Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover ... · Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border” 2012 - 2017 March 31, 2012

Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan

EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border”

2012 - 2017

March 31, 2012

Prepared by

THE RIO GRANDE INSTITUTE

Under authority of:

County Judge, Edwards, County, Texas County Commissioners Court

Mayor of Rocksprings, Texas

in partnership with officials from the Middle Rio Grande Development Council

This plan is part of the nine-County “Cover the Border: Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Middle Rio Grande Region”

For comments or more information, visit our website at:

www.riogrande.org

http://www.riogrande.org/

_________________________________________________________________________________ Edwards County, Texas DRAFT 3.31.12 “Cover the Border” Hazard Mitigation Plan

1

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1. Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 5

1.1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2. Participating jurisdictions .............................................................................................. 5 1.3 Planning partners ............................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Planning process.............................................................................................................. 6 1.4.1. Open public process .............................................................................................. 7

1.4.2. Hazard identification ......................................................................................... 11 1.4.3. Risk assessment ................................................................................................... 13 1.4.4. Mitigation strategies ........................................................................................... 13 1.4.5. Implementation and monitoring ...................................................................... 14

Chapter 2. Goals................................................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 3. Description of Edwards County................................................................................. 19

3.1. History ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.2. Watersheds ..................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Topography ................................................................................................................... 23 3.4. Climate ............................................................................................................................ 24 3.5. Population ...................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 4. Assets at Risk ................................................................................................................ 26 4.1. Study area definition..................................................................................................... 26 4.2. Assets at risk .................................................................................................................. 28 4.3. Critical facilities and infrastructure ............................................................................ 29

Chapter 5. Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................... 32

5.1. Introduction 5.1.1. Hazards addressed in this plan ................................................................... 32 5.1.2. Disaster declarations ..................................................................................... 32 5.1.3. Risk assessment process ............................................................................... 33 5.1.4. Loss estimates ................................................................................................ 34 5.1.5. Hazard profiles .............................................................................................. 36

5.2. Severe Thunderstorms................................................................................................. 38

5.2.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 38 5.2.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 39


2

5.2.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 40 5.2.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 40 5.2.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 40 5.2.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 41

5.3. Flooding ......................................................................................................................... 42

5.3.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 42 5.3.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 43 5.3.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 44 5.3.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 44 5.3.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 47 5.3.6. Vulnerability ................................................................................................. 47 5.3.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 48 5.3.8. Previous mitigation actions.......................................................................... 49

5.4. Hazardous materials incidents .................................................................................... 52

5.4.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 52 5.4.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 54 5.4.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 55 5.4.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 55 5.4.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 59 5.4.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 59 5.4.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 60

5.5. Wildland fire ................................................................................................................. 61


5.6. Drought........................................................................................................................... 68


5.7. Fuel pipeline failure ...................................................................................................... 72 5.7.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 72 5.7.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 72


3

5.7.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 73 5.7.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 73 5.7.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 76 5.7.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 76 5.7.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 77

5.8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 78

5.8.1. Summary of economic impacts .................................................................. 78 5.8.2. Optional mitigation actions considered ................................................... 80

Chapter 6. Mitigation action plans................................................................................................ 82 6.1. Edwards County action plan ....................................................................................... 83 6.2. City of Rocksprings action plan ................................................................................ 104

Appendices A. Edwards County Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee . ............................. 126

B. Cover the Border Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee ........................... 127

C. Adoption Resolutions (pending signature) ...................................................................... 130

D. Flood Studies....................................................................................................................... 132


4

Introduction

Edwards County, a sparsely populated county in the Middle Rio Grande region, is at risk from a range of natural and technological hazards, precipitated by weather events and accidents. Risks are likely to increase as weather patterns change and global temperatures rise. Located in the Middle Rio Grande region of Texas, exposure to hazards that can originate across the border presents a special challenge. While control of Mother Nature or human behavior may not be achievable, experience has shown that much disaster damage is preventable.

Edwards County faces great economic and social challenges, a declining population, and an inadequate infrastructure. However, under the leadership of the County Judge and the Mayor of Rocksprings, local officials are taking steps to protect people and property from disaster and a new vision for hazard mitigation is being Edwardsized.

This document, Cover the Border, Hazard Mitigation Plan for Edwards County, 2012 – 2017, was prepared by Edwards County and the City of Rocksprings under the auspices of the non-profit Rio Grande Institute and in partnership with the Middle Rio Grande Development Council. It is part of a nine-County plan for the Middle Rio Grande region. This Plan is a five-year blueprint for the future, aimed at making the County more disaster-resistant by reducing or eliminating the long-term risk of loss of life and property from the full range of disasters. It is designed to help build more robust and sustainable communities that, when confronted by disasters, will sustain fewer losses and recover more quickly. In addition, the Plan will serve as a basis for future funding that may become available through grant and technical assistance programs offered by the state or federal government.

This Plan identifies and assesses the potential impact of six hazards that threaten the County and sets forth mitigation actions and plans to reduce risk. Hazards include:

• Severe thunderstorms • Flooding • Hazardous materials incidents • Wildland fire • Drought • Fuel Pipeline failures

Chapter 1 addresses how the Plan was prepared and identifies the participants in the planning process. Chapter 2 articulates the vision, goals, and objectives that guided the development of the Plan. Chapter 3 profiles the County’s geography, population and economy. Chapter 4 identifies assets at risk. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the natural and human-caused hazards the may affect the County and analyzes them in terms of the probability and consequences of their occurrence. Chapter 6 sets forth proposed mitigation action plans to reduce risk.


5

1. The Planning Process 1.1. Purpose The purpose of this plan is to help make Edwards County more disaster-resistant by reducing or eliminating the long-term risk of loss of life and property from a range of natural and human-caused disasters.

1.2. Participating jurisdictions

This plan covers Edwards County and the City of Rocksprings. It was prepared by the participating jurisdictions under the leadership of the Rio Grande Institute and in partnership with the Middle Rio Grande Development Council. The County Judge and the Mayor of Rocksprings, provided leadership for the development of the plan. The Edwards County Emergency Management Coordinator, facilitated local coordination. Technical support was provided by Lacy Associates, LLC of Austin, Texas. AECOM Engineering conducted the risk assessment.

The Plan was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended, and the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 206). It was started in May 2004. In April 2010, participating jurisdictions joined the Rio Grande Institute’s nine-county regional Cover the Border: Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Middle Rio Grande Border. A draft was submitted to the State Division of Emergency Management on March 31, 2012. The State approved the Plan on _______ (date) and the draft was submitted for FEMA review on _______ (date).

1.3 Planning Partners The Rio Grande Institute

The Rio Grande Institute sponsored the development of this Plan which is an extension of the Institute’s Cover the Border plan for counties stretching from Pecos County to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The Institute is a non-profit organization headed by William C. Skeen. It is devoted to stewardship of the economic, cultural and natural resources of the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area. ( 0Hwww.riogrande.org).

Hazard mitigation is any sustained

action taken to reduce or eliminate

the long-term risk to human life

and property from all hazards.


6

The Middle Rio Grande Development Council The Middle Rio Grande Development Council worked in partnership with the Rio Grande Institute and the participating jurisdictions. Since 1970, the Middle Rio Grande Development Council has served the communities and residents in a nine-county region with services related to workforce development, planning and grant writing. With partner agencies, the Development Council is providing 911 emergency mapping and addressing, elderly ombudsmen and access to aging services. As operator for the Middle Rio Grande Workforce Board, the Development Council provides job seeker services to the unemployed members of the communities through nine workforce centers, one in each of the nine constituent counties.

1.4 The planning process

The process used to develop this plan was organized into five major steps. Each of those is addressed below. As you will note, many individuals participated in the planning process, each with unique roles. The Rio Grande Institute, under the leadership of Bill Skeen, President, managed the Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant; provided overall leadership and coordination with all participating jurisdictions; chaired meetings; provided technical support with the assistance of Lacy Associates, LLC and AECOM Engineering; coordinated with stakeholders and neighboring jurisdictions and with “Sister Cities” through the Transboundary Risk Assessment and Mitigation Project; and conducted outreach to the public by posting the plan on their website. The Middle Rio Grande Development Council issued meeting invitations; hosted the kick-off meetings and mitigation workshops; coordinated public notices and newspaper announcements; ensured the active participation of their Border Directors; and provided critical GIS data for maps.

Edwards County and Rocksprings participated in all aspects of the planning process, attending and actively contributing ideas at meetings. The County Emergency Management Coordinator served as the liaison with the County Judge and Commissioners Court; worked with individual Commissioners on issues of concern in their areas; served as liaison to the participating cities; served as facilitator at all local Committee meetings; organized the County’s open public meetings; and posted the draft plan. The Rocksprings Emergency Management Coordinator served as the liaisons with the Mayor and City Council; worked with individual Council members on issues of concern in their areas; served as liaison to the County; planned and executed City open public meetings; and posted the draft plan. Together with other team members, the Emergency Management Coordinator profiled hazards, assisted in the risk assessment, developed mitigation actions and action plans, and reviewed drafts.

From the outset, County and City officials were responsible for outreach to the public in their geographic areas. The public provided ideas and recommendations at public meetings and in writing. Lacy Associates, LLC, compiled the plan based on the active and extensive input from participants; monitored email comments; and developed proposed revisions based on comments received. AECOM Engineering conducted the risk assessment. The County Emergency Management Coordinator will have lead responsibility for implementing, monitoring, updating and amending the Plan, working in close coordination with the Rocksprings Emergency Management Coordinators.


7

1.4.1. Open public process (Step 1)

Planning Teams. The first step in developing the plan was to organize planning teams and establish an open public process. The process was started in May, 2004, under the leadership of the Middle Rio Grande Development Council. Starting on May 10, 2004 on the Southwest Texas Junior College campus in Uvalde, a series of workshops was held for all Emergency Management Coordinators in the nine-County Middle Rio Grande Region. The Development Council provided each Emergency Management Coordinator with computer disks containing local data, the State Division of Emergency Management Handbook, worksheets. Follow-up workshops were held at the regional and County levels. Appendix A contains a list of members of the local Edwards County planning team which was established in 2004. Each member of the Committee was asked to contribute input and guidance towards plan development.

Edwards County and Rocksprings also participated in Regional Cover the

Border Hazard Mitigation Planning activities. A Regional Cover the Border Committee was formed in April 2010 under the auspices of the Rio Grande Institute (Appendix B). It consists of cities and counties in the nine-County Middle Rio Grande region, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe, the Middle Rio Grande Development Council as well as local, regional, State and Federal government officials and stakeholders. The Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee held two Kick-Off Meetings to discuss the objectives, scope of work, the planning process, roles and responsibilities and the timeline. The Committee held four Mitigation Workshops to identify and rank hazards and develop mitigation action plans (Table 1.1). The Committee served as the principal mechanism to coordinate with neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academic, non-profits, and other interested parties. Mitigation actions were finalized in the regional workshops.


8

Kickoff Meeting, Uvalde Workforce Center Kickoff Meeting, Southwest Texas Junior College Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Middle Rio Grande Development Council Board of Directors April 8, 2010 Holiday Inn, Uvalde, April 28, 2010

Table 1.1. Cover the Border

Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meetings

Type

Location

Date Kickoff meeting Uvalde Workforce Center April 8, 2010

Kickoff meeting Uvalde Holiday Inn April 28, 2010

Mitigation Workshop Carrizo Springs Workforce Center June 8, 2010

Mitigation Workshop Eagle Pass Workforce Center June 9, 2010

Mitigation Workshop Uvalde Workforce Center June 10, 2010

Mitigation Workshop Eagle Pass Workforce Center June 16, 2010

Stakeholders. The planning process included coordination with the stakeholders

shown in Table 1.2. The stakeholders were invited to four Mitigation Workshops and Public Meetings held in June 8 - 10, 2010. They were also asked to submit any studies, data or other information on disasters affecting the County and ways to mitigate them. The Workshops, Public Meetings and solicitation of studies and email comments provided an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, non-profits and other interested parties to become involved in the planning process.


9

Table 1.2. Cover the Border Stakeholders

International Organizations

International Boundary and Water Commission American Red Cross International Services Good Neighbor Environmental Board

United States Federal Governmental Organizations

FEMA Office of International Affairs FEMA Region VI Department of Homeland Security Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Laughlin Air Force Base U.S. Department of Agriculture

State of Texas

Division of Emergency Management Texas Natural Resources Information System Texas Commission on Environmental Quality National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator Texas Water Development Board Texas Forest Service Texas Department of State Health Services Texas Department of Rural Affairs Water Master for the Rio Grande Texas Railroad Commission

Regional Government

Middle Rio Grande Development Council

Legislative

Texas Border Coalition The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, U.S. Sentate The Honorable Congressman Lamar Smith, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. District 21 The Honorable Carlos Uresti, Senator, Texas State Senate, District 19 The Honorable Harvey Hilderbran, Texas State Representative, House District 53


10

Public involvement. From the outset, the public was engaged in development of the

plan. In June, 2010, under the auspices of the Cover the Border planning initiative, three public Meetings were held to solicit input from the public (Table 1.3.) as the plan was developed.

Three Cover the Border public meetings, held in June 2010 during the drafting stage, were sponsored by the Rio Grande Institute in partnership with the Middle Rio Grande Development Council. In April 2010, an email site, [email protected], was established to obtain written comments and recommendations. The meetings and email address were announced in every major newspaper throughout the nine-county Middle Rio Grande region. The 2010 newspaper notices stated, in part:

Universities

Sul Ross State University Southwest Texas Junior College University of Texas Space Science Center, Austin Texas A&M University Colonias Research Center

Private sector

The H.E. Butt Foundation American Red Cross Chemical Response, Inc. Mundo Sustenable (Sustainable World)

Tribal

The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas

Table 1.3. Open Public Meetings

Sponsor Location Date

Cover the Border Public Meeting Carrizo Springs Workforce Center

June 8, 2010

Cover the Border Public Meeting Eagle Pass Workforce Center June 9, 2010

Cover the Border Public Meeting Uvalde Workforce Center June 10, 2010


11

“…We are seeking public input into the development of the plan. Public comments will be sought on disasters of concern and recommendations for action to prevent future disaster damage. Public meetings will be held in three locations throughout the Region (locations and times identified)….Written comments from the public are also welcome. They may be submitted by email to [email protected] or in writing to the Middle Rio Grande Development Council…”

A Hazards Survey of the Public was distributed to the participating jurisdictions to obtain structured feedback about hazards of concern and recommendations for mitigation action. The first draft plan was completed March 31, 2012. The draft plan was posted for public review and comment on the Rio Grande Institute’s website. Copies were also made available for public inspection and review at the following locations: (forthcoming)

Edward County Judge’s Office, County Courthouse

City Secretary’s Office, Rocksprings

Rio Grande Institute website, 3Hwww.riogrande.org

The public was informed on the project website how to obtain copies of the draft plan and was invited to make input into the draft. Formal adoption by the Governing Body of each participating jurisdiction is pending Federal Emergency Management Agency review of the plan; a copy of adoption resolutions are at Attachment C (signatures forthcoming after FEMA plan approval).

1.4.2. Hazard identification (Step 2) The hazard identification and risk assessment process was completed in May 2011. The County and City used the following process to identify the eight hazards addressed in this plan:

• Developed Hazard Profile Worksheets.

• Requested that stakeholders share existing hazard studies, plans, reports, data and technical information. These reports were reviewed and integrated into the plan. The Texas Water Development Board provided information on land and water bodies. The Middle Rio Grande Development Council and the Texas Natural Resources Information System provided Geographic Information System (GIS) information. The National Weather Service, U.S. Fire Administration, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided information on previous disasters. The Texas Forest Service, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Railroad Commission provided risk maps and incident data. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the University of Texas Spatial Sciences Center provided flood insurance studies and GIS data. FEMA also provided data on participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The International Boundary and Water Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA provided GIS data on dams that may impact the County. The State Comptroller provided economic data and the Texas State Data Center


12

provided population data. Local studies on the flood risk were also reviewed but the available data is limited (Chapter 5.3).

• Reviewed the State Mitigation Plan dated October 25, 2007 for information on State risks, strategies

and programs. The State Plan provided information on risk, especially that of flooding, and on various state and federal programs and funding sources that could be used to implement the mitigation actions.

