Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the … · 2012. 5. 3. · Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border” 2011 - 2016 January

Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan

KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border”

2011 - 2016

January 29, 2012

Prepared by

THE RIO GRANDE INSTITUTE

Under authority of:

The Honorable Tim Ward, County Judge, Kinney County, Texas Kinney County Commissioners Court

Mayor and City Council of Brackettville Mayor and Town Council of Spofford

in partnership with officials from Kinney County and 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/

_________________________________________________________________________________ Kinney County, Texas DRAFT 1.29.12 “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 ......................................................................................... 12 1.4.3. Risk assessment ................................................................................................... 13 1.4.4. Mitigation strategies ........................................................................................... 13 1.4.5. Implementation and monitoring ...................................................................... 14

Chapter 2. Goals................................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 3. Description of Kinney County ................................................................................... 20

3.1. History ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.2. Watersheds ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.3. Topography ................................................................................................................... 22 3.4. Climate ............................................................................................................................ 23 3.5. Population ...................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 4. Assets at Risk ................................................................................................................ 25 4.1. Study area definition..................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Assets at risk .................................................................................................................. 27 4.3. Critical facilities and infrastructure ............................................................................ 27

Chapter 5. Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................... 31 5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. Hazards addressed in this plan ................................................................... 31 5.1.2. Disaster declarations ..................................................................................... 31 5.1.3. Risk assessment process ............................................................................... 32 5.1.4. Loss estimates ................................................................................................ 34 5.1.5. Hazard profiles .............................................................................................. 35

5.2. Severe Thunderstorms................................................................................................. 37

5.2.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 37 5.2.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 37 5.2.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 39 5.2.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 39 5.2.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 39


2

5.2.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 39 5.2.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 39

5.3. Flooding ......................................................................................................................... 41

5.3.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 41 5.3.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 43 5.3.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 43 5.3.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 44 5.3.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 45 5.3.6. Vulnerability ................................................................................................. 49 5.3.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 51 5.3.8. Previous mitigation actions.......................................................................... 51

5.4. Hazardous materials incidents .................................................................................... 54

5.4.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 54 5.4.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 56 5.4.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 57 5.4.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 57 5.4.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 60 5.4.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 60 5.4.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 63

5.5. Wildland fire ................................................................................................................. 64


5.6. Drought........................................................................................................................... 71


5.7. Tornadoes ...................................................................................................................... 76

5.7.1. Description of the hazard ............................................................................. 76 5.7.2. Measurement ................................................................................................. 76 5.7.3. Previous occurrences .................................................................................... 78 5.7.4. Geographic areas affected ............................................................................ 78


3

5.7.5. Probability of future disasters ..................................................................... 80 5.7.6. Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 80 5.7.7. Potential impact ............................................................................................. 80

5.8. Dam failure..................................................................................................................... 81


5.9. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 88

5.9.1. Summary of economic impacts .................................................................. 88 5.9.2. Optional mitigation actions considered ................................................... 90

Chapter 6. Mitigation actions ......................................................................................................... 92 6.1. Kinney County action plan .......................................................................................... 93 6.2. Brackettville action plan ............................................................................................. 121 6.3. Spofford action plan.................................................................................................... 149

Appendices A. Kinney County Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee ……………………..170

B. Cover the Border Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee ........................... 171

C. Adoption Resolutions (pending signature) ...................................................................... 174

D. Flood Studies....................................................................................................................... 176

E. Kinney County Public Hazard Survey Results .............................................................. 177


4

Introduction

Kinney County 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, global temperatures rise and population grows. Located in the Middle Rio Grande region of Texas only twenty miles from the Mexican border, 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.

Kinney County faces a growing risk of natural and technological disaster, and significant economic and social challenges. However, under the leadership of the Honorable County Judge, Tim Ward, and the Mayors of Brackettville and Spofford, local officials are taking steps to protect people and property from disaster and a new vision for hazard mitigation is being realized.

This document, Cover the Border, Hazard Mitigation Plan for Kinney County, 2011 – 2016, was prepared by Kinney County and the Cities of Brackettville and Spofford 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 seven 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 • Tornadoes • Dam failure

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 Kinney 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 Kinney County, the City of Brackettville and the Town of Spofford, Texas. 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 Honorable County Judge Tim Ward and the participating Mayors provided leadership for the development of the plan. The Kinney 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 January 23, 2012. State comments were received on ______ (date) and the Plan was revised and 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. (www.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 ombusmen 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.

Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford participated in all aspects of the planning process, attending and actively contributing ideas at meetings. The Kinney 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. City Emergency Management Coordinators served as the liaisons with the Mayors and City Councils; 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 Coordinators profiled hazards, assisted in the risk assessment, developed mitigation actions and action plans, and reviewed drafts.

From the outset, local 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 Kinney County Emergency Management Coordinator will have lead responsibility for implementing, monitoring, updating and amending the Plan, working in close coordination with the city 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. The Kinney County Local Emergency Planning Committee was actively involved starting in 2004. 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 Kinney County Local Emergency Planning Committee.

Starting in April, 2010 Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford participated in Regional Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee formed 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 the two public meetings held in May 2004 and 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 Francisco Canseco, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. District 23 The Honorable Carlos Uresti, Senator, Texas State Senate, District 19 The Honorable Tracy O. King, Texas State Representative, House District 80


10

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

plan. Public involvement started in 2004. At open public meetings, the Kinney County Local Emergency Planning Committee sought public input and passed resolutions notifying the public of the planning process and providing local support. Citizens from Brackettville, Spofford and Fort Clark Springs participated on the Committee. The resolutions are listed below:

City of Brackettville, Resolution for Approval of Submission of Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 15, 2004

City of Spofford, Resolution for Approval of Submission of Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 9, 2004

Kinney County Commissioners Court Order for Approval of Submission of Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 15, 20004

On June 3, 2004, the Kinney County Local Emergency Planning Committee posted a public notice on Hazard Mitigation in the local newspaper, The Brackett News. The purpose of the notice was to inform the community and surrounding areas about the planning process and seek public comment at an open public meeting held on June 7, 2004 in the Kinney County Courthouse. The notice requested that

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

Others

The Brackett News

Kinney County Extension Agent

Brackettville Volunteer Fire Department


11

citizens attend and submit appropriate data for inclusion in the plan. A second workshop with citizens was held on June 28, 2004. In June, 2010, under the auspices of the Rio Grande Institute, a series of Public Meetings were held to (Table 1.3) as the plan was developed.

The 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 newspaper notices stated, in part:

“…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 January 20, 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)

Kinney County Judge’s Office, Kinney County Courthouse

City Secretary’s Office, City of Bracketville

Secretary’s Office, Town of Spofford

Rio Grande Institute website, www.riogrande.org

Table 1.3. Cover the Border 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

mailto:[email protected]




12

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 Cities used the following process to identify the seven 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 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):

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, 1987 (a new Flood Insurance Study is forthcoming) 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


13

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 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.

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, seven hazards were identified as priorities for mitigation action. These are discussed in detail in Chapters 5.2 through 5.9.

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 (Chapter 5.10.2):


14

Emergency Management Plan for Kinney 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.

• 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 implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Plan 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


15

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 County Underground Water Conservation District Rules

Kinney County All-Hazard Emergency Management Plan Kinney County Hazard Analysis, 2003

County and City floodplain management ordinances County rules related to on-site sewage disposal Good Neighbor Environmental Board Annual Report to the President and Congress

Colonias Comprehensive Plan, Texas Department of Rural Affairs, Texas Community Development Program

The County and Cities 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 Plans for Kinney County and participating cities. 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 Cities are responsible for continual monitoring of those components of


16

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

• 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, 2015 and be completed by December, 2016. 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


17

• 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:

Kinney County Clerk, County Courthouse

City Secretary, City of Brackettville

Town Secretary, Town of Spofford

Rio Grande Institute website www.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.




18

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.


19

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.

Kinney County Courthouse

Source: TexasCourthouses.com

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







20

3. Description of Kinney County

The special characteristics of Kinney County’s natural features, population and the economy offer unique challenges for mitigation planning and will be an important part of this mitigation plan. Kinney County is west of San Antonio on U.S. Highway 90 in the Rio Grande Plain region. Roughly square in shape, it is bordered by Edwards County in the north, Uvalde County on the east, Maverick County on the south, and Val Verde County and Mexico on the west. The center of the county lies at 29°21' north latitude and 100°25' west longitude. The county seat and largest town is Brackettville. Kinney County has a major highway (U.S. 90) that passes between the City of Brackettville and Fort Clark Springs and a major railroad line through the Town of Spofford as well as being located near portions of Fort Clark Springs. Laughlin AFB, one of the nation’s major Air Force jet training facilities, is located 25 miles from Brackettville and has a major training facility four miles West of Spofford In addition to U.S. Highway 90, the county is served by State Highway 131 and Farm roads 334, 674, 693, 1572, 1908, 2523, and 3008. The county's transportation needs are also served by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The county embraces 1,359 square miles, partly on the Edwards Plateau and partly on the plain of the Rio Grande, which forms the southwestern boundary. The northeastern corner of the county is drained by the West Nueces River.

3.1 History

Despite the region's sparse population, the state legislature authorized the formation of the county from Bexar County in 1850 and named it for early settler and adventurer Henry Lawrence Kinney. By 1874 the population was large enough for the county to be formally organized, and by 1875 the first county government was in place. In 1876 Brackettville was designated county seat after the final boundaries of the county were set by the legislature. Much of the county's economy in the early postwar period was dependent on cattle ranching. Sheep ranching, however, gradually replaced cattle ranching during the 1870s and Kinney County became an important source of wool. The onset of the Great Depression brought a marked downturn in prices for wool and mohair. The population of the county increased to 4,533 in 1940, but fell markedly after Fort Clark was closed in 1946; by 1950 the number of residents had declined to 2,648. During the 1960s and early 1970s the number of residents continued to drop to 2,006 in 1970. Subsequently, however, came slow but steady growth. Kinney County nonetheless remains one of the most sparsely populated counties in the state.1

1The preceding sections were excerpted from “The Handbook of Texas Online,” Texas State Historical Association http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/hck9.html

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/EE/rxe1.html

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/fki29.html

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/aus1.html


21

3.2 Watersheds The three Kinney County watersheds are in the Texas Gulf Region, Nueces-Southwestern Sub-Region and the Rio Grande Region, Rio Grande-Falcon Sub-Region. The river basins are shown below followed by the three watersheds.

