greatest commodity
transported through pipelines. Over 305,000 miles of pipelines are used in the transport
of natural gas transmission and almost 160,000 miles of pipelines are used in the
transport of hazardous liquids including petroleum products. Most pipelines are installed
in underground right-of-ways (ROW), which are maintained for access and marked with
above ground markers and warning signs.
Payne County has 17 pipeline operators within the county jurisdiction. They include All
American Pipeline, LP, BP Pipeline (North America) Inc., Citgo Products Pipeline Co.,
City of Cushing
148
Conoco Inc., Cushing Chicago Crude Oil Pipeline (Arco P/L Co), Enogex Inc., Eott
Energy Pipeline Limited Partnership, Equilon Pipeline Co. LLC, Koch Pipeline Co. L.P.,
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., Oneok Gas Transportation, LLC, Phillips Pipe Line Co.,
Seminole Transportation and Gathering, Inc., Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.,
Sunoco Pipeline L.P., Williams Pipe Line Company, Arco Pipe Line Co. Specific routes
of pipelines and their operators within Payne County municipalities are not identified.
Effects
Human casualties and releases of hazardous materials are the typical results from a
transportation incident. Because of the difficulties that hazardous chemicals and their
reactions present, responses to accidents of this nature become very sensitive.
Additionally, mass casualty incidents are often too large in scale for emergency
responders and supporting organizations such as local blood banks and hospitals to
handle. In general, mutual aid agreements, like those used by local fire departments, can
compensate for the over extended response capabilities in events such as this.
Transportation accidents also tend to interact with other forms of transportation. Often
railroad bridges and highway overpasses are near each other, if not structurally
connected, and navigable rivers often meander under the two. Municipal airports’ flight
paths can overlap due to the direction of associated runways if they are not planned
accordingly.
The interaction of transportation hazards does not end there. Natural disasters,
particularly earthquakes, can cause hazardous material releases at fixed sites and
complicate spill response activities. Tornadoes, floods, and winter storms have also been
known to damage intact transportation systems,
whether they are pipelines, railroads, water,
airlines or highways. Meteorological impacts
compromising vehicle safety on roads include
slick bridges and overpasses from ice and rains
and heavy fog cover affecting visibility.
Earthquakes, floods, severe thunderstorms,
expansive soils, wild fires, and hazardous
material incidents can also impact the integrity of
the highway system. Factors listed, combined
with heavy traffic and high speeds facilitate
accidents and even multi-vehicle pileups that
result in injuries and fatalities.
Roads: The principal north-south arterials
traveled in Oklahoma are Interstate 35 crossing
the middle of the state from border to border
connecting Oklahoma City to major
thoroughfares in Kansas and Texas and Interstate
Wreckage of Flight 1016 in North
75 crossing the eastern third of the state through
Carolina
Tulsa. Interstate 44 crosses the state from the
southwest to the northeast and connects the two main metropolitan areas of Tulsa and
Oklahoma City to locations in Missouri and Texas. Interstate 40, running east and west,
is the modern day thoroughfare replacing the nation’s first trans-continental highway,
City of Cushing
149
Route 66. It crosses through Oklahoma City and is a major national transportation route
of interstate travel.
Air: Accidents involving aircraft can range from human error to meteorological
explanations. Fog, ice, thunderstorms and windshear are conditions that can lead to
difficulties in properly controlling aircraft. Weather delays are common in air
transportation and are respected to help prevent accidents. Airport runway pavement is
also a concern. When deteriorated, runway pavement can cause damage to aircraft
turbines, propellers, landing gear and may result in runway closure.
Rail: Millions of passengers are transported annually on the nations heavy and light rail
public systems and over 1.52 million carloads of hazardous material move by rail each
year. Collisions and derailments are the most common accidents for rail travel.
Water: In order for ports to function effectively, intermodal rail and truck services must
be available. Inadequate control of truck traffic into and out of port terminals combined
with the lack of adequate on-dock or near-dock rail access, affects the productivity of
ports and waterborne trade.
Pipeline: Incidents that involve a loss of product during pipeline transmission have been
correlated through several studies with the age of the affected pipeline. Besides corrosion,
failures are caused by external impacts, structural failures, mechanical defects, and
natural hazards including earthquakes, land subsidence, avalanches, floods, lightning,
fires and severe winter storms.
Measurements
The National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB)
investigates significant
accidents in all forms of
transportation including all
civil aviation accidents,
selected highway accidents,
railroad accidents, major
marine accidents, pipeline accidents, hazardous material releases from any form of
transportation, and other transportation problems that have a recurring nature. Accident
reports, safety studies, numerous databases, and historical archives are all available at the
NTSB through the Freedom of Information Act.
Miscellaneous dangerous goods, a hazardous materials shipment hazard class has the
highest accident and incident rate of all shipments. The gases class, more specifically, the
non-flammable gases sub-class, has the lowest accident and incident rates during
shipment. The largest possible economic impact associated with hazardous material
transport incidents comes from flammable and combustible liquids. In terms of incident
cost, release-causing enroute accidents have the highest average cost, followed by
enroute accidents in which a release does not occur. Of those enroute accidents resulting
in a release, explosions have the highest per incident cost, followed by fires and then
releases where neither a fire or explosion ensue. Explosions result in an average cost of
over $2.1 million per accident, followed by $1.2 million per accident involving fire, and
City of Cushing
150
accidents involving releases with no fire or explosions average slightly over $400,000.
The greatest economic impact though, is associated with accidents enroute where a
release does not occur, due to the higher frequency of these events.
Roads: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration conducted a sample survey of
62% of the nations active interstate motor carriers. Of the total active interstate motor
carriers, 62% received a “satisfactory” safety score while 8% received an unsatisfactory
score. The same survey was conducted using 55% of all the hazardous materials carriers.
Of those carriers surveyed, 78% received a “satisfactory” score for safety and only 2%
received an “unsatisfactory” safety score.
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 440,000 large trucks were
involved in accidents in 1997. This translates into 232 crashes per every 100,000,000
miles driven by trucks. Of the estimated crashes per 100 million miles, 2.6 of those will
involve a fatality. In 1998, the nation’s truck carriers were involved in 4,582 federal
compliance reviews, of which 2,539 resulted in enforcement and amounted to $7,055,080
in settled claims and penalties. Hazardous materials make up between four and eight
percent of all truck shipments. Trucks carrying hazardous materials have an accident rate
of 0.32 per million vehicle miles as compared to 0.73 accidents per million vehicle miles
of non-hazardous material shipments. Due primarily to the volume of transport activity,
non-hazardous material truck accidents rates are more than twice the hazardous material
truck accident rates.
Hazardous materials placards are required when shipping hazardous materials on United
States, Canada and Mexico highways. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulates transportation of materials classified as hazardous, with regulations covering
packaging, labeling, marking and descriptions on shipping papers. Hazardous materials
are classified into the nine numbering system classes in the following Table 3-32.
Table 3–32: Hazardous Material Transport Placards
Class
Name
1
Explosives
Orange
2
Red
Compressed
Gasses
Description
Symbol
Materials that explode or detonate such as
dynamite and military rockets; burn rapidly and
give off sparks, such as gunpowder; and pop,
such as blasting caps and fireworks.
Pressurized gas ignitable when exposed to air.
2
Green
Includes compressed gas, liquefied gas,
pressurized cryogenic gas, compressed gas in
solution, asphyxiat gas and oxidizing gas.
2
Yellow
Oxygen is considered non-flammable because it
in and of itself does not burn. It is, however,
required for combustion to take place. High
concentrations of oxygen greatly increases the
City of Cushing
151
Class
Name
Description
Symbol
rate and intensity of combustion.
Gas poisonous by inhalation is known or
presumed to be so toxic to humans as to pose a
hazard to health.
2
White
3
Red
Flammable
Liquids
Cargo is easily ignitable. Explosion is possible
and vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation.
Vapors could ignite.
4
Red &
White
Stripes
Flammable
Solids
Materials that may cause a fire through friction,
metal powders that can ignite or thermally
unstable materials.
4
Red &
White
A liquid or solid material that, even without an
external ignition source, can ignite or self-heat
after coming in contact with air.
4
Blue
Material when contacted with water is liable to
become spontaneously flammable or to give off
flammable or toxic gas
5
Oxidizers
Yellow
Oxidizer means a material that may, generally by
yielding oxygen, cause or enhance the
combustion of other materials.
6
White
Poisons
Indicates a severe, or presumed severe health
hazard. The substance may be poison gas,
insecticide, fungicide, hydrochloric acid,
chlorine, hydrogen cyanide or other injurious
substance.
7
Yellow
&
White
8
Black
&
White
9
Radioactive
Materials
Any material or combination of materials which
spontaneously emits ionizing radiation.
Corrosive
Liquids
A liquid or solid that causes full thickness
destruction of human skin at the site of contact
or a liquid that has a severe corrosion rate on
steel or aluminum.
Miscellaneous A material which presents a hazard during
transportation but which does not meet the
definition of any other hazard class.
City of Cushing
152
Air: According to a 1997 commodity flow study of hazardous materials; airlines
represent 1.8% of hazardous material shipments in the United States.
Rail: Coal was the dominant freight carried by rail and comprises 43% of all commodity
types. Nonmetallic minerals, farm products and chemicals round out the top four 2001
commodities shipped by rail. Chemicals and allied products total approximately 7.9% of
all freights while petroleum and coke only account for 2.7%.
Water: In December of 1999, Webbers Falls lock chamber, located on river mile 366,
shipped through 1,113 vessels carrying 4,007 kilotons of cargo for the month. The main
commodity originating in Oklahoma and shipped out through water transports are
petroleum products. In 2000, a total of 98,797 tons of petroleum products were delivered
to other states through waterborne commerce. In 2001, the total petroleum waterborne
commerce originating in Oklahoma and delivered to other states increased to 132,843
tons.
Pipeline: In 2002, pipelines carrying hazardous liquids experienced 140 accidents
resulting in over $31 million in property damage. This is less than the 17-year annual
average of $47.7 million occurring between 1986-2002 on hazardous material accidents
involving pipelines.
Crude and petroleum products represent over 40% of all hazardous material transports.
Pipelines represent the greatest transportation system for petroleum and petroleum byproducts. In 2001, pipelines accounted for 66.24% of all U.S. domestic petroleum
products transportation. Water carriers accounted for 28.05%, followed by 3.54% by
motor carriers and 2.17% by railroads.
Extent of Impact
Cushing is located at the intersection of OK Hwy 18 and OK Hwy 33, both of which
carry volatile and toxic chemical products through the center of the city. There are 6.6
miles of highway within the city limits. Payne County has 17 pipeline operators within its
jurisdiction, a half dozen of which pass near or through Cushing. Cushing also operates
Cushing Municipal Airport south of the city. Of Cushing’s total land area within its city
limits, 44% lies within one of its transportation corridors, including 9 Tier II sites and 13
critical facilities. Among the Tier II sites are American Welding Supply, Cushing Water
Treatment Plant, MFA Propane, and Oilwell Fracturing Service. The critical facilities
include Cushing Police and Fire Departments, Cushing Middle School, Cushing High
School, and several banks and child care centers. Cushing has had at least 41 accidents or
hazardous materials transportation events in the past 20 years, most of which were oil
pipeline spills, but also three light aircraft accidents. In light of this experience, Cushing
can expect 2 low-impact transportation events each year, almost all of which will involve
non-fatal oil pipeline spills. However, a worst-case truck chlorine tank explosion could
result in hundreds of deaths, severe injuries, and hospitalizations. The extent of a
transportation event can be lessened by, among other measures, well-trained and
equipped Hazmat Teams, Reverse 9-1-1 notifications of people in the impact area,
planned and practiced notification and evacuation procedures, and by relocating
hazardous material transportation routes away from populated areas and critical facilities.
City of Cushing
153
Neyshabur, Iran / Train Derailment
On February 17, 2004, runaway train cars carrying sulfur, fuel oil, industrial chemicals,
and cotton blew up outside the city of Neyshabur. Fifty-one freight cars began rolling
without an engine, picked up speed, derailed, overturned, and caught fire. Firefighters
had extinguished 90% of the fire when the cars exploded. The explosion killed over 300
people and injured more than 450. The explosion leveled homes and shattered windows
six miles away. The clay-home village of Dehnow, which was closest to the blast at about
500 yards away, was flattened.
Webbers Falls / I-40 Bridge Collapse
On May 27, 2002, three piers connected to an Interstate 40 bridge crossing the Arkansas
River near Webbers Falls Oklahoma were struck by a tugboat at 7:43 a.m., collapsing
sections of the bridge and killing
14 motorists.
The navigation channel and the
highway were both subsequently
closed for 35 days. Detours were
up to 60 miles long for eastbound
traffic. Approximately 20,000
vehicles per day use that portion
of I-40, and barges on the
navigation system can carry the
equivalent load of 15 railcars or
80 semis. On June 4, 2002, the
Federal Highway Administration
I-40 Bridge collapse at Webbers Falls on the McClellan-Kerr
committed an initial $3 million in
Navigation System of the Arkansas River
emergency relief funds to aid in
reconstruction. The accident was
caused when the barge drifted outside the navigation channel and hit the bridge after the
captain blacked out due to an apparent lack of sleep.
ConocoPhillips Tank Fire, Glenpool, Oklahoma
On the evening of April 8, 2003, around 9:00 P.M., a ConocoPhillips holding tank
exploded at a tank farm located east of Interstate 75 near 131st Street and Elwood
Avenue north of downtown Glenpool. The tank, which contained diesel fuel, ignited after
receiving a delivery of 8,400 barrels of diesel from a pipeline branched off Explorer
Pipeline Company’s 1,400-mile main pipeline connecting the Gulf Coast to the upper
Midwest. The explosion was reportedly felt over 1½-miles away.
City of Cushing
154
Responders were concerned with
the possibility of the fire
spreading to adjacent tanks that
contained highly volatile
unleaded fuel. Work to contain
the fire was effective, and
appeared under control overnight
Monday. Tuesday morning
around 5:30 A.M., live power
lines melted by the flames fell
onto spilled fuel in the
containment basin re-igniting the
blaze. Strong northerly winds
helped destabilize and advance
the blaze into contact with a
The ConocoPhillips tank fire caused the evacuation of
over 400 people in the 1.5 square miles directly south
second tank containing a
petroleum product called naphtha, and east of the tank farm
which subsequently did not explode. Environmental contamination of Coal Creek, which
drains directly through the tank farm, was minimal due to a pre-existing containment
levee around the tank involved. Had the levee been compromised, areas along Polecat
Creek and the Arkansas River could have been adversely impacted. The fire forced the
evacuation of homes and businesses within a 1½-mile radius of the tank farm and closed
down U.S. 75 in both directions early Tuesday as a strong north wind stretched a thick
black plume of smoke across the City of Glenpool and into parts of Okmulgee County.
Glenpool Schools were also closed Tuesday as a precautionary measure. Local non-profit
organizations assisted by setting up shelters for evacuated people at the First Baptist
Church in Glenpool and the Faith Freewill Baptist Church. Firefighters from Glenpool,
Jenks and Tulsa responded to the event and were supplied with a foam truck from Sun
Refinery. Equipment from ConocoPhillips headquarters in Houston, Texas was also
shipped to the scene. The National Transportation Safety Board will ultimately conclude
what caused the ignition of the fire that burned for 25 hours. Initial reports have
mentioned static electricity as a possible trigger.
September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.
On September 11, 2001 four separate airline flights were taken control of by terrorist
groups and re-routed as weapons against specific targets in New York City and
Washington D.C. The transportation industry, specifically the aviation category, but not
excluding all other means of travel, were permanently changed because of this single
event. The nation is now currently alerted to the capacity transportation hazards can
generate.
The ability of transportation resources to produce such catastrophic hazards under
terrorist operation has instituted massive changes in the Nation’s policies regarding all
categories of transportation safety. In some cases, security has become more significant
than safety. Under terrorist operation, many forms of transportation are now seen with
new and distinctive hazard characteristics and are under the scrutiny of security branches
and planning organizations from the national to the local level.
City of Cushing
155
Minneapolis-St. Paul I-35W Bridge Collapse
On August 1, 2007, during evening rush hour
traffic, the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi
River between Minneapolis and St. Paul,
Minnesota, buckled and collapsed, injuring over
60 people and killing as many as 30. The 2,000ft. span, which carries up to 140,000 cars a day
plunged 65 feet into the river. At least 50 cars
were on the bridge when it collapsed. Four lanes
of the 8-lane Interstate bridge were closed for
road surface repair when the span collapsed.
U.S. 75 Hazmat Spill near Ramona – May 2001
A tanker truck carrying 10 cylinders of hydrogen
gas was pushed off the road when a vehicle
traveling along side lost control and forced both
I-35Wbridge collapse in
vehicles into a roadside ditch. The collision
Minneapolis-St. Paul
broke a seal on one of the cylinders causing an
initial explosion and a subsequent fire. The tanker ended upside down in the ditch and the
accident claimed the life of the tanker driver. In response to the accident, several area fire
departments assisted with the fire, which due to high winds cascaded to a grass fire.
Emergency management remained on the scene until all of the ten leaking cylinders were
emptied with the necessary precautions taken to keep those leaks from exploding. As a
result of the crews continuously extinguishing the hydrogen leaks and grass fires,
residents were kept to a limited supply of water for the duration of the response and rural
water districts in the area were contacted to help to maintain a consistent and necessary
supply of water for the fire fighters.
Explorer Pipeline Tank Fire, Glenpool Oklahoma
On June 18, 2006, just after 9 A.M., the Explorer Pipeline tank farm experienced a major
fire when lightning struck a tank containing over 5 million gallons of unleaded gasoline.
Explorer Pipeline is also in the 131st & Elwood area, east of Highway 75, southwest of
the City of Tulsa. A mandatory evacuation of the area
was ordered, due to smoke and fumes which, over the
course of the next 11 hours, continued to move in
different direction as the wind shifted. Over 800,000
gallons of fuel were lost, but the loss could have been
far greater. The company was able to salvage over 4.3
millions gallons by pumping it out from under the area
of the tank that was burning. The firefighters
successfully kept adjacent tanks from being affected,
which reduced the catastrophic effect of the blaze,
unlike the 2003 fire. Responders were prepared to dam
adjacent Coal Creek with sand in order to avoid runoff
from foam and petroleum. In all, five families were
evacuated their homes as a precautionary measure. Fire
fighters from Glenpool, Jenks, Bixby and Tulsa battled
Explorer Pipeline tank fire
City of Cushing
156
the blaze, as well as responders from Sun Refinery and Williams Fire Control of
Beaumont, Texas.
Transportation Accident Events – Cushing, Oklahoma
Aircraft – Cushing has been the site of several airplane crashes, two of them involving
collisions with electric power lines.
January 9, 1983- A Mooney M20E aircraft, flying low and fast, collided with a
power line crossing the Cimarron River. The wreckage came to rest on a sandbar in
the riverbed with a strand of cable found wrapped around the propeller. Both
occupants received fatal injuries.
June 21, 2003- A Cessna 182H was destroyed when it impacted terrain following a
loss of control while conducting an airdrop for parachutists. The airplane was owned
and operated by Oklahoma Skydiving Center of Cushing. The commercial pilot was
fatally injured, two parachutists were seriously injured, two parachutists received
minor injuries and one parachutist was not injured.
June 26, 2005- A helicopter hired to take aerial tours of southern Payne County
crashed near Cushing. The helicopter contacted power lines crossing the Cimarron
River causing the craft to crash into the river. The helicopter landed upside down
killing the pilot and a Cushing resident who was a passenger in the craft. Three other
passengers survived.