• Reviewed numerous Federal, State and local agency websites and the following studies for risk information (see also Appendix D):

A review determined that there was no Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Edwards County, leaving residents without risk information necessary to make informed decisions on building and development.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Rocksprings, covering all Zone A, C and X, February 1, 1991 (original FIRM by letter) Good Neighbor Environmental Board Report to the President and Congress, March 2008, Natural Disasters and the Environment along the Rio Grande Border Drought Management Plan, State Water Management Process, Texas Water Development Board Texas State Data Center, 2000 U.S. Census Results Texas Almanac, 2010 – 2011 Mitigation Handbook, State of Texas, DEM 21 Texas State Comptroller, Bordering the Future: Challenge and Opportunity in the Texas Border Region, 1998 Quantifying Wildland Fire Risk in the South: the Southern Wildland Fire Risk Assessment, Sanborn Map Company, Inc. 2006 Texas 2008 Fire Season, Central Branch Significant Wildfire Report, Texas Forest Service, Wildland Urban Interface Division, March 1, 2009. Middle Rio Grande Development Council, Regional Strategic Plan 2000, February 2001

• Profiled and ranked hazards based upon previous occurrences and probability of future events; spatial impact; and impact on people and property.


13

1.4.3. Risk assessment (Step 3) The following process was used to assess risks. The risk assessment process is described further in Chapter 5.1.3.

• Developed a description of general vulnerability of the region to the hazard events.

• Mapped those hazards that have a distinct geographic boundary utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) technology.

• Performed risk assessments for hazards using FEMA’s Hazards U.S. Model (HAZUS) and similar modeling techniques.

Based on the results of the hazard identification and risk assessment, eight hazards were identified as priorities for mitigation action. These are discussed in detail in Chapters 5.2 through 5.7.

1.4.4. Mitigation strategies (Step 4)

Four regional Cover the Border Mitigation Workshops were held in June 2010 with participants and stakeholders throughout the Middle Rio Grande border region to develop mitigation strategies (Table 1-1). An inclusive and structured process was used to develop and prioritize mitigation actions, including:

• Formulated mitigation goals and objectives to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property.

• Developed optional mitigation actions based on review of the studies mentioned in 1.4.2; interviews with Federal, state and local officials; and the following plans:

Emergency Management Plan for Edwards County, Texas International Boundary and Water Commission Crisis Management Plan State Mitigation Plan, Texas Division of Emergency Management, October 25, 2007 Strategic Plan for the Middle Rio Grande Development Council, 2001 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Annual Report to the President and Congress Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico on Cooperation in Case of Natural Disasters, 1980 Colonias Comprehensive Plan, Texas Department of Rural Affairs, Texas Community Development Program

• Considered the benefits that would result from the mitigation actions versus the cost of those projects. Detailed cost-benefit analyses were beyond the scope of this plan. However, an economic evaluation was one factor that was used to select mitigation actions. Each mitigation action in Chapter 6 summarizes the benefit/cost considerations.


14

• Prioritized mitigation actions taking into consideration social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic and environmental criteria. The priority of each action is identified in Chapter 6. Criteria for evaluation and prioritizing actions included the following factors:

• Social – community acceptance; • Technical - technical feasibility and effectiveness in reducing losses over the long term; • Administrative – whether the County has adequate staffing and funding to execute and

maintain the project; • Political – the nature of risk (including transboundary risk) and implementation of

mitigation actions within a complex set of local, regional, state, Federal and international governmental entities;

• Legal - whether the County, which lacks zoning authority, can implement the actions; • Economic – comparison of the costs and benefits of the actions, and the state of the

County’s budget and need to maximize outside funding; and • Environmental – impact on the environment.

• Developed action plans identifying proposed actions, estimated costs and benefits, the responsible

organization(s), implementation schedule, potential funding sources and impact on existing and new buildings.

1.4.5. Implementation and Monitoring (Step 5) A formal process is in place to ensure that the plan is implemented and remains an active and relevant document. The County and City Emergency Management Coordinators will be responsible for overseeing evaluation, implementation and monitoring on an annual basis.

Implementation Each jurisdiction will be responsible for further developing and/or implementing the mitigation action plans contained in Chapter 6. Each action has been assigned to a specific organization within the County or City. The potential funding sources listed for each identified action may be used when the jurisdiction begins to seek funds to implement actions. An implementation time period or a specific implementation date also has been assigned to each action as an incentive for seeing the action through to completion and to gauge whether actions are implemented in a timely manner.

Within one year of adoption, the County and City will review and, as appropriate, integrate implementation of their mitigation action plans with existing internal jurisdiction plans and policies relating to capital improvements, land use, design and construction and emergency management. Examples include but are not limited to:

Decisions related to future development and capital improvements Underground Water Conservation District Rules

County All-Hazard Emergency Management Plan County Hazard Analysis, 2004

City floodplain management ordinance


15

The County and City will ensure that the actions in the mitigation action plans are reflected in these other planning efforts. These other efforts will be used to advance the mitigation strategies of participating jurisdictions. Although the County lacks zoning authority, the findings from this plan will be used to help guide decisions it makes about growth and development.

This Hazard Mitigation Plan will also become an Appendix to the Emergency Management Plan for Edwards County. Copies of this plan will also be provided to State, Federal and international officials for their information and use in updating the following plans:

International Boundary and Water Commission Crisis Management Plan State Mitigation Plan, Texas Division of Emergency Management, October 25, 2007 Strategic Plan for the Middle Rio Grande Development Council, 2001 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Annual Report to the President and Congress Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico on Cooperation in Case of Natural Disasters, 1980 Colonias Comprehensive Plan, Texas Department of Rural Affairs, Texas Community Development Program

Finally, copies of this plan will be provided to the other counties in the Middle Rio Grande border region through the Development Council for their use and use by their Mexican “Sister Cities” to foster coordination and cooperation on transboundary disasters.

Evaluation and Update Periodic revisions and updates of the Plan are required to ensure that the goals, objectives, and mitigation action plans are kept current. More important, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with Federal regulations and State statutes. The Emergency Management Coordinators of the County and City are responsible for continual monitoring of those components of the hazard mitigation plan that pertain to their jurisdictions. The Emergency Management Coordinators will assess any changes in risk; determine whether implementation of mitigation actions is on schedule or if there are any implementation problems; and identify needed changes in the plan. Based on these discussions, the Emergency Management Coordinators will prepare a report which will serve as the basis for revision of the plan. The first report will be prepared within one year of plan adoption and annually thereafter.

The Hazard Mitigation Plan will be formally reviewed every five years to determine whether significant changes may have occurred that could affect the Plan. Increased development, increased exposure to certain hazards, the development of new mitigation capabilities or techniques, and revisions to federal or state legislation are examples of changes that may affect the currency of the plan. Criteria to be included in the evaluation will include, at a minimum, whether:

• The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions;

• The nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks have changed;

• There have been changes in land development; and


16

• The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan.

The Plan also will be revised to reflect lessons learned from any disasters or changing conditions resulting from disaster events. The 5-year review will begin in December, 2016 and be completed by December, 2017. Committee members will be asked to review each goal and objective to determine its continued relevance; determine if the risk assessment should be updated or modified; report on the status of each mitigation action; and assess whether the mitigation actions should be revised. The results will be summarized in a formal report issued by each jurisdiction.

Amendments At any time, minor technical changes may be made to the plan to keep it up to date. However, any material changes to the mitigation actions or major changes in the overall direction of the plan or the policies contained within it must be subject to formal adoption by the Governing Bodies of participating jurisdictions. Any amendment to the plan must undergo an open public process. Participating jurisdictions will seek public input on any material change to the plan during a formal review and comment period of not less than 30 days.

At the end of the comment period, the proposed amendment and all comments will be forwarded to the Governing Bodies of each participating jurisdiction. If no comments are received from the reviewing parties within the specified review period, this will also be noted. The Governing Bodies will then review the proposed amendment and comments received and vote to accept, reject, or amend the proposed change. Upon ratification, the amendment will be transmitted to the Texas Division of Emergency Management. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered:

• Errors or omissions made in the plan;

• New issues or needs that were not adequately addressed in the Plan; and

• Changes in information, data, or assumptions on which the Plan was based.

Continued Public Involvement Input from the public was an integral part of the preparation of this plan and will continue to be essential as the plan evolves over time. As noted above, a significant change to this plan will require an opportunity for the public to make its views known.

Copies of the Plan will be kept for public review in each participating jurisdiction. Members of the public will be encouraged to comment on the plan and recommend changes. To make the public aware of the plan and the evaluation, update and amendment process, notices will be placed in the newspapers and on the Rio Grande Institute website. The email address for public comments will also be maintained ( [email protected]). Copies will be maintained at the following locations with the Edwards County Clerk, County Courthouse; and City Secretaries for Rocksprings and Camp Wood. It will also be published on the Rio Grande Institute’s website at 5Hwww.riogrande.org.

Once a year after adoption, the Commissioners Court and the City Council will be notified in an open public session that the plan is posted for public review and comments are welcome.


17

2. Goals The overall goal of this Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of loss of life and property damage from the full range of disasters. The mitigation vision of a safe, secure, and sustainable area includes:

• Buildings located outside of hazardous areas and built to withstand the hazards that threaten them;

• An effective and sustainable public infrastructure;

• Informed citizens and active volunteers protecting their families, homes, workplaces,

communities, and livelihoods from the effects of disasters; • Mitigation actions tailored to the cultural and economic diversity in the Middle Rio Grande

border region; • Partnership among local, State and U.S. Federal and Mexican governments, nonprofit

agencies, business, and individuals focused on reducing the loss of life and property from disasters; and

• Effective communication and coordination on cross-border disaster issues.

The goals and objective of this plan include:

GOAL 1 Heighten public awareness.

Objective 1.1 Heighten public awareness of hazards and actions that can be taken to reduce the loss of life or property.

Objective 1.2 Publicize and encourage appropriate hazard mitigation measures.

GOAL 2 Protect public health and safety.

Objective 2.1 Ensure that an adequate infrastructure is in place to protect public health and safety.

Objective 2.2 Establish a GIS-based flood warning system.

Objective 2.3 Protect critical facilities and services.


18

GOAL 3

Protect existing and new properties.

Objective 3.1 Reduce repetitive losses.

Objective 3.2 Ensure that development will not put people in harm’s way or increase threats to existing properties.

Objective 3.3. Acquire floodprone structures when economically feasible and encourage open space development.

GOAL 4 Maximize insurance coverage to provide financial protection against hazard events.

6H7H 8H

Edwards County Courthouse Source: TexasCourthouses.com

http://www.texascourthouses.info/edwards-county-courthouse-image.html




19

3. Description of Edwards County

The special characteristics of Edward County’s natural features, population and economy offer unique challenges for mitigation planning and will be an important part of this mitigation plan. They are described below. Edwards County is located in Southwest Texas east of the Big Bend country and 100 miles west of San Antonio. The center point of the county is 29°45' north latitude, 100°16' west longitude. The county encompasses 2,120 square miles of the 9HEdwards Plateau region. The elevation varies from 1,500 feet to 2,410 feet.

3.1 History

In 1858 the county was formed from Bexar County; the first land was sold in 1876. Edwards County was not officially organized until 1883. It was named for Hayden Edwards, one of the first American settlers of Nacogdoches. The county seat was originally Bullhead, which subsequently changed its name to Vance. Rock Springs (now Rocksprings) became county seat in 1891. In 1913, Real County was taken from the eastern section of Edwards County, thus decreasing Edwards County to its present size. The early settlers of this region soon realized that the area was not suitable for farming, but that it did supply ample natural food for sheep and angora goats. Ranching continues to control the economy of the county, with most available land still used for raising sheep and goats. Less than 5 percent of the county is under cultivation. The population of Edwards County increased from 266 in 1880 to 3,768 in 1910. The county saw a steady decline in population, for several decades to 2,933 in 1940 and 2,033 in 1980.0F

1

1 The preceding sections were excerpted from “The Handbook of Texas Online,” Texas State Historical Association: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/EE/hce3.html


20

3.2 Watersheds The county has six watersheds. Two lie within the Texas Gulf Region and the Nueces-Southwestern Sub-Region (the West Nueces and Nueces Headwaters Watersheds) and one within the same region but the Lower Colorado-San Bernard Sub-Region (the South Llano Watershed), Figures 3-2 through 3-4. Three lie within the Rio Grande Region, one in the Rio-Grande-Falcon Sub-Region (the Elm-Sycamore Watershed) and two in the Rio-Grande-Amistad Sub-Region ( the Dry Devils and Upper Devils Watersheds), Figures 3-5 through 3-7.

Figure 3-1. River Basin Map of Texas Source: The University of Texas


21

Figure 3-2 West Nueces Watershed

Figure 3-3 Nueces Headwaters Watershed


22

Figure 3-4 South Llano

Figure 3-5 Elm-Sycamore Watershed


23

Figure 3-6 Dry Devils Watershed

Figure 3-7 Upper Devils Watershed

Source: US Geological Survey 10Hhttp://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html

3.3 Topography The eastern section of the county has generally rolling terrain, with many hills and caves. The western region is typically flat. The county is situated upon a major limestone deposit surfaced with dark, calcareous stony clays and clay loams that principally support oak, juniper, mesquite, and cedar trees, as well as prairie grasses. Edwards County has more than fifteen natural springs that flow year-round; the headwaters of the Llano, Nueces, and West Nueces rivers are in the county. The vegetation,


24

temperature, and abundant water supply make this an ideal area for many types of game animals, including white-tail deer, javelina, turkey, and quail. The area is rich in iron ore and sulfur and has some silver deposits, though these have not been mined or developed.

3.4 Climate The temperature ranges from 34° F to 62° in January and 71° to 97° in July; the growing season lasts 250 days, beginning in mid-March and ending in late November.1F

2 3.5 Population According to the office of the Texas Comptroller, the 2008 population of Edwards County was 1,952, up 0.9 percent from 2007. The largest town was Rocksprings, population 1,159. The population was 48.9 percent white, 48.9 percent Hispanic, and 1.1 percent black. Residents under 20 years of age constituted 22.0 percent of the total as compared to 23.8 percent who were 65 years old and over. Enrollment in public education was 248 in one school with no institutions of higher education.2F

3 The Texas State Demographer mid-range population projections show declining total population in Edwards County after 2015(Table 3.1). 3F

4

Table 3.1 Projected Population of Edwards County

YEAR TOTAL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC OTHER 2010 2,283 1,143 3 1,125 12 2015 2,326 1,113 3 1,198 12 2020 2,320 1,049 3 1,256 12 2025 2,262 984 3 1,263 12 2030 2,173 894 3 1,264 12 2035 2,084 809 3 1,260 12 2040 2,001 733 3 1,253 12

2 http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/EE/hce3.html 3 Texas Comptroller http://www.texasahead.org/texasedge/run_report.html 4 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2008projections/2008_txpopprj_cntytotnum.php


25

The 2000 census documented several key characteristics of the county’s population.4F

5 • Residents born in the United States---88.9 percent • Residents who speak English only at home—53.3 percent • Residents who speak another language at home who speak English less than “very well”—17.7

percent • Residents 25 years of age and older who have less than 9th grade education—20.8 percent • Residents 21 to 64 years of age with a disability—21.5 percent • Residents 16 years of age and older in the labor force—52.3 percent • Residents below poverty threshold—31.6 percent • Housing structures lacking complete plumbing facilities—1.9 percent

5 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/data/census/2000/dp2_4/pdf/

The state comptrollers office provides economic statistics for Edwards County. • June 2010 total employment—981 • June 2010 unemployment rate—7.5 percent • Per capita income in 2008--$24,621 (as compared to $37,809 for all of Texas) • Largest employers as of 2008

1. Government—48.0 percent 2. Retail trade—15.0 percent 3. Natural resources and mining—9.3 percent


26

4. Assets at Risk

4.1. Study area definition Hazard identification consists of (1) defining the study area in terms of scale and coverage; (2) describing the inventory of people and property assets located within that area; and (3) collecting and compiling a list of prevalent hazards in the study area to help narrow the focus of the analysis. Table 4.1. provides a numeric breakdown of the County population by jurisdiction, including those with potential special needs. Figures 4-1 illustrates the extent of the study area for Edwards County, and the population density distribution of the Edwards County and the City of Rocksprings. Because of the large influx of summer tourists drawn to the natural beauty of the area, the population can increase by a factor of ten between Memorial Day and Labor Day. This large increase during the summer months places enormous pressure on local emergency services.

Table 4.1. Population Distribution by Jurisdiction

Special Needs Population Jurisdiction Total Population

(2000) Elderly (Over 65)

Low Income (</= $25k)

Edwards County 877 83 126 Rocksprings 1,285 72 268

Source: Middle Rio Grande Development Council; HAZUS-MH Edwards County is serviced by two major U.S. highways. Highway 55 and 377 both pass through Rocksprings.