West Nueces Watershed


22

Turkey Watershed

Elm-Sycamore Watershed

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

3.3 Topography The land is level to rolling in the south and rugged in the north along the Balcones Escarpment and the breaks of the Nueces River. Anacacho Mountain is in the southeast. The altitude ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. The northern half of the county is rocky and hilly with some loamy soils. In the northeastern corner are areas with dark, loamy soils over limestone. The vegetation in the northern portion of the county is characteristic of the Edwards Plateau region, with short grasses, mesquite, and cacti predominating. The southern half of the county has gray to black, cracking, clayey soils over limestone with light-colored loamy soils in some areas. The vegetation in this area, typical of the South Texas plains, includes short to mid-height grasses, thorny shrubs, cacti, and mesquite. Minerals include brick clay and metallic ores. Less than 1 percent of the land in the county is considered prime farmland.

http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/BB/rxb1.html

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/rja5.html


23

3.4 Climate The climate is subtropical, with dry and mild winters and hot summers. Temperatures range in January from an average low of 36° F to an average high of 63°, and in July from 74° to 96°. The average annual rainfall is twenty-two inches; the average relative humidity is 76 percent at 6 A.M. and 42 percent at 6 P.M. Snow is rare. The growing season averages 272 days per year, with the last freeze in early March and the first in late November.2 3.5 Population According to the office of the Texas Comptroller, the 2008 population of Kinney County was 3,233, down 1.9 percent from 2007. The largest town was Brackettville, population 1,767. The population is 45.5 percent white, 2.2 percent black, and 50.9 percent Hispanic. Residents under 20 years of age constituted 23.0 percent of the total as compared to 27.0 percent who were 65 years old and over. Enrollment in public education was 593 in four schools with no institutions of higher education.3 The Texas State Demographer mid-range population projections show relatively stable population totals with steady growth in the number of Hispanics.4

Population Projections

Year Total

White Black Hispanic Other

2010 3,482 1,450 46 1,976 10 2015 3,514 1,352 46 2,106 10 2020 3,513 1,249 44 2,210 10 2025 3,522 1,161 43 2,308 10 2030 3,515 1,087 40 2,378 10 2035 3,518 1,031 36 2,441 10 2040 3,564 987 31 2,537 9

The 2000 census documented several key characteristics of the county’s population.5

• Residents born in the United States---87.2 percent

2 The Handbook of Texas Online 3 Texas Comptroller http://www.texasahead.org/texasedge/run_report.html 4 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2008projections/2008_txpopprj_cntytotnum.php 5 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/data/census/2000/dp2_4/pdf/


24

• Residents who speak English only at home—52.8 percent • Residents who speak another language at home who speak English less than “very well”—19.4

percent • Residents 25 years of age and older who have less than 9th grade education—21.8 percent • Residents 21 to 64 years of age with a disability—21.6 percent • Residents 16 years of age and older in the labor force—42.4 percent • Residents below poverty threshold—24.0 percent • Housing structures lacking complete plumbing facilities—0.5 percent

Table 3.1 shows the one colonia located in Kinney County, now an incorporated city participating in this plan.

Table 3.1 Kinney County Colonias

County Name ID Community Name Alternate Name Kinney M1360001 Spofford 66

Source: Office of the Attorney General of Texas, https://maps.oag.state.tx.us/colgeog/colgeog_online.html#

https://maps.oag.state.tx.us/colgeog/colgeog_online.html


25

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. Figure 4-1. illustrates the extent of the study area for Kinney County and participating cities, as well as the population density distribution (based on Census 2000). Table 4.1 provides a numeric breakdown of the population by jurisdiction, including those with potential special needs.

Table 4.1. Population Distribution by Jurisdiction

Special Needs Population Jurisdiction Total Population

(2000) Elderly (Over 65)

Low Income (</= $25k)

Kinney County 1,428 413 605 Brackettville 1,876 134 394 Spofford 75 17 6

Source: Middle Rio Grande Development Council; HAZUS-MH

The Office of the Attorney General of Texas reports only one colonia in Kinney County (Table 4.2), which has now become an incorporated city participating in this plan. In some counties, colonias are often located in isolated and/or marginal areas lacking basic services and with a significant exposure to flooding and other natural hazards, consistently lagging behind the rest of the County and State economically. The rate of health insurance is extremely low. Engaging the colonias residents in mitigation is a special challenge. All maps in this plan show the colonia’s boundaries highlighted in purple.

Table 4.2. Population of Kinney County Colonia

ID Community Name Population

M1360001 Spofford 66 Source: Office of the Attorney General of Texas


26

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


27

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 4.3 provides building count and the total estimated dollar exposure (i.e., replacement value) according to key occupancy classes for each participating jurisdiction.

Table 4.3 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

Kinney County 1,566 $93,635,000 7 $3,286,000 7 $1,414,000 1,580 $98,335,000 Brackettville 1,205 $50,161,000 39 $8,722,000 21 $9,930,000 1,265 $68,813,000 Spofford 119 $3,179,000 0 $0,000 1 $165,000 120 $3,344,000

Source: HAZUS-MH Table 4.4 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 4.4 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***

Kinney County 0 65.14 90.99 108.19 2 Brackettville 0 0 3.91 0 3 Spofford 0 0 1.49 1.84 0

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

4.3. Critical facilities and infrastructure Table 4.5 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 Kinney County and Brackettville, respectively. There were no critical facility locations identified within Spofford.


28

Table 4.5 Critical Facilities in Kinney County Generated by HAZUS-MH

Jurisdiction Name Type Replacement Value

Brackettville KINNEY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT Police Station $1,246,000 Brackettville BRACKETTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Station $1,246,000 Brackettville BRACKETTVILLE HIGH SCHOOL School $2,209,000 Brackettville JONES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL School $3,448,000 Brackettville BRACKETTVILLE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL School $1,295,000 Brackettville BRACKETTVILLE ALTER School $165,000

Source: HAZUS-MH


29

Figure 4-2. Critical Facilities in Kinney County


30

Figure 4-3. Critical Facilities in Brackettville


31

5. Risk Assessment

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. Hazards addressed in the plan Kinney County is subject to frequent disasters. Flooding is the primary hazard followed by drought, as measured in economic losses. Other weather-related hazards such as thunderstorms, drought, wildland fire and tornadoes are frequent occurrences. In addition, man-caused hazards ranging from dam failure, hazardous materials incidents to fuel pipeline failures threaten residents. Because of its close proximity to the border with Mexico, Kinney 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 • Tornadoes • Fuel pipeline failure • Dam or levee failure 5.1.2. Presidential disaster declarations

Of the 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. Between 1991 and 2011, Kinney County has experienced three natural disasters severe enough to receive a Major Presidential Disaster Declaration and two Emergency Declarations (Table 5.1). The county has also experienced additional emergencies and disasters that were not severe enough to require federal disaster relief through a presidential declaration. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that emergency loans would be made to farmers and ranchers in Texas


32

counties, including this county, that have suffered "losses caused by drought, excessive heat, high winds, and wildfire."

Table 5.1 Presidential Disaster Declaration for Kinney County 1992-2010

Event Declaration Date Declaration Number

Tropical Storm Charlie 8/26/1998 1239

Hurricane Rita 9/21/2005 3261* (all counties)

Hurricane Rita 9/24/2005 1606 (all counties) Extreme Wildfire Threat

1/11/2006 1624 Wildfires 3/14/2008 3284*

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency *Emergency declaration

A careful examination of hazard event profiles relevant to the Kinney County area serves to define historic hazard trends and provides a reference point for understanding the potential impacts from future predicted events. Reviewing historic data assists in evaluating hazard event profiles, which focus on answering the following questions: What? Where? How often? How bad? The Planning Committee considered the Presidential Disaster Declarations and decided to address the effects of such dying tropical storms and hurricanes under Section 5. 3., Flooding. Because Kinney County is so far inland, it does not generally experience direct hits from tropical storms or hurricanes. Tropical Storm Charlie and Hurricane Rita were the result of multiple, degraded storms that caused massive rainfall that filled rivers and streams and drainage systems and resulted in flooding in Kinney and nearby counties. Hurricane Rita was a statewide declaration. The remainder of this section includes a review of potential hazard exposure, historical frequency of occurrence and/or loss or damage estimates for Kinney County and its incorporated jurisdictions, including graphical illustrations and tables.

5.1.3. Risk Assessment process

Identification of hazards. Risk is the probability of occurrence multiplied by the consequences. The seven 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 Kinney County


33

Mitigation Planning Committee and Action Team 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 Uvalde 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, and the Texas Geographic Society for data on potential hazards and information to aid in the risk assessment; and,

• 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.

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.


34

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.

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.


35

5.1.5. Hazard profiles

The seven 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


36

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 5.9).

Table 5.5 Hazard profiles Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford

(based on local perception of risk prior to engineering analyses)

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 Limited

Drought Possible Large Critical

Tornadoes Possible Minimal Limited

Fuel pipeline failure Possible Minimal Critical

Dam failure Possible Minimal Limited


37

5.2. Severe Thunderstorms

5.2.1. Description of the hazard

Severe thunderstorms are the most likely of hazards to impact Kinney County, although the impact is expected to be limited to minor damage. 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. 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.

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.

5.2.3 Previous occurrences Thunderstorms occur frequently in Kinney County. Although they can occur year round, the peak season is in the late spring and early summer. Most thunderstorms in Kinney County occur in the afternoon and early evening as the ground warms from the sun. Thunderstorms may be associated with lightening, hail, tornadic activity, 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 reports of twelve occasions between July 1967 and February 2010 in which thunderstorms resulted in winds of at least 50 knots in Kinney County, although other events may not have been reported. (Table 5.6).


38

TABLE 5.6 THUNDERSTORM WINDS OF AT LEAST 50 KNOTS

JULY 1967-FEBRUARY 2010

KINNEY COUNTY

Location Date Magnitude Kinney 7/2/1967 62 kts. Kinney 6/25/1968 71 kts. Kinney 4/11/1969 50 kts. Kinney 6/26/1970 54 kts. Kinney 7/8/1973 51 kts. Kinney 4/7/1984 51 kts. Kinney 3/23/1987 52 kts. Kinney 10/27/1989 50 kts. Brackettsville 6/12/1997 60 kts. Brackettsville 5/26/2001 84 kts. Brackettsville 7/23/2003 60 kts. Brackettsville 4/28/2006 60 kts.

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. Hail over 3.0 inches in diameter was reported in Kinney County on four occasions 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.

TABLE 5.7 HISTORICAL EVENTS OF HAIL OF AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES DIAMETER KINNEY 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 23 1 3 4


39

Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service Although there are no official records of lightening events in Kinney 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 Kinney 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 2.0 inches may be expected. Expected wind speeds are 60 knots.