Pipelines – Of the 53 hazardous material events reported to the National Response
Center since 1990, 38 have been incidents involving pipelines. Of those 38 events, all but
one involved releases of crude oil. In the majority of events, less than 100 barrels of
crude were released. The more significant events are listed below.
January 2, 1995– 30,000 barrels of crude oil was released when a 16-inch suction
line broke off a Texaco Pipeline tank, spilling the material into the primary and
secondary containment areas.
April 18, 1991– 1,800 barrels of crude oil was released into Skull Creek north of
town when an unknown incident broke a Kerr McGee 6-inch pipeline.
October 20, 2002– 1,500 gallons of crude oil was released from an 8-inch Teppco
Crude Pipeline on South Linwood Street by an unknown incident. The release was
secured and the soil affected was excavated.
Highways – Data is not recorded at local levels for highway accidents involving large
trucks by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, but statewide, in
2001 they reported 93 fatalities in crashes involving large trucks. This accounted for
13.8% of all highway fatalities involving large trucks for 2001 in the United States.
Railroads – No rail lines remain in the city limits of Cushing.
Waterways – No navigable rivers are located in or near the City of Cushing.
City of Cushing
157
Fairlawn
Short
Creek
"
!
Skull
Creek
Harmony Rd
Linwood Rd
#
Y9
30
#
Y
Little Rd
Kings Hwy
18
Grandstaff Rd
#
Y32
23 18 5#Y#Y#Y#Y0 19
19
#Y #Y
#Y#Y St 27 1
17
2#Y#Y #Y#Y #Y Oak
#
Y
10
8
#
Y
9
1 20 Broadway26St
CUSHING
Ñ
REGIONAL
3rd St
Pine Ave
Wilson
"
!
33
18
Vine St
Noble
13
#
Y
Main St
14 Y#
6th St
9th St
CUSHING
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
L E G E1/4NMileDBuffer0
Linwood Rd
Cottonwood
Creek
r
Payne County
Lincoln County
Texaco Rd
#
Y
33
HOSPITAL
Wilson Ave
Little Rd
Eseco
#
Y
"
!
9th St
Elm Creek
Ñr
#Y
21
0.5
MILES
Most Populated Census Blocks
N
State Highways
Roads
Airports
W
E
Heliports
Critical Facilities
Tier 2 Sites
S
County Line
1
Figure 3-9
City of Cushing
Transportation
Corridor Hazards
Communities close to highways, railroads, pipelines, and air and water transportation
systems are at risk from transportation accidents and hazardous materials events. Trucks
carrying toxic and flammable materials pass through almost every major U.S. town and
city, including Cushing, which is also a hub for a national network of gas and petroleum
pipelines. A worst-case truck chlorine tank explosion could result in thousands of deaths,
severe injuries and hospitalizations. Although Cushing is not crossed by major Interstate
highways or railways, major state highways and pipelines do pass through the center of
the city, exposing populations and critical facilities within one-quarter mile to such
transportation hazards.
Interstates 40 and 35, along with several railroad lines, have been proposed as routes to
be used in the transportation of nuclear waste to the proposed nuclear repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. Materials would come from the Arkansas Nuclear One facility near
Russellville, Arkansas along I-40 and the Comanche Peak nuclear facility along I-35 in
central Texas.
The City of Cushing from State Highway 33 and State Highway 18 has 6.6 miles of
highway within the city limits. A ¼ mile buffer was placed around these transportation
corridors to identify vulnerable populations and critical facilities. The results are
presented in Figure 3-9.
3.15.4 Conclusion
The United States has the most productive transportation systems in the world. These
operating systems include roads, air, rail, water, and pipelines. These systems make
possible a high level of personal mobility and freight activity for the nation’s residents
and business establishments. Although the source and location of transportation accidents
can vary, the effects are typically the same. Accidents often involve human injury or
death and/or the release of hazardous materials. Responses to transportation incidents
also follow a similar course. Determinations are first made concluding the presence or
absence of hazardous material. This is followed by the assistance of injured people
involved in the incident.
Based on the information and analysis presented above, Cushing and its future
development areas have moderate vulnerability to transportation hazards.
3.15.5 Sources
“Airport Activity Statistics of Certified Air Carriers” at Web address:
http://www.bts.gov, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Comparative Risks of Hazardous Materials and Non-Hazardous Materials Truck
Shipment Accidents/Incidents – Final Report, “Hazardous Materials,” pgs. 1.2, 10.2,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, March 2001.
National Pipeline Mapping System, at Web address: http://199.107.71.24/publicsearch/
City of Cushing
159
The National Transportation Safety Board, Annual Report to Congress 2000-2001
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/SPC0201.pdf
“Railroad Statistics,” at Web address:
http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf,
Association of American Railroads, 2002.
“Safety Fact Sheet,” at web address: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsfigs/dashome.htm,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, October1, 1999.
“Total Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products carried in Domestic Transportation and
Percent of Total Carried by Each Mode of Transportation,” Association of Oil Pipe
Lines, at Web address: http://www.aopl.org/
Transportation Commodity Flow Survey, “Hazardous Material Shipment
Characteristics,” pgs 9-10, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, 1997.
Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2001, pg. 36. Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.
“The U.S. Waterway System Facts,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at Web address:
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/factcard/fc02/factcard.htm
“Where Pipelines Are Located,” at Web address:
http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/pipelineInfo/where.htm
City of Cushing
160
Chapter 4:
Mitigation Strategies
This chapter identifies the hazard mitigation goals set by the City of Cushing and
discusses the mitigation projects, or measures, to be taken to achieve those goals.
The Research, Review, and Prioritization Process
The Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee (CHMCAC) and
supporting staff identified and prioritized the measures that will help protect the lives and
property of the citizens of Cushing.
National literature and sources were researched to identify best practices mitigation
measures for each hazard. These measures were documented, and staff screened several
hundred recommended mitigation actions and selected those that were most appropriate
for the Cushing area.
The CHMCAC reviewed the measures recommended by staff and revised, added,
deleted, and approved measures for each hazard. The CHMCAC and staff prioritized the
measures through a prioritization exercise using STAPLEE criteria recommended by
FEMA. The results were tabulated and the individual measures were ranked by priority.
The measures were then grouped into categories.
Table 4–1 STAPLEE Prioritization and Review Criteria
Evaluation
Category
Social
Technical
Administrative
City of Cushing
Sources of Information
Members of Local, County and State Government, as well as representatives of the
Chickasha Public Schools District, were members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee and had input throughout the planning process. It must be noted that
many small town political leaders are also business or professional persons. Existing
community plans were used wherever possible. Members of the Media were
contacted and invited to attend all HMPC meetings.
The following Persons/Agencies were consulted as to the technical feasibility of the
various projects: Chickasha City Council, Chickasha Public Schools District,
Oklahoma State University Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, County and
State Health Departments, and Oklahoma Forestry Service. All of these had their
comments and suggestions incorporated.
Staffing for proper implementation of the plan currently will rely on existing members
of the various agencies involved. It is the opinion of the HMPC that insufficient staff is
available currently due to budget constrains as staff has been cut to a minimum and
many agencies have staff members who are overloaded now. Technical assistance is
available from contractors and various State Agencies. Some local jurisdictions have
incorporated Hazard Mitigation efforts into their Capital Improvement Plans. The
Local Emergency Planning Committee, led by the Chickasha Emergency
Management Director, has agreed to an annual review and assessment of the Plan
161
Evaluation
Category
Political
Legal
Economic
Environmental
Sources of Information
and its progress. Operations Costs are under discussion by the relevant department
heads.
A representative of the Chickasha City Council, the Chickasha Public Schools District
and the Mayor or his representative attended the HMPC meetings and were
consulted on all aspects of the Plan.
Members of the HMPC discussed legal issues with the City Council, and it was their
opinion that no significant legal issues were involved in the projects that were
selected by the HMPC.
Economic issues were the predominant issues discussed by all concerned. Each
entity felt that the projects selected would have a positive effect in that the projects
would attract business and recreation to the area as well as help the community be
better prepared for a disaster. Funding for the various projects was the major concern
as local budgets were not capable of fulfilling the needs due to the economic down
turn. Reliance on outside grants will be relied on heavily for completion of projects.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Forestry Service, and the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board were all consulted as to the environmental impact
of the various projects and it was felt that there would be no negative impact. Local
governments are currently considering zoning of environmentally sensitive areas.
Mitigation Categories
The measures that communities and
individuals can use to protect
themselves from, or mitigate the
impacts of, natural and man-made
hazards fall into six categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Information and
Education
Preventive Measures
Structural Projects
Property Protection
Emergency Services, and
Natural Resources Protection
This chapter is organized by
mitigation category, with the Cushing
mitigation mission statement and
goals listed first in section 4.1.
City of Cushing
Cushing’s natural hazard mitigation planning process
involves citizens in every phase
162
4.1 Cushing Hazard Mitigation Goals
4.1.1 Mission Statement
To create a disaster-resistant community and improve Cushing’s safety and well-being by
reducing deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental and other losses from natural
and technological hazards in a manner that advances community goals, quality of life,
and results in a more livable, viable, and sustainable community.
4.1.2 Mitigation Goal
To identify community policies, actions and tools for long-term implementation in order
to reduce risk and future losses stemming from natural and technological hazards that are
likely to impact the community.
4.1.3 General Goals for all Natural Hazards
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimize loss of life and property from natural hazard events.
Protect public health and safety.
Increase public awareness of risk from natural hazards.
Reduce risk and effects of natural hazards.
Identify hazards and assess risk for local area.
Ascertain historical incidence and frequency of occurrence.
Determine increased risk from specific hazards due to location and other factors.
Improve disaster prevention.
Improve forecasting of natural hazard events.
Limit building in high-risk areas.
Improve building construction to reduce the dangers of natural hazards.
Improve government and public response to natural hazard disasters.
4.1.4 Specific Goals for Particular Natural Hazards
Floods
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Identify buildings at risk from 100- and 500-year floods.
Buy properties that flood most frequently, clear the land, and put in green space or
build detention ponds.
Move structures in the floodplain to less hazardous areas.
Inform residents who refuse to vacate the floodplain of floodproofing alternatives
such as elevating the home, wet floodproofing or dry floodproofing.
Obtain accurate floodplain maps.
Install, re-route or increase the capacity of storm drainage systems.
163
•
•
Develop plans for maintenance and debris cleaning from stormwater and sewer
systems.
Limit additional building in flood zone areas through comprehensive planning and
ordinances.
Tornadoes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Continue to improve tornado forecasting.
Increase building code standards to build stronger houses.
Build safe-rooms in fire stations, police stations and schools.
Build safe-rooms in new homes.
Construct community shelters for mobile home parks.
Establish debris disposal sites and protect by fencing or locating away from
populated areas.
High Winds
•
•
•
•
•
Institute measures that will improve resistance of new buildings to high winds.
Require better roof construction and materials to withstand high winds.
Require manufactured homes be anchored.
Trim tree branches away from power lines to reduce the potential of trees falling
on, and bringing down power lines.
Identify homes and buildings vulnerable to loss from high winds, and suggest
ways that their owners can prepare them for storms.
Lightning
•
•
•
Promote public awareness of lightning dangers and what can be done to
prevent/reduce personal injury and property damage.
Install lightning protection systems on critical facilities.
Encourage general public to put lightning rods on buildings to minimize
destruction/damage.
Hailstorms
•
•
•
Encourage the use of hail-resistant composite materials in automobile
manufacture.
Encourage insurance companies to offer premium incentives for purchase of
affordable carports by people without garages.
Require better roof construction and materials to withstand hailstorms.
Winter Storms
•
City of Cushing
Place exposed power and telephone lines underground to prevent damage from
ice loading.
164
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promote awareness of the advantages of all-wheel-drive cars with traction control.
Encourage use of all-weather tires on automobiles.
Convert electrically heated homes to gas.
Identify elderly and indigent citizens who are at risk from winter storms.
Encourage churches and community groups to assist persons at risk during power
loss.
Trim tree branches away from power lines to reduce the potential of ice laden tree
branches from falling on, and bringing down power lines.
Set up snow fences or rows of trees or vegetation to limit blowing and drifting
snow over critical roadways.
Develop emergency plans to provide shelter when power fails from winter storms.
Extreme Heat
•
•
•
•
Publicize signs and dangers of heat stroke, especially among elderly.
Inform those at risk of preventive measures in advance of extreme heat wave.
Invite churches and community groups to provide inexpensive air conditioning for
indigent elders to protect them from extreme heat.
Develop emergency plan for conserving electrical use during extreme heat.
Drought
•
•
•
•
•
Promote awareness of importance and value of water.
Develop water-supply contingency plans.
Promote water-free landscaping.
Encourage water re-use or gray-water recycling for lawn irrigation.
Involve public in finding new ways to conserve water.
Expansive Soils
•
•
•
Inform the public about the hazard of expansive soils.
Require Realtors to inform buyers of homes at risk from expansive soil.
Encourage scientific/development community to find mitigation measures for
expansive soils.
Urban Fires
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Identify neighborhoods especially vulnerable to fire.
Educate the public about the most common causes of urban fires.
Establish and enforce building codes that reduce the risk of structure fires.
Promote the use of fire-resistant materials in house construction.
Establish transportation routes, with alternate routes identified, for emergency
vehicles to high fire risk areas.
165
•
•
Provide alternatives to burning trees and brush, such as a community area where
debris can be delivered.
Notify absent landlords whose property is at high risk of fire and encourage them
to remedy the problem.
Wildfires
•
•
•
•
•
Encourage fireproof materials in building construction.
Experiment with controlled burns of native vegetation to minimize the
accumulation of forest fuels that lead to uncontrollable fires.
Advise public and developers of the danger of building homes in remote areas
where fire protection is not available.
Advise public and developers on building techniques, materials, landscaping and
defensible space to reduce the vulnerability of structures.
Alert homeowners when fire risk is great in rural and remote areas.
Earthquakes
•
•
•
Inform public of earthquakes in areas where they are frequent but unrecognized.
Use HAZUS to create earthquake scenarios indicating the degree of the disaster,
centered at various locations in the area, and various magnitudes.
Publicize and promote general awareness of earthquake emergency action plans.
•
•
•
•
Educate the public about the hazardous materials to which they are most
frequently exposed.
Help homeowners identify hazardous materials from which they are at risk.
Set up areas for the community to bring unused hazardous household materials.
Locate “brown-fields”, hazardous material sites, and abandoned mining areas and
ensure preventive measures are in place to protect public.
Dam Failures
•
•
•
Determine risk rating of dams affecting the Cushing area.
Identify homes and businesses vulnerable to flooding from dam failure.
Ensure privately owned dams in the local area are complying with relevant
inspection and maintenance codes.
Transportation
•
•
City of Cushing
Improve the design, routing and traffic control at problem roadway areas.
Designate truck routes and enforce weight and truck travel restrictions.
166
4.2 Public Information and Education
A successful public information and education program involves both the public and
private sectors. Public information and education activities advise and educate citizens,
property owners, renters, businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect
people and property from them. Public information activities are among the least
expensive mitigation measures, and at the same time are often the most effective thing a
community can do to save lives and property. All mitigation activities—preventive,
structural, property protection, emergency services, and natural resource protection—
begin with public information and education.
4.2.1 Map Information
Many benefits stem from providing map information to inquirers. Residents and
businesses that are aware of the potential hazards can take steps to avoid problems and
reduce their exposure to flooding, dam failure or releases, expansive soils, hazardous
materials events, and other hazards that have a geographical distribution. Real estate
agents and house hunters can find out if a property is flood-prone and whether flood
insurance may be required.
Maps provide a wealth of information about past and potential hazards. Geographic
Information Systems, sometimes called smart maps, provide efficiency and add to
capabilities of many government services. County assessors, public works, parks and
recreation, and 911 services are all typical departments capable of applying GIS
applications to improve their services. GIS allows trained users to complete
comprehensive queries, extract statistical information, and completely manage all
relevant spatial information and the associated attribute information that pertain to those
departments.
Flood maps
Several legal requirements are tied to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and
Flood Insurance Study Maps. These include building regulations and the mandatory
purchase of flood insurance. FEMA provides floodplain and FIRM information as a
mitigation service. The city can help residents submit requests for map amendments and
revisions when these are needed to show that a building is outside the mapped floodplain.
Although FEMA maps are accurate, users and inquirers must remember that maps are not
perfect. They display only the larger flood-prone areas that have been studied. In some
areas, watershed developments make even recent maps outdated. Those inquiring about
flood maps must be reminded that being outside the mapped floodplain is no guarantee
that a property will never flood. In fact, many properties that flood are not located in a
designated floodplain.
By taking the initiative locally to accurately map problem areas with information not
already on FEMA maps, a community can warn residents about potential risks that may
not have been anticipated. Upgrading maps provides a truer measure of risks to a
community.
City of Cushing
167
Other Hazard Data
Other data that can be shown on maps include those hazards that are distributed
geographically. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dam breach inundation areas
Levee failure inundation areas
Expansive soils
Wildfire risk zones
Earthquake risk zones
Hazardous materials sites
Wetlands
General location maps for many of these natural and man-made hazards have been
developed by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, COEDD, Oklahoma Geological Survey,
and R. D. Flanagan & Associates, several of which are included in this Cushing Hazard
Mitigation Plan study.
Flood zone determinations are available, free of charge, to any citizen through the
Floodplain Administrator in the Payne County Commissioner’s Office. If the
determination is for a building permit, Cushing ordinances must be followed.
4.2.2 Library
The Cushing Public Library is a place for residents to seek information on hazards,
hazard protection, and protecting natural resources. Historically, libraries have been the
first place people turn to when they want to research a topic. Interested property owners
can read or check out handbooks or other publications that cover their situation. The
libraries also have their own public
information campaigns with displays,
lectures, and other projects, which can
augment the activities of the local
government.
The Cushing Public Library System
maintains the flood related documents
required under the NFIP. The documents
are available to the public in the library.
4.2.3 Web Sites
Today, Web sites are becoming more
popular as research tools. They provide
Web sites have become one of the most popular
quick access to a wealth of public and
research tools
private sites and sources of information.
Through links to other Web sites, there is almost no limit to the amount of up to date
information that can be accessed by the user.
The City of Cushing Web site can be accessed at: http://www.cushingchamber.org/.
City of Cushing
168
FEMA’s Mapping Web site is at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/. Additional web sites related
to specific hazards are listed in the following table.
Table 4–2: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Web Sites
Agency
Web Address
General
Federal Emergency Management Agency
www.fema.gov
www.odcem.state.ok.us
Institute for Business and Home Safety
www.ibhs.org/
USGS - Hazards Page
www.usgs.gov/themes/hazard.html
Floods
www.owrb.state.ok.us/
Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association
www.okflood.org/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
www.usace.army.mil/
National Flood Insurance Program
www.fema.gov/nfip/whonfip.shtm
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center
www.stormwatercenter.net/
High Winds
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Lightning
National Lightning Safety Institute
www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls.html
Extreme Heat
National Weather Service - Heat Index
www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/heat_index.shtml
Drought
OWRB - Drought Monitoring Page
www.owrb.state.ok.us/supply/drought/drought_index.php
Expansive Soils
US Department of Agriculture
www.usda.gov/
Natural Resource Conservation Service
www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Urban Fires
Oklahoma State Fire Marshal's Office
www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~firemar/
National Fire protection Association
www.nfpa.org
Wildfires
USGS Wildfires
www.usgs.gov/themes/wildfire.html
Earthquakes
U.S. Geological Survey
www.usgs.gov/
Oklahoma Geological Survey
www.okgeosurvey1.gov/home.html
National Geophysical Data Center
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
National Response Center
www.nrc.uscg.mil
National Transportation Safety Board
www.ntsb.gov/
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
www.deq.state.ok.us/
Environmental Protection Agency
www.epa.gov
Dam Failures
www.owrb.state.ok.us/
US Army Corps of Engineers
www.usace.army.mil/
Grand River Dam Authority
www.grda.com/
City of Cushing
169
4.2.4 Outreach Projects
Mapping and library activities are not of much use if no one knows they exist. An
outreach project can remedy this. Sending notices to property owners can help introduce
the idea of property protection and identify sources of assistance.