27

Figure 4-1. Population Density Distribution Map for Edwards County


28

4.2. Assets at risk The demographic and building stock inventory data derived from HAZUS-MH MR4 (Version 1.4, August 2009) forms the basis of the risk assessment presented in this report. Table 4.2 provides building count and the total estimated dollar exposure (i.e., replacement value) according to key occupancy classes for each participating jurisdiction.

Table 4.2. Building Distribution by Key Occupancy by Jurisdiction (2006 Valuations)

Residential Buildings Commercial Buildings Other Buildings Total (All Buildings) Jurisdiction

Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value

Edwards County 875 $57,903,000 29 $5,615,000 20 $12,776,000 924 $76,294,000 Rocksprings 836 $41,596,000 6 $935,000 3 $294,000 845 $42,825,000

Source: HAZUS-MH Table 4.3 includes the amount (kilometers) of oil and gas pipelines, highways and railways; and the number of hazardous materials sites (i.e., includes georeferenced TRI and Tier II sites) in the study area according to data made available through the Railroad Commission of Texas, HAZUS-MH and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table 4.3. Infrastructure, Lifelines, and Hazardous Materials by Jurisdiction

Infrastructure and Lifelines Hazardous Materials Facilities

Jurisdiction Oil Pipeline (km)* Gas Pipeline

(km)* Highway (km)** Railroad (km)** Number of Sites***

Edwards County 0 924.32 249.84 0 31 Rocksprings 0 0.93 3.85 0 1

*Source: Railroad Commission of Texas **Source: HAZUS-MH ***Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


29

4.3. Critical facilities and infrastructure Table 4.4 provides a list of the critical facilities that were included in the risk assessment as generated by HAZUS-MH). Geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) were used to determine the location of each critical facility within each jurisdiction. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 illustrate the location of critical facilities in Edwards County and Rocksprings, respectively.

Table 4.4. Critical Facilities in Edwards County Generated by HAZUS-MH

Jurisdiction Name Type Replacement Value

Rocksprings EDWARDS COUNTY Airport $10,651,000 Rocksprings EDWARDS COUNTY SHERIFF Police Station $1,246,000 Rocksprings ROCKSPRINGS ALTER ED PGM School $12,000 Rocksprings ROCKSPRINGS ELEMENTARY School $1,968,000 Rocksprings ROCKSPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL School $1,536,000 Camp Wood NUECES CANYON ELEMENTARY School $1,478,000 Barksdale NUECES CANYON JUNIOR / HIGH SCHOOL School $2,032,000

Source: HAZUS-MH


30

Figure 4-2. Critical Facilities in Edwards County Generated by HAZUS-MH


31

Figure 4-3. Critical Facilities in Rocksprings Generated by HAZUS-MH


32

5. Risk Assessment

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. Hazards addressed in the plan Edwards County is subject to frequent disasters. Drought and flooding are the primary hazards as measured in economic losses. Edwards County is also subject to other disasters such as wildland fire, severe thunderstorms, fuel pipeline failures and hazardous materials incidents. Because of its relative proximity to the border with Mexico, Edwards County is also subject to transboundary risks that threaten lives, property and the natural environment across the border in either direction. These include natural disasters or catastrophic accidents which may pose a threat on either side of the border or that may affect a border jurisdiction to the extent that assistance is necessary. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team used a formal process to identify the potential to impact the participating jurisdictions. This process is described below. The hazards addressed in the plan are listed below:

• Severe thunderstorms • Flooding • Hazardous materials incidents • Wildland fire • Drought • Fuel pipeline failure 5.1.2. Presidential disaster declarations

There have been 1,938 Major Disaster Declarations in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and eight U.S. territories between 1953 and October 2010. The State of Texas claims the highest number of disaster declarations, at 84, for any state or territory. Since 1953, Edwards County has experienced six natural disasters severe enough to receive a Major Disaster Declaration or Emergency Declaration (Table 5.1.). The County has also experienced additional emergencies or disasters not severe enough to require Federal disaster relief through a Presidential declaration. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in the Fall, 2011 that emergency loans would be made to farmers and ranchers in Texas counties, including this county, that have suffered losses caused by drought, high winds, and wildfire. The county has also experienced additional emergencies and disasters that were not severe enough to require federal disaster relief through a presidential declaration and/or went unreported due to the sparse population.


33

Table 5.1. Presidential Disaster Declarations for Edwards County, 1953–2010

Event Declaration Date

Declaration Number

Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding 06/29/2007 1709 Extreme Wildfire Threat 01/11/2006 1624 Hurricane Rita 09/24/2005 1606 Tropical Storm Charley 08/26/1998 1239 Severe Storms and Flooding 07/29/1997 1179 Wildfires 03/14/2008 3284

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency The Planning Committee considered the Presidential Disaster Declarations and decided to address the effects of dying tropical storms and hurricanes under Section 5. 3., Flooding. Because Edwards County is so far inland, it does not generally experience direct hits from tropical storms or hurricanes. Tropical Storm Charlie was the result of multiple, degraded storms that caused massive rainfall that filled rivers and streams and drainage systems and resulted in flooding in Edwards and nearby counties. Hurricane Rita was a statewide declaration not directly affecting Edwards County.

5.1.3. Risk Assessment process

Identification of hazards. Risk is the probability of occurrence multiplied by the

consequences. The six hazards addressed in this plan were selected using the multi-step process described below. The risk assessment process was started in May 2004 by the Edwards County Mitigation Planning Committee and continued as part of the Rio Grande Institute’s Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan with the development of a formal Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment conducted by AECOM Engineering. The Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Planning Team started this risk assessment on April 2, 2010 and completed it in May, 2011. The risk assessment process is described below followed by the results of the analyses. The Team first identified prevalent natural and human-caused hazards of concern. The Team reviewed:

• State Hazard Profile Worksheets and Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Worksheets developed by the Edwards County Mitigation Planning Committee;

• History of Presidential Disaster Declarations;

• Existing studies, plans, reports, and technical information from FEMA, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fire Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Forest Service and the Texas Geographic Society for data on potential hazards and information to aid in the risk assessment; and,


34

• The State Hazard Mitigation Plan, which provides an overview of hazards of concern to the state, assesses risk, and establishes state priorities for mitigation actions to be undertaken.

• Edwards County All Hazard Emergency Management Plan and Annexes

• Rocksprings residential building requirements for floodplain management

• Texas Almanac

Risk assessment. To assess risks, the Team:

• Screened a full range of natural and man-caused hazards that could affect the County.

• Profiled hazard events, providing information on previous occurrences and probability of future hazard events; extent of spatial impact; and magnitude of impact on people and property.

• Developed a description of general vulnerability of the region to the hazard events.

• Conducted an inventory of assets at risk in terms of buildings and critical facilities, lifelines and infrastructure utilizing data in FEMA’s Hazards United States-Multi-Hazards (HAZUS-MH) model.

• Mapped those hazards that have a distinct geographic boundary utilizing Geographic Information System technology.

• Performed risk assessments for selected hazards using FEMA’s two distinct methodologies utilizing HZUS-MH, FEMA’s loss estimation software, and a statistical risk assessment methodology. Each approach provides estimates for the potential impact by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation.

• Ranked the hazards in terms of previous events and exposure, annualized losses or annualized loss ratios depending upon the available data.

5.1.4. Loss estimates

The Hazards U.S. – Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) software was used to estimate losses from flood hazards. A similar statistical risk assessment methodology was applied to analyze hazards outside the scope of the HAZUS-MH software. The HAZUS-MH methodology uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risk to predict a hazard’s frequency of occurrence and estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information. Below is a brief description of both approaches.

HAZUS-MH. HAZUS-MH is FEMA’s standardized loss estimation software program built upon an integrated Geographic Information System . This risk assessment applied HAZUS-MH MR-2 to produce regional profiles and estimate losses for wind, earthquake, and flooding using the HAZUS-MH default building stock inventory data.


35

Statistical risk assessment methodology. Risks associated with other hazards were analyzed using a statistical assessment methodology. Historical data for each hazard were used. Manual calculations were used to perform the statistical risk assessment methodology. It involved:

1. Compilation of data from the following sources; 2. Adjustment of the data for inflation, population growth and distribution; 3. Identification of patterns in frequency, intensity, vulnerability and loss; and, 4. Identification of patterns and development of annualized loss estimates.

The economic loss results are presented here using two interrelated risk indicators, depending upon available data: • The Annualized Loss (AL), which is the estimated average value of losses to property in any single

year; or, • The Annualized Loss Ratio (ALR), which expresses estimated annualized loss as a fraction of the

replacement value of local inventory, normalized by property replacement value. The ratio is calculated using the following formula:

ALR = Annualized Losses / Total Exposure

The annualized loss ratio gauges the relationship between average annualized loss and replacement value. This ratio can be used as a measure of vulnerability in the areas and, since it is normalized by replacement value, it can be directly compared across different geographic units such as metropolitan areas or counties.


36

5.1.5. Hazard profiles

The hazards addressed in this plan differ in important ways, such as in their predictability, length of warning time, speed of onset, magnitude, scope, duration of impact, and possibilities of secondary impacts. At the Mitigation Workshops, local officials assessed the probability of future occurrence, spatial impact and severity of impact of each hazard. The information helped identify hazards to be addressed and determine which mitigation measures should be adopted. Definitions are:

Probability of Future Events. The probability of future occurrence, or chance of occurrence, is defined using four rankings, as shown in Table 5.2. below.

Table 5.2. Probability of Future Events

Highly likely An event probable in next year Likely An event probable in next 2-3 years Possible An event possible in next 4-5 years Unlikely An event is unlikely in the next 10 years

Spatial Extent. The spatial extent of the hazard is defined using four rankings, as

shown in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3. Spatial Extent

Large Expected to affect more than 50% of people and/or property

Moderate Expected to affect 25% to 50% of people and/or property

Limited Expected to affect 10% to 25% of people and/or property

Minimal Expected to affect less than 10% of people and/or property

Severity of Impact. The severity of impact is defined using four rankings, as shown in

Table 5.4. below.

Table 5.4. Severity of Impact

Deaths/Injuries Shutdown of Facilities Percent Property

Destroyed

Catastrophic High number of injuries and deaths

Complete shutdown for 30 days or more

More than 50% damaged or destroyed

Critical Multiple deaths or injuries

Complete shutdown for a week to 30 days

25% to 50% of property damaged or destroyed

Limited Minor injuries only Complete shutdown of facilities for 1 day to 1 week

10% to 25% of property damaged or destroyed

Minor Few if any injuries Shutdown of facilities only temporary

Less than 10% of property damaged or destroyed


37

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5.5. below. These profiles were based on experience and perception of risk provided by local officials during the Kickoff and Mitigation Workshops in April and June, 2010, respectively. The profiles were subsequently refined based upon Geographic Information System modeling results and other, more formal analyses conducted by AECOM Engineering (see Sections 5.2 through 5.7).

Table 5.5. Hazard profiles Edwards County and Rocksprings

Hazard Probability of Occurrence Spatial Extent

Severity of Impact

Severe thunderstorm Highly likely Limited Minor

Flooding Highly likely Large Critical

Hazardous materials incidents – fixed and mobile Highly likely Limited Limited

Wildland fire Highly Likely Moderate Critical

Drought Possible Large Critical


38

5.2. Severe Thunderstorms

5.2.1. Description of the hazard

Thunderstorms occur frequently in Edwards County, but are usually not reported or under-reported due to the County’s small population. Although they can occur year round, the peak season is in the late spring and early summer. Most thunderstorms in Edwards County occur in the afternoon and early evening as the ground warms from the sun. Thunderstorms may be associated with lightening, hail, tornadoes, torrential rains, and flash flooding conditions. They are also capable of producing straight-line winds and micro-bursts of extreme power.

Hail storms are also a major concern associated with severe weather. Hail can cause severe damage to crops and livestock, property, and can cause severe injury and possibly death to humans who happen to be caught in the open during a hailstorm. Hailstones can vary in size from a few centimeters in diameter to several inches in diameter and the larger the hailstone, the greater the amount of damage incurred. Like other weather related events, hailstorms can occur year round. Duration and intensity varies from periodic hailstones mixed with rain to an extended hailstorm lasting minutes to several hours. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), thunderstorms form when clouds develop sufficient upward motion and are cold enough to generate and separate electrical charges within a cloud, most typically a cumulonimbus cloud. Hail often accompanies thunderstorms. Ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to warm air rising rapidly into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm.

Hail ranges in size from very small particles to baseball size. Its shape can be spherical, conical or irregular in shape. The violence of the storm cell governs the size and shape of the hailstones; the lift and falling of the freezing pellet within the storm cell increases the size of the stone until it is ejected from the cloud. Lightning is another threat that often accompanies thunderstorms. Lighting is generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud, and the discharge of a lightning bolt interacts with the best conducting object or surface on the ground. The air channel of a lightning strike reaches temperatures higher than 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The rapid heating and cooling of the air near the channel causes a shock wave, which produces thunder.


39

5.2.2. Measurement There is no single measurement for thunderstorms. By definition, the National Weather Service classifies a thunderstorm as severe if it contains hail of three-quarter inches or larger, and/or wind gusts of 58 mph or higher, and/or a tornado. Wind damage is measured on the Beaufort scale; hailstorms are classified according to the combine National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/TORRO Hailstorm Intensity Scales. A severe thunderstorm would constitute a disaster for Edwards County.

5.2.3 Previous occurrences Thunderstorms occur frequently in Edwards County, but are usually not officially reported due to the County’s small population. Although they can occur year round, the peak season is in the late spring and early summer. Most thunderstorms in Edwards County occur in the afternoon and early evening as the ground warms from the sun. Thunderstorms may be associated with lightening, hail, tornadoes, torrential rains, and flash flooding conditions. They are also capable of producing straight-line winds and micro-bursts of extreme power. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were official reports of only two occasions between May 1964 and February 2010 in which thunderstorms resulted in winds of at least 50 knots in Edwards County, although it is very likely that many other events have not been reported. (Table 5.6.).

TABLE 5.6 THUNDERSTORM WINDS OF AT LEAST 50 KNOTS MAY 1964-FEBRUARY 2010

EDWARDS COUNTY

Location Date Magnitude Property Damage Crop Damage

Barksdale 6/24/1995 52 kts. $0 $0 Carta Valley 5/1/2010 50 kts. $2,000 $0

Total $2,000 $0

Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service


40

Hail over 3.0 inches in diameter was reported in Edwards County on one occasion between 1950 and 2010 (Table 5.7.). The hazard from hail is primarily to crops and property. Hail tends to fall in paths which may be from 10 to over a hundred miles in length and up to 30 miles wide. A hail swath is not a continuous path but consists of a series of strikes produced by individual storm cells traversing the same general area. A typical hail strike will cover about a 2.5 square mile area. Although there are no official records of lightening events in Edwards County, lightening is frequently associated with thunderstorms. Lightening is the effect from the friction of air masses moving across each other. Lightening damage results from four effects of the lightening strike: electrocution of humans and animals; vaporization of materials along the path of the strike; fire caused by the high temperature of the strike; and a sudden increase in current in the associated power grid damaging electrical and electronic equipment. Although property damage is the principal hazard associated with lightening strikes, lightening kills more people each year in the United States than either tornadoes or hurricanes.

5.2.4. Geographic areas affected It cannot be predicted where a severe thunderstorm will occur. All the population, buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, and hazardous materials facilities in Edwards County are considered equally exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted.

5.2.5. Probability of future disasters A severe thunderstorm is highly likely, with an event probable in the next year. In light of previous occurrences, hail in excess of 3.0 inches may be expected. Expected wind speeds are 50 knots.

5.2.6. Vulnerability

A severe thunderstorm is expected to cover a geographic area and is expected to affect 10 - 25% of property.

TABLE 5.7. HISTORICAL EVENTS OF HAIL OF AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES DIAMETER EDWARDS COUNTY 1950-2010

SIZE OF HAIL

1.5 IN TO 2.0 IN

>2.0 IN TO 2.5

IN

>2.5 IN TO 3.0 IN

>3.0 IN

Number of Events 24 2 0 1 Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service


41

5.2.7. Potential impact The spatial extent of a thunderstorm (i.e., how large an area is affected) is expected to be limited, affecting 10 – 25% of people and/or property. Severity of impact (i.e., severity of damage within the affected area), is expected to be minimal with less than 10 % of property affected. No estimate is available of the economic damages to Edwards County from severe thunderstorms. Winds in excess of 58 miles per hour can break or uproot trees, damage roofs and cause considerable structural damage. Hail of .75 inches in diameter is too small to cause personal injury or serious property damage, except to crops. However, extreme hailstones can total cars, ruin roofs, break windows, damage shutters, kill animals and seriously hurt or kill humans. There may be a temporary shutdown of facilities. Lightning damage can result in electrocution of humans and animals; vaporization of materials along the path of the strike; fire caused by the high temperature produced by the strike, and a sudden power surge that can damage electrical and electronic equipment, including on electric utility substations and distribution lines. While property damage is the major hazard associated with lightning, it should be noted that lightning strikes kill nearly 100 people each year in the United States.