5.2.6. Vulnerability

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

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 Kinney 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.


40

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. Wildfires can be started by lightning strikes.


41

5.3. Flooding 5.3.1. Description of the hazard In August 1998, Kinney County received more than a foot of rain in a weekend. Twenty-four homes in Brackettville sustained major damage, ninety people were forced to evacuate their homes, natural gas was cut off for 24-hours, Highway 90 was closed and truck traffic delayed, and Brackettville streets sustained $10,000 - $15,000 in damage. Floods are by far the Kinney County’s most costly disasters according to AECOM’s engineering analyses, followed by drought. Floods have caused greater loss of life and property and disrupted more families and communities that all natural hazards combined. Development in the floodplain continues, putting more and more people at risk. Among the principal causes of flooding in the County are mild gradients of streambeds and poorly defined or inadequate channels. Floods affect the water supplies, contaminating wells, and may damage historic buildings, some of which are on the National or State Historic Register. The heavy rains generally associated with thunderstorms often cause wide-spread flash flooding within Kinney 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. Fortunately, the two retention dams built in 1962 north of Brackettville help retain 80 percent of the run-off. Flooding ranges from 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:


42

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. Kinney 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. Storms may also stall in the mountains of Mexico and cause flooding in Kinney County.

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 Uvalde 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. Kinney County has a lack of proper drainage. Flooded sidewalks and streets can make pedestrian and other travel unsafe. Street drainage is a major challenge to be addressed. Las Moras Creek runs through the City of Brackettville as well as through Fort Clark Springs. Flooding occurs frequently in an area is bordered by Ann Street (Hwy. 674) on the East, Veltman Street on the North, Beaumont Street on the West and Highway 90 on the South. It is one of the most heavily populated areas of Brackettville and contains many mobile homes, thus creating the potential for loss of life as well as substantial property damage. Portions of our downtown area, including several historical buildings, lie within this area as well. Many of the families located in this area are economically disadvantaged and therefore less able to participate in any flood insurance program, creating post-incident issues regarding reconstruction. A large portion of Brackettville’s senior citizens reside in this area also. Although the retention dams constructed North of Brackettville in the 1960’s have somewhat slowed the frequency of flooding incidents in this area, they have not completely eliminated the problem. Part of the problem is an inadequate drainage system in that area of town. Drainage ditches are excavated but tend to be overgrown with weeds and filled with debris a good portion of the time. Due to limited city personnel resources, other maintenance issues tend to override the necessity for keeping these channels free and clear of debris and undergrowth.


43

One of the most serious issues involved in controlling flood waters in this low-lying area of the City of Brackettville is the fact that the Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area. Since the Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency, this could be a very serious potential crisis area. Clearing debris and other obstructions from the channel below the retention dams is also a critical need. There is an inordinate amount of weed and plant growth that has clogged drainage canals, creeks, rivers and may create a wildfire hazard throughout the county this summer should it begin to dry up too quickly. Many ranchers have been clearing excess trees, especially cedar, and undergrowth from their land in an attempt to conserve the remaining water supply and eliminate wildfire hazards. A second low-lying area in the City of Brackettville poses serious issues should flooding occur. This area is bordered by Ann Street on the East, Henderson Street on the North, Fort Street on the West and Spring Street on the South. This area is especially critical since it contains several critical facilities. The EMS Station, a projected Command Center in an emergency situation, is located in this area. This area also contains the Kinney County Civic Center, the largest facility in town and one which would be ideal for receiving supplies from The American Red Cross, Salvation Army or other such entity in an emergency. The Civic Center is a 2-story building with garage doors on each end and a large parking lot which would facilitate the storing of donated supplies quickly and efficiently. The large parking area would also accommodate a helicopter should the need arise. Several historical buildings are also located in this low-lying area.

Ninety percent of Kinney County is rangeland. Las Moras Creek, the Nueces River and multiple streams and creeks run throughout the county and all are overflow channels for excess water from the retention dams and other major rivers in the counties that lie North of us. The major hazard during peak rainfall seasons is the lack of low water crossings in rural areas of our county. Although there are not heavily populated areas affected, there are families at risk when these roads wash out. Should emergency vehicles be needed, they are unable to respond effectively. Several permanent low water crossings have been built in the past, but there is a need for more. As grant monies are obtained, we will continue to install these permanent low water crossings on a priority basis.

The control of noxious brush such as cedar on our rangeland is an ongoing process. This process needs to be accelerated to better manage the watershed.

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. 5.3.3. Previous occurrences


44

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on-line records contain data for 43 floods in Kinney County between occurring between 1996 and 2010, which are reported to have resulted in property and crop damage totaling $2,230,000 (Table 5.8).

TABLE 5.8 FLOODS IN KINNEY COUNTY JANUARY 1995-FEBRUARY 2010

Year Number of

Floods Deaths Injuries Property Damage

Crop Damage

1995 1 0 0 $0 $0 1996 2 0 0 $3,000 $0 1998 9 0 0 $81,000 $2,020,000 2000 1 0 0 $20,000 $0 2001 3 0 0 $13,000 $0 2002 2 0 0 $90,000 $0 2003 1 0 0 $3,000 $0 2004 7 0 0 $0 $0 2005 6 0 0 $0 $0

2007 11 0 0 $0 $0

TOTAL 43 0 0 $210,000 $2,020,000 Note: Each day of a multi-day flood is counted separately Source: NOAA Satellite and Information Service

Although these events sometimes cause heavy run-off from the surrounding hilly terrain resulting in severe flooding along local inland waterways, fortunately not deaths or injuries were reported.

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 U.S. Geological Survey website, with a 10- square mile drainage area. No County-wide digital Flood Insurance Rate Map is currently available for Kinney County. Table 5.9 shows the estimated number of buildings and people that are at risk to flooding by jurisdiction. Figures 5-1 through 5-3 depict the flood areas where there is potential for damage to property and loss of life in Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford , respectively.


45

Table 5.9. 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

Kinney County 742 $47,852,000 6 $3,219,000 695 Brackettville 223 $9,152,000 16 $3,948,000 310 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 0

Source: HAZUS-MH


46

Figure 5-1. Flood Hazard Areas in Kinney County


47

Figure 5-2. Flood Hazard Areas in Bracketville


48

Figure 5-3. Flood Hazard Areas in Spofford


49

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 5.10 through 5.14 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 5.10 Potential Losses to 10-Year Flood

Expected Property Losses for Residential Buildings

Expected Property Losses for Commercial Buildings

Jurisdiction Number Value Number Value

Total Expected Property Losses

Kinney County 38 $1,538,000 0 $89,000 $1,640,000 Brackettville 6 $292,000 0 $238,000 $605,000 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Source: HAZUS-MH






Kinney County 46 $2,118,000 0 $118,000 $2,267,000 Brackettville 14 $560,000 2 $334,000 $1,003,000 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Source: HAZUS-MH


50







Source: HAZUS-MH







Source: HAZUS-MH






Kinney County 63 $3,037,000 0 $172,000 $3,260,000 Brackettville 28 $1,114,000 1 $500,000 $1,801,000 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 $0

Source: HAZUS-MH Table 5.15 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 5.15 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Potentially Damaged by Flood

Jurisdiction Total Number Number Inside the 100-Year Floodplain

Percentage Susceptible to Flooding

Kinney County 3 0 0% Brackettville 6 3 50% Spofford 0 0 0%

Source: HAZUS-MH


51

5.3.7. Potential impact In order to estimate potential dollar losses to flood in Kinney 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. Table 5.16 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 5.16. Potential Annualized Losses to Flood

Jurisdiction Total Annualized

Expected Property Losses

Annualized Loss Ratio

Kinney County $572,000 0.58% Brackettville $230,000 0.33% Spofford $0 0.00%

Source: HAZUS-MH

5.3.8. Previous mitigation actions Kinney County officials 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. 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 (see Appendix D for list of flood studies). The most current FEMA issued flood map for Kinney County was issued on October, 1987 and for the City of Bracketville, data for Zones A, C and X was issued in 1950 but no Flood Insurance Rate Map was published. Flood maps are needed for local residents and businesses to identify known flood risks and make informed decisions about flood insurance and flood protection.

Construction of Dams. A series of dams were constructed to provide flood

protection for the County. The effect of the dams is reflected in the plan’s risk analysis. The name and location of each dam are identified in Chapter 5, Section 5.9. A risk assessment of the potential for dam failure is also provided.


52

Participation in the National Flood insurance Program. Kinney County

(unincorporated areas) and Brackettville participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (Table 5.17). This program maps flood-prone areas and provides federally-backed flood insurance to help victims get back on their feet. The County and City have adopted and enforce 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.

TABLE 5.17 KINNEY COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

DECEMBER 31, 2009

Unincorporated Brackettville Total

Policies in Force 23 2 25

Insurance in Force $3,179,600 $350,000 $3,529,600

Number of Paid Losses 0 0 0

Total Losses Paid $0 $0 $0 Substantial Damage Claims since1978

0 0 0 Source: FEMA Community Information System

County and City officials encourage residents to purchase flood insurance policies. However, the rate of flood insurance coverage is low. As noted below, as of December 31, 2009, there were only 23 flood insurance policies in unincorporated areas of the county and two in Brackettville with a total of about $3.5 million in coverage. 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 (IBHS) reports that one of out every four businesses do not open after a disaster, as they are not properly financially prepared.


53

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, neither Kinney County nor Brackettville have had any “repetitive loss” properties or “severe repetitive loss” properties under the National Flood Insurance Program. This may reflect the low rate of flood insurance coverage rather than the risk of damage. 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. Data provided by the State Division of Emergency Management did not distinguish between residential and commercial properties.


54

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, Kinney County has not had any HAZMAT releases causing severe damage to people or property. However, there have been a number of spills that have affected the streams and rivers within the County's watersheds (Table 5-18). The potential for severe or catastrophic failure exists and is increasing considerably with the flow of hazardous materials traffic associated with the energy boom.

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 Kinney County. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for a serious hazmat incident to occur, especially on the highways or rail transportation. Highway transportation of Hazmat presents a serious threat to the population. US Highway 90 is a major thoroughfare for tractor-trailer trucks and has a proximity to the Mexican border. Recent derailments in the San Antonio area have underscored the need to address railroad safety in Kinney County. Much of the railroad equipment is aging. The training time for engineers and contractors has been reduced, The Bracketville Volunteer Fire Department would be the responding agency in the event of an air crash or rail accident or hazmat spill. Additional training is needed. A major challenge faced by the County is the lack of information on hazardous materials stored in or transported from Mexico through the County on US Highway 83. 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 Kinney County. Sister City Contingency Plans are needed to enhance joint cooperation and communication in


55

responding to such transboundary incidents, including any requirements that may be faced by Kinney County. 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, Kinney County does not have a Hazmat Team capable of containing a major hazmat incident of any type. There is a need for increased fire and 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.