Outreach projects are the first step in the process of orienting property owners to property
protection and assisting them in designing and implementing a project. They are designed
to encourage people to seek out more information in order to take steps to protect
themselves and their properties.
The most effective types of outreach projects are mailed or otherwise distributed to floodprone property owners or to everyone in the community. Other approaches include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Articles and special sections in newspapers
Radio and TV news releases and interview shows
Hazard protection video for cable TV programs or to loan to organizations
Presentations at meetings of neighborhood, civic or business groups
Displays in public buildings or shopping malls
Floodproofing open houses
Research has proven that outreach projects work. However, awareness of the hazard is
not enough. People need to be told what they can do about the hazard, so projects should
include information on safety, health, and property protection measures. Research has
also shown that a properly run local information program is more effective than national
advertising or publicity campaigns.
4.2.5 Technical Assistance
While general information helps, most property owners do not feel ready to take major
steps, like retrofitting their buildings, without help or guidance. Local building
department staff members are experts in construction. They can provide free advice, not
necessarily to design a protection measure, but to steer the owner onto the right track.
Building, public works, and engineering staff members visit properties and offer
suggestions. Most can recommend or identify qualified or licensed companies, an activity
that is especially appreciated by owners who are unsure of the project or the contractor.
Technical assistance can be provided in one-on-one sessions with property owners or can
be provided through seminars. For instance, seminars or “open houses” can be provided
on retrofitting structures, selecting qualified contractors, and carrying out preparedness
activities.
4.2.6 Real Estate Disclosure
After a flood or other natural disaster, people often say they would have taken steps to
protect themselves if they had known their property was exposed to a hazard.
City of Cushing
170
Flood insurance is required for buildings located within the base floodplain if the
mortgage or loan is federally
insured. However, because
this requirement has to be met
only ten days before closing,
applicants are often already
committed to purchasing a
property when they first learn
of the flood hazard.
The "Residential Property
Condition Disclosure Act"
requires sellers to provide
potential buyers with a
completed, signed and dated
"Residential Property
Condition Disclosure
Statement". Included in the
Flooding and other hazards are sometimes not disclosed until
statement are disclosures
it’s too late. Hazard maps can help home buyers avoid
surprises like this
regarding flooding and flood
insurance. For a copy of the
"Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement" see
http://www.orec.state.ok.us/pdf/disclose3.pdf.
4.2.7 Educational Programs
A community’s most important natural resource is its children. They will inherit the
resources, infrastructure and development built by earlier generations at great cost and
effort. They will also face the same natural forces that bring floods, tornadoes, storms and
other hazards.
Environmental education programs can
teach children about natural hazards, the
forces that cause them, and the importance
of protecting people, property and nature,
such as watersheds and floodplains.
Educational programs can be undertaken
by schools, park and recreation
departments, conservation associations,
and youth organizations, such as the Boy
Scouts, Campfire Girls and summer
camps. An activity can be complex
enough as to require course curriculum
development, or as simple as an
explanatory sign near a river.
City of Cushing
171
A Community’s Most Important Natural
Resource is its Children
Educational programs designed for children often reach adults as well. Parents often learn
innovative concepts or new ideas from their children. If a child comes home from school
with an assignment in water quality monitoring, the parents will normally become
interested in finding out about it as well.
There are many programs that provide information and curriculum materials on nature
and natural hazards. On FEMA website http://www.fema.gov/kids/ kids can learn about
having a family disaster plan, what kids might feel in and following a disaster, what the
different disasters are, what to do during a disaster, take quizzes and play games. There is
also information on how to get a free video, brochures and other fun stuff.
Another site, for students and educators on water resources, is the USGS “Water Science
for Schools” http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/. The American Red Cross has a 24-page
Disaster Preparedness Coloring Book for kids age 3-10. The coloring book is available
online and can be printed from http://www.redcross.org/pubs/dspubs/genprep.html.
Youth programs and activities often include posters, coloring books, games, and
references. Hands-on models that allow students to see the effects of different land use
practices are also available through local natural resources conservation districts.
4.2.8 Public Information Program Strategy
Getting Your Message Out
Professional advertising agencies may be
willing to help get the message out
regarding disaster preparedness and
mitigation at little or no cost. They have
a vested interest in their community and
want to keep it safe. The same holds true
for the media. The local newspaper,
radio or television will contribute to
keeping a safe and prepared community.
Invite them to, and let them participate
in special events, meetings, practice
exercises, etc.
Summer camps, and other educational programs
for children, can teach a new generation about
nature, natural hazards, and preservation
Education alliance partners, such as
restaurants, convenience stores or the library, can put preparedness tips on tray liners or
sacks, distribute brochures or allow you to erect a display with disaster information of
local interest.
Many other options are available such as including brochures with utility bills,
presentations at local gatherings, billboards, direct mailing and websites.
General
Numerous publications on tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, winter storms and
flooding are available through NOAA. Up to 300 copies of most publications can be
ordered from your local National Weather Service, NOAA Outreach Unit or American
City of Cushing
172
Red Cross. Many of the brochures can be downloaded from
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures.shtml.
For a nominal fee the American Red Cross offers videos on general preparedness, winter
storms, chemical emergencies, hurricanes and earthquakes.
The National Weather Service issues watches and warnings for tornadoes, severe
thunderstorms, floods, winter storms and extreme heat that may include “Call to Action”
statements. The messages appear on the NWS telephone line, the local weather service
office website and on television stations carrying Emergency Alert System messages.
Communities can encourage residents to prepare themselves by stocking up with
necessary items and planning for how family members should respond if any of a number
of possible emergency or disaster events strike.
Hazard Brochures
Area agencies or the American Red Cross have available the book ‘Repairing Your
Flooded Home’ and fliers ‘Are You Ready for a Flood?’ and ‘Avoiding Flood Damage’.
For a summary of what to do after a flood see http://www.ci.yachats.or.us/whattodo.htm.
The brochure Taking Shelter From the Storm: Building a Safe Room Inside Your Home is
available from FEMA. A copy of the brochure can be requested from the FEMA website
http://www.fema.gov/fima/tsfs02.shtm. Are You Ready for a Tornado? is available from
the American Red Cross, FEMA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Area agencies or the American Red Cross also have available the fliers
‘Are You Ready For a Heat Wave?’, ‘Are You Ready For a Winter Storm?’ and ‘Are You
Ready For a Thunderstorm?’.
After reviewing the possible and locally implemented public information activities
covered in the previous sections, the Public Information Outreach Strategy Team
prepared a Public Information Program Strategy. Following the Community Rating
System format, the strategy consists of the following parts:
a. The local hazards, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this plan
b. The safety and property protection measures appropriate for the hazards,
discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 and on the next page
c. Hazard-related public information activities currently being implemented within
the community, including those by non-government agencies (discussed in
Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.7)
d. Goals for the community’s public information program (covered in Chapter 4)
e. Outreach projects that will reach the goals (see Chapter 5, action items and Table
5-1.)
f. A process for monitoring and evaluating the projects (see Chapter 6)
City of Cushing
173
4.2.9 Conclusions
1. There are many ways that public information programs can be used so that people and
businesses will be more aware of the hazards they face and how they can protect
themselves.
2. Most public information activities can be used to advise people about all hazards, not
just floods.
3. Other public information activities require coordination with other organizations,
such as schools and real estate agents.
4. There are several area organizations that can provide support for public information
and educational programs.
4.2.10 Recommendations
Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended
mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
City of Cushing
174
Figure 4–1: Public Service Notice for Flooding
Flood Safety
•
Do not walk through flowing water. Drowning is the number one cause of flood
deaths. Currents can be deceptive; six inches of moving water can knock you off
your feet. Use a pole or stick to ensure that the ground is still there before you go
through an area where the water is not flowing.
•
Do not drive through a flooded area. More people drown in their cars than
anywhere else. Don't drive around road barriers; the road or bridge may be
washed out.
•
Stay away from power lines and electrical wires. The number two flood killer after
drowning is electrocution. Electrical current can travel through water. Report
downed power lines to the Mayor’s Action Line, 596-2100.
•
Look out for animals that have been flooded out of their homes and who may
seek shelter in yours. Use a pole or stick to poke and turn things over and scare
away small animals.
•
Look before you step. After a flood, the ground and floors are covered with debris
including broken bottles and nails. Floors and stairs that have been covered with
mud can be very slippery.
•
Be alert for gas leaks. Use a flashlight to inspect for damage. Don't smoke or use
candles, lanterns, or open flames unless you know the gas has been turned off
and the area has been ventilated.
•
Carbon monoxide exhaust kills. Use a generator or other gasoline-powered
machine outdoors. The same goes for camping stoves. Charcoal fumes are
especially deadly -- cook with charcoal outdoors.
•
Clean everything that got wet. Flood waters have picked up sewage and
chemicals from roads, farms, factories, and storage buildings. Spoiled food,
flooded cosmetics, and medicine can be health hazards. When in doubt, throw
them out.
•
Take good care of yourself. Recovering from a flood is a big job. It is tough on
both the body and the spirit and the effects a disaster has on you and your family
may last a long time.
City of Cushing
175
4.3 Preventive Measures
Preventive activities are designed to keep matters from occurring or getting worse. Their
objective is to ensure that future development does not increase damages or loss of life,
and that new construction is protected from those hazards. Preventive measures are
usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and code enforcement offices. They
typically include planning, zoning, open space preservation, building codes, drainage
criteria, master drainage plans and floodplain development regulations, and stormwater
management. These aspects of preventive measures are discussed in this section as
follows:
4.3.1
Planning
4.3.2
Zoning
4.3.3
Open space preservation
4.3.4
Building codes
4.3.5
Floodplain development regulations
4.3.6
Stormwater management
The first three measures (planning, zoning, and
open space preservation) work to keep damageprone development out of hazardous or sensitive
areas.
The next two measures (building codes and
floodplain development regulations) impose
standards on what is allowed to be built in the
floodplain. These protect buildings, roads, and other
facilities from flood damage and prevent the new
development from making any existing flood
problem worse. Building codes are also critical to
mitigating the impact of non-flood hazards on new
buildings.
Cushing’s mitigation planning
process involves meetings with
civic groups and local citizens, as
well as decision-making councils
Stormwater management addresses the runoff of stormwater from new developments
onto other properties and into floodplains.
4.3.1 Planning
While plans generally have limited authority, they reflect what the community would like
to see happen in the future. The City of Cushing is in the ongoing process of building
community partnerships involving local government leaders, civic, business and
volunteer groups to work together to mitigate natural and man-made hazards. Plans guide
other local measures such as capital improvements and the development of ordinances.
Planning can include, but is not limited to:
City of Cushing
176
•
Capital Improvement Infrastructure planning decisions can affect flood hazard
mitigation. For example, decisions to extend roads or utilities
Plans
to an area may increase exposure. Communities may consider
structural flood protections such as levees or floodwalls.
•
Zoning Ordinance
Adoption or
Amendments
Examples of zoning methods that affect flood hazard
mitigation include:
1. adopting ordinances that limit development in the
floodplain.
2. limiting the density of developments in the floodplain.
3. requiring floodplains be kept as open space.
•
Subdivision
Ordinances or
Amendments
Subdivision design standards can require elevation data
collection during the platting process. Lots may be required to
have buildable space above the base flood elevation.
•
Building Code
Adoption or
Amendments
Requirements for building design standards and enforcement
include:
1. a residential structure be elevated.
2. a non-residential structure be elevated or floodproofed.
•
Conservation
Easements
Conservation easements may be used to protect
environmentally significant portions of parcels from
development. They do not restrict all use of the land. Rather,
they direct development to areas of land not environmentally
significant.
•
Transfer of
Development Rights
In return for keeping floodplain areas in open space, a
community may agree to allow a developer to increase
densities on another parcel that is not at risk. This allows a
developer to recoup losses from non-use of a floodplain site
with gains from development of a non-floodplain site.
•
Purchase of
Easement /
Development Rights
Compensating an owner for partial rights, such as easement or
development rights, can prevent a property from being
developed contrary to a community’s plan to maintain open
space. This may apply to undeveloped land generally or to
farmland in particular.
•
Stormwater
Management
Ordinances or
Amendments
Stormwater ordinances may regulate development in upland
areas in order to reduce stormwater run-off. Examples of
erosion control techniques that may be employed within a
watershed include proper bank stabilization with sloping or
grading techniques, planting vegetation on slopes, terracing
hillsides, or installing riprap boulders or geotextile fabric.
City of Cushing
177
•
Multi-Jurisdiction
Cooperation Within
Watershed
Forming a regional watershed council helps bring together
resources for comprehensive analysis, planning, decisionmaking, and cooperation.
•
Comprehensive
Watershed Tax
A tax can be used as a mitigation action in several ways:
1. tax funds may be used to finance maintenance of
drainage systems or to construct reservoirs.
2. tax assessments may discourage builders from
constructing in a given area.
3. taxes may be used to support a regulatory system.
•
Post-Disaster
Recovery Ordinance
A post-disaster recovery ordinance regulates repair activity,
generally depending on property location. It prepares a
community to respond to a disaster event in an orderly fashion
by requiring citizens to:
1. obtain permits for repairs.
2. refrain from making repairs.
3. make repairs using standard methods.
4.3.2 Zoning
Cushing’s zoning ordinances regulate development by dividing the community into zones
or districts and setting development criteria for each zone or district. Zoning ordinances
are considered the primary tool to implement a comprehensive plan’s guidelines for how
land should be developed.
4.3.3 Open Space Preservation
Keeping the floodplain open and free from development is the best approach to
preventing flood damage. Preserving open space is beneficial to the public in several
ways. Preserving floodplains, wetlands, and natural water storage areas maintains the
existing stormwater storage capacities of an area. These sites can also serve as
recreational areas, greenway corridors and provide habitat for local flora and fauna. In
addition to being preserved in its natural landscape, open space may also be maintained
as a park, golf course, or in agricultural use.
4.3.4 Building Codes
Hazard protection standards for all new and improved or repaired buildings can be
incorporated into the local building code. These standards should include criteria to
ensure that the foundation will withstand flood forces and that all portions of the building
subject to damage are above, or otherwise protected from, flooding.
Building codes are also a prime mitigation measure for other natural hazards, especially
earthquakes, tornadoes, windstorms and heat and cold. When properly designed and
constructed according to code, the average building can withstand the impacts of most of
these forces. The code could include provisions such as:
City of Cushing
178
•
•
•
•
Requiring sprinkler systems for fire protection in larger or public buildings,
Regulating overhanging masonry elements that can fall during an earthquake,
Ensuring that foundations are strong enough for earth movement and that all
structural elements are properly connected to the foundation, and
Making sure roofing systems will handle high winds and expected snow loads.
The City of Cushing has adopted building codes that include the 2002 edition of the
National Electric Code (NEC), the 2003 ICC Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire,
Residential and Fuel Gas Codes; the NFPA Life Safety Code; and the International
Property Maintenance Code.
4.3.5 Floodplain Development Regulations
Most communities with a flood problem participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). The NFIP sets minimum requirements for subdivision regulations and
building codes. These are usually spelled out in a separate ordinance.
Experience showed that the National Flood Insurance Program's minimum standard is
insufficient for developing urban communities. Regulations in growing cities should
exceed the NFIP’s minimum national standards in several significant ways.
The Community Rating System (CRS) is a companion program to the NFIP. It rewards a
community for taking actions over and above minimum NFIP requirements with the goal
of further reducing flood damages in the community. The more actions a community
takes, the lower the premiums for flood insurance within that community.
City of Cushing
179
Minimum National Flood Insurance Program Regulatory Requirements
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). As a condition of making flood insurance available for their
residents, communities that participate in the NFIP agree to regulate new construction in the
area subject to inundation by the 100-year (base) flood.
There are four major floodplain regulatory requirements. Additional floodplain regulatory
requirements may be set by state and local law.
1. All development in the 100-year floodplain must have a permit from the community. The
NFIP regulations define “development” as any manmade change to improved or
unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining,
dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment
or materials.
2. Development should not be allowed in the floodway. The NFIP regulations define the
floodway as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot. The floodway is usually the most hazardous
area of a riverine floodplain and the most sensitive to development. At a minimum, no
development in the floodway may cause an obstruction to flood flows. Generally an
engineering study must be performed to determine whether an obstruction will be
created.
3. New buildings may be built in the floodplain, but they must be protected from damage by
the base flood. In riverine floodplains, the lowest floor of residential buildings must be
elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE). Nonresidential buildings must be
either elevated or floodproofed.
4. Under the NFIP, a “substantially improved” building is treated as a new building. The
NFIP regulations define “substantial improvement” as any reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50
percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the
improvement. This requirement also applies to buildings that are substantially damaged.
Communities are encouraged to adopt local ordinances that are more comprehensive or
provide more protection than the state or Federal criteria. This is especially important in areas
with older Flood Insurance Rate Maps that may not reflect the current hazard. Such
ordinances could include prohibiting certain types of highly damage-prone uses from the
floodway or requiring that structures be elevated 1 or more feet above the BFE. The NFIP’s
Community Rating System provides insurance premium credits to recognize the additional
flood protection benefit of higher regulatory standards.
Subdivision regulations govern how land will be subdivided into individual lots, and set
the construction and location standards for the infrastructure the developer builds to serve
those lots, including roads, sidewalks, utility lines, storm sewers, and drainageways. They
provide an additional vehicle for floodplain development rules. For example, some
communities require that every subdivision in a floodplain provide a building site above
the flood level for every lot and/or require streets to be at or no more than one foot below
the base flood elevation.
City of Cushing
180
Floodplains are only part of flood-management considerations. Water gathers and drains
throughout entire watersheds, from uplands to lowlands. Each watershed is an interactive
element of the whole. A change at one place can cause changes elsewhere, whether
planned or inadvertent. Cushing’s current Master Drainage Planning program considers
the entire watershed in its hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, mapping, and regulation.
4.3.6 Stormwater Management
Development outside a floodplain can contribute significantly to flooding problems.
Runoff is increased when natural ground cover is replaced by urban development. To
prevent stormwater from flooding roads and buildings, developers construct storm sewers
and improve ditches to carry the water away more efficiently.
As watersheds develop, runoff usually becomes deeper and faster and floods become
more frequent. Water that once lingered in hollows, meandered around oxbows, and
soaked into the ground now speeds downhill, shoots through pipes, and sheets off
rooftops and paving.
Insurance purposes require that NFIP floodplain maps must be based on existing
watershed development, but unless plans and regulations are based on future watershed
urbanization, development permitted today may flood tomorrow as uphill urbanization
increases runoff.
This combination of increased
runoff and more efficient
stormwater channels leads to
increases in downstream storm
peaks and changes in the
timing when storm peaks move
downstream. Unconstrained
watershed development often
will overload a community's
drainage system and aggravate
downstream flooding.