42

5.3. Flooding 5.3.1. Description of the hazard Floods and drought are by far Edward County’s most frequent and costly disasters. Among the principal causes of flooding in the County are poorly defined or inadequate channels coupled with torrential rainfall, severe local thunderstorms of short duration and general storms lasting several days. These events sometimes cause heavy run-off from the surrounding hilly terrain resulting in severe flooding along local inland waterways. Flooding risk is limited primarily to the unincorporated areas of the County. While Rocksprings has some residential properties and one critical facility potentially exposed to flooding, fortunately annualized losses were determined to be zero according to the analysis which follows. The heavy rains generally associated with thunderstorms often cause wide-spread flash flooding within Edwards County. Due to the nature of the terrain, flash flooding renders roads impassable at low water crossings and stream crossings. Flash flooding events at times cause waters to rise to the point of impacting homes and businesses. It is not uncommon to receive a large amount of fast moving water, especially along the watercourses and near stream beds. Flood damage is caused by flash flooding, degraded tropical systems that can overflow streams and tributaries, cause localized flooding due to inadequate drainage systems and overflow of shallow floodplains. Hurricanes and tropical storms are not a direct threat to the County and therefore not addressed as a separate hazard in this Plan. However, flooding may be due to torrential rainfall associated with the remnants of degraded hurricanes or tropical storms which may stall and threaten flooding in inland areas. Flooding may also be due to severe local thunderstorms of short duration or more routine storms lasting several days. These events sometimes cause heavy run-off from the surrounding terrain resulting in severe flooding along local waterways. Flooding can be dangerous to vehicle drivers and pedestrians, who may be swept away as they try to cross flooded areas. Flooding can cause severe damage to buildings and disrupt transportation systems, critical utilities (water, sanitary sewers, electricity, data networks, and communications), commerce, and emergency services. Flooding-related health hazards include exposure to raw sewage, bacteria, mold, and viruses. The capital damages to buildings and their contents can be significant, in addition to lost revenue, decreased productivity, delays and drains on resources due to clean-up, and expenses to rebuild. Adverse impacts can result from utility outages and damage to critical facilities. Types of flooding affecting the County are:


43

Riverine Flooding. Riverine flooding is the overbank flooding of rivers, tributaries and

streams. Both natural and inevitable, such flooding typically results from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area.

Flooding from degraded tropical systems. Edwards County is far enough inland not to be affected by the brunt of hurricane force winds. However, the torrential rains and tornadoes they bring can affect the area and fill streams and tributaries. Tropical storms that may bring rain to the County are the remnants of degraded Gulf Coast hurricanes that have made landfall on the coast and have been downgraded. These storms have generally made landfall somewhere between the Matagorda Bay area and just south of the Corpus Christi area. As the warm Gulf air of the tropical event meets the cooler air of the region, torrential rain may result.

Flash Flooding. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, by

thunderstorms repeatedly moving over the same area, or by heavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms. Flash floods can occur within a few minutes or after hours of excessive rainfall, often with minimal warning. Flash flooding can pose a deadly danger to residents of Edwards County. A number of roads run through low-lying areas that are prone to sudden and frequent flooding during heavy rain. Motorists often attempt to drive through barricaded or flooded roadways. Only 18-to-24-inches of water moving across a roadway is enough to carry away most vehicles. Floating cars easily get swept downstream, making rescues difficult and dangerous.

Local Drainage. Flooding occurs when land loses its ability to absorb rainfall

after being developed into roads, buildings, or parking lots. Urbanization changes the natural hydrologic systems of a basin, increasing runoff two to six times over what would occur on natural terrain. During periods of urban flooding, streets can become swift moving rivers, while highway underpasses can become death traps as they fill with water. Edwards County lacks proper drainage. Flooded sidewalks and streets can make pedestrian and other travel unsafe. Street drainage is a major challenge to be addressed.

5.3.2. Measurement

Flood risk is measured using engineering analyses presented on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The maps identify Special Flood Hazard Areas showing the “100-year” or Base Floodplain, which have a 1-percent chance of a flood in any one year and the “500-year” floodplain. For purposes of this plan, a 25-year or greater flood would constitute a disaster. There is a critical need for current flood maps for Edwards County. A review determined that there was no Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Edwards County, leaving residents without risk information necessary to make informed decisions on building and development. According to the Community Listing of CEOs and Floodplain Administrators on Federal Emergency Management Agency’s website (11Hwww.fema.gov), the most recent flood data is as follows:


44

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Rocksprings, covering all Zone A, C and X, February 1, 1991 (original FIRM by letter)

5.3.3. Previous occurrences Unlike other counties, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data base lacks any record of past floods in Edwards County but local officials report past incidents and are concerned about the lack of current flood maps and residential and commercial buildings and people at risk of exposure to flood risk.

5.3.4. Geographic areas affected In order to assess flood risk, flood hazard areas were delineated using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software and a 30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) as downloaded from the USGS website, with a 10- square mile drainage area. Figures 5-1 – 5-2 depict the flood areas where there is potential for damage to property and loss of life in Edwards County and Rocksprings, respectively. Table 5.8 shows the estimated number of buildings and people that are at risk to flooding by jurisdiction.

Table 5.8. Potential Affected Exposure in Flood Hazard Areas

Potential Residential Building Exposure at Risk

Potential Commercial Building Exposure at Risk

Jurisdiction Number Value Number Value

Number of People at Risk

Edwards County 703 $47,765,000 19 $3,206,000 692 Rocksprings 108 $7,004,000 0 $0 198

Source: HAZUS-MH

In order to estimate potential dollar losses to flood in Edwards County, the HAZUS-MH flood module was used. Flood depth was estimated at the pixel level for affected areas, along with proportion of the area affected within the census block. HAZUS-MH was utilized to estimate floodplain boundaries and potential exposure for the 100-year event frequency. GIS analysis was conducted to verify that the floodplain boundaries produced by HAZUS-MH correspond with the boundaries in the digital flood data used to estimate exposure above. In order to assess flood risk, flood hazard areas were delineated using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software and a 30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) as downloaded from the USGS website, with a 10- square mile drainage area. Table 5.9 shows the estimated number of buildings and people that are at risk to flooding by jurisdiction. No further information is currently available regarding actual expected flood levels.


45

Figure 5-1. Flood Hazard Areas in Edwards County


46

Figure 5-2. Flood Hazard Areas in Rocksprings

Note: See Figure 4-1 for population density distribution covered by flood hazard areas.


47

5.3.5. Probability of future disasters

Floods are random, variable events. Hydrologists characterize them as 10-year, 50-year, 100-year, or 500-year floods. For example, a “100-year flood” is a flood that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. A “10-year flood” is a flood that has a 10-percent chance of being equaled in any given year.

5.3.6. Vulnerability Tables 5.9 through 5.13 provide detailed data on the potential property losses to flood according to various return period intervals, including the 10-year, 50-year, 100-year, 200-year and 500-year flood events as estimated through HAZUS-MH.

Table 5.9. Potential Losses to 10-Year Flood

Expected Property Losses for Residential Buildings

Expected Property Losses for Commercial Buildings


Total Expected Property Losses

Edwards County 6 $1,342,000 0 $79,000 $1,549,000 Rocksprings 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Source: HAZUS-MH







Source: HAZUS-MH







Source: HAZUS-MH


48







Source: HAZUS-MH







Source: HAZUS-MH Table 5.14 lists the number and percentages of critical facilities and infrastructure deemed potentially at risk to flooding. Critical facilities and infrastructure includes airports, emergency operations centers, fire stations, hospitals, police stations and schools (as extracted from HAZUS-MH) as well as the locations of hazardous material facilities (Tier II and TRI sites).

Table 5.14. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Potentially Damaged by Flood

Jurisdiction Total Number Number Inside the 100-Year Floodplain

Percentage Susceptible to Flooding

Edwards County 6 1 17% Rocksprings 1 0 0%

Source: HAZUS-MH 5.3.7. Potential impact In order to estimate potential dollar losses to flood in Edwards County, the HAZUS-MH flood module was used. Flood depth was estimated at the pixel level for affected areas, along with proportion of the area affected within the census block. HAZUS-MH was utilized to estimate floodplain boundaries and potential exposure for the 100-year event frequency. GIS analysis was conducted to verify that the


49

floodplain boundaries produced by HAZUS-MH correspond with the boundaries in the digital flood data used to estimate exposure above. Table 5.15 shows the potential annualized loss estimates to flood hazards for each jurisdiction according to long-term flood risk modeling that takes into account various return period events, including the 10-year, 50-year, 100-year, 200-year and 500-year flood as estimated through HAZUS-MH.

Table 5.15. Potential Annualized Losses to Flood

Jurisdiction Total Annualized

Expected Property Losses

Annualized Loss Ratio

Edwards County $587,000 0.77% Rocksprings $0 0.00%

Source: HAZUS-MH

5.3.8. Previous mitigation actions Edwards County and Rocksprings have already taken several steps to mitigate the flood risk. Through their efforts, flood risks have been reduced. However, additional steps are needed to further protect the public.

Flood insurance studies and floodplain maps. The City of Rocksprings participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (Table 5.17). This program is intended to map flood-prone areas and provide federally-back insurance to help victims get back on their feet. However, FEMA’s Community Information System indicates that there were no active policies in Edwards County as of December 31, 2009 and that no claims had been filed.

At this time, there is a critical lack of data on the County’s flood risk in a current and usable, digital form based on the latest Geographic Information System technology. Updated flood risk information is critically needed for communities and local residents to identify known flood risks and make informed decisions about flood insurance and flood protection. Available data is limited to:

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Rocksprings, covering all Zone A, C and X, February 1, 1991 (original FIRM by letter)


50

Participation in the National Flood insurance Program. The City of Rocksprings participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, although the County does not. (Table 5.17). This program is intended to map flood-prone areas and provide federally-back insurance to help victims get back on their feet. However, FEMA’s Community Information System indicates that there were no active policies in Edwards County as of December 31, 2009 and that no claims had been filed. The City of Rocksprings has adopted and enforces floodplain management ordinances to regulate development in flood hazard areas. Implementation of permitting procedures and requirements for relocation of structures in the floodplain has reduced the number of persons exposed to the flood hazard over time.

Increasing flood insurance coverage to provide greater financial protection to residents and businesses is a priority. Greater community awareness of the advantages of flood insurance is needed. People without the needed financial resources may not be able to make full repairs to their home and may move back into an unsafe or unsanitary structure, if at all. Neighborhoods deteriorate over time if homes are not brought up to standard, resulting in social problems and reductions in the tax base. Businesses with the proper coverage can repair, reopen, and put their employees back to work faster, generating much-needed revenue and providing a sense of normalcy in the heart of the community which can be difficult to restore after a devastating flood. The Institute of Business and Home Safety reports that one of out every four businesses do not open after a disaster, as they are not properly financially prepared.


51

Most flood events never result in a Presidential disaster declaration. Without a Presidential disaster declaration, residents do not receive any disaster assistance to repair the damage caused by the flooding or provide temporary housing. Even if there is a declaration, most federal assistance is limited to loans, imposing further financial hardship on people who are struggling to recover. Residents and business owners with adequate flood insurance rebuild and recover faster and return to normal faster than people without. This means faster and more complete community recovery. Flood insurance is also available for community-owned buildings. Preparing for flooding and pursuing flood mitigation strategies are important, however it is equally critical to prepare for the financial burdens which will be placed on the community and its residents and businesses when the next flood occurs. Flood insurance is the only guaranteed vehicle to assure a smooth and complete recovery for everyone affected. Repetitive Loss Properties. According to FEMA records, as of December 31, 2009, there were no “repetitive loss” or “severe repetitive loss” properties in the County or Cities, perhaps reflecting the extremely low rate of flood insurance coverage. Repetitive loss properties are those that incurred two or more losses under the National Flood Insurance Program in any rolling 10-year period; severe repetitive loss properties are those that have incurred three or more losses.


52

5.4. Hazardous Materials Incidents

5.4.1. Description of the hazard Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. A hazardous materials (HAZMAT) incident involves a substance outside normal safe containment in sufficient concentration to pose a threat to life, property, or the environment. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or because of chemical accidents in plants. Two categories of hazardous materials incidents are addressed in this Plan:

• Incidents at fixed hazardous materials facilities; and, • Incidents involving mobile toxic materials being transported.

Fortunately, Edwards County has not had any HAZMAT releases causing severe damage to people or property. However, there have been several spills from mobile sources that have occurred, affecting the Nueces and Upper Nueces Rivers. (Table 5.19). The potential for severe or catastrophic failure exists. The risk is increasing with the latest oil and gas boom in nearby counties which has dramatically increased the hazardous materials traffic on County roads.

Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Many products containing hazardous materials are used and stored in homes routinely. These products are shipped daily from Mexico and north on the nation’s highways, railroads, waterways, and pipelines.

Hazardous materials are commonly used and transported in Edwards County. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for a serious hazmat incident to occur. A challenge faced by the County is the lack of information on hazardous materials from two sources. First, better data is needed from the energy industry on the increase in hazardous materials traffic on County roads. Second, better data is needed on those hazardous materials stored in or transported from Mexico through Edwards County. While SEMARNAT collects data on Mexican hazardous materials sites, this information is generally not available to U.S. officials. An incident involving these materials poses a transboundary risk that threaten lives, property and the natural environment across the border in either direction. It could also require assistance from Edwards County. Sister City Contingency Plans are needed to enhance joint cooperation and communication in responding to such transboundary incidents, including any support requirements that may be faced by Edwards County.


53

Non-transported (fixed) hazmat sites consist of above ground gasoline storage and propane storage vessels. While the above ground gasoline storage facilities meet EPA criteria for spillage, they are not constructed to withstand explosion or severe impact without rupture. Generally, local fire departments are responsible for first response to a hazardous materials incident. However, Edwards County does not have a Hazmat Team capable of containing a major hazmat incident. There is a need for increased fire and Emergency Medical System (EMS) funding, timely notification procedures, and enhanced training of emergency personnel, including awareness training for responders.

Reporting Requirements. The Federal government plays a large role in all phases of hazardous materials management. Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the Clean Air Act of 1990 mandate ‘cradle to grave’ tracking of designated hazardous materials by requiring users to report what chemicals they are using, releasing into the air, and how they will respond to an emergency. Under the Act, EPA delegates implementation to the States.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), SARA Title III, and Texas Health and Safety Codes exist to protect and educate the general public. Local County Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are the organizations responsible for development and implementation of hazardous materials planning at the local level. The LEPC’s primary charges are to:

• Ensure that residents and workers are aware and informed of their right to know what chemicals are being stored, used, released, and discarded.

• Facilitate public requests for information as required by law.

EPCRA and SARA Title III also serve business and industry employees, as well as first responders (police, firefighters, emergency medical services [EMS]) by protecting their right to know about the chemicals they may be exposed to in the course of performing their jobs.

Federal law requires business and industry operators to perform annual chemical inventories (Tier Two Chemical Report) and submit their report to the Texas Department of State Health Services, local Fire Chief, and the LEPC no later than March 1st of each year. The Tier Two Chemical Report is a standardized form created by the EPA to rate and identify chemicals and hazardous materials. Whether or not a company must file this annualized list is determined by the type of chemical and how much is on-hand. Having this information readily available to fire departments serves two important purposes:

• Enhances response time to an incident with the right equipment and personnel.

• Immediately alerts first responders whether the public is at risk and advisories are warranted.

In the event of a chemical release (i.e., spill, leak, emission, gas cloud), a business or industry must report the incident immediately, as required by the Texas Health and Safety Codes.


54

5.4.2. Measurement There is currently no intensity scale for measuring hazardous materials incidents. The best indicator of a hazard is whether a fixed facility meets criteria for inclusion on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) or Tier II listing.

The TRI is a publicly available database from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution 55 Prevention Act of 1990. Each year, facilities that meet certain activity thresholds must report their releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals to EPA and to their state or tribal entity. A facility must report if it meets the following three criteria:

• The facility falls within one of the following industrial categories: manufacturing; metal mining; coal mining; electric generating facilities that combust coal and/or oil; chemical wholesale distributors; petroleum terminals and bulk storage facilities; RCRA Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and solvent recovery services;

• Has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents; and

• Manufactures or processes more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise uses more than 10,000 pounds of any listed chemical during the calendar year. Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals are subject to different thresholds of 10 pounds, 100 pounds or 0.1 grams depending on the chemical.