56

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.


57

5.4.3 Previous occurrences Hazardous materials releases are increasingly possible occurrences in Kinney County, given the traffic on U.S. Highway 90 passing through Brackettville. Fortunately, there were no on- or off-site releases reported from any Federal Toxic Release Inventory site reported from 2002 - 2008. According to the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, between 2002 - 2010, there were one release reported from mobile transportation of toxic materials (Table 5.18). Under-reporting of hazardous materials releases may be a factor in Kinney County.

Table 5.18. Hazardous Material Emergency Response Spills

EMERGENCY RESPONSE SPILLS, 2002-2010 KINNEY COUNTY

MATERIAL SPILLED AMOUNT SPILLED RESPONSIBLE

PARTY DATE AFFECTED WATER BODY

Propylene (Propene) 9.069 gallons U.S. Dept. of the Air Force 12/13/2005 Rio Grande River

Below Amistad Source: Texas Council on Environmental Quality

5.4.4. Geographic areas affected

Table 5.19 provides a list of hazardous material facilities that were included in the risk assessment for Kinney 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 5-4 and 5-5 show the locations of available georeferenced TRI and Tier II listed toxic sites in Kinney County and Brackettville, respectively. There were no toxic sites identified within Spofford.

Table 3.13. Hazardous Material Facilities in Kinney County

Toxic Release Inventory and Tier II Sites (Fixed Sites)

Facility Name

Brackett I S D BRACKETTVILLE CO - XI3028 City of Brackettville Level 3 - Brackettville Qwest - Standart AMP Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Inc. Roadrunner Energy, Inc. TXDOT-Laredo-Brackettville Maintenance TXDOT-Laredo-Brackettville Material Stockpile #1 (SH131 and FM 1908)

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


58

Figure 5-4. Locations of Fixed Toxic Sites in Kinney County

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


59

Figure 5-5. Locations of Fixed Toxic Sites in Brackettville

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


60

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, given the increased traffic on U.S. Highway 90, especially transporting hazardous materials between the U.S. and Mexico. 5.4.6. Vulnerability Table 5.20. 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 5.20. Estimated Exposure of People and Buildings by Jurisdiction (Fixed Site Toxic Release)

includes geo-referenced sites only

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

Kinney County 1,573 1,428 32 33 594 716 Brackettville 1,244 1,876 205 274 1,250 1,858 Spofford 119 75 0 0 0 0

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

Table 5.21 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 more 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.


61

Table 5.21. Estimated Exposure of People and Buildings by Jurisdiction

(Mobile Site Toxic Release)

Immediate (Primary) Impact Secondary Impact Jurisdiction


and Commercial

Units



People at Risk Number of


People at Risk

Kinney County 1,573 1,428 509 470 893 880 Brackettville 1,244 1,876 366 431 1,135 1,692 Spofford 119 75 115 70 120 75

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency *Listed in Tier II and TRI databases.

There is also concern that people and the built environment in Kinney County could be affected by a hazardous materials release from a site in Mexico. A two-mile buffer was created from the Mexican border to determine potential impacts (Figure 5-6), as georeferenced data for hazardous materials sites in Mexico was not available at the time this assessment was prepared. Table 5.22 provides the potential toxic release exposure of people and buildings for Kinney County jurisdictions. Although only a few people are potentially exposed to an event originating on the Mexican side of the border, Kinney County could be called upon for assistance in the event of an incident affecting the U.S. side of the border.

Table 5.22 Potential Exposure of People and Buildings by Jurisdiction

from Hazardous Material Incidents Originating in Mexico

Potential Impact Jurisdiction


and Commercial

Units



People at Risk

Kinney County 1,573 1,428 10 10 Brackettville 1,244 1,876 0 0 Spofford 119 75 0 0


62

Figure 5-6. Exposure to Hazardous Materials Incidents Originating in Mexico


63

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.


64

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 Kinney 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 5.23.

Table 5.23 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.


65

Table 5.23 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.

source: 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.

5.5.3 Previous occurrences

Wildland fires threaten Kinney County. In 2006, there was a Disaster Declaration for extreme wildfire threat for the County (DR 1624). Two years later an Emergency Declaration (3284) was issued for wildfires.

The Texas Forest Service's records contain information on five different wildfires in Kinney County between 1998 and 2011. The largest was the "South Branch-3," caused by "equipment use," when 3,000 acres were burned on January 5, 2000. Other causes of the recorded wildfires include lightning and debris burning. None of these wildfires resulted in lost homes, injuries, or deaths.

WILDLAND FIRES 1998-2011

KINNEY COUNTY

Name Date Number of

Acres Cause South Branch - 3 5-Jan-00 3,000 Equipment use Cedar Creek 24-Jul-06 448 Lightning Fields Ranch 12-Mar-08 750 Equipment use Chalk Creek 13-Apr-08 50 Debris burning Holmes 19-Jun-08 2,538 Debris burning Source: Texas Forest Service


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


66

Figures 5-7.a through 5-7.c illustrate the level of high and moderate wildland fire susceptibility based on the WFSI data provided by Texas Forest Service. Maps cover the areas in or near Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford, respectively.


67

Figure 5-7.a. Wildfire Susceptibility in Kinney County


68

Figure 5-7.b. Wildfire Susceptibility near Brackettville


69

Figure 5-7.c. Wildfire Susceptibility near Spofford


70

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 Table 5.24 shows the potential affected exposure of property and people to areas of moderate wildland fire susceptibility according to the WFSI data. No property or people are exposed to areas of high wildland fire susceptibility according to the WFSI data.

Table 5.24. Potential Affected Exposure to Wildland Fire (Moderate Susceptibility)

Potential Residential Building Exposure at Risk

Potential Commercial Building Exposure at Risk



Kinney County 72 $2,280,000 5 $1,550,000 52 Brackettville 0 $0 0 $0 0 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 0

Source: Texas State Forest Service 5.5.7. Potential impact The potential severity of impact of wildland fires in Kinney County is limited. Wildland fires may result in minor injuries, temporary shutdown of facilities for a day to a week, and from 10 to 25 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Annualized loss information is not available.


71

5.6. Drought

5.6.1. Description of the hazard Kinney County has a significant history of drought. Although the most prevalent hazard, drought is the second most costly disaster for Kinney County, following flooding. Drought and the lack of water preservation, both in water quantity and quality, is a major concern. Brackettville and Fort Clark Springs both have spring-fed creeks which have occasionally dried up, as has the Nueces River which runs through the northern section of 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…. ”. 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.

The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer underlies much of Kinney County and provides water for irrigation and public and industrial uses. The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer extends from the Rio Grande northeastward into Arkansas and Louisiana, providing water to all or parts of 66 counties. The loss of livestock due to lack of food and water can be devastating to local ranchers. Grassland and woodland fires 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 5.25 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.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ahi01


72

Table 5.25. 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 All sectors of Kinney County are affected by this hazard. The most obvious and devastating result prolonged drought could be an extended wildfire season with a reduced water supply to combat it. For the ranching industry, a drought means decreased natural feed for their livestock, increased feed prices at the retail level, insufficient water to keep livestock healthy, and could possibly mean reduction in the size of their herd to offset the decrease in feed and water. In 1999, the county saw a outbreak of anthrax, which makes maintaining healthy livestock a priority. Higher retail meat prices as a result of fewer available slaughter animals could have an adverse effect on all citizens of Kinney County as well. Effects on the hunting industry are much the same as for the ranching industry, but with the added impact of fewer hunters due to smaller herds of game animals and the added potential for fire hazards from careless campfires. A reduced number of hunters will impact the tourist income for the county as well. Brackettville and Fort Clark Springs both enjoy substantial tourist income during peak hunting season and both would be adversely affected by a decrease in that revenue. Although the farm industry in Kinney County is a smaller portion of our economy, it too is a crucial one to all citizens. An extended drought period would heavily impact the availability of produce, driving retail prices up and affecting many county and city services such as the Kinney County Aging Meals-On-Wheels program and the Brackett ISD cafeteria, local restaurants, as well as each individual family. The impact of an extended drought on the average citizen in Kinney County is substantial, covering everything from higher retail prices on meat and produce to real estate issues such as loss of mature landscaping or foundation damage. The increased probability of wildfires escalates the potential for more serious damage to structure or even loss of life.

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


73

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 5.26).

5.6.3 Previous occurrences Figure 5-8 illustrates historical periods of severe to extreme drought conditions in the Rio Grande Basin based on data provided by the National Climatic Data Center.

Figure 5.9. Historical Drought in the Rio Grande Basin

Table 5.26. 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


74

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite and Information Service, major drought events occurred in Kinney County during the following periods:

Together, these incidents caused millions in property and crop damage statewide, to all the affected counties in Texas. Kinney County has been affected by the on-going drought in 2011 which has affected over 40 Texas counties. Kinney County has been designed by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture as in the Primary Natural Disaster Area, making those in the County eligible for emergency loans to farmers and ranchers.

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.

5.6.6. Vulnerability

There is a lack of quantifiable data on documented historic economic losses across various sectors caused by the effects of drought in Kinney 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 5.27 provides information on the potential agricultural exposure to the drought hazard in Kinney County.

Table 5.27. Potential Agricultural Exposure to Drought in Kinney 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

Kinney County* 220 601,224 $781,000 $5,659,000 $6,441,000 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 Kinney County.

Drought Events

4/1996 - 6/1997

2/2000 - 10/2000

2011


75

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. Since Kinney County is in the recharge zone for the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, extended dry periods in the county can impact areas over a large geographic region.

Many Kinney 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 cities are not quantifiable due to the lack of data.

In order to generate a potential annualized dollar loss estimate for drought to the agricultural sector in Kinney County, the following assumptions were made: (1) severe to extreme drought conditions will decrease countywide agricultural production by 20 percent; and (2) Kinney County experiences severe to extreme drought conditions 15 percent of the time (as recorded in the Palmer Drought Severity Index from 1895-1995). According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total market value of agricultural products sold (including crops, livestock, poultry and their products) in Kinney County was $21.7 million, or about $69,000 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 $650,000.