In addition to detention facilities, stormwater management plans
can include restoring some channelized streams with meanders
and native vegetation to slow runoff and prevent flash flooding
A second problem with
stormwater is its impact on
water quality. Runoff from developed areas picks up pollutants on the ground, such as
road oil and lawn chemicals, and carries them to the receiving streams.
Cushing enforces the NFIP minimum regulations and maps, in order to maintain
eligibility for federal flood insurance.
Retention / Detention
Some communities with stormwater management regulations require developers to build
retention or detention basins to minimize the increases in the runoff rate caused by
City of Cushing
181
impervious surfaces and new drainage systems. Generally, each development must not let
stormwater leave at a higher rate than under pre-development conditions.
The Community Rating System (CRS) uses three factors to measure the impact of
stormwater management regulations on downstream flooding:
1. What developments have to account for their runoff? If only larger subdivisions
have to detain the increased runoff, the cumulative effect of many small projects
can still produce greater flows to downstream properties.
2. How much water is managed? Historically, local stormwater management
programs address smaller storms, such as the 2- or 10-year storms. The CRS
reflects the growing realization nationally that the runoff from larger storms must
be managed. It provides full credit only for programs that address all storms up to
the 100-year storm.
3. Who is responsible to
ensure that the facility
works over time?
Roads and sewers are
located on dedicated
public rights-of-way
and the community
assumes the job of
maintaining them in
the future.
Stormwater
management
detention basins have
traditionally stayed on
private property and
Stormwater Detention Ponds manage the increased runoff from
new developments, temporarily store flood waters, and can be
maintenance has been
used for community parks, recreation, and open-space
left up to the owner.
Often homeowners
associations do not know how and do not have the capability to properly maintain
these facilities. Half the CRS credit is based on whether the community assumes
responsibility to ensure that the facilities are maintained.
Watershed Approaches
The standard regulatory approach of requiring each development to manage stormwater
to the same criteria has several shortcomings:
1. It does not account for differences in stream and watershed conditions (although
the standards can be revised to reflect findings from watershed studies).
2. Municipalities within the same watershed may require different levels of control
of stormwater.
City of Cushing
182
3. There is no review of the downstream impacts from runoff or any determination
of whether the usual standards compound existing flooding problems.
4. It results in many small basins on private property that may or may not be
properly maintained.
The way to correct these deficiencies is to conduct a master study of the watershed to
determine the appropriate standards for different areas and, sometimes, to identify where
a larger central basin would be more effective and efficient than many smaller ones. The
CRS provides up to double the stormwater management regulations credit if communities
adopt such master plans.
4.3.7 Critical Facility Protection
Critical facilities require a higher level of protection because they are vital public
facilities, reduce pollution of floodwaters by hazardous materials, and ensure that the
facilities will be operable during emergencies. The City of Cushing is in the process of
providing Security and Surveillance equipment for Police and Fire Stations, to protect
equipment and vehicles used in case of an emergency. The Community Rating System
(CRS) provides credit for regulations protecting critical facilities from the 500-year flood.
Critical facilities should be constructed on properly compacted fill and have the lowest
floor (including basement) elevated at least one foot above the elevation of the 500-year
flood. A critical facility should have at least one access road connected to land outside the
500-year floodplain capable of supporting a 4,000 pound vehicle. The top of the road
must be no lower than six inches (6”) below the elevation of the 500-year flood.
4.3.8 Water Conservation
97% of the earth's water is in the oceans and 2% is trapped in icecaps and glaciers. Only
about 1% of the earth's water is available for human consumption. The water supply is
taxed to supply all the competing interests: residential - including drinking and sanitation,
manufacturing, environmental, agricultural, and recreational.
Conserving water conserves energy - gas, electric or both, reduces monthly water and
sewer bills and postpones the construction of or eliminates the need to build expensive
capital projects such as wastewater or water treatment plants that will need future
maintenance.
Plumbing codes implemented in Phoenix Arizona in 1990 required low-flow faucets,
showerheads, and toilets. Since then water consumption per capita has decreased 27
percent. Other cities, such as Wilsonville, Oregon, have implemented an inverted block
water rate structure charging customers higher rates as water consumption increases.
Public education can have the most significant impact. Household water conservation tips
include:
•
•
City of Cushing
Updating plumbing fixtures with low-flow devices.
Keeping a pitcher of water in the refrigerator instead of running the tap.
183
•
•
•
•
•
Watering the yard and gardens in the morning or evening when temperatures are
cooler to minimize evaporation.
Collecting water used for rinsing and reuse it to water plants.
Turning off the water while brushing teeth and shaving.
Landscaping with drought-resistant, low water use plants.
Using a hose nozzle and turn off the water while washing cars.
4.3.9 Power Outages from Winter Storms
Power outages from winter storms can lead to an abundance of problems. Homeowners
without power will resort to candles or open flames for heat and light. Generators are
noisy, produce potentially deadly exhaust and can cause power spikes damaging
equipment. Kerosene heaters burn oxygen and increase the potential of asphyxiation and
production of carbon monoxide. With fuel burning equipment there is a constant danger
of fire or explosion, burns and breathing poisonous exhaust. In addition, the inability to
heat a home increases the risk of pipes freezing.
Power lines can be protected and power outages prevented by:
•
•
•
•
Replacing existing power lines with heavier T-2 line, shorter spans, and heavier
poles and crossbars. It is estimated this will increase the overall strength of power
distribution lines by 66%.
Burying utility lines. This removes the risk of power outages due to ice
accumulation or tree limbs bringing down power lines.
Pruning trees away from power lines and enforcing policies regarding tree limb
clearances.
Designed-failure allowing for lines to fall or fail in small sections rather than as a
complete system.
http://www.fema.gov/regions/v/ss/r5_n09.shtm describes a success story on winter storm
power outage mitigation.
When power outages occur the first imperative in emergency power planning is to equip
essential facilities with permanent backup power, and to make sure existing backup
sources are properly sized and maintained. Essential post-disaster services include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Medical care
Drinking water supply
Police and fire protection
Refrigeration
Communications
Pollution control (especially wastewater treatment)
Transportation (especially airports and seaports)
Weather forecasting
184
•
•
Temporary relief shelter
Emergency response command and control
Backup systems should be sized to meet the requirements of a facility's necessary public
services. Some facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants and hospitals, are so
important that backup systems should be sized to carry full loads. All backup power
systems should be covered by a complete and consistent planned maintenance program
that includes regular inspection and operational testing.
http://www.currentsolutionspc.com/doc/distributed.pdf describes options for alternate
power sources.
4.3.10 IBHS Fortified Home Program
What is a Fortified Home?
The Fortified…for Safer Living home program gives builders and homeowners a set of
criteria for upgrades that help reduce the risk of damage from natural disasters. The
program raises a homes’ overall safety above building code minimum requirements.
Once completed a home is inspected and certified as a “Fortified…for Safer Living”
home.
The combination of materials and techniques produces residences equipped to better
resist hurricanes, tornadoes, fire and floods. The fortified home construction method
produces homes that are comfortable while being resistant to natural disasters.
The following are features of a “Fortified…for Safer Living” home:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
The home and critical utilities are elevated, by reinforced continuous piles, a
minimum of two feet above ground-level walls, stairs and Base Flood Elevation
(BFE).
The home is connected from the peak of the roof to the foot of the reinforced piles
to form a continuous load path capable of withstanding 130 mph winds.
Windows, doors and other openings are properly flashed and protected to
withstand the impact of windborne debris without penetration of wind and water.
The roof truss system has a 110 mph wind rated covering, a secondary moisture
barrier, twice the required underlayment, thicker plywood deck sheathing and a
stronger holding nail and nailing pattern.
Other features include non-combustible roof materials, reinforced entry garage
doors and landscaping techniques reducing wildfire and flooding vulnerability.
A certified inspector verifies all required Fortified home products and materials
are installed correctly in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications for
“Fortified…for Safer Living” program specifications.
The home and property are also verified to be a low risk hazard for exposure to
wildfire.
185
For more information about what a fortified home is see
http://www.concretehomescouncil.org/p_room/SBGFortified.pdf.
Economics of a Fortified Home
Cost (new home)
Depending on the quality of the material the buyer chooses the cost to add fortified
features could be as low as five percent of the total cost of a new home. See the following
table, from the Institute of Business and Home Safety (IBHS) website at
http://www.ibhs.org/research_library/view.asp?id=277, for a typical upgrade.
As-built base home price: $151,500 (including lot and options, before "Fortified" upgrade).
Standard Home
"Fortified" Home
Incremental Cost to
"Fortify"
windows and doors
5,450*
$15,500** ($7,700)
$10,050 ($2,250)
garage doors
roof decking
sealing roof joints
$650
$650
$0
$1,250
$1,750
$650
$600
$1,100
$650
roof covering
$2,350
$3,350
$1,000
concrete/steel down
pours
$0
$500
$500
fortified inspection
costs
$0
$1,000
$1,000
Total increment cost:
Percentage of
base cost:
$14,900 ($7,100)
9.8%
(4.7%)***
* Based on selection of PGT® window & door products.
** Fortified with PGT® WinGuard™ impact-resistant windows & doors.
*** Cost of panel shutters instead of impact-resistant windows.
Cost (existing home)
Many of the fortification techniques used to build new homes are too expensive as
retrofits. Fortifying is much more expensive when a home is already built. However,
there are creative ways to reduce costs and still fortify an existing home. Improving roof
decking on an existing structure would cost about $5,000. For $50 a certain type of glue
gun available in most hardware stores can retrofit a roof as effectively as if a new roof
had been put on with wood screws.
Savings
In Florida, a fortified home can save homeowners over 20% in insurance premiums. A
standard brick, stone, or masonry house in a coastal area, with a deductible of $500 and a
2% hurricane deductible, would generate an annual premium of $2,240. In contrast, the
same home with the additional fortified construction features would pay an annual
premium of $1,746, a savings of $504, or 22.5%. Also, underwriting guidelines may be
relaxed for fortified homes. Insurers may make exceptions for fortified homes in areas
where they wouldn’t normally write policies.
City of Cushing
186
Lower deductibles may be available. In Florida, policies covering wind damage typically
have a deductible of 2% of the covered amount. On a $150,000 home the deductible
would be $3,000. Fortified homeowners may be eligible for a flat deductible of $500.
As for intangible savings, personal photographs, important family documents and
computer data are just a few of the items a fortified home may protect. Additionally there
is the inconvenience and cost of other living arrangements while a home is being rebuilt.
For more information about one insurer’s guidelines on insuring fortified homes see
http://www.roughnotes.com/rnmag/august01/08p52.htm.
4.3.11 Extreme Heat Protection
Elderly, children, low-income individuals and people with compromised immune systems
are more vulnerable to health risks due to intense climate changes, especially extreme
heat.
Aging is often accompanied by chronic illnesses that may increase susceptibility to
extreme environmental conditions. Poverty among elderly increases the risk.
Children are vulnerable due to their size, behavior and fact that they are growing and
developing. Children living in poverty or without access to proper medical care are
especially vulnerable.
Low-income individuals are less likely to be able to afford air-conditioning and have less
access to health care.
Cancer, AIDS and diabetes compromise individual’s immune systems. Afflicted
individuals are more susceptible to physical stresses such as those during extreme heat.
Steps to protect individuals from the heat include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Install window air-conditioners snugly and insulate spaces for a tighter fit.
Hang shades, draperies, awnings or louvers on windows receiving morning or
afternoon sun. Awnings or louvers can reduce heat entering the house by as much
as 80%.
Stay indoors as much as possible. If air conditioning is not available stay on the
lowest floor out of the sunshine.
Drink plenty of water and limit alcoholic beverages.
Dress in light-colored, loose fitting clothes that cover as much skin as possible.
Take a cool bath.
Slow down.
187
Suggestions for a community heat emergency intervention plan include:
•
The public must have access to the steps to take to lessen the likelihood of heat
problems, such as staying in air-conditioning, if possible, and drinking plenty of
fluids.
•
“Buddy systems” can be established where an individual is assigned to check on
people at risk. The “buddy” should be trained to deal with heat related
emergencies.
•
Utility companies should not be allowed to terminate service during a heat
emergency, even if individuals have not paid their bill.
For more information on extreme heat, mitigation and protection from the heat see
http://www.fema.gov/hazards/extremeheat/heatf.shtm.
The City of Cushing has developed a Heat Emergency Action Plan for the community,
based on the preceding suggestions.
4.3.12 Smoke Detectors
Smoke detectors save lives. Approximately two-thirds of fatal fires occur in
the 10% of homes not protected with smoke detectors. You are twice as likely
to die in a fire if you do not have a properly operating smoke detector.
There are two basic types of smoke detectors - photoelectric and ionization. Photoelectric
smoke alarms generally are more effective at detecting slow-smoldering fires, fires that
might smolder for hours before bursting into flames. Ionization smoke alarms are more
effective at detecting fast-flaming fires, fires that consume materials rapidly and spread
quickly.
Test smoke detectors every month, change the batteries twice per year, clean detectors at
least once per year and replace smoke detectors every 10 years. For more facts about
smoke detectors see http://www.firemar.state.ok.us/forms/lg-alarm.pdf.
4.3.13 Proper Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Household chemicals and motor oil dumped down drains or directly onto the ground can
work their way into the waterways and ground waters. Oil from a single oil change can
ruin one million gallons of fresh water. Used crankcase oil has been reported to account
for more than 40% of the oil pollution in waterways.
Most public and private vehicle maintenance facilities have well-developed systems to
store their waste oil for recycling. However, "do-it-yourselfers" account for a large
percentage of the oil changes in any community. Therefore, it is important for community
recycling and solid waste management programs to include a system for waste oil
collection and provide ways to collect and dispose of household chemicals.
Many counties and communities offer household pollutant collection events. Among the
pollutants collected are oil-based paints, paint thinners, pesticides, fertilizers, cleansers,
City of Cushing
188
acids, ammunition, batteries, motor oil, and antifreeze. Residents are not charged for
items collected. Events are typically funded by participating communities.
Containers of hazardous materials should not be located in a flood hazard area. If such a
location is necessary hazardous material containers need to be anchored. Contents can
contaminate water and multiply the damaging effects of flooding by causing fires or
explosions, or by otherwise making structures unusable. Buoyant materials should be
anchored. If they float downstream they may cause additional damage to buildings or
bridges or may plug a stream resulting in higher flood heights.
The link http://www.earth911.org/zip.asp provides a list of hazardous waste recycling
centers and used oil collection facilities based on zip code.
The City of Cushing encourages companies to require hazardous material transportation
security plans.
4.3.14 Hurricane Clips
A home’s roof system is its most vulnerable and expensive
component. Hurricane clips and straps are metal connectors designed
to hold a roof to its walls in high winds. They make a home’s roofto-wall connection five-to-15 times stronger than traditional
construction and can prevent damage in winds at least 75 mph. In
many coastal communities, hurricane clips are enforced as a code
restriction for new homes. Although designed to protect roofs during
the extended and violent winds of hurricanes, these clips have proven effective in
preventing roof removal in tornado events.
For more information on hurricane clips and straps and protecting your roof go to
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/retrofit/straps.shtml.
The City of Cushing has adopted ordinances requiring Hurricane Clips be installed on all
new Residential Construction.
4.3.15 Mobile Home Tie-Downs
Tie-downs are devices that anchor or otherwise secure a
mobile home to the ground in order to protect the
mobile home and its surroundings from damage caused
by wind and/or other natural forces. All tie-downs must
comply with the specifications of the home
manufacturer or, in the absence of such specifications,
with standards set by the City Building Inspector.
Anchors are available for different types of soil
conditions, including concrete slab. Auger anchors have
been designed for both hard soil and soft soil. Rock
anchors or drive anchors allow attachment to a rock or
City of Cushing
189
coral base. This type of anchor is also pinned to the ground with crossing steel stakes.
4.3.16 Lightning Warning Systems
Strike Location and Identification Systems sense the electromagnetic pulse or the
electrostatic pulse that accompanies a lightning discharge. Sensors and processing
equipment work from those pulses or transients. These systems are most useful for
tracking storms, locating a lightning strike and producing density plots of lightning
activity by geographical area. They do not provide early warning of an impending storm.
Pre-storm Warning Systems sense the conditions that precede a
storm. All severe storms create a related electrostatic field. This
field provides a reliable storm signature that is peculiar to severe
storms and can be related to the severity of the storm. That
signature is present prior to lightning activity and provides a
measurable parameter for pre-storm warning.
Lightning
The electrostatic field strength is directly related to the state of the
prediction
sensor
storm and/or its proximity to the site. Therefore, an increase in the
electrostatic field is an indicator of a storm moving into or building up over the area. The
warning time is determined by the rate of buildup or the rate of movement of the storm.
4.3.17 Conclusions
1. Planning and zoning help Cushing develop the community proactively so that the
resulting infrastructure is laid out in a coherent and safe manner.
2. Building codes for foundations, sprinkler systems, masonry, and structural elements such
as roofs are prime mitigation measures for occurrences of floods, tornadoes, high winds,
extreme heat and cold, and earthquakes.
3. Cushing participates in the NFIP and uses subdivision regulations to control the direction
of floodplain development.
4. Deficiencies in stormwater management can be corrected by conducting a master study of
watersheds to determine appropriate standards for different areas.
City of Cushing
190
4.4 Structural Projects
Structural projects are usually designed by engineers or architects, constructed by the
public sector, and maintained and managed by governmental entities. Structural projects
traditionally include stormwater detention reservoirs, levees and floodwalls, channel
modifications, drainage and storm sewer improvements, and community tornado saferooms.
4.4.1 Reservoirs and Detention
Reservoirs control flooding by holding high flows behind dams or in storage basins. After
a flood peaks, water is released or pumped out slowly at a rate that the river can
accommodate downstream. The lake created may provide recreational benefits or water
supply (which could help mitigate a drought).
Reservoirs are suitable for protecting
existing development downstream
from the project site. Unlike levees
and channel modifications, they do
not have to be built close to or disrupt
the area to be protected. Reservoirs
are most efficient in deeper valleys
where there is more room to store
water, or on smaller rivers where
there is less water to store. Building a
reservoir in flat areas and on large
rivers may not be cost-effective,
because large areas of land have to be
purchased.
Reservoirs provide storage of rainwater without the hazards
of maintaining a dam
In urban areas, some reservoirs are
simply manmade holes dug to store floodwaters. When built in the ground, there is no
dam for these retention and detention basins and no dam failure hazard. Wet or dry basins
can also serve multiple uses by doubling as parks or other open space uses.
4.4.2 Safe Rooms
Safe rooms are specially constructed shelters intended to protect occupants from tornados
and high winds. Constructed of concrete and steel, properly built safe rooms can provide
protection against wind speeds of 250mph and airborne debris traveling as fast as
100mph.
A safe room can be incorporated into the construction of a new home, or can be
retrofitted above or below ground into an existing home. The cost of constructing a safe
room is between $2500 and $6000, depending on the room size, location and type of
foundation on which the home is built. Safe rooms can function year-round as a usable
area, such as a bathroom, closet or utility room.
City of Cushing
191
The State of Oklahoma, FEMA and
communities may offer reimbursement
grants for construction of certain
categories of Safe Rooms through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMPG). Find out more about the
program at
http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/.
FEMA 320, Taking Shelter From the
Storm: Building a Safe Room Inside
Your Home has specific designs for
tornado and hurricane safe rooms. To
obtain a copy of FEMA 320 refer to
http://www.fema.gov/fima/tsfs02.shtm.