Tier II data is a publicly available database from the Texas Department of State Health Services Tier II Chemical Reporting Program. Under the community right-to-know program laws upheld at the state and federal level, all facilities which store significant quantities of hazardous chemicals must share this information with state and local emergency responders and planners. Facilities in Texas share this information by filing annual hazardous chemical inventories with the state, with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), and with local fire departments. The Texas Tier II Reports contain facility identification information and detailed chemical data about hazardous chemicals stored at the facility. A facility must report if it meets the following criteria:

• Any company using chemicals that could present a physical or health hazard must report them, according to Tier II requirements.

• If an industry has an OSHA deemed hazardous chemical that exceeds the appropriate threshold at a certain point in time, then the chemical must be reported. These chemicals may be on the list of 356 Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) or could be one of the 650,000 reportable hazardous substances (not on the EHS list). This reporting format is for a "snapshot in time". EHS chemicals have to be reported if the quantity is either greater than 500 pounds or if the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) amount is less than 500 pounds.

In general, a site that meets criteria for inclusion on the list of Tier II or TRI sites constitutes a hazard for purposes of this Plan.


55

5.4.3 Previous occurrences Hazardous materials releases are likely occurrences in Edwards County, with an event possible in the next 2 - 3 years. Fortunately, there were no on- or off-site releases from any Federal Toxic Release Inventory site reported from 2002 - 2010. However, according to the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, between 2002 and 2010 there were several releases reported from mobile transportation of toxic materials (Table 5.16).

TABLE 5.16

EMERGENCY RESPONSE SPILLS, 2002-2010 EDWARDS COUNTY

MATERIAL SPILLED AMOUNT SPILLED RESPONSIBLE PARTY DATE ZIP CODE AFFECTED

WATER BODY

Oil and grease 220 gallons Texas Dept. of Transportation

05/27/2003 78852 Upper Nueces River

Diesel fuel 40 gallons 10/25/2004 78852 Nueces River Diesel fuel 100 gallons Key Energy Services 07/27/2005 78852 Nueces River

Waste oil Grooms Distribution Company

10/04/2006 78801 Nueces River

Source: Texas Council on Environmental Quality

5.4.4. Geographic areas affected

Table 5.17 provides a list of hazardous material facilities that were included in the risk assessment for Edwards County according to TRI and Tier II databases. Geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) were used to determine the location of each critical facility within each jurisdiction. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show the locations of available georeferenced TRI and Tier II listed toxic sites in Edwards County and Rocksprings, respectively.


56

Table 5.17. Hazardous Material Facilities in Edwards County

Facility Name

BARR 59 1H CANYON RANCH Canyon Ranch (DP-6) Compressor Station Canyon Ranch 112-1E SWD Facility City of Rocksprings City of Rocksprings City of Rocksprings CLOUDT 55 CMAJDALKA 59 2 CMAJDALKA 62 1 Cottle Ranch Co.dba Country Boy Propane #1 Cottle Ranch Co.dba Country Boy Propane #2 East Canyon Ranch Tank Battery Edwards County X-12 EPPERSON 47 #1 Epperson Battery Federal Aviation Administration, RSG ARSR FOUR SQUARE #1 & #2 Francis Hill Compressor Station Graham #1 M & M Compressor Station Mann Compressor Station Ragsdale 12-3 Range Production Company - Francis Hill Field Range Production Company - M.M.W. (Canyon) Field Range Production Company - Sawyer (Canyon) Field SAM EPPERSON 4701 STEWART 47 #01 STEWART-PAULEY SWEETEN 48 #1 TCC-American Petrofina Substation TCC-Campwood Substation Turney, Paul, Mrs. Ranch Lease TXDOT-San Angelo-Rocksprings Maintenance Facility TXDOT-San Angelo-Rocksprings Maintenance- Sub Lot 7 WM EPPERSON 47-2 WM EPPERSON 47-3

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


57

Figure 5-3. Locations of Fixed Toxic Sites in Edwards County

Toxic Release Inventory and Tier II Sites (includes available geo-referenced sites only)


58

Figure 5-4. Locations of Toxic Sites in Rocksprings


59

5.4.5. Probability of future disasters A hazardous materials incident is a likely event with an incident expected on average every two to three years based on historical experience. 5.4.6. Vulnerability Table 5.18. shows estimated toxic release exposure of people and buildings by jurisdiction for fixed sites using census block data. Two sizes of buffers, 500 and 2,500 meters are assumed in respect to the different levels of effect—immediate (primary) and secondary.

Table 5.18. Estimated Exposure of People and Buildings by Jurisdiction (Fixed Site Toxic Release)

Immediate (Primary) Impact Secondary Impact Jurisdiction

Total Number of Residential

and Commercial

Units

Total Population Number of

Units at Risk Number of

People at Risk Number of


People at Risk

Edwards County 904 877 70 64 135 153 Rocksprings 842 1,285 29 46 769 1,172

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Table 5.19 shows the result for mobile site toxic release. Primary and secondary impact sites were selected based on guidance from FEMA Publication #246 and engineering judgment. Since many sites containing hazardous materials are located in densely populated areas, there are population and structures that could be susceptible to a release from more than one site. For fixed site analysis, only toxic sites that have georeferenced data available were analyzed and the circle buffers are drawn around each hazardous material site. Two sizes of buffers, 500 and 2,500 meters are assumed in respect to the different levels of effect—immediate (primary) and secondary. For mobile analysis, the major roads (Interstate highway, US highway, State highway) and railroads are chosen to be the routes where hazardous material is allowed. The buffer along the roads is drawn with the same size as fixed site analysis. Census block data was used to estimate exposure.


60

Table 5.19. Estimated Exposure of People and Buildings by Jurisdiction

(Mobile Site Toxic Release)



and Commercial

Units



People at Risk Number of


People at Risk

Edwards County 904 877 485 532 522 568 Rocksprings 842 1,285 615 897 845 1,288

5.4.7. Potential impact Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Hazardous materials incidents vary in their intensity, size, and duration. Most incidents are small in scope and only require a limited response. Occasionally, there will be a large incident or one involving a chemical that requires evacuation of the surrounding area with a critical impact (i.e., causing multiple deaths or injuries, a complete shutdown of facilities for a week to 30 days and 25% to 20% of affected property destroyed or damaged). Weather conditions directly affect how the hazard develops. For example, the micro-meteorological effects of buildings and terrain can alter the travel and duration of harmful agents. Shielding in the form of sheltering-in-place can protect people and property from harmful effects. Annualized loss estimates are not available.


61

5.5. Wildland Fire

5.5.1. Description of the hazard A wildland fire is any fire occurring on grassland, forest, or prairie, regardless of ignition source, damages, or benefits. According to the National Fire Plan, 2000, the wildland fire risk is now considered by authorities as “the most significant fire service problem of the Century.” Wildland fires can occur at any time of the year. Climatic conditions such as severe freezes and drought can significantly increase the intensity of wildland fires since these conditions kill vegetation, creating a prime fuel source for these types of fires. The intensity of fires and the rate at which they spread are directly related to wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity. 5.5.2. Measurement To map potential wildland fire hazard areas in Edwards County, a GIS-based data layer called the “Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index” (WFSI) was obtained from the Texas Forest Service (TFS). The WFSI is derived from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA), a multi-year project to assess and quantify wildfire risk for the 13 Southern states. The Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index (WFSI) calculates the probability of an acre burning. It integrates the probability of an acre igniting and the expected final fire size based on the rate of spread into a single measure of wildland fire susceptibility. The index allows for comparison of areas of the county and region on the likelihood of an acre burning. The U.S. Forest Service Wildland Fire Assessment System rates the fire potential or danger as shown in Table 5.20.

Table 5.20. Fire Danger Rating System

Rating Basic description Detailed description

CLASS 1: Low Danger (L) COLOR CODE: Green fires not easily started

Fuels do not ignite readily from small firebrands. Fires in open or cured grassland may burn freely a few hours after rain, but wood fires spread slowly by creeping or smoldering and burn in irregular fingers. There is little danger of spotting.

CLASS 2: Moderate Danger (M) COLOR CODE: Blue

fires start easily and spread at a moderate rate

Fires can start from most accidental causes. Fires in open cured grassland will burn briskly and spread rapidly on windy days. Woods fires spread slowly to moderately fast. The average fire is of moderate intensity, although heavy concentrations of fuel – especially draped fuel -- may burn hot. Short-distance spotting may occur, but is not persistent. Fires are not likely to become serious and control is relatively easy.

CLASS 3: High Danger (H) COLOR CODE: Yellow

fires start easily and spread at a rapid rate

All fine dead fuels ignite readily and fires start easily from most causes. Unattended brush and campfires are likely to escape. Fires spread rapidly and short-distance spotting is common. High intensity burning may develop on slopes or in concentrations of fine fuel. Fires may become serious and their control difficult, unless they are hit hard and fast while small.


62

Table 5.20. Fire Danger Rating System

Rating Basic description Detailed description

CLASS 4: Very High Danger (VH) COLOR CODE: Orange

fires start very easily and spread at a vary fast rate

Fires start easily from all causes and immediately after ignition, spread rapidly and increase quickly in intensity. Spot fires are a constant danger. Fires burning in light fuels may quickly develop high-intensity characteristics - such as long-distance spotting - and fire whirlwinds, when they burn into heavier fuels. Direct attack at the head of such fires is rarely possible after they have been burning more than a few minutes.

CLASS 5: Extreme (E) COLOR CODE: Red

fire situation is explosive and can result in extensive

property damage

Fires under extreme conditions start quickly, spread furiously and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious. Development into high-intensity burning will usually be faster and occur from smaller fires than in the Very High Danger class (4). Direct attack is rarely possible and may be dangerous, except immediately after ignition. Fires that develop headway in heavy slash or in conifer stands may be unmanageable while the extreme burning condition lasts. Under these conditions, the only effective and safe control action is on the flanks, until the weather changes or the fuel supply lessens.

12Hsource: http://www.wfas.net/content/view/34/51/

For purposes of this Plan, a Class 2 or above fire would constitute a disaster for the County and Rocksprings.

5.5.3 Previous occurrences

Wildland fires threaten Edwards County, especially when drought is coupled with an overabundance of dead vegetation which burns easily. In March, 2008, there was an Emergency Declaration for extreme wildfire threat for the County (3284). In January 2006, there was a Disaster Declaration (DR 1624) for extreme wildfire threat. In January 2011, Edwards County experienced drought and high winds which resulted again in an extreme wildfire threat. The Texas Forest Service records for 1998 to 2011, which probably understate the number of instances, include ten wildfires in Edwards County (Table 5.21.). The largest was the "West Branch-43 Fire" on August 31, 2000 which burned 5,500 acres. The "Jackson Ranch Fire" resulted in the loss of three homes on August 30, 2011. Several unincorporated areas of the County have been identified by the Texas Forest Service as being under high or moderate susceptibility to wildland fire.


63

TABLE 5.21. WILDFIRES, 1998 - 2011 EDWARDS

Name Date Number of

Acres Cause West Branch - 43 31-Aug-00 5,500 Miscellaneous

Millenium Ranch 6-Jul-05 1,000 Equipment

use

Circle K 10-Aug-06 1,100 Equipment

use

Carta Valley 8-Feb-08 2,100 Equipment

use

West Hackberry - 46 25-Feb-08 4,500 Equipment

use Vinegar 23-Jun-08 2 Lightning Taylor 31-Jul-08 1,312 Lightning Jackson Ranch Fire 30-Aug-11 600 Lightning SW Telegraph Fire 30-Aug-11 200 Lightning

Bundy Ross Ranch Fire 31-Aug-11 600 Lightning

Source: Texas Forest Service

5.5.4. Geographic areas affected Figures 5-5.a and 5-5.b illustrate the level of high, moderate and low wildland fire susceptibility for Edwards County. The data is based on the WFSI data provided by Texas Forest Service.


64

Figure 5-5.a. Wildfire Susceptibility for Edwards County


65

Figure 5-5.b. Wildfire Susceptibility in Rocksprings


66

5.5.5. Probability of future disasters A Class 2 or above wildland fire is a highly likely event with an event probable within 2 - 3 years.

5.5.6. Vulnerability Tables 5.22 and 5.23 show the potential affected exposure of property and people to areas of high and moderate wildland fire susceptibility according to the WFSI data, respectively. Figures 5-5.a and 5-5.b illustrate the level of wildland fire susceptibility for Edwards County and Rocksprings, respectively, based on the WFSI data provided by TFS. Tables 3.27 – 3.28 show the potential affected exposure of property and people to areas of high and moderate wildland fire susceptibility according to the WFSI data, respectively.

Table 5.22. Potential Affected Exposure to Wildland Fire (High Susceptibility)





Edwards County 58 $4,482,000 4 $774,000 42 Rocksprings 119 $7,352,000 1 $90,000 253

Source: Texas State Forest Service

Table 5.23. Potential Affected Exposure to Wildland Fire (Moderate Susceptibility)





Edwards County 248 $18,788,000 9 $1,369,000 259 Rocksprings 262 $14,794,000 3 $298,000 458

Source: Texas State Forest Service


67

5.5.7. Potential impact Although highly likely, the potential severity of impact of wildland fires in Edwards County is limited due to the sparse population and building stock. Wildland fires may result in multiple deaths or injuries, temporary shutdown of facilities for a week to 30 days, and from 10 to 25 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Annualized loss information is not available.


68

5.6. Drought

5.6.1. Description of the hazard Drought and the lack of water preservation, both in water quantity and quality, is a major concern for Edwards County. According to this risk assessment, drought is responsible for the highest economic losses of any natural disaster affecting the county.

Drought is a normal part of virtually all climatic regimes, including areas with high and low average rainfall. Drought is a consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation expected over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, “Drought is one of the most complex, and least understood, of all natural hazards, affecting more people than do other natural hazards, but differing from them in important ways. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, drought unfolds at an almost imperceptible pace with beginning and ending times that are difficult to determine, and with effects that often are spread over vast regions…. ”. 5F

6

Over time, droughts can lead to loss of water for basic needs such as drinking and fire-fighting. It can also have very damaging effects on crops, municipal water supplies, recreation and wildlife. If droughts extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant. Droughts can kill crops, grazing grasses, edible plants and, in severe cases, trees. Dying vegetation also serves as a prime ignition source for wildland fires.

A drought in Edwards County can have impacts that extend across the tourism industry and be devastating to local ranchers. Wildfires are more frequent and much more difficult to control during drought conditions. The tourist industry suffers as well because of the lack of water in the rivers. Droughts can be classified as meteorological, hydrologic, agricultural and socioeconomic. Table 5.27 defines these different types of drought.

6 July 2000, Todd H. Votteler, Ph.D, Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.

Agricultural Research Service Engineers inspect a dry stream channel. Photo by Scott Bauer.


69

Table 5.24. Drought Classification Definitions

Meteorological Drought The degree of dryness or departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales.

Hydrologic Drought The effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels.

Agricultural Drought Soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually crops.

Socioeconomic Drought The effect of demands for water exceeding the supply as a result of a weather-related supply shortfall.

Source: FEMA, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy

5.6.2. Measurement The Palmer Drought Indexes are used to measure the extent and severity of drought. The Palmer Z Short-Term Conditions Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale. The Palmer Long-Term Meteorological Drought Index attempts to measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought-inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, with the intensity of drought during the current month dependent upon the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop. The Palmer Long-Term Hydrological Drought Index is used to quantify these hydrological effects. The following indexes are standardized to the local climate and based on formulas (Table 5.25).

5.6.3 Previous occurrences Figure 5-6 illustrates historical periods of severe to extreme drought conditions in the Rio Grande Basin based on data provided by the National Climatic Data Center.

Table 5.25. Palmer Drought Condition Classifications Drought Index

Extreme Severe

Moderate

Normal

Moderately moist

Very moist

Extremely moist

Z index -2.75 and below

-2.00 to -2.74

-125 to -1.99

-1.24 to +.99

+1.00 to +2.49

+2.50 to +3.49

n/a

Meteorological -4.00 and below

-3.00 to -3.99

-2.00 to -2.99

-1.99 to +1.99

+2.00 to +2.00

+3.00 to +3.00

+4.00 and above

Hydrological -4.00 and below

-3.00 to -3.99

-2.00 to -2.99

-1.99 to +1.99

+2.00 to +2.00

+3.00 to +3.00

+4.00 and above


70

Figure 5-6. Historical Drought in the Rio Grande Basin

Throughout 2011, a number of counties throughout Texas experienced losses caused by drought, high winds and wildfire, including Edwards County. This was part of a widespread drought with 100 percent of the state in some form of drought for more than two months and in which agricultural losses totaled $5.2 billion by August 2011, according to Texas A&M University. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite and Information Service, major drought events also occurred in Edwards County during the following periods:

Together, these incidents caused millions in property and crop damage statewide, to all the affected counties in Texas. Loss information specifically limited to Edwards County is not available.