76

5.7. Tornadoes

5.7.1. Description of the hazard

Historical evidence demonstrates that Kinney County is vulnerable to tornadic activity, although tornadoes are relatively infrequent. This hazard can result from severe thunderstorm activity or may occur during a degraded tropical storm or hurricane. Since it cannot be predicted where a tornado may touch down, all buildings and facilities are considered to be uniformly exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted by future events. 5.7.2. Measurement

Tornadoes are the most unpredictable and most violent of all atmospheric storms. Winds in the strongest of these storms can exceed 250 mph. By definition, a tornado is often described as a violently rotating column of air, in contact with the ground, either pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a condensation funnel cloud. Significant damage can occur even when the condensation funnel does not reach the ground.

Some tornadoes are associated with "supercell" thunderstorms. Large and violent tornadoes, almost without exception, fall into this class. Other, generally weaker tornadoes form along windshift lines. The intensity of these storms is rated using the Fujita Scale of wind damage (Table 5.28). This scale was used in tornado records prior to February 1, 2007 and serves as the basis for this risk assessment.

Table 5.28. Fujita Scale

F-Scale Number

Intensity Phrase

Wind Speed Type of Damage

F0 Gale tornado 40-72 mph Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages sign boards.

F1 Moderate tornado

73-112 mph

The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed.

F2 Significant tornado

113-157 mph

Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated.

F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph

Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted

F4 Devastating tornado

207-260 mph Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off

some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.


77

Table 5.28. Fujita Scale

F5 Incredible tornado

261-318 mph

Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.

F6 Inconceivable tornado

319-379 mph

These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujita_scale The Enhanced Fujita Scale, or EF Scale, replaced the Fujita Scale in 2007 and is now used as the scale for rating the strength of tornadoes in the United States based on the damage caused. The EF Scale was started in February 1, 2007 and was, therefore, not used in this Plan. The new scale is thought to be a more accurate representation of the surface wind speeds in the most violent tornadoes (Table 5.29).

Table 5.29. Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale Enhanced Fujita

Category Wind Speed

(mph) Potential Damage

EF0 65-85 Light damage. Peels surface off some roofs; some damage to gutters or siding; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees pushed over.

EF1 86-110 Moderate damage. Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes overturned or badly damaged; loss of exterior doors; windows and other glass broken.

EF2 111-135 Considerable damage. Roofs torn off well-constructed houses; foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes completely destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.

EF3 136-165 Severe damage. Entire stories of well-constructed houses destroyed; severe damage to large buildings such as shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance.

EF4 166-200 Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses and whole frame houses completely leveled; cars thrown and small missiles generated.

EF5 >200 Incredible damage. Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 m (109 yd); high-rise buildings have significant structural deformation; incredible phenomena will occur.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Fujita_Scale

For purposes of this Plan, the level of intensity that would create a tornado hazard for the County is an F2 tornado due to the potential damage to roofs, disruption of travel, and light-objective missiles that would be created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujita_scale


78

5.7.3 Previous occurrences Figure 5-10 illustrates the location and magnitude of historical tornado events in Kinney County since 1950. Table 5.30 displays aggregated historical information by jurisdiction and Table 5-31 shows their impact. It is important to note that only those tornadoes to be reported and officially confirmed have been factored into this risk assessment. However, in the past 60 years it is likely that a higher number of tornado events have occurred but were not reported or officially confirmed.

Table 5.30. Historical Tornado Impact by Jurisdiction, 1950–2010

Magnitude (Fujita Scale) Jurisdiction Number of

Events F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Maximum F Scale

Kinney County 8 4 2 0 1 1 0 F4 Brackettville 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 F0 Spofford 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 F0

Source: National Climatic Data Center, 2010

Table 5.31. Impact of Kinney County Tornadoes

Location Date Deaths Injuries Property Damage

County 5/11/1982 0 0 $250,000 County 5/16/1989 0 0 $2,500,000 Total 0 0 $2,750,000

5.7.4. Geographic areas affected Figure 5-9 illustrates the location and magnitude of reported historical tornado events in Kinney County from 1950 - 2010. The tornado hazard does not have a distinct geographic boundary.


79

Figure 5-9. Historical Reported Tornado Events in Kinney County (1950–2010)


80

5.7.5. Probability of future disasters F2 or higher tornadoes are unlikely events in Kinney County with an event possible in the next ten years.

5.7.6. Vulnerability Since it cannot be predicted where a tornado may touch down, all buildings and facilities (residential, commercial and other buildings and critical facilities and infrastructure) are considered to be uniformly exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted by future events as shown in Table 5.32.

Table 5.32 Potential Affected Exposure to Tornado





Kinney County 1,566 $93,635,000 7 $3,286,000 1,428 Brackettville 1,205 $50,161,000 39 $8,722,000 1,876 Spofford 119 $3,179,000 0 $0,000 75

Source: HAZUS-MH


An F2 tornado would cause considerable damage. Roofs would be torn off well-constructed houses; foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes would be completely destroyed; large trees would be snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles would be generated; and cars lifted off ground. Table 5.33 estimates the potential annualized economic losses to property.

Table 5.33. Potential Annualized Losses to Tornado

Jurisdiction Total Exposure Annualized Expected Property Losses

Annualized Loss Ratio

Kinney County $98,335,000 $106,422 0.11% Brackettville $68,813,000 $0 0.00%

Spofford $3,344,000 $0 0.00% *Negligible is less than $5,000


81

5.8. Dam Failure

5.8.1. Description of the hazard In 1998, when the County received over a foot of rain in a weekend, dams sponsored by the Soil Conservation Service served as a major deterrent to extensive flooding in Brackettville. The dams are now over 40 years old. Although the dams are still in excellent condition, should the retention capacity ever be exceeded, the erosion from the overflow would seriously affect their integrity. Clearing brush, debris and other obstructions from below the dams will also help prolong their life. Dams are water storage, control, or diversion barriers that impound water upstream in reservoirs. Dams provide many benefits and are an important part of our public works infrastructure. They are built for a variety of reasons, including maintenance of lake levels, flood control, power production, and water supply. Although dams have many benefits, the risk that a dam could fail still exists. Dams can pose a risk to communities if not designed, operated and maintained properly. Dam failure is a collapse or breach in the structure. While most dams have storage volumes small enough that failures have little or no repercussions, dams with large storage amounts can cause significant flooding downstream. Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes:

1. Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which cause most failures; 2. Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping flows; 3. Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping; 4. Improper maintenance, including failure to remove trees, repair internal seepage problems,

or maintain gates, valves, and other operational components; 5. Improper design, such as use of improper construction materials; 6. Failure of upstream dams in the same drainage basin; 7. Landslides into reservoirs, which cause surges that result in overtopping; and, 8. High winds, which can cause significant wave action and result in substantial erosion.

The nation’s infrastructure of dams is aging. Old age and neglect can intensify vulnerability to these same influences. Furthermore, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have brought increased focus on infrastructure protection nationwide, including the safety of dams. Dam failures may result in the quick release of all the water in the reservoirs. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind the dam is capable of causing rapid and unexpected flooding downstream, resulting in loss of life and great property damage downstream of the dam. Table 5.37 lists the 12 major dams located in Kinney County according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) database. There are no reported levees in


82

Kinney County according to the Federal Emergency Management databases. Of the dams, one is classified as “high” hazard where failure or mis-operation of the dam will probably cause loss of human life; and one is classified as “intermediate” hazard where failure would result in possible loss of human life and likely significant property or environmental destruction. It is important to note that these hazard classifications are not related to the physical condition or structural integrity of the dam (nor the probability of its failure) but strictly to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to fail.

Table 5.24 lists the 12 major dams located in Kinney County according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) database. Of these, two are classified as “high” hazard where failure or mis-operation of the dam will probably cause loss of human life. It is important to note that these hazard classifications are not related to the physical condition or structural integrity of the dam (nor the probability of its failure) but strictly to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to fail.

Table 5.24 Major Dams in Kinney County

Dam Name River/Stream Hazard Classification

Anacacho Lake Dam Stricklin Creek Low Cook Dam Lindsey Creek Low Emil Bayer Lake Dam Tequesquite Creek Low Frerich Lake No 1 Dam Cow Creek Low Frerich Lake No 2 Dam Cow Creek Low Hobbs Tank Dam Tr-Lindsey Creek Low Ls Johnson Lake Dam Salado Creek Low Maverick County Maverick Cnl, Rio Grande Low Shahan Lake Dam Tr-East Pinto Creek Low Summers Lake Dam Salado Creek Low Upper Las Moras Creek Ws Scs Site 1 Dam Las Moras Creek High Upper Las Moras Creek Ws Scs Site 2 Dam Tr-Las Moras Creek High

Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers

5.8.2. Measurement For purposes of this risk assessment, dam safety was assessed using classifications of downstream effects by the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. High-hazard-potential dams are those at which failure or mis-operation would probably cause loss of human life. Intermediate-hazard-potential dams are those at which failure or mis-operation probably would not result in loss of human life but could cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or other significant damage. Significant-hazard-potential dams often are located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in populated areas having significant infrastructure. Low-hazard-potential


83

dams are those at which failure or mis-operation probably would not result in loss of human life and would cause limited economic and/or environmental losses. Losses would principally be limited to the owner’s property.

5.8.3 Previous occurrences There are no significant historical dam failure events reported for Kinney County and they are generally assumed to be low probability events, mainly due to periodic inspection and maintenance practices for those structures posing high or intermediate hazards. However it should be recognized that while a low probability event, any dam failure could result in high consequences for people and property located within the downstream inundation areas.


Table 5.34 lists the major dams located in Kinney County according to the Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) database. These are mapped in Figures 5-10 and 5-11, which depict the location of major dams along with the estimated dam failure inundation areas in Kinney County and Brackettville, respectively, where there is potential for damage to property and loss of life. In order to assess dam failure risk, potential inundation areas were delineated by creating a 2,000 foot buffer along river and stream reaches for a distance of 10 miles downstream from all dam structures included in the National Inventory of Dams. Those inundation areas were then overlaid on the 30-meter default Digital Elevation Model (DEM) used in the flood hazard analysis to create a depth grid that was then overlaid with the HAZUS-MH inventory to estimate exposure.


84

Figure 5-10. Potential Dam Failure Inundation Areas in Kinney County


85

Figure 5-11. Potential Dam Failure Inundation Areas in Brackettville


86

5.8.5. Probability of future disasters Dam failure is an unlikely event. An event is not expected in the next ten years. Dam failure is generally assumed to be a low probability event, mainly due to periodic inspection and maintenance practices for those structures posing high or significant hazards. However it should be recognized that while a low probability event, any dam failure would likely result in high consequences for people and property located within the downstream inundation areas. 5.8.6. Vulnerability Table 5.35 shows the estimated buildings and the number of people that are at risk to levee/dam failure by jurisdiction.