Dr. Ernst Kiesling, Civil Engineering Professor at
Texas Tech University inspects a safe room in the
after math of the May 8, 2003 tornadoes in Moore,
Oklahoma.
4.4.3 School Safe Rooms
In the past, a school’s interior areas, especially hallways, have been designated as the best
place to seek refuge from violent storms. However, in 1999 the hallways of two schools
in Sedgwick County, Kansas received significant damage which could have resulted in
student casualties had school been in session.
FEMA 361 publication, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters,
provides guidelines for constructing school safe rooms. A community shelter strong
enough to survive a violent storm can also be used as a cafeteria, gymnasium or other
common area.
Schools, administration buildings and institutions of higher learning are required to have
written plans and procedures in place for protecting students, faculty, administrators and
visitors from natural and man-made disasters and emergencies. The requirement, directed
by Oklahoma House Bill HB1512, was enacted May 29, 2003.
For more information about Sedgwick County’s new school safe rooms go to
http://www.fema.gov/mit/saferoom/casestudies.shtm. To receive a copy of FEMA 361
see http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazards/nhp_fema361.pdf. For more information on
HB1512, see http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04HB/HB1512_int.rtf.
4.4.4 Levees and Floodwalls
Probably the best-known flood control measure is a barrier of earth (levee) or concrete
(floodwall) erected between the watercourse and the property to be protected. Levees and
floodwalls confine water to the stream channel by raising its banks. They must be well
designed to account for large floods, underground seepage, pumping of internal drainage,
and erosion and scour.
City of Cushing
192
Failure to maintain levees can lead to significant loss of life and property if they are
stressed and broken or breached during a flood event. An inspection, maintenance and
enforcement program helps ensure structural integrity.
Levees placed along the river or stream edge degrade the aquatic habitat and water
quality of the stream. They also are more likely to push floodwater onto other properties
upstream or downstream. To reduce environmental impacts and provide multiple use
benefits, a setback levee (set back from the floodway) is the best project design. The area
inside a setback levee can provide open space for recreational purposes and provide
access sites to the river or stream.
4.4.5 Channel Improvements
By improving channel conveyance, more water is carried away at a faster rate.
Improvements generally include making a channel wider, deeper, smoother or straighter.
Some smaller channels in urban areas have been lined with concrete or put in
underground pipes.
4.4.6 Crossings and Roadways
In some cases buildings may be elevated
above floodwaters, but access to the
building is lost when floodwaters
overtop local roadways, driveways, and
culverts or ditches. Depending on the
recurrence interval between floods, the
availability of alternative access, and the
level of need for access, it may be
economically justifiable to elevate some
roadways and improve crossing points.
For example, if there is sufficient
downstream channel capacity, a small
Culverts like this one can constrict flow and cause
backwater flooding
culvert that constricts flows and causes
localized backwater flooding may be
replaced with a larger culvert to eliminate flooding at the waterway crossing point. The
potential for worsening adjacent or downstream flooding needs to be considered before
implementing any crossing or roadway drainage improvements.
4.4.7 Drainage and Storm Sewer Improvements
Man-made ditches and storm sewers help drain areas where the surface drainage system
is inadequate, or where underground drainageways may be safer or more practical. Storm
sewer improvements include installing new sewers, enlarging small pipes, and preventing
back flows. Particularly appropriate for depressions and low spots that will not drain
naturally, drainage and storm sewer improvements usually are designed to carry the
runoff from smaller, more frequent storms.
City of Cushing
193
Because drainage ditches and storm sewers convey water faster to other locations,
improvements are only recommended for small local problems where the receiving
stream or river has sufficient capacity to handle the additional volume and flow of water.
To reduce the cumulative downstream flood impacts of numerous small drainage
projects, additional detention or run-off reduction practices should be provided in
conjunction with the drainage system improvements.
4.4.8 Drainage System Maintenance
The drainage system may include detention ponds, stream channels, swales, ditches and
culverts. Drainage system maintenance is an ongoing program to clean out blockages
caused by an accumulation of sediment or overgrowth of weedy, non-native vegetation or
debris, and remediation of stream bank erosion sites.
“Debris” refers to a wide range of blockage
materials that may include tree limbs and branches
that accumulate naturally, or large items of trash or
lawn waste accidentally or intentionally dumped
into channels, drainage swales or detention basins.
Maintenance of detention ponds may also require
revegetation or repairs of the restrictor pipe, berm
or overflow structure.
Maintenance activities normally do not alter the
shape of the channel or pond, but they do affect
how well the drainage system can do its job.
Sometimes it is a very fine line that separates debris
that should be removed from natural material that
helps form habitat.
Drainageways are inspected
regularly for blockage from debris
4.4.9 Conclusions
1. Reservoirs can hold high flows of water that can later be released slowly or retained
for recreational purposes or drought mitigation.
2. Levees and floodwalls are not as effective overall because of possible underground
seepage, erosion, degradation of aquatic habitat and water quality, and ineffectiveness
in large floods.
3. Channel improvements allow more water to be carried away faster.
4. The effectiveness of elevating buildings depends on the availability of alternative
access when flooding occurs.
5. Crossing and roadway drainage improvements must take into account additional
detention or run-off reduction.
6. Drainage and storm sewer improvements carry runoff from smaller, more frequent
storms.
City of Cushing
194
7. Drainage system maintenance is an ongoing project of removing debris that decreases
the effectiveness of detention ponds, channels, ditches, and culverts.
City of Cushing
195
4.5 Property Protection
Property protection measures are used to modify buildings or property subject to damage
from various hazardous events. The property owner normally implements property
protection measures. However, in many cases technical and financial assistance can be
provided by a governmental agency. Property protection measures typically include
acquisition and relocation, flood-proofing, building elevation, barriers, retrofitting, safe
rooms, hail resistant roofing, insurance, and the like.
4.5.1 Acquisition and Relocation
Moving out of harm’s way is the surest and
safest way to protect a building from
damage. Acquiring buildings and removing
them is also a way to convert a problem
area into a community asset and obtain
environmental benefits.
The major difference between the two
approaches is that acquisition is undertaken
by a government agency, so the cost is not
borne by the property owner, and the land
is converted to public use, such as a park.
Relocation can be either government or
owner-financed.
Moving a home out of the floodplain is sometimes
the only way to protect it from flooding
While almost any building can be moved, the cost goes up for heavier structures, such as
those with exterior brick and stone walls, and large or irregularly shaped buildings.
However, experienced building movers know how to handle any job.
Cost
An acquisition budget should be based on the median price of similar properties in the
community, plus $10,000 to $20,000 for appraisals, abstracts, title opinions, relocation
benefits, and demolition. Costs may be lower after a flood or other disaster. For example,
the community may have to pay only the difference between the full price of a property
and the amount of the flood insurance claim received by the owner.
One problem that sometimes results from an acquisition project is a “checkerboard”
pattern in which nonadjacent properties are acquired. This can occur when some owners,
especially those who have and prefer a waterfront location, prove reluctant to leave.
Creating such an acquisition pattern in a community simply adds to the maintenance
costs that taxpayers must support.
Relocation can be expensive, with costs ranging from $30,000 for a small wood frame
building to over $60,000 for masonry and slab on grade buildings. Two story houses are
more expensive to move because of the need to relocate wires and avoid overpasses.
Additional costs may be necessary for acquiring a new lot on which to place the relocated
City of Cushing
196
building and for restoring the old site. Larger buildings may have to be cut and the parts
moved separately. Because of all these complications, there are cases where acquisition is
less expensive than relocation.
Where Appropriate
Acquisition and relocation are appropriate in areas subject to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Flash flooding
Deep waters
Dam break flooding
Landslides
Potential hazardous materials spills
Other high hazard that affects a specific area
Acquisition and relocation are not appropriate for hazards like tornadoes or winter storms
because there are no areas safe from the hazard. Relocation is also preferred for large lots
that include buildable areas outside the hazardous area or where the owner has a new lot
in a safer area.
Acquisition (followed by demolition) is preferred over relocation for buildings that are
difficult to move, such as larger, slab foundation, or masonry structures, and for
dilapidated structures that are not worth protecting.
4.5.2 Building Elevation
Raising a building above the flood level is the best on-site property protection method for
flooding. Water flows under the building, causing little or no damage to the structure or
its contents. Alternatives are to elevate on continuous foundation walls (creating an
enclosed space below the building) or elevation on compacted earthen fill.
4.5.3 Barriers
Barriers keep surface waters from reaching a building. A barrier can be built of dirt or
soil (“berm”) or concrete or steel (“floodwall”). In cases of shallow flooding, regrading a
yard can provide the same protection as a separate barrier.
4.5.4 Retrofitting
This term covers a variety of techniques for modifying a building to reduce its
susceptibility to damage by one or more hazards.
Where Appropriate
Some of the more common approaches are:
City of Cushing
197
Floods and dam failures:
•
•
•
Dry floodproofing keeps the water out by strengthening walls, sealing openings,
or using waterproof compounds or plastic sheeting on walls. Dry floodproofing is
not recommended for residential construction.
Wet floodproofing, using water resistant paints and elevating anything that could
be damaged by a flood, allows for easy cleanup after floodwaters recede.
Accessory structures or garages below the residential structure are potential
candidates for wet floodproofing.
Installing drain plugs, standpipes or backflow valves to stop sewer backup.
Tornado:
•
•
•
•
Constructing an underground shelter or in-building “safe room”
Securing roofs, walls and foundations with
adequate fasteners or tie downs
Strengthening garage doors and other large
openings
The City of Cushing has installed damageresistant glass replacements for Public Schools.
High winds:
•
•
•
•
Installing storm shutters and storm windows
Burying utility lines
Using special roofing shingles designed to
interlock and resist uplift forces
Installing/incorporating backup power supplies
Hailstorms:
•
Installing hail resistant roofing materials
FEMA guides are available to help
homeowners retrofit their flood-prone
properties
Lightning:
•
•
•
Installing lightning rods and lightning surge interrupters
Winter storms:
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Adding insulation
Relocating water lines from outside walls to interior spaces
Sealing windows
198
•
The City of Cushing has upgraded its equipment and vehicles for combating ice
storm damage/adverse impact to public infrastructure
Extreme heat and drought:
•
•
Adding insulation
Installing water saver appliances, such as shower heads and toilets
Urban and wild fires:
•
•
•
•
•
Replacing wood shingles with fire resistant roofing
Adding spark arrestors on chimneys
Landscaping to keep bushes and trees away from structures
Installing sprinkler systems
Installing smoke alarms
Earthquake:
•
•
Retrofitting structures to better withstand shaking.
Tying down appliances, water heaters, bookcases and fragile furniture so they
won’t fall over during a quake.
Common Measures
From the above lists, it can be seen that certain approaches can help protect from more
than one hazard. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Strengthening roofs and walls to protect from wind and earthquake forces.
Bolting or tying walls to the foundation to protect from wind and earthquake
forces and the effects of buoyancy during a flood.
Adding insulation to protect from extreme heat and cold.
Anchoring water heaters and tanks to protect from ground shaking and flotation.
Burying utility lines to protect from wind, ice and snow.
Installing backup power systems for power losses during storms.
Installing roofing that is hail resistant and fireproof.
199
4.5.5 Insurance
Insurance has the advantage that, as long as the policy is in force, the property is
protected and no human intervention is needed for the measure to work. There are three
types of insurance coverage:
1. The standard homeowner’s, dwelling, and commercial insurance policies cover
against the perils of wildfire and the effects of severe weather, such as frozen
water pipes.
2. Many companies sell earthquake insurance as an additional peril rider on
homeowner’s policies. Individual policies can be written for large commercial
properties. Rates and deductibles vary depending on the potential risk and the
nature of the insured properties.
3. Flood insurance is provided under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Flood Insurance
Although most homeowner’s insurance policies do not cover a property for flood
damage, an owner can insure a building for damage by surface flooding through the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood insurance coverage is provided for
buildings and their contents damaged by a “general condition of surface flooding” in the
area.
Building coverage is for the structure. Contents coverage is for the removable items
inside an insurable building. A renter can take out a policy with contents coverage, even
if there is no structural coverage.
Some people have purchased flood insurance
because the bank required it when they got a
mortgage or home improvement loan. Usually
these policies just cover the building’s
structure and not the contents.
In most cases, a 30-day waiting period follows
the purchase of a flood insurance policy
before it goes into effect. The objective of this
waiting period is to encourage people to keep
a policy at all times. People cannot wait for
the river to rise before they buy their
coverage.
NFIP Coordinator Dianna Herrera presenting a
class on flood insurance requirements
4.5.6 The City’s Role
Property protection measures are usually considered the responsibility of the property
owner. However, the City should be involved in all strategies that can reduce losses from
natural hazards, especially acquisition. There are various roles the City can play in
encouraging and supporting implementation of these measures.
City of Cushing
200
Providing basic information to property owners is the first step in supporting property
protection measures. Owners need general information on what can be done. They need
to see examples, preferably from nearby.
Financial Assistance
Communities can help owners by helping to pay for a retrofitting project, just like they
pay for flood control projects. Financial assistance can range from full funding of a
project to helping residents find money from other programs. Some communities assume
responsibility for sewer backups and other flood problems that arose from an inadequate
public sewer or drain system.
Less expensive community programs include low interest loans, forgivable low interest
loans and rebates. A forgivable loan is one that does not need to be repaid if the owner
does not sell the house for a specified period, such as five years. These approaches do not
fully fund the project but they cost the community treasury less and they increase the
owner’s commitment to the flood protection project.
Often, small amounts of money act as a catalyst to pique the owner’s interest to get a selfprotection project moving. Several Chicago suburbs have active rebate programs that
fund only 20% or 25% of the total cost of a retrofitting project. These programs have
helped install hundreds of projects that protect buildings from low flood hazards.
Acquisition Agent
The City can be a focal point for many acquisition projects. In most cases, when
acquisition of a property is feasible, the City is the ultimate owner of the property, but in
other cases, the school district or other public agencies can assume ownership and the
attendant maintenance responsibilities.
Other Incentives
Sometimes only a little funding is needed to motivate a property owner to implement a
retrofitting project. A flood insurance premium reduction will result if a building is
elevated above the flood level. This reduction is not enough to take much of a bite out of
the cost of the project, but it reassures the owner that he or she is doing the right thing.
Other forms of floodproofing are not reflected in the flood insurance rates for residential
properties, but they may help with the Community Rating System, which provides a
premium reduction for all policies in the community.
Other incentives to consider are programs to help owners calculate the benefits and costs
of a project and a “seal of approval” for retrofitted buildings. The latter would be given
following an inspection that confirms that the building meets certain standards. There are
many other personal but non-economic incentives to protect a property from flood
damage, such as peace of mind and increased value at property resale.
City of Cushing
201
4.5.7 Lightning Protection Systems
The purpose of a lightning protection system is to
intercept lightning and safely direct its current to
ground. If the system is properly designed,
installed and maintained it can provide almost
100% protection to buildings.
The system for an ordinary structure includes at
least air terminals (lightning rods), down
conductors, and ground terminals. These three
elements of the system must form a continuous
conductive path for lightning current. The City of
Cushing has constructed and installed lightning
rods for protection of Critical Facilities.
National Fire Protection Association document
NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of
Lightning Protection Systems describes lightning protection system installation
requirements. NFPA 780 is available through
http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/NFPA_Codes_and_Standards/List_of_NFPA_documents/NF
PA_780.asp. Additional information on design and construction of lightning protection
systems is available on http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt8529ag.pdf.
4.5.8 Surge Protectors
The average home has 2,200 or more power surges annually, 60% of which are generated
within the home. Most surges are caused by motors starting in air conditioners, garage
doors, refrigerators and other major appliances. Electronic appliances can be damaged or
destroyed by over-voltage surges or spikes.
Whole house surge protectors offer the first line of defense against high-energy, highvoltage surges. These devices thwart the energy of the initial surge and reduce it before it
reaches electrical appliances. In many cases this level of protection is enough to protect
the home.
Surge protection devices connected directly to appliances offer the second line of
defense. They are the only defense against surges within the home. The combination of
whole house and point-of-use surge protection provides the best possible protection.
For more information on whole house and point-of-use surge protectors, refer to
http://www.howstuffworks.com/surge-protector.htm.
4.5.9 Landscaping for Wildfire Prevention
The chance of losing property due to wildfire can be reduced using fire prevention
landscaping techniques. The amount of cleared space around a home improves its ability
to survive a wildfire. A structure is more likely to survive when grasses, trees and other
City of Cushing
202
common fuels are removed, reduced or modified to reduce a fire’s intensity and keep it
away from the structure.
Zone 1: Moist and
trim. Turf, perennials,
groundcovers and
annuals form a
greenbelt that is
regularly watered and
maintained. Shrubs
and trees are located at
least 10 feet from the
house.
Zone 2: Low and
sparse. Slow
growing, droughttolerant shrubs and
groundcovers keep
fire near ground level.
Native vegetation can
be retained if it is low
growing, does not
accumulate dry,
flammable material
and is irrigated.
Zone 3: High and
clean. Native trees and
shrubs are thinned and
dry debris on the
ground is removed.
Overgrowth is
removed and trees are
pruned every 3-5 years.
Zone 4: Natural
area. Native plants
are selectively
thinned. Highly
flammable
vegetation is
replaced with less
fire-prone species.
For comprehensive lists of steps to protect your home before, during and after a wildfire
refer to http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/98surst_wf.pdf or
http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/extforest/F3.pdf.
4.5.10 Conclusions
1. Acquisition and relocation of property is the most effective for property protection in
the case of hazards that are expected to occur repeatedly in the same locations.
Acquisition followed by demolition is preferable.
2. Other methods of property protection for flooding include raising building elevations
and building berms and floodwalls.
3. Building modifications are also appropriate for some hazards.
4. Property insurance has the advantage of protecting the property without human
intervention.
5. The City can help in reducing losses from natural hazards by providing financial
assistance, having an acquisition program, and other incentives.
City of Cushing
203
4.6 Emergency Services
Emergency services measures protect people during and after a hazard event. Locally,
Cushing Emergency Management (CEM) coordinates these measures. Measures include
preparedness, threat recognition, warning, response, critical facilities protection, and
post-disaster recovery and mitigation.
4.6.1 Threat Recognition
Threat recognition is the key. The first step in responding to a flood, tornado, storm or
other natural hazard is being aware that one is coming. Without a proper and timely threat
recognition system, adequate warnings cannot be disseminated.
Emergency Alert System (EAS)
Using digital technology to distribute messages to radio, television and cable systems, the
EAS provides state and local officials with the ability to send out emergency information
targeted to a specific area. The information can be sent electronically through broadcast
stations and cable systems even if those facilities are unattended.
Floods
A flood threat recognition system provides
early warning to emergency managers. A
good system will predict the time and height
of the flood crest. This can be done by
measuring rainfall, soil moisture, and stream
flows upstream of the community and
calculating the subsequent flood levels.
On larger rivers, including the Cimarron, the
National Weather Service does the measuring
and calculating, which is in the U.S.
Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Flood threat predictions are disseminated on
the NOAA Weather Wire or NOAA Weather
Radio. NOAA Weather Radio is considered
by the federal government to be the official
source for weather information.