5.6.4. Geographic areas affected There is no distinct geographic boundary to drought. Drought can occur in every area part of the County equally.

5.6.5. Probability of future disasters Based on historical experience and global warming trends, a severe drought event is a possible event, with a drought possible in the next 4 - 5 years.

Drought Events

4/1996 - 6/1997

2/2000 - 10/2000


71

5.6.6. Vulnerability Due to the lack of quantifiable data on documented historic losses across various sectors caused by the effects of drought in Edwards County, this risk assessment study is limited to only a simple estimation of potential losses to the agricultural sector as it is often the most directly affected, and due to the fact that some local agricultural data is available as it relates to current exposure. Table 5.26 provides information on the potential agricultural exposure to the drought hazard in Edwards County.

Table 5.26. Potential Agricultural Exposure in Edwards County

Jurisdiction Number of Farms Land in Farms (Acres)

Market Value of Crops Sold

Market Value of Livestock, Poultry,

etc. Sold

Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold

Edwards County* 480 996,471 $33,384,000 $15,998,000 $49,382,000 Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007 Census of Agriculture) *Agriculture data made available through the USDA is only available at the county level; however it is generally assumed that most agricultural exposure is located outside of incorporated jurisdictions and in the outlying unincorporated areas of Edwards County.

5.6.7. Potential impact Droughts are slow-onset hazards, but over time can have very damaging affects to crops, municipal water supplies, recreational uses, and wildlife. If droughts extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant.

Many Edwards County residents use personal water supplies or are connected to private water systems. Droughts in the County can cause significant agricultural losses and increase the risk of wildland fire, with its open grasses and mesquite thickets which are more prone to burning. Droughts also increase the need for irrigating crops, further constraining supplies. During periods of drought, livestock feed requirements are increased, resulting in the need to sell off stock. The loss of livestock due to the lack of food and water can be devastating to local ranchers. Drought effects include the need for increased pumping for drinking water supplies and watering of landscapes. It also results in increases in water bills for residents. Economic impacts of drought on the city is not quantifiable due to the lack of data.

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total market value of agricultural products sold (including crops, livestock, poultry and their products) in Edwards County was $49,382,000, or $102,879 per farm. Using this data in combination with the assumptions listed above, total annualized losses due to severe and extreme drought conditions is estimated to be approximately $1,481,460.


72

5.7. Fuel Pipeline Failures

5.7.1. Description of the hazard

Although there have been no reports of major fuel pipeline failures in Edwards County, gas pipelines which cross the county have the potential of causing injury or death, destroying property and contaminating the streams and rivers. Thankfully, no lives have been lost or serious injuries have occurred in pipeline accidents in the County to date. However, the potential risk exists. Recent failures across the U.S. have raised questions about the nation's pipeline infrastructure. An estimated 2.2 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. carry oil and natural gas. Pipelines are out of sight and unnoticed, yet have caused fires and explosions that killed more than 200 people and injured more

than 1,000 people nationwide in the last decade. Between 1984 and 2000, 50 Texans have died in pipeline incidents.

The natural gas explosion that struck San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010 is a rare but not unheard of failure of the pipelines that cross the nation. Eight were killed and fifty people injured in that explosion. In 2000, corrosion of a 30-inch pipeline caused a major explosion in Carlsbad, N.M., killing a dozen people camping at the Pecos River.

Photo by Taylor Johnson, Austin American-Statesman. Abiline home reduced to rubble by a pipeline failure

5.7.2. Measurement There is no standard classification of pipeline failures. Failures are measured in barrels or gallons spilled and deaths and injuries. The Texas Railroad Commission maintains records of pipeline failures, including the name of the operator, the location it occurred, the primary cause of the failure, size of pipe, injuries and deaths, and whether there was a fire or explosion.


73

5.7.3 Previous occurrences

A review of the incident log of historical pipeline incidents (gas and oil combined) assembled by the Texas Railroad Commission was conducted. Although other incidents may have gone unreported, according to the logs, the pipelines running through Edwards County have been relatively of accidents over the last quarter century according to official records.

5.7.4. Geographic areas affected Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show the locations of State-regulated energy pipelines (oil and gas) in Edwards County and Rocksprings respectively, according to the Texas Railroad Commission. As you will note, the County and Rocksprings have only gas pipelines, no oil pipelines. Data is not available on those trans-Continental energy pipelines not regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. If any of these energy pipelines, oil or gas, were to rupture, such an event could endanger property and lives in the immediate area (probably within less than half a mile radius).


74

Figure 5 - 7. Oil and Gas Pipelines in Edwards County


75

Figure 5-8. Gas Pipelines in Rocksprings


76

5.7.5. Probability of future disasters

It is estimated that a pipeline failure is possible, with an event possible in the next 4 - 5 years.

5.7.6. Vulnerability Tables 5.27 – 5.28 show the total people and buildings at risk from identified oil and gas pipelines, respectively. Two sizes of buffers, 500 and 2,500 meters are assumed in respect to the different levels of effect—immediate (primary) and secondary. It should be noted that many pipelines run through less densely populated areas, creating less risk in many cases than those pipelines that run through heavily populated areas. Due to the fact that many pipelines run through densely populated areas, there are population and structures that could be susceptible to a breach from more than one pipeline. In some jurisdictions the number of people and property has been counted more than once to account for their susceptibility to multiple pipeline breaches. Therefore, the number of people and structures that could potentially be impacted may exceed the total number of building units and total population by jurisdiction.

Table 5.27. Potential Impact Due to Oil Pipelines by Jurisdiction



and Commercial

Units


Residential Units

Number of Commercial

Units

Number of People at

Risk

Number of Residential

Units


Units

Number of People at

Risk Edwards County 904 877 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rocksprings 842 1,285 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Railroad Commission of Texas

Table 5.28. Potential Impact Due to Gas Pipelines by Jurisdiction



and Commercial

Units


Residential Units


Units

Number of People at

Risk

Number of Residential

Units


Units

Number of People at

Risk Edwards County 904 877 322 5 350 368 11 394 Rocksprings 842 1,285 152 2 321 799 6 1,234

Source: Railroad Commission of Texas


77

5.7.7. Potential impact Although a pipeline failure would affect less than 10 percent of people and property, the potential impact of a pipeline failure at the rupture site would be potentially critical.


78

5.8. Conclusions

5.8.1. Summary of Economic Impacts

Using the previously described methodology, results were obtained for the different hazards profiled earlier. The economic results are summarized in Table 5.29 below. The economic loss results are presented here using Annualized Loss (AL), which is the estimated long-term value of losses to the general building stock in any single year in a specified geographic area. The estimated Annualized Loss (AL) addresses the two key components of risk: the probability of hazard occurring in the study area and the consequences of the hazard, largely a function of building construction type and quality, and of the intensity of the hazard event. By annualizing estimated losses, the AL factors in historic patterns of frequent smaller events with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk.

Table 5.29 Summary of Annualized Loss Estimates by Hazard

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Fuel Pipeline Accident

Hazardous Material Incident

Thunder - storm Wildland Fire

Edwards County $1,481,460 $587,000 Not available Not available Not available Not available

Rocksprings Not available $0 Not available Not available Not available Not available Note: For drought, the numbers presented are the annualized market losses for agriculture products sold. Loss estimates are at the county level due to data limitations.

A summary of the Annualized Loss Ratio (ALR) results are presented in Table 5.30. The ALR represents the AL as a fraction of the replacement value of the local inventory. The annualized loss ratio gauges the relationship between average annualized loss and replacement value. This ratio can be used as a measure of vulnerability in the areas and, since it is normalized by replacement value, it can be directly compared across different jurisdictions.


79

Table 5.30. Summary of the Annualized Loss Ratios (ALR) (Calculated as annualized losses divided by the total exposure at risk)

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Fuel Pipeline Accident


Thunder - storms Wildland Fire

Edwards County 3.00% 0.77% Not available Not available Not available Not available

Rocksprings Not available 0.00% Not available Not available Not available Not available

Note: For drought, the numbers presented are the annualized market losses for agriculture products sold. Loss estimates are at the county level due to data limitations.

The results of this study are useful in at least three ways:

• Improving our understanding of the risk associated with the natural hazards in Edwards County through better understanding of the complexities and dynamics of risk, how levels of risk can be measured and compared, and the myriad factors that influence risk. An understanding of these relationships is critical in making balanced and informed decisions on managing the risk.

• Providing a baseline for policy development and comparison of mitigation alternatives. The data used for this analysis present a current picture of risk in Edwards County. Updating this risk “snapshot” with future data will enable comparison of the changes in risk with time. Baselines of this type can support the objective analysis of policy and program options for risk reduction.

• Comparing the risk among the natural hazards addressed. The ability to quantify the risk to all these hazards relative to one another helps in a balanced, multi-hazard approach to risk management at each level of governing authority. This ranking provides a systematic framework to compare and prioritize the very disparate natural hazards that are present in Edwards County. This final step in the risk assessment provides the necessary information for the mitigation planning committees to craft a mitigation strategy to focus resources on only those hazards that pose the most threat to the study area.

Hazard risk ranking depends on the anticipated severity, area of impact, and probability of occurrence (return period) as determined and profiled in this risk assessment. Table 5.31 provides the hazard ranking by jurisdiction for each hazard. For each jurisdiction, each hazard was given a rating of high (H), moderate (M), low (L), or very low (VL) based on how vulnerable they are to that hazard. The rating of VL was used if the potential exposure and loss was determined to be zero. Ratings are based on a combination of factors such as population and building exposure, historical occurrences and probability of future events, annualized loss and/or annualized loss ratios (if available), along with input from the mitigation planning committee.


80

Table 5.31. Hazard Risk Ranking by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Fuel

Pipeline Accident


Thunder - storms

Wildland Fire

Edwards County M M M M L M

Rocksprings L L M M L M

5.8.2. Optional Mitigation Actions Considered Based on the risk assessment results, a comprehensive range of possible mitigation actions was considered for each hazard. The actions included prevention, property protection, public education and awareness, natural resource protection and structural projects. The State Hazard Mitigation Plan was also reviewed. Examples include:

• Multiple hazards. Some mitigation actions were considered that would address multiple hazards. The unique nature of the County and its economic status and funding constraints were a major factor in considering alternatives. These included:

o warning systems o evacuation planning, which was determined to be a critical need o enhanced data collection methods, especially on transboundary risks o public awareness and education o communications, especially with international partners o structural projects

• Thunderstorms. Tie downs, tree trimming and structural measures were considered. In view of

the number of mobile homes and recreational vehicles, options for securing them received priority. Property protection measures such as surge protectors were viewed as a highly cost-effective option for critical facilities.

• Drought. Measures considered included increasing public awareness, undertaking structural

projects and planning to expand and conserve the supply of water. Structural measures considered included zeroscaping, fixing water systems; building storage tanks spread out over the County; and installation of emergency generators for backup power. Water conservation, public information and education, and adjustment of water rates were also considered as feasible and cost-effective actions.

• Flooding. Among the possible mitigation actions considered were a broad range of regulatory

tools, structural measures, data development, natural resources protection and public education and awareness. All the options recommended were been found to be cost effective. Mitigation actions selected included drainage projects including installing new drains, building culverts at


81

low water crossings; and enhancing public awareness of flood hazards which was determined to be a highly effective at minimal cost. Cleaning out drainage pipes was also a priority.

• A number of actions related to the National Flood Insurance Program were considered,

including joining the National Flood Insurance Program, expanding insurance coverage, instituting higher standards and enhancing enforcement. One of the greatest needs is for working with FEMA and the State to carry out a flood study and obtain more current Flood Insurance Rate Maps to enhance public information about flood risks and serve as a basis for permitting. Enforcement of existing ordinances were also considered cost-effective, especially with respect to substantial damage/substantial improvement. More vigorous enforcement will, over time, help remove structures from the floodplain.

• Options for addressing wildland fires ranged from structural measures such as moving storage

tanks outside the cities, building fire breaks using cooperative agreements, preventive measures such as controlled burning, training and education, and an improved fire-fighting capability.

• Options for hazardous materials incidents ranged from enhancing emergency services to

installing preventive measures such as re-routing traffic, providing public information and training, equipment and notification procedures. Re-routing hazardous materials in the County were considered as a priority. Development of hazmat capabilities and procedures were also determined to be a priority. Special priority was given to training for fire-fighters and other first responders, evacuation, communications, identification of owners and the specific location of hazmat facilities, and notification procedures. A priority was ensuring that detailed maps are on hand for fire, police and the Sheriff for response. Both actions were determined to be highly cost-effective. Public education was chosen for hazmat incidents.

Chapter 6 discusses the proposed mitigation actions.


82

6. Mitigation Action Plans

Edwards County and Rocksprings identified mitigation actions to reduce the long term risks from the hazards addressed in this Plan. The actions are presented below. Each action relates to one of the goals set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan. Many of the actions in this chapter are directed at reducing the risk from a specific hazard, such as flooding or tornadoes. Other actions in this chapter are directed at multiple or all hazards.

Mitigation action plans present the benefits and estimated costs of each action, organization within the County or City responsible for implementation, implementation schedule, potential sources of funding and impact on existing and new buildings. An overall priority is assigned to each action based on its effect on overall risk to life and property, costs and benefits, ease of implementation, institutional support, and potential funding. Implementation of all mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.

The following are detailed mitigation action plans for each participating jurisdiction.


83

6.1. Edwards County Action Plan

Edwards County Action No. 1

Action: Conduct a comprehensive public outreach and education campaign for all hazards.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, drought, fuel pipeline

Background:

A comprehensive and sustained awareness and educational campaign is needed to give the residents of Edwards County the knowledge and tools necessary to carry out their responsibilities to mitigate damage to their own lives and property before disaster strikes, better prepare for disasters, and know what to do in an emergency situation. The campaign will be conducted in partnership with the Rio Grande Institute’s disaster mitigation outreach project. To the extent possible, existing materials, available at no cost from FEMA, National Weather Service and other organization will be distributed at various community centers. Materials will be provided in English and Spanish to help reach all populations within the County.


84

Background (continued):

The County Emergency Management Office will work to educate citizens of all age groups. Presentations will be made, as requested by school district officials, homeowners associations, civic and service groups, church groups, and other interested parties. In addition, presentations will be made in local schools. Educating children is generally recognized as an effective way of providing information to entire families.

Benefit:

This action will result in a more informed public, aware of the risks they face from various hazards and knowledgeable about how to protect their families, homes, workplaces, communities and livelihoods from the impact of disasters. It will also result in lasting partnerships with those partners and community members who provide support. It will also assist in the recovery process since damage will be minimized and more residents will be self-sustaining for a longer period.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal, mostly requiring staff time

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources: Funding sources include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and general revenues. Free resource materials will be sought to reduce the cost.

Impact on existing and new buildings: None

Benefit/cost considerations:

Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action’s minimal cost is insignificant compared to the potential property damages that could be lessened and lives that could be saved through educating the public about proper preparation for and response to a wide range of emergencies.


85

Edwards County

Action No. 2

Action: Promote the use of NOAA “All Hazards” radios for early warning and post-event information.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information direct from a nearby 13HNational Weather Service office. These stations broadcast National Weather Service warnings, as well as post-event information for all types of hazards, both natural and man-made. These broadcasts are generated seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Working with the Federal Communication System’s Emergency Alert System, NOAA Weather Radios are a single source for the most comprehensive weather and emergency information available to the public. These warnings buy extra time for people to react and take preventative measures before dangerous weather or other hazard conditions hit their area.

New technology allows users to pre-select the National Weather Service alerts according to local geographic areas such as a county (Specific Message Encoding or SAME). The hearing and visually impaired can also get these warnings by connecting specially designed attention-getting devices such as strobe lights, personal computers, text printers and other means.

Benefit: This mitigation action would provide early warning of dangerous conditions, allowing time for individuals to take appropriate action to protect lives and property.

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: Approximately $25 per NOAA weather radio for a battery-powered unit with the SAME technology.



86

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include general revenues, partnerships with local retailers, and Federal grants such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program’s initiative project. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the cost is likely to be insignificant compared to the benefits of having a public informed before, during and after disaster strikes and able to take immediate protective actions.