Table 5.35. Potential Affected Exposure to Levee/Dam Failure





Kinney County 641 $51,271,000 1 $1,669,000 721 Brackettville 683 $23,923,000 26 $6,123,000 1,011 Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 0

Source: HAZUS-MH, National Inventory of Dams


In order to generate an annualized loss estimate for property damages caused by dam failure, the depth grid created to identify potential exposure was imported into HAZUS-MH and used to generate potential losses to a 100-year return period event. These figures were then divided by 100 in order to provide a crude estimate of potential annualized losses as shown in Table 5.39.


87

Table 5.36. Potential Annualized Losses to Levee/Dam Failure




Total Annualized Expected

Property Losses Annualized Loss

Ratio

Kinney County 0 $5,410 0 $0 $5,410 0.01% Brackettville 0 $3,190 0 $140 $3,510 0.01% Spofford 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0.00%

Source: HAZUS-MH


88

5.9. Conclusions

5.9.1. 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 5.37 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 5.37 Summary of Annualized Loss Estimates by Hazard

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Hazardous

Material Incident

Thunder-storms

Levee/ Dam Failure Tornado Wildland Fire

Kinney County $193,000 $572,000 Not available Not available $5,410 $106,422 Not available

Brackettville Not available $230,000 Not available Not available $3,510 $0 Not available

Spofford Not available $0 Not available Not available $0 $0 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 5.38. 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.


89

Table 5.38. Summary of the Annualized Loss Ratios (ALR) (Calculated as annualized losses divided by the total exposure at risk)

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Hazardous Material Incident

Thunder-storm

Levee/ Dam Failure Tornado Wildland

Fire

Kinney County 3.00% 0.58% Not

available Not

available 0.01% 0.11% Not

available

Brackettville Not

available 0.33% Not

available Not


available

Spofford Not

available 0.00% Not

available Not


available

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

• Improving our understanding of the risk associated with the natural hazards in Kinney 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 Kinney 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 Kinney 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 5.39 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. The hazard ranking below reflect not only local input but also the results of engineering analyses.


90

Table 5.39. Hazard Risk Ranking by Jurisdiction (upon completion of engineering analyses)

Jurisdiction Drought Flood Hazardous Material Incident

Thunder-storms

Levee/ Dam Failure Tornado Wildland

Fire

Kinney County L M M L L M L

Brackettville VL M M L L L VL

Spofford VL L L L VL L VL

5.9.2. 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 Upgrading existing warning systems, effective back-up generators and surge protectors 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 such as repairing water sytems and cleaning out overgrowth. Water conservation, public information and education, were also considered most feasible and cost-effective and were determined to be a priority.

• 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 concrete culverts at low water crossings, and enhancing public awareness of flood hazards which was


91

determined to be a highly effective at minimal cost. Cleaning out drainage areas was also a priority.

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

including expanding insurance coverage, instituting higher standards and enhancing enforcement. One of the greatest needs is for completing the Federal Emergency Management flood study underway and obtaining a more current Flood Insurance Rate Map 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.

• Considering the low rate of insurance coverage, outreach to increase flood insurance was

viewed as a pressing need and a feasible and cost-effective alternative. Because of the colonias at risk, targeted public outreach in both English and Spanish is desperately needed to save lives and property as well as provide greater financial protection.

• Options for addressing wildland fires ranged from structural measures, cleaning out

overgrowth, building fire breaks using cooperative agreements, preventive measures such as controlled burning, training and education, and an improved fire-fighting capability. It was decided that enhancing fire-fighting resources, training for heavy equipment, establishing burn bans and public education would have the greatest impact.

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

installing preventive measures such as slowing down traffic, flashing lights to alert that city limits were reached, providing more public information and training, equipment and notification procedures. Development of hazmat accident 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 notification procedures. Another priority was ensuring that information is on hand for emergency managers, fire, police and the Sheriff for hazmat response. Both actions were determined to be highly cost-effective. Public education mitigation action was chosen for hazardous material incidents. Working with the Union Pacific rail company on mitigation measures was also a priority.

• Options for tornadoes ranged from structural measures such as anchoring and shelters to

warning and public education. The most effective method to save lives was determined to be warning, followed by improved anchoring and public education.

Chapter 6 discusses the proposed mitigation actions.


92

6. Mitigation Actions

Kinney County, the City of Brackettville and the Town of Spofford 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.

Detailed mitigation action plans are presented for Kinney County, Brackettville and Spofford.


93

6.1. Kinney County Action Plans

Kinney County Action No. 1

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

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, tornadoes, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, drought, tornadoes

Background:

A comprehensive and sustained awareness and educational campaign is needed to give the residents of Kinney 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. Other communities within the County will also be included in the outreach. 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 County.


94

Background (continued):

The County Emergency Management Office will work actively to educate citizens of all age groups and make information available, as requested, to school district officials, homeowners associations, civic and service groups, church groups, and other interested parties.

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. Grant funds are pending for the Rio Grande Institute to assist with outreach as requested by the County.

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.


95

Kinney County

Action No. 2 Action: Upgrade and improve the existing warning system; connect it to weather alert

system to increase accuracy and timeliness of activation. Improve radio communications between cities and counties. Promote the use of NOAA “All Hazards” radios for early warning and post-event information.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, tornadoes, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

Warning system. The Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area prone to flooding. The Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency. One of the main generators to be used in an emergency is also located at the Sheriff’s office; therefore, it is imperative that the warning system and its management be improved. Upgrading the current warning system and connecting it to a weather alert system would allow more lead time to relocate resources as necessary. Maintaining the generator on a mobile trailer is one option, not only for the Sheriff’s office but also for the EMS building, which is also in a low-lying area of Brackettville. Converting these generators to propane is also a priority to make them self-sustaining in the event of a power outage during an emergency. Obtaining new generators from a government surplus source is an option being currently pursued. Neither the Sheriff’s office nor the EMS station could be an adequate control center in the event of heavy flooding. Determining an alternate location or connection for the siren is also being considered to ensure that it remains a viable warning system at all times. Radio Communications. Radio communications among existing cities, towns, the Air Force Base and Kinney County need to be improved. NOAA Weather Radio. NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information direct from a nearby National Weather Service office. 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

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrhq/nwspage.html


96

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:

An examination of alternative measures and their costs to improve the existing warning system and radio communications will be part of the analysis to be conducted. The cost of NOAA weather radios is approximately $25 per radio for a battery-powered unit with the SAME technology.

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator Target Completion Date: 2016

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.


97


Action: Equip critical facilities with back-up generators to provide auxiliary power. Convert existing generators to propane, install them to trailers to make them mobile, and re-wire them t allow connection to any electric meter or obtain new generators. Have propane tanks as back-up for critical service areas.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, flooding, tornadoes, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire, tornadoes

Background:

Critical facilities should be equipped with backup power units to allow for continuity of operations in the event of a disaster. The Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area. The Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency. One of the main generators to be used in an emergency is located at the Sheriff’s office; therefore, this hazard should be mitigated at the earliest possible time. Upgrading the current warning system and connecting it to a weather alert system would allow more lead time to relocate resources as necessary. Maintaining the generator on a mobile trailer is one option for the Sheriff’s office and for the EMS building, which is also in a low-lying area of Brackettville. Converting these generators to propane is would make them self-sustaining in the event of a power outage. Obtaining new generators from a government surplus source is an option being currently pursued. Neither the Sheriff’s office nor the EMS station could be an adequate control center in the event of heavy flooding. Determining an alternate location or connection for the siren is also being considered to ensure that it remains a viable warning system at all times. The Emergency Management Coordinator will update the critical facility list annually to prioritize facilities to be equipped. The first priority is the Kinney County Sheriff’s office.

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


98

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: A cost estimate for new generators for all critical facilities within the County is underway.

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


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.


99

Kinney 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, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

Large-scale events caused by flooding, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents or wildland fires can necessitate a large scale evacuation, the impact of which may affect Kinney 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. Kinney 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 Kinney County Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator


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.



100


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.


101


Action: Install surge protectors on critical electronic equipment.

Hazard: Thunderstorms, tornadoes

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.


102

Kinney County

Action No. 6

Action: Repair water systems to reduce water loss.

Hazard: Drought

Background:

Many of the water systems in the County are aging. This may lead to loss of water, a critical resource in the area for critical human needs as well as irrigation. These older water systems are in need of modernizing.

Benefit: This action will help reduce leakage and thereby conserve scarce water resources needed 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


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.



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 by reducing the loss of water and providing greater access to water to serve critical needs such as firefighting.


103

Kinney County

Action No. 7 Action: Develop a water conservation program, including public education and

outreach to warn citizens about the risks to public health caused by drought.

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.




Funding Sources:




104


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: Identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding to serve as a basis for evacuation planning. Build additional permanent low water crossings.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Ninety percent of Kinney County is rangeland. Las Moras Creek, the Nueces River and multiple streams and creeks run throughout the county and all are overflow channels for excess water from the retention dams and other major rivers in the counties that lie North of us. The major hazard during peak rainfall seasons is the lack of low water crossings in rural areas of our county. Although there are not heavily populated areas affected, there are families at risk when these roads wash out. Should emergency vehicles be needed, they are unable to respond effectively. Several permanent low water crossings have been built in the past, but there is a need for more.

There are 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 build additional low water crossings. It will also identify and map existing 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


105

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.


106


Action: Conduct an annual evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program’s “repetitive loss” list and consider voluntary acquisitions when economically feasible and funds are available, and convert property to open space.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Flooding is the most frequent and costly disaster facing the County. Response and recovery costs can be high. Voluntary acquisitions of flood damaged properties will remove structures from risk permanently. FEMA maintains a repetitive loss list. Unfortunately, the rate of insurance coverage in the County is low and many frequently flooded structures are not reflected in FEMA records.

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: To 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 Repetititve 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.

Impact on existing and new buildings:

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


107


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.


108


Action: Conduct studies to determine a method to retain and regulate run-off water from the 20 % or more uncontrolled watershed area. Implement projects to improve drainage systems, including building or upgrading concrete culverts at low water crossings. Clear debris and other obstructions, especially from the retention ponds below the dams.