Areas subject to flooding should be clearly posted
The National Weather Service issues notices to the public, using two levels of
notification:
Flood watch: conditions are right for flooding
Flood warning: a flood has started or is expected to occur
City of Cushing
204
On smaller rivers, local rainfall and river gauges are needed to establish a flood threat
recognition system. The National Weather Service may issue a “flash flood watch.” This
means the amount of rain expected will cause ponding and other flooding on small
streams and depressions. These events are sometimes so localized and rapid that a “flash
flood warning” may not be issued, especially if no gages or other remote threat
recognition equipment is available.
Meteorological Hazards
The National Weather Service is the prime agency for detecting meteorological threats,
such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, and winter storms. As with floods, the Federal agency
can only look at the large scale, e.g., whether conditions are appropriate for formation of
a tornado. For tornadoes and thunderstorms, the county or municipalities can provide
more site-specific and timely recognition by sending out spotters to watch the skies when
the Weather Service issues a watch or warning.
NOAA Weather Radio
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting
continuous weather information direct from a nearby National Weather Service office.
NWR broadcasts National Weather Service warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard
information 24 hours a day. Post-event information is also broadcast for natural hazards
(such as tornados and earthquakes) and environmental hazards
(such as chemical releases or oil spills).
NWR requires a special radio receiver or scanner capable of
picking up the signal. NOAA Weather Radio receivers can be
purchased at many retail stores that sell electronic merchandise.
Typical cost of a residential grade NOAA Weather Radio is
between $20 and $200.
For more information on NOAA Weather Radios, see http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/.
4.6.2 Warning
After the threat recognition system tells the CEMA that a flood or other hazard is coming,
the next step is to notify the public and staff of other agencies and critical facilities. The
earlier and the more specific the warning, the greater the number of people who can
implement protection measures. The following are the more common warning media:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City of Cushing
Outdoor warning sirens
Sirens on public safety vehicles
NOAA Weather Radio
Commercial or public radio or TV stations
Cable TV emergency news inserts
Telephone trees
Door-to-door contact
Mobile public address systems
205
Multiple or redundant systems are the most effective, since people do not hear one
warning, they may still get the message from another part of the system. Each has
advantages and disadvantages. Outdoor warning sirens can reach the most people quickly
(except those around loud noise, such as at a factory or during a thunderstorm), but they
do not explain what hazard is coming and cannot be sounded unless a timely means of
threat recognition exists. Radio and TV provide a lot of information, but people have to
know to turn them on. Telephone trees are also fast, but can be expensive and do not
work when phones lines are down.
Just as important as issuing a warning is telling people what to do. A warning program
should have a public information aspect. People need to know the difference between a
tornado warning (when they should seek shelter in a basement) and a flood warning
(when they should stay out of basements).
4.6.3 Response
The protection of life and property is the foremost important task of emergency
responders. Concurrent with threat recognition and issuing warnings, a community
should respond with actions that can prevent or reduce damage and injuries. Typical
actions and responding parties include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Activating the emergency operations room (emergency management)
Closing streets or bridges (police or public works)
Shutting off power to threatened areas (utility company)
Holding children at school/releasing children from school (school district)
Passing out sand and sandbags (public works)
Ordering an evacuation (mayor)
Opening evacuation shelters (Red Cross)
Monitoring water levels
(engineering)
Security and other protection
measures (police)
An emergency action plan ensures
that all bases are covered and that
the response activities are
appropriate for the expected threat.
These plans are developed in
coordination with the agencies or
offices that are given various
responsibilities.
Emergency response plans should
be updated annually to keep contact
names and telephone numbers
current and to make sure that
City of Cushing
In the event of an emergency, responders must make an
organized effort to minimize the impacts of the incident.
206
supplies and equipment that will be needed are still available. They should be critiqued
and revised after disasters and exercises to take advantage of the lessons learned and
changing conditions. The end result is a coordinated effort implemented by people who
have experience working together so that available resources will be used in the most
efficient manner.
The City of Cushing has funded and is in the ongoing process of teaching community
employees the symptoms of common, life-threatening emergencies and how to
administer CPR and first aid, and Continue educational programs for City staff to
recognize and render assistance for symptoms of life-threatening emergencies.
4.6.4 Critical Facilities Protection
“Critical facilities” are previously discussed in Section 2.3.5. Generally, they fall into two
categories:
•
•
Buildings or locations vital to the response and recovery effort, such as police and
fire stations and telephone exchanges and
Buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as
hazardous materials facilities and nursing homes.
Protecting critical facilities during a disaster is the
responsibility of the facility owner or operator.
However, if they are not prepared for an emergency, the
rest of the community could be impacted. If a critical
facility is damaged, workers and resources may be
unnecessarily drawn away from other disaster response
efforts. If the owner or operator adequately prepares
such a facility, it will be better able to support the
community's emergency response efforts.
Most critical facilities have full-time professional
managers or staff who are responsible for the facility
during a disaster. These people often have their own
emergency response plans. Many facilities would
benefit from early disaster warning, disaster response
planning, and coordination with community disaster
response efforts.
The city’s streams, waterways,
and detention ponds should be
Schools are critical facilities not only because of the
continuously monitored
special population they accommodate, but because they
are often identified as shelter sites for a community.
Processes and procedures can be developed to determine mitigation priorities
incorporated into capital improvement plans that will ensure these buildings function
after an event.
City of Cushing
207
4.6.5 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation
After a disaster, communities should undertake activities to protect public health and
safety, facilitate recovery, and help people and property for the next disaster. Throughout
the recovery phase, everyone wants to get “back to normal.” The problem is, “normal”
means the way they were before the disaster. Measures needed include the following:
Recovery Actions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Patrolling evacuated areas to prevent looting
Providing safe drinking water
Monitoring for diseases
Vaccinating residents for tetanus
Clearing streets
Cleaning up debris and garbage
Regulating reconstruction to ensure that it meets all code requirements, including
the NFIP’s substantial damage regulations
Mitigation Actions
•
•
•
•
•
Conducting a public information effort to advise residents about mitigation
measures they can incorporate into their reconstruction work
Evaluating damaged public facilities to identify mitigation measures that can be
included during repairs
Acquiring substantially or repeatedly damaged properties from willing sellers
Planning for long term mitigation activities
Applying for post-disaster mitigation funds
Requiring permits, conducting inspections, and enforcing the NFIP substantial
improvement/substantial damage regulations can be
very difficult for local, understaffed overworked offices
after a disaster. If these activities are not carried out
properly, not only does the municipality miss a
tremendous opportunity to redevelop or clear out a
hazardous area, it may be violating its obligations under
the NFIP.
4.6.6 Debris Management
The tornados of May 3, 1999 left an estimated 500,000
cubic yards of debris. Debris in the aftermath of a
disaster poses significant health and safety risks. Debris
can include fuel containers, chemicals, appliances and
explosives.
Two key considerations regarding debris management
City of Cushing
208
A firefighter searches through the
remains of a hotel in Midwest City.
Oklahoman Staff Photo by Paul Hellstern
are the need for rapid removal and protection of the public health and environment.
Before a disaster strikes communities should set up staging area(s) where citizens and
cleanup crews can take debris prior to final disposal.
Community members can participate in debris control by securing debris, yard items, or
stored objects that may otherwise be swept away, damaged, or pose a hazard if
floodwaters would pick them up and carry them away. Additionally, a community can
pass and enforce an ordinance regulating dumping.
For the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s Guidelines for Debris
Management see document
www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/storms/Options%20for%20Disposal%20Guidelines.doc.
4.6.7 CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)
After a major disaster, local emergency teams quickly become
overwhelmed. CERT is designed to have trained groups of
citizens in every neighborhood and business ready to assist first
responders (police, firefighters and EMSA) during an
emergency. Survival equipment and supplies for City emergency response teams have
been provided to cover employees and others who use City buildings. Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) training for emergency response teams has been
funded by the City of Cushing and is in the process of being implemented.
CERT programs train and equip citizens in neighborhoods and businesses enabling them
to “self-activate” immediately after a disaster. CERT teams are trained in:
•
•
•
•
disaster preparedness.
light fire and suppression.
light search and rescue.
basic medical care.
FEMA grants have been given to states for funding CERT programs or expanding
existing teams. For information about the Oklahoma grant see
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=3155.
For more information on the CERT program talk to your local emergency management
official or visit http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/CERT/.
4.6.8 StormReady Communities
StormReady, a program started in Oklahoma in 1999,
helps arm America's communities with the communication
and safety skills needed to save lives and property before
and during an event. StormReady communities are better
prepared to save lives from the onslaught of severe weather through better planning,
education, and awareness.
City of Cushing
209
StormReady has different guidelines for different sized communities. To be StormReady
a community must:
•
•
•
•
•
Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center.
Have more than one way to receive severe weather warnings and forecasts and to
alert the public.
Create a system that monitors weather conditions locally.
Promote the importance of public readiness through community seminars.
Develop a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe weather
spotters and holding emergency exercises.
The economic investment in StormReady will depend on current assets. There is currently
no grant funding for becoming StormReady. However, the Insurance Services
Organization (ISO) may provide community rating points to StormReady communities.
Those points may be applied toward lowering flood insurance rates.
For details on how to become StormReady and the requirements based on community
size see http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/.
4.6.9 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
An EOP develops a comprehensive (multi-use) emergency management program which
seeks to mitigate the effects of a hazard, to prepare for measures to be taken which will
preserve life and minimize damage, to respond during emergencies and provide necessary
assistance and to establish a recovery system in order to return communities to their
normal state of affairs. The plan defines who does what, when, where and how in order to
mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from the effects of war, natural disasters,
technological accidents and other major incidents / hazards.
Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning should be addressed in the EOP. COOP
ensures the essential functions of an organization, including government, can continue to
operate during and after an emergency incident. An incident may prevent access to
normally operating systems, such as physical plant, data or communication networks, or
transportation. Government, business, other organizations, and families should be
encouraged to prepare by regularly backing up computer drives, copying essential files,
and storing these items in a separate location.
The State and Local Guide (SLG) 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations
Planning is available from FEMA. The guide provides ideas and advice to state and local
emergency managers in their efforts to develop and maintain an EOP. The guide can be
ordered directly from FEMA or downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/rrr/gaheop.shtm.
Funding for creating or updating an EOP is available from FEMA. For information on
how to obtain funding contact the Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security or go to
http://www.youroklahoma.com/homelandsecurity/.
City of Cushing
210
The State of Oklahoma’s Emergency Operations Plan is published on
http://www.odcem.state.ok.us/pte/seopmain.htm.
4.6.10 Incident Command System (ICS)
The Incident Command System is the model tool for the command, control and
coordination of resources at the scene of an emergency. It is a management tool of
procedures for organizing personnel, facilities, equipment and communications. ICS is
based upon basic management skills managers and leaders already know: planning,
directing, organizing, coordinating, communicating, delegating and evaluating.
ICS is not a means to wrestle control or authority away from agencies or departments, a
way to subvert the normal chain of command within a department or agency, nor is it
always managed by the fire department, too big for small everyday events or restricted to
use by government agencies and departments. ICS is an adaptable methodology suitable
for emergency management as well as many other categories. If leadership is essential for
the success of an event or a response, ICS is the supporting foundation for successfully
managing that event.
The Incident Command System is built around five major management activities. These
activities are:
•
•
•
•
•
Command – sets objects and priorities and has overall responsibility at the
incident or event.
Operations – conducts tactical operations to carry out the plan and directs
resources.
Planning – develops the action plan to accomplish objectives and collects and
evaluates information.
Logistics – provides resources and services to support incident needs.
Finance / Administration – monitors costs, provides accounting, reports time and
cost analysis.
The system can grow or shrink to meet changing needs. This makes it very cost-effective
and efficient. The system can be applied to a wide variety of situations such as fires,
multi-jurisdiction and multi-agency disasters, hazardous material spills and recovery
incidents, pest eradication programs and state or local natural hazards management.
For a detailed description of ICS, a diagram of ICS organization, or a checklist of duties
for each management activity and links to other resources see
http://www.911dispatch.com/ics/ics_main.html.
4.6.11 Mutual Aid / Interagency Agreements
Local governments should establish mutual aid agreements for utility and
communications systems, including 9-1-1. Mutual aid or interagency agreements have
value for preventing or responding to other hazard or emergency situations, as fire and
police departments often do.
City of Cushing
211
4.6.12 9-1-1 and 3-1-1
Some communities have expanded their basic 9-1-1 location identification telephone
service to include features such as “enhanced 9-1-1” registering name, address, and a
description of the building/site. It has become more common to use a “reverse 9-1-1”
system with which a community can send out a mass telephone announcement to every
number in the 9-1-1 system. Additionally, non-emergency 3-1-1 service can be used to
have people call to get information, such as locations of cooling shelters during a heat
wave.
4.6.13 Site Emergency Plans
Communities can encourage development and testing of internal emergency plans and
procedures, including continuity planning, by businesses and other organizations.
Communities should develop and test site emergency plans for schools, factories, office
buildings, shopping malls, hospitals, correctional facilities, stadiums, recreation areas,
and other similar facilities.
4.6.14 Conclusions
1. Using solid, dependable threat recognition systems is first and foremost in emergency
services.
2. Following a threat recognition, multiple or redundant warning systems and
instructions for action are most effective in protecting citizens.
3. Good emergency response plans that are updated yearly ensure that well-trained and
experienced people can quickly take the appropriate measures to protect citizens and
property.
4. To ensure effective emergency response, critical facilities protection must be part of
the plan.
5. Post-disaster recovery activities include providing neighborhood security, safe
drinking water, appropriate vaccinations, and cleanup and regulated reconstruction.
City of Cushing
212
4.7 Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities are generally aimed at preserving and restoring the
natural and beneficial uses of natural areas. In doing so, these activities enable the
beneficial functions of floodplains and drainageways to be better realized. These natural
functions include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Storage of floodwaters
Absorption of flood energy
Reduction of flood scour
Infiltration and aquifer/
groundwater recharge
Removal/filtration of excess
nutrients, pollutants, and
sediments from floodwaters
Habitat for flora and fauna
Recreation and aesthetic
opportunities, and
Opportunities for off-street
hiking and biking trails
Wetlands are a valued resource to ecosystems
and should be protected.
This Section reviews natural resource protection activities that protect natural areas and
mitigate damage from other hazards. Integrating these activities into the hazards
mitigation program will not only reduce the City’s susceptibility to flood damage, but
will also improve the overall environment.
4.7.1 Wetland Protection
Wetlands are often found in floodplains
and depressional areas of a watershed.
Many wetlands receive and store
floodwaters, thus slowing and reducing
downstream flows. They also serve as a
natural filter, which helps to improve water
quality, and provide habitat for many
species of fish, wildlife, and plants.
Wetlands
• Store large amounts of floodwaters
• Reduce flood velocities and erosion
• Filter water, making it cleaner for
those downstream
• Provide habitat for species that
cannot live or breed anywhere else
Wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Before a “404” permit is issued, the plans are
reviewed by several agencies, including the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Each of these agencies must sign off on individual permits. There are also
nationwide permits that allow small projects that meet certain criteria to proceed without
individual permits.
City of Cushing
213
4.7.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Farmlands and construction sites typically contain large areas of bare exposed soil.
Surface water runoff can erode soil from these sites, sending sediment into downstream
waterways. Sediment tends to settle where the river slows down and loses power, such as
when it enters a lake or a wetland.
Sedimentation will gradually fill in channels
and lakes, reducing their ability to carry or
store floodwaters. When channels are
constricted and flooding cannot deposit
sediment in the bottomlands, even more is
left in the channels. The result is either
clogged streams or increased dredging costs.
Not only are the drainage channels less able
to do their job, but also the sediment in the
water reduces light, oxygen, and water
quality and often brings chemicals, heavy
metals and other pollutants. Sediment has
been identified as the nation’s number one
nonpoint source pollutant for aquatic life.
Construction projects, which can expose
large areas to erosion, should be closely
monitored.
Practices to reduce erosion and sedimentation have two principal components:
1. Minimize erosion with vegetation and
2. Capture sediment before it leaves the site.
Slowing surface water runoff on the way to a
drainage channel increases infiltration into the
soil and reduces the volume of topsoil eroded
from the site. Runoff can be slowed down by
measures such as terraces, contour strip
farming, no-till farm practices, sediment
fences, hay or straw bales, constructed
wetlands, and impoundments (e.g., sediment
basins and farm ponds).
Erosion and sedimentation control regulations
mandate that these types of practices be
incorporated into construction plans. They are
usually oriented toward construction sites
rather than farms. The most common approach is to require applicants for permits to
submit an erosion and sediment control plan for the construction project. This allows the
applicant to determine the best practices for the site.
Lack of vegetation along drainage
channels promotes erosion
One tried and true approach is to have the contractor design the detention basins with
extra capacity. They are built first, so they detain runoff during construction and act as
City of Cushing
214
sediment catch basins. The extra capacity collects the sediment that comes with the
runoff until the site is planted and erosion is reduced.
4.7.3 River Restoration
There is a growing movement that has several names, such as “stream conservation,”
“bioengineering” or “riparian corridor restoration.” The objective of these approaches is
to return streams, stream banks and adjacent land to a more natural condition, including
the natural meanders. Another term is “ecological restoration” which restores native
indigenous plants and animals to an area.
A key component of these efforts is using
appropriate native plantings along the
banks that resist erosion. This may involve
“retrofitting” the shoreline with willow
cuttings, wetland plants, and/or rolls of
landscape material covered with a natural
fabric that decomposes after the banks are
stabilized with plant roots.
Studies have shown that after establishing
the right vegetation, long-term
maintenance costs are lower than if the
Retrofitting streambanks with willow cuttings
banks were concrete. The Natural
and geotextiles can be more cost effective than
Resources Conservation Service estimates
riprap or concrete-lined floodways.
that over a ten-year period, the combined
costs of installation and maintenance of a natural landscape may be one-fifth of the cost
for conventional landscape maintenance, e.g., mowing turf grass.
4.7.4 Best Management Practices
Point source pollutants come from pipes such as the outfall of a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. State and federal water quality laws have reduced the pollutants that
come from these facilities.
Non-point source pollutants come from non-specific locations and are harder to regulate.
Examples are lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm chemicals, animal wastes, oils
from street surfaces and industrial areas, and sediment from agriculture, construction,
mining and forestry. These pollutants are washed off the ground’s surface by stormwater
and flushed into receiving storm sewers, ditches and streams.
Best management practices (BMPs) are measures that reduce nonpoint source pollutants
that enter the waterways. BMPs can be implemented during construction and as part of a
project’s design to permanently address nonpoint source pollutants.
There are three general categories of BMPs:
1. Avoidance—Setting construction projects back from the stream.
City of Cushing
215
2. Reduction—Preventing runoff that conveys sediment and other water-borne
pollutants, such as planting proper vegetation and conservation tillage.
3. Cleansing—Stopping pollutants after they are en route to a stream, such as using
grass drainageways that filter the water and retention and detention basins that let
pollutants settle to the bottom before they are drained.
In addition to improving water quality, BMPs can have flood related benefits. By
managing runoff, they can attenuate flows and reduce the peaks after a storm. Combining
water quality and water quantity measures can result in more efficient multi-purpose
stormwater facilities.
Because of the need to clean up our rivers and lakes, there are several laws mandating the
use of best management practices for new developments and various land uses. The
farthest reaching one is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
4.7.5 Dumping Regulations
NPDES addresses liquid pollutants. Dumping regulations address solid matter, such as
shopping carts, appliances and landscape waste that can be accidentally or intentionally
thrown into channels or wetlands. Such materials may not pollute the water, but they can
obstruct even low flows and reduce the channels’ and wetlands’ ability to convey or clean
stormwater.