87


Action: Equip critical facilities with back-up generators to provide auxiliary power.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

Critical facilities should be equipped with backup power units to allow for continuity of operations in the event of a disaster. To insure operability in the event of a disaster, certain County/City owned critical facilities must be equipped with auxiliary power sources. To enhance the preparedness level the committee recommends that all City/County critical facilities be equipped with power back-up units. This will allow for greater flexibility in the continuity of government during a crisis. First priority for auxiliary power systems should be: (1) County Courthouse/Sheriffs Office (2) City Halls/Fire Stations and (3) EMS Facilities. The Emergency Management Coordinator will update the critical facility list annually to prioritize facilities to be equipped.

Benefit: This action will provide for continuity of critical facilities and operations of government in the event of a power supply disruption.

Priority: High Estimated Cost: $30,000 for all critical facilities within the county

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator in coordination with the Fire Department Chief

Target Completion Date: 2016, with one critical facility equipped with auxiliary power per year

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Homeland Security grant funds and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



88


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action will help ensure continuity of critical governmental operations at a minimal cost.


89

Edwards County

Action No. 4

Action: Work with officials from other Middle Rio Grande border region counties to develop a coordinated regional evacuation plan.

Hazard: Flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

Large-scale events caused by flooding, hazardous materials, or wildland fires can necessitate a large scale evacuation, the impact of which may affect Edwards County. Transboundary risks may also threaten lives, property and the natural environment across the border in either direction. In that case, the region may be a need to prepare for a large influx of evacuees from Mexico. Edwards County may be called upon to assist in such a large-scale event, for example with transportation assets. Regional planning among the potentially affected City, County and Mexican officials is needed to develop coordinated policies and procedures to ensure an orderly evacuation. Federal and State officials will also play an important part in these discussions.

Benefit:

This action will help ensure more orderly operations in the event of a large and/or transboundary disaster. It will also help ensure that the necessary transportation assets are available to support a large-scale evacuation.

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: Minimal costs to Edwards County Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator Target Completion Date: 2013

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include general revenues and grants from the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Border 2012 initiative. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



90


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. However, having in place adequate plans and capabilities to evacuate people can save lives in a potentially catastrophic event at a relatively small cost.


91


Action: Install surge protectors on critical electronic equipment.

Hazard: Thunderstorms

Background:

Damage from thunderstorms and lightning is often underestimated. Surge protectors can prevent lightning damage. This action would install surge protectors on the County’s critical electronic equipment.

Benefit: This action will reduce damage to critical electronic equipment, thereby reducing replacement costs and ensuring continuing operation in emergency conditions.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Approximately $40 per surge protector Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include general revenues.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, purchasing low cost surge protectors is highly cost-beneficial. It protects very expensive electronic equipment at minimal cost from lightning strikes and ensures the continuity of county services during and after severe thunderstorms.


92


Action: Develop a water conservation program, including public education and outreach to warn citizens about the risks to public health caused by drought. Promote zeroscaping. Consider steps to be taken in Level I, II and III droughts.

Hazard: Drought

Background:

Periods of time with little or no precipitation can pose risks that can be managed with conservation, preparation, and financial incentives. Citizens can be encouraged to take water-saving measures, especially when extra water is needed for irrigation and critical human needs. A comprehensive water conservation program is needed, to include water-saving measures that citizens and the government can take, water storage, water use controls, drought contingency plans and improvements in delivery systems. Public information and education is needed on the benefits of water conservation and the risks to public health caused by drought. Landscaping measures such as zeroscaping can be encouraged and financial incentives considered by adjusting water rates in drought conditions.

Benefit: This action will help conserve scarce water resources needed not only for human consumption, farming, firefighting and other needs.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator in coordination with Director of Public Works

Target Completion Date: 2015

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Water Development Board, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



93


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the government’s cost for this action is negligible and could result in significant benefit to residents who take the recommended water conservation measures.


Action: Conduct analyses to determine expected flood levels. Identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding to serve as a basis for evacuation planning.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

The topography of Edwards County results in low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding. People often underestimate the depth, force and power of water. Many deaths can occur in automobiles as drivers are swept downstream. Many of these drownings are preventable, but too many people continue to drive around the barriers that warn you the road is flooded.

Benefit:

This action will identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding. It will serve to educate the public, facilitate emergency protective actions and serve as the basis for future evacuation planning.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Police and Fire Departments

Target Completion Date: 2014 Funding Sources: General revenues Impact on existing and new buildings: None


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action should help save lives and enable Fire and Police to take protective measures at a minimal cost.


94


Action: Consider joining the National Flood Insurance Program.

Hazard: Flooding

Background: Flooding is one of the most frequent and costly disaster facing the County. Response and recovery costs can be high.

Benefit: This action would provide city residents and businesses with insurance coverage and reduce flood risks.

Priority: High Estimated Cost: Minimal

Responsible Organization: Floodplain Manager Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources: Staff time only. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.

Impact on existing and new buildings:

This action will reduce flood risk on new buildings over time and can provide funding to permanently removes existing structures from the floodplain. It does not allow construction of new buildings in the affected area.


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, acquisitions are generally viewed as the most cost/beneficial of measures to reduce flood risk over the long term.


95


Action: Implement drainage projects, including building or upgrading culverts at low water crossings.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

There are a number of low water crossings in the County which become flooded during major rain events. New culverts and upgrades to existing culverts are needed to carry flood waters away from roads and buildings. One of the first steps in implementing this action will be to work with other communities to identify low water crossings, develop flood reduction alternatives and recommend the best alternative for each stream based on an analysis of the costs and benefits of the various options. The County will review study results, selecting alternative solutions, developing grant funding requests, conducting engineering studies and carrying out the projects.

Benefit:

New and upgraded culverts will help carry flood waters away from roads and bridges. This action will reduce the danger to vehicle drivers and pedestrians, who may otherwise be swept away as they try to cross flooded areas. It will also help reduce damage to buildings and the disruption of transportation systems, and critical utilities.

Priority: High Estimated Cost: To be determined Responsible Organization: Department of Public Works


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include grants from the Texas Water Development Board and FEMA under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, with matching funds from general revenues and Community Development Block Grants. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.


96


Implementation of the study findings will provide protection for existing structures and enable new development outside the floodplain.


Upon completion of the study, an assessment will be made of the costs and benefits of the various alternatives for reducing flooding from each stream. A detailed benefit/cost analysis will accompany any grant proposal.


97


Action: Increase the level hazardous materials training for first responders; conduct a County-wide needs assessment and consider acquiring additional equipment and vehicles for hazardous materials response.

Hazard: Hazardous materials incidents

Background:

Hazardous materials are commonly used and transported in the local area. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for a serious hazmat incident to occur. There is a demand for state-of-the-art HAZMAT vehicles and equipment for first responders. Highway transportation of hazardous materials presents a serious threat to the population. Edwards County does not have a Hazmat Team capable of containing a large-scale hazmat incident. There are only a limited number of personnel, trained only in “Hazmat Awareness,” the lowest level of Hazmat Training. The County does not have the equipment and vehicles necessary to respond to a major incident. A County-wide equipment and vehicle needs assessment is required.

Benefit:

This action will help improve knowledge and capabilities and minimize risk to the public. It will also provide responders with information on the nature and potential health threat of chemicals being transported and enable emergency officials to better respond to hazardous materials accidents.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: To be determined based on needs assessment results. Responsible Organization: Fire Department



98


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. Costs will be determined based on the needs assessment results; training costs are minimal. Benefits are in increased capabilities to protect the public.


99


Action: Develop, train and exercise plans, procedures and equipment for emergency personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.


Background:

Plans and procedures are needed for emergency personnel to respond adequately to a hazardous materials incident. These plans and procedures need to be exercised periodically to make sure they are update to date and all response personnel are prepared.

Benefit: This action will help ensure that roles and responsibilities for a response to an incident are clear and personnel are adequately trained.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Specific costs are to be determined but are expected to be modest.

Responsible Organization: Fire Department Target Completion Date: 2015

Funding Sources:

General revenues and grants from the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency or other agencies. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the modest planning and training costs will help ensure that the County is prepared in the event of a hazmat incident.


100


Action: Develop emergency response and evacuation plan for use in the unlikely event of a major disaster.

Hazard: All hazards

Background:

An emergency response and evacuation plan is needed in the unlikely event of a major disaster in Edwards County or in the event support is needed to a neighboring jurisdiction.

Benefit: This action can save lives in the unlikely event of disaster. Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Evacuation planning costs are estimated to be minimal, limited to staff time.


Funding Sources: General revenues may be needed to update the County’s emergency response plan based on the findings.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action will allow County officials to better prepare for any event. Benefits of saving lives will far outweigh planning costs.


101


Action: Obtain wildland firefighting equipment and work with the Texas Forest Service on fire breaks and other mitigation measures.

Hazard: Wildland fire

Background:

Several areas of wildland fire susceptibility have been identified in this plan for Edwards County. In light of the wildland fire risk, equipment and fuels management may be needed to prevent or reduce the spread of fire.

Benefit: Creating fire breaks can slow or stop the spread of wildland fires by the removal of fuels for burning.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: To be determined after assessment of possible locations Responsible Organization: Fire Department


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.


This action will protect existing and new buildings by preventing or reducing the spread of fires.


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. The cost estimate is pending identification of locations for fire breaks. However, fuels management can go a long way towards preventing or reducing the spread of fires and reduce costs for emergency response and property damage.


102


Action: Review and update, as necessary, criteria for establishing burn bans; and procedures for conduct and reporting of controlled burns.


Background:

Wildland fires can be hard to control as they threaten people and homes. Grassland and wildland fires are more frequent and cause more property damage than structure fires. Many wildland fires are caused by controlled burning that cannot be contrained. The County and City governments issue burn bans at appropriate times of year to control the number and size of outdoor fires. The criteria for establishing burn bans needs to be reviewed and updated, as well as the procedures for conduct and reporting of controlled burns.

Benefit: Together, these actions will help ensure that procedures are up to date and thus help prevent and manage wildland fires.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Fire Department


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, costs are minimal and improved response resources will help prevent and control wildland fires early so that they do not require outside help from other local jurisdictions or the state.


103


Action: Conduct a public information campaign for residents to improve anchoring of manufactured homes and exterior attachments such as carports and porches


Background:

Edwards County has many residents living in manufactured housing consisting of mobile homes and recreational vehicles. In severe wind events such as thunderstorms, damage and injury can be prevented by anchoring manufactured homes and exterior attachments such as carports and porches. This action will involve public information to be provided through brochures and information provided at community meetings.

Benefit: This action prevents damage to manufactured homes and reduces the risk of loss of life and injury. It will help secure loose items so that they will not injure others.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator


Funding Sources: Funding sources include general revenues


This action will strengthen existing manufactured homes against severe winds. It will not affect new buildings.


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the additional protection that would be provided to very vulnerable mobile homes and the reduced risk from flying objects clearly exceed the project’s minimal costs.


104

6.2 City of Rocksprings Action Plan

Rocksprings Action No. 1

Action: In partnership with the County, conduct a comprehensive public outreach and education campaign for all hazards.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, drought, fuel pipeline failure

Background:

A comprehensive and sustained awareness and educational campaign is needed to give the residents of Rocksprings the knowledge and tools necessary to carry out their responsibilities to mitigate damage to their own lives and property before disaster strikes, better prepare for disasters, and know what to do in an emergency situation. The campaign will be conducted in partnership with the Rio Grande Institute’s disaster mitigation outreach project. It will be a long-term initiative, providing educational opportunities to advance the community’s knowledge and skills. To the extent possible, existing materials, available at no cost from FEMA, National Weather Service and other organization will be distributed at various community centers. Materials will be provided in English and Spanish to help reach all populations within the City and County.


105

Background (continued):

The City Emergency Coordinator will work with the County to educate citizens of all age groups. Presentations will be made, as requested by school district officials, homeowners associations, civic and service groups, church groups, and other interested parties. In addition, presentations will be made in local schools. Educating children is generally recognized as an effective way of providing information to entire families.

Benefit:

This action will result in a more informed public, aware of the risks they face from various hazards and knowledgeable about how to protect their families, homes, workplaces, communities and livelihoods from the impact of disasters. It will also result in lasting partnerships with those partners and community members who provide support. It will also assist in the recovery process since damage will be minimized and more residents will be self-sustaining for a longer period.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal, mostly requiring staff time


Funding Sources:

The Rio Grande Institute’s request for outreach funding is currently pending. Potential funding sources also include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and general revenues. Free resource materials will be sought to reduce the cost.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action’s minimal cost is insignificant compared to the potential property damages that could be lessened and lives that could be saved through educating the public about proper preparation for and response to a wide range of emergencies.


106

Rocksprings

Action No. 2

Action: Promote the use of NOAA “All Hazards” radios for early warning and post-event information.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, drought, fuel pipeline failure

Background:

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information direct from a nearby 14HNational Weather Service office. These stations broadcast National Weather Service warnings, as well as post-event information for all types of hazards, both natural and man-made. These broadcasts are generated seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Working with the Federal Communication System’s Emergency Alert System, NOAA Weather Radios are a single source for the most comprehensive weather and emergency information available to the public. These warnings buy extra time for people to react and take preventative measures before dangerous weather or other hazard conditions hit their area.

New technology allows users to pre-select the National Weather Service alerts according to local geographic areas such as a county (Specific Message Encoding or SAME). The hearing and visually impaired can also get these warnings by connecting specially designed attention-getting devices such as strobe lights, personal computers, text printers and other means.

Benefit: This mitigation action would provide early warning of dangerous conditions, allowing time for individuals to take appropriate action to protect lives and property.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Approximately $25 per radio for a battery-powered unit with the SAME technology.



107

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include general revenues, partnerships with local retailers, and Federal grants such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program’s initiative project. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the cost is likely to be insignificant compared to the benefits of having a public informed before, during and after disaster strikes and able to take immediate protective actions.


108


Action: Equip critical facilities with back-up generators to provide auxiliary power.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, fuel pipeline failures

Background:

Critical facilities should be equipped with backup power units to allow for continuity of operations in the event of a disaster. The Emergency Management Coordinator will update the critical facility list annually to prioritize facilities to be equipped.

Benefit: This action will provide for continuity of critical facilities and operations of government in the event of a power supply disruption.

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: To be determined upon review of critical facilities list

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Homeland Security grant funds and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action will help ensure continuity of critical governmental operations at a minimal cost.


109


Action: Install surge protectors on critical electronic equipment.


Background:

Damage from thunderstorms and lightning is often underestimated. Surge protectors can prevent lightning damage. This action would install surge protectors on the City’s critical electronic equipment.

Benefit:

This action will reduce damage to critical electronic equipment, thereby reducing replacement costs and ensuring continuing operation in emergency conditions.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Approximately $40 per surge protector


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include general revenues.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, purchasing low cost surge protectors is highly cost-beneficial. It protects very expensive electronic equipment at minimal cost from lightning strikes and ensures the continuity of county services during and after severe thunderstorms.


110


Action: Develop a water conservation program, including public education and outreach to warn citizens about the risks to public health caused by drought. Promote zeroscaping to conserve water.

Hazard: Drought

Background:

Periods of time with little or no precipitation can pose risks that can be managed with conservation and public education. Citizens can be encouraged to take water-saving measures, especially when extra water is needed for irrigation and critical human needs. A comprehensive water conservation program is needed, to include water-saving measures that citizens and the government can take, water storage, zeroscaping, water use controls, drought contingency plans and improvements in delivery systems. Public information and education is needed on the benefits of water conservation and the risks to public health caused by drought. Landscaping measures such as zeroscaping will be encouraged to conserve scarce water supplies.

Benefit: This action will help conserve scarce water resources needed not only for human consumption, farming, firefighting and other needs.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator Target Completion Date: 2015

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Water Development Board, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



111


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the government’s cost for this action is negligible and could result in significant benefit to residents who take the recommended water conservation measures.


Action: Work with the County to identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding to serve as a basis for evacuation planning.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Low water crossings and roadways may be prone to flooding. People often underestimate the depth, force and power of water. Many deaths can occur in automobiles as drivers are swept downstream. Many of these drownings are preventable, but too many people continue to drive around the barriers that warn you the road is flooded.

Benefit:

With this action, the City will work with the County to identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding. It will serve to educate the public, facilitate emergency protective actions and serve as the basis for future evacuation planning.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Police and Fire



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action should help save lives and enable Fire and Police to take protective measures at a minimal cost.


112


Action: Conduct an annual review of the National Flood Insurance Program’s “repetitive loss” list to determine if there are any properties within the City that repetitively flood.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Fortuntately, the City of Rocksprings has only a small flood risk. However, an annual review of the FEMA repetitive loss list will held determine if there are any flood damaged properties that could be removed from risk permanently.