Hazard: Flooding, dam failure, wildfire, drought

Background:

There are a number of low water crossings in the County which become flooded during major rain events. It is estimated that 20% of low-lying areas are not protected. A comprehensive study of drainage alternatives needs to be identified. New concrete 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 communities to identify low-lying areas, 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 work closely with the Cities in reviewing study results, selecting alternative solutions, developing grant funding requests, conducting engineering studies and carrying out the projects. Clearing debris and other obstructions from channels, especially below retention dams, is a priority. There is an excessive amount of plant growth that has clogged drainage canals, creeks, rivers and may create a wildfire hazard should it dry. Cleaning up this growth will also help conserve remaining water supplies and eliminate wildfire hazards.


109

Benefit:

New and upgraded culverts, including concrete drainage systems, 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 Target Completion Date: 2016

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.


110


Action: Increase awareness of flood insurance and its benefits and costs.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Kinney County has very low rate of flood insurance coverage. Flood insurance provides the best financial protection in the event of a flood disaster. Homeowner or business property 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, although a Federal Emergency Management Agency study is underway, the latest Flood Insurance Rate Map covering Kinney County dates back to 1985. 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, property owners and realtors. 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. (www.FloodSmart.gov).

Priority: High Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Floodplain Administrator


http://www.floodsmart.gov/


111

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 County services.


112

Kinney County

Action No. 12 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 is to be rebuilt to standards contained in the 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.


113


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 County services.


114

Kinney County

Action No. 13 Action: Reduce the speed limit on Highway 90 through Brackettville and add flashing

warning signals to alert motorists entering town. Increase the level hazardous materials training for first responders; conduct a County-wide needs assessment and acquire 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, especially on U.S. Highway 90. Risk is increasing with the increased flow of traffic. This increased flow of traffic has led to 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. There are major roads and the Union Pacific Rail that pass through the incorporated areas of the county. U.S. Highway 90 is a major artery. A County-wide equipment and vehicle needs assessment is required.

Benefit:

This action will help improve 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: 2013

Funding Sources: Grant funds and general revenues Impact on existing and new buildings: None


115


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.


116


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. Training and exercises should include industry representatives.

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.


117

Kinney County

Action No. 15

Action: Develop emergency response and evacuation plans for use in the unlikely event of a dam failure.

Hazard: Dam failure

Background:

A dam breach or failure is an unlikely but potentially life-threatening event for those downstream. There are major dams in Kinney County. All but two are considered “low risk”. One is considered as an “intermediate risk” and the other is considered “high risk.” The County has structures that are potentially exposed to the unlikely event of a dam failure. Risk information is needed for those located immediately downstream.

Benefit: This action can save lives in the unlikely event of a dam failure.

Priority: Medium

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

Responsible Organization: Floodplain Administrator


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 dam failure. Although is an unlikely event, dam failure could be potentially life-threatening. Benefits of saving lives will far outweigh planning costs.


118


Action: Assess the need for wildland firefighting equipment and work with the Texas Forest Service on construction of fire breaks and other mitigation measures.

Hazard: Wildland fire

Background:

Several areas of high and moderate wildland fire susceptibility have been identified in this plan for Kinney a County. In light of the wildland fire risk, fuels management is needed to prevent or reduce the spread of fire.

Benefit: Creating fire breaks and other measures 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.


119


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.


120


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


Background:

Kinney County has residents living in manufactured housing consisting of mobile homes and recreational vehicles. In severe wind events such as thunderstorms and tornadoes, 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.


121

6.2 Brackettville Action Plan

Brackettville Action No. 1

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


Background:

A comprehensive and sustained awareness and educational campaign is needed to give the residents of Brackettville 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. Other communities within the County will also be included in the outreach. 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 County.


122

Background (continued):

The County Emergency Management Office will work actively to educate citizens of all age groups and make information available, as requested, to school district officials, homeowners associations, civic and service groups, church groups, and other interested parties.

Benefit:




Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and general revenues. Free resource materials will be sought to reduce the cost. Grant funds are pending for the Rio Grande Institute to assist with outreach as requested by the County.





123

Brackettville

Action No. 2 Action: Work with the County to upgrade and improve the existing warning system;

connect it to weather alert system to increase accuracy and timeliness of activation. Improve radio communications between cities and counties. Promote the use of NOAA “All Hazards” radios for early warning and post-event information.


Background:

Warning system. The Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area prone to flooding. The Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency. One of the main generators to be used in an emergency is also located at the Sheriff’s office; therefore, it is imperative that the warning system and its management be improved. Upgrading the current warning system and connecting it to a weather alert system would allow more lead time to relocate resources as necessary. Maintaining the generator on a mobile trailer is one option, not only for the Sheriff’s office but also for the EMS building, which is also in a low-lying area of Brackettville. Converting these generators to propane is also a priority to make them self-sustaining in the event of a power outage during an emergency. Obtaining new generators from a government surplus source is an option being currently pursued. Neither the Sheriff’s office nor the EMS station could be an adequate control center in the event of heavy flooding. Determining an alternate location or connection for the siren is also being considered to ensure that it remains a viable warning system at all times. Radio Communications. Radio communications among existing cities, towns, the Air Force Base and Kinney County need to be improved. NOAA Weather Radio. NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information direct from a nearby National Weather Service office. These stations broadcast National Weather Service warnings, as well as post-event information for all types of hazards, both natural and man-



124

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.



Priority: High

Estimated Cost:



Funding Sources:






125

Brackettville County Action No. 3

Action: Equip critical facilities with back-up generators to provide auxiliary power. Convert existing generators to propane, install them to trailers to make them mobile, and re-wire them t allow connection to any electric meter or obtain new generators. Have propane tanks as back-up for critical service areas.


Background:

Critical facilities should be equipped with backup power units to allow for continuity of operations in the event of a disaster. The Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area. The Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency. One of the main generators to be used in an emergency is located at the Sheriff’s office; therefore, this hazard should be mitigated at the earliest possible time. Upgrading the current warning system and connecting it to a weather alert system would allow more lead time to relocate resources as necessary. Maintaining the generator on a mobile trailer is one option for the Sheriff’s office and for the EMS building, which is also in a low-lying area of Brackettville. Converting these generators to propane is would make them self-sustaining in the event of a power outage. Obtaining new generators from a government surplus source is an option being currently pursued. Neither the Sheriff’s office nor the EMS station could be an adequate control center in the event of heavy flooding. Determining an alternate location or connection for the siren is also being considered to ensure that it remains a viable warning system at all times. The Emergency Management Coordinator will update the critical facility list annually to prioritize facilities to be equipped. The first priority is the Kinney County Sheriff’s office.



126

Priority: High

Estimated Cost: A cost estimate for new generators for all critical facilities within the County is underway.

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


Funding Sources:






127

Brackettville 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, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fire

Background:

Large-scale events caused by flooding, dam failure, hazardous materials incidents or wildland fires can necessitate a large scale evacuation, the impact of which may affect Brackettville 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. Brackettville 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 Brackettville


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.



128


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.


129




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.





130

Brackettville

Action No. 6

Action: Repair water systems to reduce water loss.

Hazard: Drought

Background:

Many of the water systems in the County are aging. This may lead to loss of water, a critical resource in the area for critical human needs as well as irrigation. These older water systems are in need of modernizing.

Benefit: This action will help reduce leakage and thereby conserve scarce water resources needed for human consumption, farming, firefighting and other needs.




Funding Sources:




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 by reducing the loss of water and providing greater access to water to serve critical needs such as firefighting.


131

Brackettville

Action No. 7 Action: Develop a water conservation program, including public education and

outreach to warn citizens about the risks to public health caused by drought.

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.





Funding Sources:




132




Action: Identify and map low water crossings and roadways prone to flooding to serve as a basis for evacuation planning. Building additional permanent low water crossings.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

A major hazard during peak rainfall seasons is the lack of low water crossings. Although there are not heavily populated areas affected, there are families at risk when these roads wash out. Should emergency vehicles be needed, they are unable to respond effectively. Several permanent low water crossings have been built in the past, but there is a need for more.

There are 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 build additional low water crossings. It will also identify and map existing 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.


Responsible Organization: Police and Fire Departments Target Completion Date: 2014 Funding Sources: General revenues


133





134


Action: Conduct an annual evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program’s “repetitive loss” list and consider voluntary acquisitions when economically feasible and funds are available, and convert property to open space.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Flooding is the most frequent and costly disaster facing the County. Response and recovery costs can be high. Voluntary acquisitions of flood damaged properties will remove structures from risk permanently. FEMA maintains a repetitive loss list. Unfortunately, the rate of insurance coverage in the County is low and many frequently flooded structures are not reflected in FEMA records.

Benefit:


Priority: High

Estimated Cost: To be determined based on number and value of structures to be acquired.


Funding Sources:

Funding sources include the Severe Repetititve 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.




135




136


Action: Work with the County to conduct studies to determine a method to retain and regulate run-off water from the 20 % or more uncontrolled watershed area. Implement projects to improve drainage systems, including building or upgrading concrete culverts at low water crossings. Clear debris and other obstructions, especially from the retention ponds below the dams.

Hazard: Flooding, dam failure, wildfire, drought

Background:

There are a number of low water crossings in the County which become flooded during major rain events. It is estimated that 20% of low-lying areas are not protected. A comprehensive study of drainage alternatives needs to be identified. New concrete 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 communities to identify low-lying areas, 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 work closely with the Cities in reviewing study results, selecting alternative solutions, developing grant funding requests, conducting engineering studies and carrying out the projects. Clearing debris and other obstructions from channels, especially below retention dams, is a priority. There is an excessive amount of plant growth that has clogged drainage canals, creeks, rivers and may create a wildfire hazard should it dry. Cleaning up this growth will also help conserve remaining water supplies and eliminate wildfire hazards.


137

Benefit:

New and upgraded culverts, including concrete drainage systems, 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 Target Completion Date: 2016

Funding Sources:







138


Action: Increase awareness of flood insurance and its benefits and costs.

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

Brackettville has very low rate of flood insurance coverage. Flood insurance provides the best financial protection in the event of a flood disaster. Homeowner or business property 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, although a Federal Emergency Management Agency study is underway, the latest Flood Insurance Rate data covering Brackettville dates back to 1950. 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, property owners and realtors. 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.


Priority: High Estimated Cost: Minimal Responsible Organization: Floodplain Administrator




139

Funding Sources:





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 County services.


140

Brackettville



Hazard: Flooding

Background:

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



Priority: Medium






141


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 County services.


142

Brackettville

Action No. 13 Action: Reduce the speed limit on Highway 90 through Brackettville and add flashing

warning signals to alert motorists entering town. Increase the level hazardous materials training for first responders; conduct a County-wide needs assessment and acquire 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, especially on U.S. Highway 90. Risk is increasing with the increased flow of traffic. This increased flow of traffic has led to 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. There are major roads and the Union Pacific Rail that pass through the incorporated areas of the county. U.S. Highway 90 is a major artery. A County-wide equipment and vehicle needs assessment is required.