Many cities have nuisance ordinances that prohibit dumping garbage or other
“objectionable waste” on public or private property. Waterway dumping regulations need
to also apply to “non-objectionable” materials, such as grass clippings or tree branches
which can kill ground cover or cause obstructions in channels.
Many people do not realize the consequences of their actions. They may, for example, fill
in the ditch in their front yard not realizing that it is needed to drain street runoff. They
may not understand how regrading their yard, filling a wetland, or discarding leaves or
branches in a watercourse can cause a problem to themselves and others. Therefore, a
dumping enforcement program should include public information materials that explain
the reasons for the rules as well as the penalties.
Regular inspections to catch violations also should be scheduled. Finding dumped
materials is easy; locating the source of the refuse is hard. Usually the owner of property
adjacent to a stream is responsible for keeping the stream clean. This may not be fair for
sites near bridges and other public access points.
4.7.6 Conclusions
1. Wetlands play an important role in the natural course of flood control, preservation of
water quality, and wildlife habitation, making a strong case for their protection.
2. Erosion can be reduced by use of vegetation. Sedimentation should be captured
before it leaves its original location with oversized detention basins.
City of Cushing
216
3. Vegetation used along riverbanks works more effectively in river maintenance than
using banks made of concrete.
4. Nonpoint source pollutants are best managed by keeping construction projects away
from streams, reducing sediment runoff, and using grass drainageways and detention
basins for filtration.
5. Dumping regulations need to be communicated to the public and enforced.
6. The establishment and maintenance of wildlife habitat and natural ecosystems should
be an important aspect of any drainage system program the City of Cushing may
implement in regards to floodplain management. This can be developed in
cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, allowing
aquatic plants and wildlife to be established in stormwater detention ponds and
floodways.
City of Cushing
217
Chapter 5:
Action Plan
The City of Cushing has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the
natural hazards and hazardous material events that may impact the community. The
CHMCAC prioritized the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4, and developed an
Action Plan for the highest priority measures. This chapter identifies specific high
priority actions to achieve the City’s mitigation goals, the lead agency responsible for
implementation of each action item, an anticipated time schedule, estimated cost opinion,
and identification of possible funding sources.
Floods, Tornadoes, High Winds, Lightning, Hail, Severe Winter
Storms, Extreme Heat, Drought, Urban Fires, Wildfires, Earthquakes,
Fixed Site Haz Mat Events, Dam Failures, Transportation Events
1. Provide new/retrofit facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations
Center.
Lead:
Emergency Management, Fire, Police
Time Schedule:
2008-2010
Estimated Cost:
$5,000,000
Source of Funding: Local/General budget, Payne County, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Modern, secure Emergency Operation Center and 911
Center capable of operating during disasters or man-made emergencies through improved
communications equipment, weather warning systems and multiple site and data
redundancy.
2. Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers, install safe-rooms in
daycare centers, and provide manufactured home parks with community
Lead:
Community Development, Fire, & Police
Time Schedule:
2007-2010
Estimated Cost:
$5,000,000
Source of Funding:
Grant Funds as Available/Local Funds
City of Cushing
218
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Construction of safe rooms in vulnerable and critical
facilities to protect the vulnerable population of Cushing, namely children and inhabitants
of manufactured home parks.
3. Provide damage-resistant glass replacements for City Hall. When replaced,
install break resistant glass in government offices, and critical facilities.
Lead:
City Maintenance
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$75,000
Source of Funding: Local
Work Product/Expected Outcome: To remove plate glass windows and replace them with
safety glass. All windows currently installed will have a safety film applied to them
designed to prevent dangerous glass shards from forming when the plate is broken. In
addition, all broken windows will be replaced with new safety glass.
Floods, Tornadoes, High Winds, Severe Winter Storms, Extreme Heat,
Urban Fires, Wildfires, Earthquakes, Fixed Site Haz Mat Events, Dam
4. Obtain funding to develop/continue a program to inform the public on proper
evacuation plans for government buildings, businesses, offices, and residences.
Lead:
Fire Chief, Emergency Manager, Police Chief
Time Schedule:
2007-2008
Estimated Cost:
$2,000
Source of Funding:
Local Funds/Grant if available
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Updated warning and evacuation plans for buildings at
risk by identifying key evacuation routes and educating tenants of those plans.
Storms, Extreme Heat, Urban Fires, Wildfires, Earthquakes, Fixed Site
Haz Mat Events, Dam Failures, Transportation Events
5. Install Street Addresses on all buildings and curbs.
Lead:
Department of Public Works
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$33,800 ($8 x Number of Properties (4,225))
Source of Funding: Local
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Ability to identify the address of a structure rapidly to
keep response to an emergency call as short as possible and to identify structures affected
by a hazard (such as a flood or tornado), which will aid in reducing the loss of lives.
City of Cushing
219
Storms, Extreme Heat, Drought, Expansive Soils, Urban Fires,
Wildfires, Earthquakes, Fixed Site Haz Mat Events, Dam Failures,
6. Develop distribution centers in local libraries and City Hall where information
and safety guidance on natural and man made hazards can be provided to
citizens
Lead:
Emergency Management, City of Cushing
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$3,000
Source of Funding:
Local, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Work Product/Expected Outcome: A plan for the collection and distribution of hazard
preparedness and mitigation literature through public facilities to the citizens of Cushing.
Tornadoes, High Winds, Lightning
7. Designate individuals at city recreation facilities and schools that are educated in
storm spotting and safety, who have the authority to take proper action.
Lead:
Emergency Manager
Time Schedule:
2007-2008
Estimated Cost:
$50,000
Source of Funding:
Local Funds
Work Product/Expected Outcome: To have individuals at schools and other public
facilities frequented by children who can identify dangerous storms and tornadoes, and
who can coordinate proper safety precautions in a disaster event.
Tornadoes
8. Provide technical assistance in obtaining grants for storm shelters/safe rooms in
mobile home parks.
Lead:
Emergency Manager
Time Schedule:
2007-2009
Estimated Cost:
$10,000
Source of Funding:
Grant Funds as Available/Local Funds
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Construction of safe rooms in vulnerable facilities
with the intent of protecting citizens from tornadoes.
City of Cushing
220
Wildfires
9. Develop a contingency plan for evacuating population endangered by a wildfire.
Lead:
Fire Chief, Emergency Manager, Police Chief
Time Schedule:
2007-2008
Estimated Cost:
$20,000
Source of Funding:
Local Funds/Grant if available
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Updated warning and evacuation plans for areas at
risk by identifying key evacuation routes and shelter locations outside of wildfire hazard
10.
Institute a countywide public awareness and collection program for
household pollutants, illustrating their dangers and identifying disposal
information through media, schools, public offices, police, and fire stations.
Lead:
OEM, County Extension Offices, OEMA
Time Schedule:
2007-2008
Estimated Cost:
$20,000
Sources of Funding: State, County
Work Products/Expected Outcome: 1) Examine optimum methods of implementing
public information and education objectives concerning hazardous household pollutants
and local water/ground water resources 2) locate facility for collection and disposal of
hazardous household pollutants.
City of Cushing
221
Prioritized Mitigation Measure List for Cushing
Rank
Hazard
Mitigation Category
Mitigation Measure
1
Urban Fires, Wildfires, Earthquakes,
Fixed Site Haz Mat Events, Dam
Structural Projects
Provide new/retrofit facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations
Center.
2
Preventive Measures
Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers, install safe rooms in
daycare centers, and provide manufactured home parks with community
3
Preventive Measures
Provide damage-resistant glass replacements for City Hall. When replaced,
install break resistant glass in government offices, and critical facilities.
4
Heat, Urban Fires, Wildfires,
Earthquakes, Fixed Site Haz Mat
Events, Dam Failures,
Public Information and Education
Obtain funding to develop/continue a program to inform the public on proper
evacuation plans for government buildings, businesses, offices, and residences.
5
Storms, Extreme Heat, Urban Fires,
Wildfires, Earthquakes, Fixed Site
Haz Mat Events, Dam Failures,
Emergency Services
Install street addresses on all buildings and curbs.
6
Develop distribution centers in local libraries and City Hall where information
and safety guidance on natural and man made hazards can be provided to
citizens
7
Tornadoes, High Winds, Lightning
Preventive Measures
Designate individuals at city recreation facilities and schools that are educated
in storm spotting and safety, who have the authority to take proper action.
8
Tornadoes
Preventive Measures
Provide technical assistance in obtaining grants for storm shelters/safe rooms in
mobile home parks
9
Wildfires
Preventive Measures
Develop a contingency plan for evacuating population endangered by a wildfire.
Page 222
Cushing Mitigation Measures
Rank
Hazard
Mitigation Category
Mitigation Measure
10
Institute a countywide public awareness and collection program for household
pollutants, illustrating their dangers and identifying disposal information
through media, schools, public offices, police, and fire stations.
11
Develop an all-hazard public information and awareness program.
12
Property Protection
Update GIS to include public utility infrastructure.
13
High Winds, Severe Winter Storms
Preventive Measures
Encourage utility company tree trimming program to keep trees off power lines
during high wind and severe winter storms.
14
Floods
Develop and distribute flood and flash flood safety tips to inform citizens of the
dangers of flood waters
15
Floods
Preventive Measures
Prepare a comprehensive basin-wide Master Drainage Plan for all watersheds
within the jurisdiction. The plan should identify all flooding problems within
the jurisdiction, and recommend the most cost-effective and politically
acceptable solutions.
16
Lightning
Provide lightning warning systems for outdoor sports areas, pools, golf courses,
ball fields, and parks.
17
Hail
Work with insurance companies to provide a public information program that
communicates the advantages and costs of hail-resistant roofing.
18
Hail
Structural Projects
Provide hail-resistant measures/materials to protect existing public
infrastructure improvements.
19
Provide public awareness on effective ways to monitor and avoid ice damage,
frozen pipes, and snow loads on roof systems
20
Extreme Heat
Educate jurisdiction employees on the symptoms of heat disorders and how to
administer first aid.
21
Extreme Heat
Preventive Measures
Identify the vulnerable population and individuals at risk from extreme heat
22
Drought
Develop a public information program designed to communicate the potential
severity of a drought and the appropriate responses of the local population.
Page 223
Rank
Hazard
Mitigation Category
Mitigation Measure
23
Drought
Structural Projects
Develop a secondary, tertiary or extended water supply system.
24
Expansive Soils
Develop and implement a public information strategy that informs citizens and
developers of the dangers and costs related to expansive soils.
25
Expansive Soils
Preventive Measures
Educate builders on appropriate foundation types for soils with different
degrees of shrink-swell potential. For example, using "post-tensioned slab-ongrade" or "drilled pier" vs. standard "slab-on-grade" or "wall-on-grade"
foundations.
26
Urban Fires
Develop a public education project addressing the advantages of individual fire
suppression in residences, including fire extinguishers.
27
Urban Fires
Structural Projects
Apply for mitigation funding for fire hydrant meter backflow preventers.
28
Wildfires
Provide public information on controlled burns and use of fire-retardant
vegetation.
29
Earthquakes
Provide public information on earthquake insurance.
30
Earthquakes
Preventive Measures
Adopt residential building codes that require earthquake-resistant construction,
such as using foundation piers.
31
Distribute information identifying hazardous materials to at risk citizens, such
as the elderly, infirm, poor, and outside laborers.
32
Dam Failures
Prepare and distribute a public information document letting people know that
they reside or work in a dam failure inundation area.
33
Dam Failures
Preventive Measures
Annual inspection of all identified dams: shape of spillway, proper opening and
closing of gates, etc.
34
Preventive Measures
Assess risks and develop a plan for responding to hazardous materials incidents
on major transportation routes through the community
35
Preventive Measures
Define and mark hazardous material routes through the community
36
Tornadoes, High Winds, Lightning,
Heat, Earthquakes
Property Protection
Provide surge protection and backup power generators for computer-reliant
critical facilities (e.g. 911 Center, EOC, police stations, fire stations, etc.).
37
Urban Fires, Wildfires
Property Protection
Install fire suppression systems for all jurisdiction facilities.
38
Expansive Soils
Structural Projects
Identify and repair critical facilities that show evidence of or have expansive
soils-related damage.
39
Wildfires
Preventive Measures
Adopt ordinances regulating defensible space around structures in the
wildland/urban interface area.
40
Preventive Measures
Label sanitary sewer drains to warn citizens against dumping chemicals and
automotive fluids into the sanitary sewer drain.
Page 224
Rank
Hazard
Mitigation Category
Mitigation Measure
41
Storms, Extreme Heat, Urban Fires,
Develop an inventory of Special Needs populations requiring special assistance
during disasters.
42
Dam Failures
Preventive Measures
Provide dam monitoring equipment
Page 225
Chapter 6:
Plan Maintenance and Adoption
This chapter includes a discussion of the plan maintenance process and documentation of
the adoption of the plan by the Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee
and the Cushing City Council.
6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
The City of Cushing should ensure that a regular review and update of the Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan occurs. The CHMCAC should continue to meet on a quarterly basis, or
as conditions warrant, to oversee and review updates and revisions to the plan. The
Planning Department will continue to head the Staff Technical Advisory Committee,
which will monitor and oversee the day-to-day implementation of the plan. The plan will
be updated and resubmitted to ODEM and FEMA for approval every five years, as per
FEMA requirements.
Monitoring the Plan- Monitoring of the Plan, the Action Plan, and Mitigation Measures
is the responsibility of the City Manager, and Emergency Manager. Departments
responsible for implementation of the Action Plan and the Mitigation Measures will
update their Progress Reports on an annual basis, and report to the CHMCAC on progress
and/or impediments to progress of the mitigation measures.
Evaluating the Plan- The City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan will be
regularly evaluated by the Project Manager, and a report will be made to the CHMCAC
annually. The evaluation will include:
1. Adequacy of adopted Goals and Objectives in addressing current and future
expected conditions;
2. Whether the nature and magnitude of the risks have changed;
3. Appropriateness of current resources allocated for implementation of the Plan;
4. To what extent the outcomes of the Mitigation Measures occurred as expected,
and;
5. If agencies, departments and other partners participated as originally anticipated.
Updating the Plan- The City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated
according to the following schedule:
City of Cushing
226
1. Revise and Update- the City will incorporate revisions to the plan document
identified during the monitoring and evaluation period, as well as items identified
in the previous Crosswalk (April 2010 to September 2010).
2. Submit for Review- the revised plan will be submitted to ODEM and FEMA for
review and approval (October 2010 to September 2011).
3. Final Revision and Adoption- if necessary, the plan will be revised per ODEM
and FEMA remarks, adopted by the Cushing City Council and the updated plan
sent to FEMA prior to the expiration of the 5-year approval period (November
2011 to January 2012).
6.2 Public Involvement
The City of Cushing is committed to involving the public directly in updating and
maintaining the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Electronic copies of the Plan will be distributed to the public libraries, and the plan will
be placed on the City of Cushing’s Website.
Activities to Consider
1. Public meetings should be held prior to the severe weather season in Oklahoma,
probably in the spring. The general citizenry should be invited to attend so they
can be updated on the progress made during the year in implementing the plan,
stormwater plans and capital improvements, and related public infrastructure
capital projects. The meetings can also be used to distribute literature and inform
and educate citizens as to actions they can take to mitigate natural hazards, save
lives, and prevent property damage. Input from the citizens should be solicited as
to how the mitigation process can be more effective.
2. City utility bill supplemental literature and maps
3. Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to meet
on a monthly basis or as needed.
4. Public Service Announcements
6.3 Incorporating the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by the Cushing Planning
Commission as an amendment to the Cushing Comprehensive Plan. The Cushing City
Council has adopted the plan to guide City mitigation activities, land-use, and capital
improvements activities. Appropriate Action Items will be incorporated into the planning
process.
Appropriate Action Items and Mitigation Measures will be incorporated into the
following:
•
City of Cushing
City of Cushing Capital Improvements Plan
227
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive Plan
City of Cushing General Plan
City of Cushing Building Code
City of Cushing Emergency Operations Plan
The process to include the adopted Mitigation Measures into other local planning
mechanisms includes the following:
1. Mitigation Measures will be assigned to the appropriate departments for planning
and implementation.
2. The responsible departments will report to the CHMCAC on an annual basis as to
the progress made on each measure, identifying successes and impediments to
their implementation.
Included on the following pages of this chapter are Resolutions of Adoption of the
Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan:
1. Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee (CHMCAC)
2. Cushing City Council
City of Cushing
228
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Anchoring: Special connections made to ensure that a building will not float off, blow off or be
pushed off its foundation during a flood or storm.
Base Flood: Flood that has a 1 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year. Also known as the 100-year flood.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): Elevation of the base flood in relation to a specified datum,
such as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The Base Flood Elevation is used as the
standard for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Basement: Any floor level below grade.
Bedrock: The solid rock that underlies loose material, such as soil, sand, clay, or gravel.
Building: A structure that is walled and roofed, principally above ground and permanently
affixed to a site. The term includes a manufactured home on a permanent foundation on which
the wheels and axles carry no weight.
Community Rating System (CRS): A National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that
provides incentives for NFIP communities to complete activities that reduce flood hazard risk.
When the community completes specified activities, the insurance premiums of policyholders in
these communities are reduced.
Computer-Aided Design And Drafting (CADD): A computerized system enabling quick
and accurate electronic 2-D and 3-D drawings, topographic mapping, site plans, and
profile/cross-section drawings.
Consequences: The damages, injuries, and loss of life, property, environment, and business
that can be quantified by some unit of measure, often in economic or financial terms.
Contour: A line of equal ground elevation on a topographic (contour) map.
Critical Facility: Facilities that are critical to the health and welfare of the population and that
are especially important during and following hazard events. Critical facilities include shelters,
police and fire stations, schools, childcare centers, senior citizen centers, hospitals, disability
centers, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, emergency operations centers, and city hall.
The term also includes buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters,
such as hazardous materials facilities, vulnerable facilities, day care centers, nursing homes, and
housing likely to contain occupants who are not very mobile. Other critical city infrastructure
such as telephone exchanges and water treatment plants are referred to as lifelines. See Lifelines.
City of Cushing
A-1
Dam Breach Inundation Area: The area flooded by a dam failure or programmed release.
Debris: The scattered remains of assets broken or destroyed in a hazard event. Debris caused by
a wind or water hazard event can cause additional damage to other assets.
Development: Any man-made change to real estate.
Digitize: To convert electronically points, lines, and area boundaries shown on maps into x, y
coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude, universal transverse mercator (UTM), or table
coordinates) for use in computer applications.
Duration: How long a hazard event lasts.
Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated
within or along the edge of earth's tectonic plates.
Emergency: Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave,
tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, explosion,
or other catastrophe in any part of the United States which requires federal emergency assistance
to supplement State and local efforts to save lives and protect property, public health and safety,
or to avert or lessen the threat of a disaster. Defined in Title V of Public Law 93-288, Section
102(1).
Emergency Operations Center (EOC): A facility that houses communications equipment
that is used to coordinate the response to a disaster or emergency.
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): Sets forth actions to be taken by State or local
governments for response to emergencies or major disasters.
Emergency Response Plan: A document that contains information on the actions that may
be taken by a governmental jurisdiction to protect people and property before, during, and after a
disaster.
Extent: The size of an area affected by a hazard or hazard event.