Benefit:

Voluntary acquisitions permanently remove properties from the floodplain and provide open space for benefit of the public. Acquisitions also reduce costs for government to maintain infrastructure in floodprone areas and save emergency response costs.

Priority: High

Estimated Cost:

Minimal staff time would be required to review the repetitive loss list annually. Any acquisition costs would be determined based on number and value of structures to be acquired.

Responsible Organization: Floodplain Manager Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Severe Repetitive Loss Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, Hazard Mitigation Grants and Community Development Block Grant funding, supplemented by general revenues for the non-Federal cost share match. Community Development Block Grants may also be used for the non-Federal cost share match. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.


This action permanently removes existing structures from the floodplain. It does not allow construction of new buildings in the affected area.


113


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, acquisitions are generally viewed as the most cost/beneficial of measures to reduce flood risk over the long term. A detailed cost/benefit analysis will be done as part of the grant application.


114

Rocksprings

Action No. 8

Action: Conduct a campaign to increase awareness of flood insurance and its benefits and costs.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Rocksprings has outdated flood risk information and a low rate of flood insurance coverage. Flood insurance provides the best financial protection in the event of a flood disaster. Residential or commercial insurance policies do not cover flood damages. Flood insurance enables property owners to recover quickly and more fully from a flooding event. Reliance on Federal disaster assistance leaves many without financial protection for those events that are not Federally-declared disasters. Often, Federal disaster assistance is in the form of long–term loans that must be repaid. Unfortunately, there is a critical need for accurate flood risk information. An updated map is desperately needed for communities and local residents to identify known flood risks and make informed decisions about flood insurance and flood protection. The awareness campaign will be aimed at local officials and property owners. It will encourage residents to and business owners to purchase flood insurance. It will make available free training and publications from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Texas Water Development Board and the Texas Floodplain Management Association.

Benefit: Increased flood insurance coverage will provide greater financial protection for owners and renters. ( 15Hwww.FloodSmart.gov).

Priority: High Estimated Cost: Minimal; free training and publications are available. Responsible Organization: Floodplain Administrator



115

Funding Sources:

Training and publications are available at no cost through the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Floodplain Management Association and the National Flood Insurance Program.


By proving financial protection to help rebuild after a disaster, this action will provide for faster rebuilding of existing structures after a disaster. The Increased Cost of Compliance insurance benefits will help rebuilding existing buildings in compliance with standards.


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the minimal cost of encouraging residents to buy flood insurance is small compared to the financial protection flood insurance will bring. This action will minimize the costs for Federal disaster assistance and local government services.


116

Rocksprings

Action No. 9 Action: Continue to improve enforcement of the National Flood Insurance Program

requirements, including those related to substantial damage/substantial improvement.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

When a building in a Special Flood Hazard Area is substantially improved or substantially damaged, it must be rebuilt to standards contained in the local floodplain management ordinance. This action calls for continuing to improve enforcement of this provision.

"Substantial improvement" means any rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a building when the cost of the improvement equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building before start of construction of the improvement. The term includes buildings that have incurred "substantial damage." "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a building when the cost of restoring the building to its pre-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the building before the damage occurred.

Benefit: This action will reduce future flood risks and remove buildings from the floodplain over time.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Floodplain Administrator Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources: General revenues


This will ensure that substantially improved or damaged buildings in Special Flood Hazard Areas are rebuilt in ways that reduce flood risks. It will not impact new buildings. It will, however, reduce buildings in the floodplain over time.


117


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. This action helps to remove properties over time from the floodplain through more vigorous enforcement of the ordinance, at a minimal cost. It will reduce the long-term costs associated with properties located in the floodplain. It will also reduce costs for Federal disaster assistance and local government services.


118

Rocksprings

Action No. 10 Action: In partnership with the County, increase the level hazardous materials

training for first responders; conduct a needs assessment and consider acquisition of additional equipment and vehicles for hazardous materials response.


Background:

Hazardous materials are commonly used and transported in the local area. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for a serious hazmat incident to occur. There is a demand for state-of-the-art HAZMAT vehicles and equipment for first responders. Highway transportation of hazardous materials presents a serious threat to the population. The City does not have a Hazmat Team capable of containing a large-scale hazmat incident. There are only a limited number of personnel, trained only in “Hazmat Awareness,” the lowest level of Hazmat Training. The County does not have the equipment and vehicles necessary to respond to a major incident. A County-wide equipment and vehicle needs assessment is required.

Benefit:

This action will help improve knowledge and capabilities and minimize risk to the public. It will also provide responders with information on the nature and potential health threat of chemicals being transported and enable emergency officials to better respond to hazardous materials accidents.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: To be determined based on needs assessment results.

Responsible Organization: Fire Department Target Completion Date: 2016 Funding Sources: General revenues Impact on existing and new buildings: None


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. Costs will be determined based on the needs assessment; training costs are minimal. Benefits are in increased capabilities to protect the public.


119


Action: Work with the County to implement drainage projects, including building or upgrading culverts at low water crossings.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

There are a number of low water crossings which become flooded during major rain events. New culverts and upgrades to existing culverts are needed to carry flood waters away from roads and buildings. One of the first steps in implementing this action will be to work with the County to identify low water crossings, develop flood reduction alternatives and recommend the best alternative for each low water crossing based on an analysis of the costs and benefits of the various options. The County will work closely with the City in reviewing study results, selecting alternative solutions, developing grant funding requests, conducting engineering studies and carrying out projects.

Benefit:

New and upgraded culverts will help carry flood waters away from roads and bridges. This action will reduce the danger to vehicle drivers and pedestrians, who may otherwise be swept away as they try to cross flooded areas. It will also help reduce damage to buildings and the disruption of transportation systems, and critical utilities.

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: To be determined Responsible Organization: Public Works Target Completion Date: 2016


120

Funding Sources:

Funding sources include grants from the Texas Water Development Board and FEMA under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, with matching funds from general revenues and Community Development Block Grants. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.


Implementation of the study findings will provide protection for existing structures and enable new development outside the floodplain.


Upon completion of the study, an assessment will be made of the costs and benefits of the various alternatives for reducing flooding from each stream. A detailed benefit/cost analysis will accompany any grant proposal.


121


Action: Coordinate with the County in their development of emergency response and evacuation plans for use in the unlikely event of a major disaster.

Hazard: All hazards

Background: A major disaster is an unlikely but potentially life-threatening event.

Benefit: This action can save lives in the unlikely event of major disaster.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: Evacuation planning costs are estimated to be minimal, limited to staff time.

Responsible Organization: EMC


Funding Sources: County general revenues may be needed to update the County’s emergency response plan based on the findings.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, this action will allow local officials to better prepare for any event. Benefits of saving lives will far outweigh planning costs.


122

Rocksprings

Action No. 13

Action: Review and update, as necessary, criteria for establishing burn bans; and procedures for conduct and reporting of controlled burns.


Background:

Wildland fires can be hard to control as they threaten people and homes. Grassland and wildland fires are more frequent and cause more property damage than structure fires. Many wildland fires are caused by controlled burning that cannot be contrained. The County and City governments issue burn bans at appropriate times of year to control the number and size of outdoor fires. The criteria for establishing burn bans may need to be reviewed and updated, as well as the procedures for conduct and reporting of controlled burns.

Benefit: Together, these actions will help ensure that procedures are up to date and thus help prevent and manage wildland fires.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.



Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, costs are minimal and improved response resources will help prevent and control wildland fires early so that they do not require outside help from other local jurisdictions or the state.


123


Action: Work with the County to obtain proactively educate citizens on wildfire prevention. Review the need for wildland firefighting equipment, and work with the Texas Forest Service on fire mitigation options.


Background:

Several areas of wildland fire susceptibility have been identified in this plan for Rocksprings. In light of the wildland fire risk, equipment and fuels management are needed to prevent or reduce the spread of fire. The Texas Forest Service can assist with creating fire breaks and other mitigation measures. The Volunteer Fire Department will work to educate citizens of the County. Members of the VFDs will make presentations to the schools and various civic and other community groups. The County Emergency Management Office will submit articles concerning wildfire prevention to the various newspapers and community newsletters. City and County government will issue burning bans at the appropriate times of the year to control the number and size of outdoor fires.

Benefit: Creating fire breaks can slow or stop the spread of wildland fires by the removal of fuels for burning. Better equipment will help contain fires.

Priority: Medium

Estimated Cost: To be determined after assessment of equipment needs. Locations


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and general revenues. Implementation of mitigation actions is dependent upon the availability of Federal, state and local funding and staff to administer the project.


This action will protect existing and new buildings by preventing or reducing the spread of fires.


124


A detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan. The cost estimate is pending identification of locations for fire breaks. However, fuels management can go a long way towards preventing or reducing the spread of fires and reduce costs for emergency response and property damage.


125


Action: Conduct a public information campaign for residents to improve anchoring of manufactured homes and exterior attachments such as carports and porches


Background:

There are residents living in manufactured housing consisting of mobile homes and recreational vehicles. In severe wind events such as thunderstorms , damage and injury can be prevented by anchoring manufactured homes and exterior attachments such as carports and porches. This action will involve public information to be provided through brochures and information provided at community meetings.

Benefit: This action prevents damage to manufactured homes and reduces the risk of loss of life and injury. It will help secure loose items so that they will not injure others.

Priority: Medium Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator


Funding Sources: Funding sources include general revenues


This action will strengthen existing manufactured homes against severe winds. It will not affect new buildings.


Although a detailed benefit/cost analysis is beyond the scope of this plan, the additional protection that would be provided to very vulnerable mobile homes and the reduced risk from flying objects clearly exceed the project’s minimal costs.


126

APPENDIX A

Edwards County Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Action Team

Name Organization

County Judge

(Updated list forthcoming)


127

APPENDIX B Cover the Border Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Middle Rio Grande Cover the Border Plan

Jurisdiction Name Big Wells, City of Charles Greenhill Brackettville, City of Suzanna Lowery Brackettville, City of Dr. Kent Lowery Brackettville, City of Jewell F. Robinson Brackettville, City of Henry Garcia Camp Wood, City of Ben Cox Camp Wood, City of John Maxwell Camp Wood, City of Josh Cox Carrizo Springs, City of Mariso B. Chavez Carrizo Springs, City of Rolando Carpenter Carrizo Springs, City of Conrad Longarn Carrizo Springs, City of Sandra Santos? Carrizo Springs, City of Jose Luis Rodriguez Carrizo Springs, City of Joe Rodriguez Chemical Response (CRRC) David Hanawa Citizens for Cleaner Uvalde Rauni Leilani McClure Cotulla, City of Larry Dovalina Crystal City, City of John Camarillo Crystal City, City of Michael Camarillo Del Rio, City of John Sheedy Del Rio, City of Joe Harrington Dimmit County Ernest Flores II Dimmit County Mike Uriegas Eagle Pass EOC Jesus Rodriguez Eagle Pass Fire Department Sonny Mello Eagle Pass Fire Department Jose Felix Carrazco Eagle Pass Parks and Recreation Department Rosa M Aguirre Eagle Pass Parks and Recreation Department Jorge Sanchez Eagle Pass Police Department Orlando T. Escondito Eagle Pass Police Department Aldo G. Escamilla Eagle Pass Police Department Luis A. Garza Eagle Pass Police Department Alejandro Guedea Eagle Pass Police Department Moises Pena, Jr. Eagle Pass Police Department Tony Castanela, Chief Eagle Pass Police Department Jose Ibarra


128


Jurisdiction Name Eagle Pass Public Works I. Ruiz Eagle Pass Public Works Mike Castillo Eagle Pass Public Works Sergio Garcias Eagle Pass Public Works Joe M. Sanchez Eagle Pass, City of Arturo Garcia Eagle Pass, City of Jesus Rodriguez Eagle Pass, City of Celestino Hernandez, Jr. Eagle Pass, City of Don Williams Eagle Pass, City of Imelda Rodriguez Eagle Pass, City of D. Tijerina Eagle Pass, City of Gloria Barrientos Eagle Pass, City of David Velemzuela Eagle Pass, City of Mario Diaz Eagle Pass, City of Hector Chavez Edwards County Deyonira Gonzalez Edwards County Nick Guillagos Encinal, City of Sylvano Sanchez Encinal, City of Frank Weikel International Boundary and Water Commission Sheryl Franklin Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Alexander Trevino Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Antonio Garza Kinney County Herb Senne Kinney County Chris Keith Lacy Associates, LLC Laurel Lacy La Salle County Elio Ramirez Laughlin Air Force Base Rob Lindt Laughlin Air Force Base Craig Alexander Laughlin Air Force Base Craig Wilgus Laughlin Air Force Base Mike Curry Laughlin Air Force Base Derek Phillips Leakey, City of Henry Jones Leakey, City of Jesse Pendley Maverick County Roberto Ruiz Maverick County John Sullivan (formerly with the County) Maverick County Apolinio Rodriguez Middle Rio Grande Development Council Forrest Anderson Middle Rio Grande Development Council Carl Essen Middle Rio Grande Development Council David Avalos Middle Rio Grande Development Council Erica Bustamante Middle Rio Grande Development Council Smokey Cranfill


129


Jurisdiction Name Middle Rio Grande Development Council Eddie Gueria Middle Rio Grande Development Council Ernest Flores III Middle Rio Grande Development Council John Ruiz, Jr. Middle Rio Grande Development Council Vangie Alejandro Mundo Sustentable Alfanso Martinez Real County W.B. Sanson Rio Grande Institute Bill Skeen Rocksprings, City of Jeff C. Yaman State Representative Tracy King Joe Ornelm Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Victor Hugo Wong Texas Department of Public Safety/DEM Fernando Perez Texas Department of State Health Services Calixto Seca Texas Park and Wildlife Armando Guzman US Representative Ciro Rodriguez Yecenia Martinez US Representative Ciro Rodriguez Irma Gutierrez Uvalde County Richardo S. Benavidez Uvalde, City of William R. Mitchell Uvalde, City of Spade Condry Uvalde, City of Joe A. Cardenas Val Verde County Billie Powers Val Verde County Roger S. Cerny Val Verde Sheriff Mary English Val Verde Sheriff R.N. “Butch” Skelton Zavala County Jesse Guajardo, Jr. Zavala County Joe Luna (not provided) Eva Guerra-House


130

APPENDIX C Adoption Resolutions

(pending signature)

Edwards County and the City of Rocksprings WHEREAS, a range of hazards in Edwards County historically have caused significant disasters with losses of life and property and natural resources damage; WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and FEMA require communities to adopt a hazard mitigation action plan to be eligible for pre-disaster and post-disaster federal funding for mitigation purposes; and WHEREAS, the Rio Grande Institute is coordinating the “Cover the Border” hazard mitigation planning process for the region, and has put into place a framework for coordinated and focused hazard mitigation actions at both the local and regional levels; and WHEREAS, Edwards County and Rocksprings have participated in the development of a plan covering each jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the City/County of ____________ has been an active participant in the hazard mitigation planning process, and has conducted and documented its own community public involvement process; and WHEREAS, the “Cover the Border” Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines mitigation goals and identifies risk reduction strategies for hazards that threaten the City/County of _________. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1: The City/County of _________ adopts the “Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan for Edwards County, 2012- 2017.” Section 2: Vests with _______________ (title of official) of the _____________ (City/County office) with the responsibility, authority, and the means to inform all parties of the action; develop an addendum as necessary; assure that the plan will be reviewed at least annually and that any needed adjustments will be developed and presented to the City Council/Commissioners Court as necessary; and agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Section 3: The City/County will pursue available funding opportunities for implementation of the proposals designated therein, and will, upon receipt of such funding or other necessary resources, seek to implement the actions contained in the mitigation strategies.


131

Section 3: The City/County will continue to participate in the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning process, including reporting of progress as required by FEMA and the State’s Division of Emergency Management. Section 4: This resolution is in effect immediately. Approval signatures


132

APPENDIX D Flood Studies

A review determined that there was no Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Edwards County, leaving residents without risk information necessary to make informed decisions on building and development. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Rocksprings, covering all Zone A, C and X, February 1, 1991 (original FIRM by letter) Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Technical Paper No. 40. Natural Disasters and the Environment along the U.S. – Mexico Border: Eleventh Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress, March 2008.

Underground Water Conservation District Rules.

Texas State Water Plan, Texas Water Development Board, November 14, 2006.

1993 Governor’s Border Working Group, Border Issues Division of the Policy Council, Office of the Governor. This study presented critical issues on storm drainage improvements. Recommendations were made for joint cooperation.

Documents

Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover ... · Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border” 2012 - 2017 March 31, 2012