Benefit:

This action will help improve 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


Funding Sources: Grant funds and general revenues Impact on existing and new buildings: None


143


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.


144


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. Training and exercises should include industry representatives.

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.


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.


145

Brackettville

Action No. 15

Action: Develop emergency response and evacuation plans for use in the unlikely event of a dam failure.

Hazard: Dam failure

Background:

A dam breach or failure is an unlikely but potentially life-threatening event for those downstream. There are major dams in Kinney County. All but two are considered “low risk”. One is considered as an “intermediate risk” and the other is considered “high risk.” The County has structures that are potentially exposed to the unlikely event of a dam failure. Risk information is needed for those located immediately downstream.


Priority: Medium




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 dam failure. Although is an unlikely event, dam failure could be potentially life-threatening. Benefits of saving lives will far outweigh planning costs.


146


Action: Assess the need for wildland firefighting equipment and work with the Texas Forest Service on construction of fire breaks and other mitigation measures.


Background:

Several areas of high and moderate wildland fire susceptibility have been identified in this plan for Kinney a County. In light of the wildland fire risk, fuels management is needed to prevent or reduce the spread of fire.

Benefit: Creating fire breaks and other measures 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:







147




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.


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


Funding Sources:






148


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


Background:

Brackettville has residents living in manufactured housing consisting of mobile homes and recreational vehicles. In severe wind events such as thunderstorms and tornadoes, 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.










149

6.3 Spofford Action Plan

Spofford Action No. 1

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


Background:

A comprehensive and sustained awareness and educational campaign is needed to give the residents of Kinney County and Spofford 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.


150

Benefit:




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.





151


Action: Work with the County to upgrade and improve the existing warning system; connect it to weather alert system to increase accuracy and timeliness of activation. Improve radio communications between cities and counties. Promote the use of NOAA “All Hazards” radios for early warning and post-event information.


Background:

Warning system. The Kinney County Sheriff’s Office, a critical facility, is located within a low-lying area prone to flooding. The Sheriff’s office controls the warning system for Brackettville and would also be one of the obvious choices for a Command Center during an emergency. One of the main generators to be used in an emergency is also located at the Sheriff’s office; therefore, it is imperative that the warning system and its management be improved. Upgrading the current warning system and connecting it to a weather alert system would allow more lead time to relocate resources as necessary. Maintaining the generator on a mobile trailer is one option, not only for the Sheriff’s office but also for the EMS building, which is also in a low-lying area of Brackettville. Converting these generators to propane is also a priority to make them self-sustaining in the event of a power outage during an emergency. Obtaining new generators from a government surplus source is an option being currently pursued. Neither the Sheriff’s office nor the EMS station could be an adequate control center in the event of heavy flooding. Determining an alternate location or connection for the siren is also being considered to ensure that it remains a viable warning system at all times. Radio Communications. Radio communications among existing cities, towns, the Air Force Base and Kinney County need to be improved. NOAA Weather Radio. NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information direct from a nearby National Weather Service office. These stations broadcast National Weather Service warnings, as well as post-event



152

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.



Priority: High

Estimated Cost:



Funding Sources:






153


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


Background:

Critical facilities should be equipped with backup power units to allow for continuity of operations in the event of a disaster. Working with the County, the Emergency Management Coordinator will update the critical facility list annually to prioritize facilities to be equipped. Convert existing generators to propane, install them to trailers to make them mobile and re-wire them to allow connection to any electric meter or obtain new generators. Have propane tanks as back-up for critical service areas.


Priority: High

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

Responsible Organization: Emergency Management Coordinator


Funding Sources:






154




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 grants and general revenues.





155


Action: Work with the County in development of a water conservation program, including public education and outreach to warn citizens about the risks to public health caused by drought.

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, 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.


Priority: Medium

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

Funding Sources:






156


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. Build additional permanent water crossings.

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. Permanent water crossings are needed in a number of areas.

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

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




157


Action: Work with the County to 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:

Flooding is the most frequent and costly disaster facing the City. Response and recovery costs can be high. Voluntary acquisitions of flood damaged properties will remove structures from risk permanently.

Benefit:


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.


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.




158




159

Spofford

Action No. 8

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

Hazard: Flooding

Background:

The Middle Rio Grande region has 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, although a Federal Emergency Management Agency study is underway, the latest Flood Insurance Rate Map covering Kinney County dates back to 1987. 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 conducted jointly with the County. It will be aimed at local officials, property owners and realtors. 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.


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




160

Funding Sources:





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.


161

Spofford



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.



Priority: Medium






162


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.


163

Spofford

Action No. 10 Action: Work with the Union Pacific Railroad management on policies and procedures

in the event of a spill. Increase the level hazardous materials training for first responders; conduct a needs assessment and acquire additional equipment and vehicles for hazardous materials response.


Background:

The Union Pacific Railroad runs directly through the town of Spofford. The prevailing wind is towards Bracketville and Fort Clark Springs. The Bracketville Fire Department would be the responding agency in the event or a spill or derailment. Hazardous materials are commonly used and transported in the local area. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity for a serious hazmat incident to occur. Risk is increasing with the increased flow of traffic. A training, 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


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.


164


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


165

Funding Sources:







166


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

Hazard: Dam failure

Background:

A dam breach or failure is an unlikely but potentially life-threatening event for those downstream. There are major dams in Kinney County. All but two are considered low risk. One is “ high risk” and the other is an “intermediate” risk. The County and Spofford have structures that are potentially exposed to the unlikely event of a dam failure. Risk information is needed for those located immediately downstream. This action involves working with the County on a County-wide response plan.


Priority: Medium




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 dam failure. Although is an unlikely event, dam failure could be potentially life-threatening. Benefits of saving lives will far outweigh planning costs.


167

Spofford

Action No. 13



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.




Funding Sources:






168


Action: Work with the County to assess the need for additional wildland firefighting equipment. Work with the Texas Forest Service on constructing fire breaks and other mitigation measures,


Background:

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

Benefit: Mitigation measures 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:







169


Action: Work with the County to provide public information 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 and tornadoes, 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.










170

APPENDIX A

Kinney County Local Emergency Planning Committee

Name Organization

(roster currently being updated)


171

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 Richard Santos Crystal City, City of Michael Camerillo Del Rio, City of John Sheedy Del Rio, City of Joe Harrington Dimmit County Francisco ? 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


172


Jurisdiction Name Eagle Pass Police Department Jose Ibarra 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 LaSalle County Elio Ramirez LaSalle County Joe M ??? 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


173


Jurisdiction Name Middle Rio Grande Development Council Erica Bustamante Middle Rio Grande Development Council Smokey Cranfill 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 Puna (not provided) Eva Guerra-House


174

APPENDIX C Adoption Resolutions

(pending signature)

Kinney County and Brackettville and Spofford WHEREAS, a range of hazards in Kinney 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, Kinney County and the cities of Brackettville and Spofford 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 Kinney County, 2011- 2016.” 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.


175

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 and date of adoption.


176

APPENDIX D Flood Studies

October 15, 1987 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (with no elevations determined), covering all zones A, C and X, www.fema.gov. January 1, 1950, Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance data (with no Flood Insurance Rate Map produced, covering all Zones C and X, www.fema.gov.

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.

http://www.fema.gov/

http://www.fema.gov/


177

APPENDIX E Kinney County Public Hazard Survey Results

1. In the past five years, have you ever been adversely affected personally by any of the hazards listed below?

Yes 100%

No %

2. Please check those you have experienced.

Droughts 50%

Wildland Fires 50%

Hail 50%

Flooding 50%

Hurricanes 25%

Lightning 25%

Tornadoes 25%

High Winds 75%

Thunderstorm 50%

Severe Winter/Ice Storms 25%

Extreme Summer Heat 100%

Poor Air Quality 25%

Structure fire 25%

Stream Bank Erosion %

Earthquake %

Landslides %

Expansive Soils %

Dam failure %

Levee failure %


178

Terrorism %

Explosive Blast %

Hazardous materials incidents %

Civil disturbance %

Fuel pipeline accident %

Nuclear power plant accident %

3. How concerned are you about the possibility of your being adversely affected by these hazards? Extremely concerned % Somewhat concerned 75% Not concerned 25%

4. Please select the hazard you think is the highest threat to you and your community (three usable responses)

Droughts 100%

Wildland Fires %

Hail %

Flooding %

Hurricanes %

Lightning %

Tornadoes %

High Winds %

Thunderstorm %

Severe Winter/Ice Storms %

Extreme Summer Heat %

Poor Air Quality %

Structure fire %


Earthquake %

Landslides %


179

Expansive Soils %

Dam failure %

Levee failure %

Terrorism %

Explosive Blast %


Civil disturbance %



4a. If “other” please explain.

5. Please select the hazard you think is the second highest threat to you and your community: (three usable responses)

Droughts %

Wildland Fires 33%

Hail %

Flooding 33%

Hurricanes %

Lightning %

Tornadoes %

High Winds %

Thunderstorm %

Severe Winter/Ice Storms %

Extreme Summer Heat 33%

Poor Air Quality %

Structure fire %


Earthquake %


180

Landslides %

Expansive Soils %

Dam failure %

Levee failure %

Terrorism %

Explosive Blast %


Civil disturbance %



5a. If there is another hazard not listed in this survey that you think is a wide-scale threat to you, your business or your community, please explain.

6. Have you taken any actions to make your home, business, or community more resistant to hazards?

Yes 25%

No 75%

6a. If “yes”, please describe the action you have taken:

No response 7. Are you interested in making your home, business or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?

Yes 100%

No %

8. What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home, business or community more resistant to hazards?

Newspaper 50% Other %

Television 25%

Radio 50%

Internet 50%

Mail 50%


181

Public workshops/meetings %

9. In your opinion, what are some steps your local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damages from hazards in your neighborhood?

• Attend a local monthly council meeting and explain these concerns to the public • Burn bans

10. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important?

11. A number of community-wide activities can reduce our risk from hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important each one is for your community to consider pursuing.

11a. Prevention

Very important 75%

Somewhat important 25%

Not important %

11b. Property protection

Very important 50%


Not important 25%

11c. Emergency services

Very important 100%

Somewhat important %

Not important %

11d. Natural resource protection

Very important 75%



182

Not important 25%

11e. Structural projects

Very important 75%


Not important %

11f. Public education and awareness

Very important 100%


Not important %

Documents

Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the … · 2012. 5. 3. · Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS “Cover the Border” 2011 - 2016 January