Fault: A fracture in the continuity of a rock formation caused by a shifting or dislodging of the
earth's crust, in which adjacent surfaces are differentially displaced parallel to the plane of
fracture.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The independent agency created in
1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster
mitigation and emergency preparedness, response and recovery, which is now an agency under
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
FIPS: Stands for Federal Information Processing Standards. Under the Information Technology
Management Reform Act (Public Law 104-106), the Secretary of Commerce approves standards
City of Cushing
A-2
and guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
for Federal computer systems. These standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when
there are compelling Federal government requirements such as for security and interoperability
and there are no acceptable industry standards or solutions.
Fire Potential Index (FPI): Developed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
United States Forest Service (USFS) to assess and map fire hazard potential over broad areas.
Based on such geographic information, national policy makers and on-the-ground fire managers
established priorities for prevention activities in the defined area to reduce the risk of managed
and wildfire ignition and spread. Prediction of fire hazard shortens the time between fire ignition
and initial attack by enabling fire managers to pre-allocate and stage suppression forces to high
fire risk areas.
Flash Flood: A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at an
extremely fast rate.
Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry
land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation
or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline
land.
Flood Depth: Height of the flood water surface above the ground surface.
Flood Elevation: Elevation of the water surface above an established datum, e.g. National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, North American Vertical Datum of 1988, or Mean Sea Level.
Flood Hazard Area: The area shown to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude on a
map.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Map of a community, prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, which shows both the special flood hazard areas and the risk
premium zones applicable to the community.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS): A study that provides an examination, evaluation, and
determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations in a
community or communities.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA): A planning and project implementation
grant program funded by the National Flood Insurance Program. Provides pre-disaster grants to
State and local governments for both planning and implementation of mitigation strategies. Grant
funds are made available from NFIP insurance premiums, and therefore are only available to
communities participating in the NFIP.
Flood of Record: The highest known flood level for the area, as recorded in historical
documents.
City of Cushing
A-3
Floodplain: Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete inundation
by water from any source.
Floodproofing: Protective measures added to or incorporated in a building to prevent or
minimize flood damage. “Dry floodproofing” measures are designed to keep water from entering
a building. “Wet floodproofing” measures minimize damage to a structure and its contents from
water that is allowed into a building.
Floodway: The stream channel and that portion of the adjacent floodplain which must remain
open to permit conveyance of the base flood. Floodwaters are generally the swiftest and deepest
in the floodway. The floodway should remain clear of buildings and impediments to the flow of
water.
Freeboard: A margin of safety added to a protection measure to account for waves, debris,
miscalculations, lack of scientific data, floodplain fill, or upstream development.
Frequency: A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude are expected to occur.
Frequency describes how often a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent
typically occurs, on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year recurrence interval is
expected to occur once every 100 years on average, and would have a 1 percent chance – its
probability – of happening in any given year. The reliability of this information varies depending
on the kind of hazard being considered.
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Rates tornadoes with numeric values from F0 to F5
based on tornado wind speed and damage sustained. An F0 indicates minimal damage such as
broken tree limbs or signs, while an F5 indicates severe damage sustained.
Functional Downtime: The average time (in days) during which a function (business or
service) is unable to provide its services due to a hazard event.
Geographic Area Impacted: The physical area in which the effects of the hazard are
experienced.
Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer software application that relates
physical features on the earth to a database to be used for mapping and analysis.
Ground Motion: The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault
ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration
increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative
fault or epicenter, but soft soils can further amplify ground motions.
Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition. An event or physical condition that
has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property and infrastructure damage, agriculture loss,
damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. Hazards, as
defined in this study, will include naturally occurring events such as floods, dam failures, levee
City of Cushing
A-4
failures, tornadoes, high winds, hailstorms, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, drought,
expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires that strike populated areas, and earthquakes. A natural
event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property. For purposes of this study,
hazardous materials events are also included.
Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.
Hazard Identification: The process of defining and describing a hazard, including its physical
characteristics, magnitude and severity, probability and frequency, causative factors, and
locations or areas affected.
Hazard Mitigation: Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life
and property from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on
long-term risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness
and short-term recovery.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford
Act; a FEMA disaster assistance grant program that funds mitigation projects in conformance
with post-disaster mitigation plans required under Section 409 of the Stafford Act. The program
is available only after a Presidential disaster declaration.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: The plan resulting from a systematic evaluation of the nature and
extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards present in society that includes the actions
needed to minimize future vulnerability to hazards. Section 409 of the Stafford Act requires the
identification and evaluation of mitigation opportunities, and that all repairs be made to
applicable codes and standards, as condition for receiving Federal disaster assistance. Enacted to
encourage identification and mitigation of hazards at all levels of government.
Hazard Profile: A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of
various descriptors including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. In most
cases, a community can most easily use these descriptors when they are recorded and displayed
as maps.
HAZUS (Hazards U.S.): A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake loss estimation tool
developed by FEMA.
Hydrology: The science of dealing with the waters of the earth. A flood discharge is developed
by a hydrologic study.
Infrastructure: The public services of a community that have a direct impact on the quality of
life. Infrastructure includes communication technology such as phone lines or Internet access,
vital services such as public water supplies and sewer treatment facilities, and includes an area's
transportation system such as airports, heliports; highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds,
overpasses, railways, bridges, rail yards, depots, and waterways, canals, locks, and regional
dams.
City of Cushing
A-5
Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO): An insurance organization that administers several
programs that rate a community’s hazard mitigation activities.
Intensity: A measure of the effects of a hazard event at a particular place.
Landslide: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.
Lifelines: Transportation and utility systems that are essential to the function of a region and to
the well being of its inhabitants. Transportation systems include highways, air, rail, and
waterways, ports, and harbors. Utility systems include electric power, gas and liquid fuels,
telecommunications, water, and wastewater.
Liquefaction: The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose
strength and act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread
and loss of bearing strength.
Lowest Floor: Under the NFIP, the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including
basement) of a structure.
Magnitude: A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as
severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures specific to the
hazard.
Mitigation: Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and
property from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on
long-term risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness
and short-term recovery (Burby, 1998).
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): A federal program created by Congress in
1968 that provides the availability of flood insurance to communities in exchange for the
adoption and enforcement of a minimum floodplain management ordinance specified in 44 CFR
§60.3. The ordinance regulates new and substantially damaged or improved development in
identified flood hazard areas.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): Datum established in 1929 and used
in the NFIP as a basis for measuring flood, ground, and structural elevations, previously referred
to as Sea Level Datum or Mean Sea Level. The Base Flood Elevations shown on most of the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are
referenced to NGVD.
National Weather Service (NWS): Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal
storm warnings and can provide technical assistance to Federal and state entities in preparing
weather and flood warning plans.
Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (ODEM): The State department
responsible for hazard mitigation, community preparedness, emergency response, and disaster
City of Cushing
A-6
recovery. Previously known as Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
(ODCEM).
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB): The State agency responsible for
administration of the National Flood Insurance Program, and the dam safety program.
Planimetric: Describes maps that indicate only man-made features like buildings.
Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals,
policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.
Planning for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The process of planning (preferably prior to
an actual disaster) those steps the community will take to implement long-term reconstruction
with one of the primary goals being to reduce or minimize its vulnerability to future disasters.
These measures can include a wide variety of land-use planning tools, such as acquisition, design
review, zoning, and subdivision review procedures. It can also involve coordination with other
types of plans and agencies but is distinct from planning for emergency operations, such as
restoration of utility services and basic infrastructure.
Preparedness: Activities to ensure that people are ready for a disaster and respond to it
effectively. Preparedness requires figuring out what will be done if essential services break
down, developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan.
Probability: A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Project Impact: A program that encourages business, government agencies and the public to
work together to build disaster-resistant communities.
Reconstruction: The long-term process of rebuilding the community’s destroyed or damaged
buildings, public facilities, or other structures.
Recovery: The process of restoring normal public or utility services following a disaster,
perhaps starting during but extending beyond the emergency period to that point when the vast
majority of such services, including electricity, water, communications, and public transportation
have resumed normal operations. Recovery activities necessary to rebuild after a disaster include
rebuilding homes, businesses and public facilities, clearing debris, repairing roads and bridges,
and restoring water, sewer and other essential services. Short-term recovery does not include the
reconstruction of the built environment, although reconstruction may commence during this
period.
Recurrence Interval: The time between hazard events of similar size in a given location. It is
based on the probability that the given event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year.
City of Cushing
A-7
Repetitive Loss Property: A property that is currently insured for which two or more
National Flood Insurance Program losses (occurring more than ten days apart) of at least $1000
each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. While Repetitive Loss Properties
constitute only 2% of insured properties, they account for 40% of flood damage claims against
the NFIP.
Replacement Value: The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of
cost per square foot, and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a
building of a particular size, type and quality.
Retrofitting: Modifications to a building or other structure to reduce its susceptibility to
damage by a hazard.
Richter Scale: A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F.
Richter in 1935.
Risk: The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and
structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that
causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate or
low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard
event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity
of the hazard.
Risk Assessment: A process or method for evaluating risk associated with a specific hazard
and defined in terms of probability and frequency of occurrence, magnitude and severity,
exposure and consequences. Also defined as: “The process of measuring the potential loss of life,
personal property, housing, public facilities, equipment, and infrastructure; lost jobs, business
earnings, and lost revenues, as well as indirect losses caused by interruption of business and
production; and the public cost of planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.
(Burby, 1998).
Riverine: Of or produced by a river.
Scale: A proportion used in determining a dimensional relationship; the ratio of the distance
between two points on a map and the actual distance between the two points on the earth's
surface.
Scarp: A steep slope.
Scour: Removal of soil or fill material by the flow of flood waters. The term is frequently used
to describe storm-induced, localized conical erosion around pilings and other foundation
supports where the obstruction of flow increases turbulence.
Seismicity: Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.
City of Cushing
A-8
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): An area within a floodplain having a 1 percent or greater
chance of flood occurrence in any given year (100-year floodplain); represented on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps by darkly shaded areas with zone designations that include the letter A or V.
Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100107 was signed into law November 23, 1988 and amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL
93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities,
especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs.
State Hazard Mitigation Team: Composed of key State agency representatives, the team
evaluates hazards, identifies strategies, coordinates resources, and implements measures that will
reduce the vulnerability of people and property to damage from hazards. The Oklahoma State
Hazard Mitigation Team is convened by the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency
Management (ODCEM), and includes the State departments of Agriculture, Climatological
Survey, Commerce, Environmental Quality, Health, Human Services, Insurance, Transportation,
Wildlife Conservation, Conservation Commission, Corporation Commission, Historical Society,
Insurance Commission, Water Resources Board, Association of County Commissioners
(AACCO), Oklahoma Municipal League (OML), Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The representative of state government who is
the primary point of contact with FEMA, other state and Federal agencies, and local units of
government in the planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities.
Stormwater Management: Efforts to reduce the impact of stormwater or snowmelt runoff on
flooding and water quality.
Stormwater Detention: The storing of stormwater runoff for release at a restricted rate after
the storm subsides, or the flood crest passes.
Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood
Hazard Area whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would
equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage.
Surface Faulting: The differential movement of two sides of a fracture – in other words, the
location where the ground breaks apart. The length, width, and displacement of the ground
characterize surface faults.
Tectonic Plate: Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed
to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause
seismic activity.
Topographic: Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of
the land using contour lines. These maps may also include man-made features.
Tornado: A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.
City of Cushing
A-9
Vulnerability: Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability
depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like
indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the
vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power
– if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of
businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than
direct ones.
Vulnerability Assessment: The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard
event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of
hazard events on the existing and future built environment.
Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly
consuming structures.
Zone: A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that reflects the
severity or type of flooding in the area.
City of Cushing
A-10
City of Cushing
Cushing Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee
Cushing, Oklahoma 74023
February 5, 2004
4:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INTRODUCTIONS City Staff Technical Advisory Committee, Citizens
Advisory Committee, Consultants.
3. OVERVIEW OF MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS
a. Stafford 2000 Act Requirements
b. The 10-Step Planning Process
4. SELECTION OF HAZARDS TO BE INVESTIGATED
5. CHM CAC MEETING DATES AND TIME
City of Cushing
March 4, 2004
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. REVIEW MATERIAL AND HANDOUTS
a. Base Map, Vulnerable Populations, Critical Facilities, Tank Farms
and Hazardous Materials Info
3. DISCUSS ICS ROLE IN POLICE AND FIRE DEPTS.
a. Both Departments use the Incident Command System
b. Correctional Facility information including personnel, fire and
emergency response
4. CUSHING PUBLIC SCHOOLS MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
a. State Program Involvement
b. Safety Glass and protective films installed in existing and
replacement windows
5. FACILITY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
a. Police, Fire, Wastewater and Water Treatment Buildings are
Locked Down
b. Magnetic Locks recently installed in those facilities
6. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING EXERCISE DISCUSSED
7. NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED
a. April 8th @ 10:00 a.m.
8. ADJOURNED
City of Cushing
April 8, 2004
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. REVIEW CITY SUPPLIED MATERIALS
a. 2004 Aerial Photograph of Cushing and regional surroundings
b. EOP material
c. Public School Standard Emergency Operating Procedures
3. DISCUSS MATERIAL UPDATES & REVIEW PLAN STATUS
a. Examine current status of chapters 1,2, & 3
b. Discuss Community Vulnerabilities to Selected Hazards
c. Discuss Mitigation Strategies and Categories of Measures to be addressed
4. SET MEETING DATE
a. May 6th, 2004; 10:00 A.M.
b. City Hall
5. ADJOURN
City of Cushing
May 6, 2004
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. NEW BUSINESS
a. Review Agency Responses and Letters Received addressing MHMP
b. Review Quarterly Report Submitted to ODEM
3. DISCUSS MATERIAL UPDATES & REVIEW PLAN STATUS
a. Establish Community Goals for Hazards Addressed
b. Discuss Community Programs related to Hazard Mitigation and Public
Safety
c. Discuss Mitigation Strategies and Categories of Measures to be addressed
4. SET MEETING DATE
a. June 1st, 2004; 10:00 A.M.
b. City Hall
5. ADJOURN
Appendix C: Cushing Hazardous Materials Sites
Facility Name
Address
1 American Welding Supply
Contact
1502 E. Main
Chemical
Gases - Flammable
OXIDIZING, N.O.S.
(Including Refrigerated Liquids)
2 Cudd Pumping
Chemical ID
122
Michael McKay
Category
1789
5th & Little Ave
Chemical
157
CHLORINE
Steve Spears
Chemical ID
Substances - Toxic and/or Corrosive
1789
600 W. Cherry
Chemical
157
DIESEL FUEL
Gary Cordell
Guide Number
1993
128
1100 N. Maitlen Dr.
Chemical
CHLORINE
Steve Spears
(918) 225-2394
Category
Chemical ID
Gases - Inert
2400 S. Little
Chemical
Large Spill
157
Isolate spill or leak area immediatley for
at least 50 to 100 meters (160 to 330
feet) in all directions
1013
120
Consider initial downwind evacuation for
at least 25 meters (80 feet) in all
at least 100 meters (330 feet)
directions
1910
157
(Non-Combustible/ Water-Sensitive)
6 Evans Cushing
Initial Evacuation
1789
CALCIUM OXIDE
Large Spill
(918) 225-2395
Guide Number
CARBON DIOXIDE
Initial Evacuation
at least 25 to 50 meters (80 to 160 feet)
in all directions
(Non-Polar/ Water-Immiscible)
5 Cushing Water Plant
Large Spill
(918) 866-2463
Chemical ID
Flammable Liquids
Initial Evacuation
(918) 687-7543
Category
Large Spill
(918) 225-2395
Guide Number
4 Cushing Metals
Initial Evacuation
(918) 225-2394
Category
Large Spill
(405) 550-4570
Guide Number
3 Cushing Memorial Pool
Initial Evacuation
at least 500 meters (1/3 mile)
in all directions
(903) 988-2161
Chemical ID
24 Hour Phone
(918) 225-5101
Guide Number
1073
701 E. Grandstaff
Chemical
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
(918) 225-5101
Category
OXYGEN GAS, REFRIGERATED LIQUID
Day Phone
Ken Daves
Ron Burns
(504) 374-6000
Category
Chemical ID
(918) 225-0095
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
No Chemicals Reported Above Theshold
7 Kerr-McGee
1001 East Deep Rock Road
Chemical
CAUSTIC SODA, SOLUTION
Wann Hollabaugh
Category
(918) 225-7753
Chemical ID
1824
154
in all directions
1564
154
in all directions
(Non-Combustible)
BARIUM CHLORIDE
(Non-Combustible)
City of Cushing
(918) 352-2899
Guide Number
Page 1 of 3
Facility Name
Address
8 MFA Propane - Cushing
Contact
1520 E. Main
Chemical
PROPANE
Day Phone
Tammy Thompson
Category
(573) 442-0171
Chemical ID
Gases - Flammable
Guide Number
1978
115
1.75 miles N of hwy 33 & 18
Chemical
PROPANE
Tammy Thompson
Category
(573) 442-0171
Chemical ID
Gases - Flammable
1978
1020 N. Linwood
Chemical
115
Steve Dilley
Chemical ID
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
(918) 225-1111
Category
Large Spill
(918) 225-3310
Guide Number
10 Oilwell Fracturing
Initial Evacuation
9 MFA Propane - Cushing 2
24 Hour Phone
(918) 225-3310
(918) 225-6107
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
No Chemicals Reported Above Theshold
11 SW Bell - Cushing
401 E. Broadway
Chemical
SULFURIC ACID
SBC
(314) 235-4549
Category
Substances
Chemical ID
(314) 235-4549
Guide Number
1830
137
Water-Reactive - Corrosive
12 Williams Cushing
1.25 mi on Linwood Rd
Chemical
DIESEL FUEL
Doug Hammer
Category
Gases - Flammable
(918) 573-3200
Chemical ID
(918) 573-3200
Guide Number
1993
128
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
in all directions
13 Hudson Refinery - North
Chemical
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Chemical
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
14 Hudson Refinery - South
15 Ahrberg Milling Co., Inc.
200 South Depot
Chemical
16 Arkla Gas/Centerpoint Energy
Chemical
City of Cushing
(918) 225-0267
(800) 324-0267
202 N. Harrison
Page 2 of 3
Facility Name
Address
17 Cushing Regional Airport
Contact
Day Phone
24 Hour Phone
Tom Maloney Dr.
Chemical
18 Bills E-Z Out
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
Category
Chemical ID
Guide Number
Initial Evacuation
Large Spill
1107 E. Main
Chemical
19 Git-N-Go
2003 E. Main
Chemical
20 Oklahomas Oilwell Cementing
1218 S. Highland
Chemical
21 Oilwell Fracturing
403 N. Harmony Rd.
Chemical
Facilities on Tier 2 Reporting List with no local address
Arrowhead
AMOCO
ARCO
Conoco
Equilon
Duke Energy
GRDA
Haliburton
Lionel Harris Oil Co.
KOCH Pipeline
Kerr McGee
Kiska Oil
STG
Plains Terminal & Transfer
Conoco/Phillips (Buxton Terminal)
Spess Lease Operations
TPI Petroleum
Wiley Transformer
Williams Energy Services
Magellan
City of Cushing
Cushing Service Center
City of Cushing Power Plant
Quapaw Asphalt Plant
Maverick Mini-Mart
Page 3 of 3

City of Cushing Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

PPID (Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction) Cushing`s

Untitled - Georges River Land Trust

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

Fall 2007 - A.T. Still University

WOTOL poster

Misty May-Treanor September 26, 2014 FREE

to read the entire story - Northern Oklahoma College

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Fatal factitious Cushing syndrome

PDF file