The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1966 USDA MINUTES MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., January 7, 1966 C( - tt , Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Dr. John L. Wilbur, Jr. - absent ARS H. N. Smith SCS L. D. Smith FHA John McCollum C&MS Jack McElroy USFS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer SRS Joe Rothe CES Others Present: Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator, USDA William Herndon, State Department of Public Welfare Joe McClellan, Asst. Area Director, Food • Distribution, C&MS Inspector C. O. Layne, Office of Defense and Disaster Relief, Department of Public Safety John Kincaid, Alternate State Defense Board Member, SCS Morris Williamson, Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA Tommy Hollmig, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Tim Moore, Attack Analysis Staff, ASCS Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Introductions Mr. David introduced the visitors and welcomed Mr. Joe Rothe, CES, who has been designated as Mr. V. G. Young's replacement on the Board. • MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD 4 OCT 19 8 Z coV Time: 10:00 a.m. >, October 7, 1966 VIL Ci ?Ir Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Dr. John L. Wilbur, Jr, - absent ARS (represented by Dr, Jack R. Pitcher) H. N. Smith - absent SCS (represented by Gordon McKee) Lo D. Smith FHA Jack McElroy - absent USES (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer - absent SRS (represented by Robert McCauley) Joe H. Rothe CES Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: Col. Jay A: Matthews, Jr„ State Adjutant General's Department, Austin Col Jesse R, Ward, Defense & Disaster Relief, Dept. of Public Safety, Austin Kenneth Denmark, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Thomas Neumann, Member, Attack. Analysis Staff, CES Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator Tim Moore, Member, Attack Analysis Staff, ASCS W. H. Hare, Plant Pest Control, ARS Dr, W. R. Bodine, Civil Defense Training, Engr. Extension Service Morris Williamson, Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS 2 Minutes The minutes of the September 9 meeting were approved as written and dis- tributed. Attack Analysis Staff As stated in minutes of September 9, replacements were to be appointed to the Attack Analysis Staff. Farmers Home Administration added Harold Carter to the staff which brought their membership up to the original number. Agencies which are in the process of designating replacements are FS, ARS and C&MS Gordon McKee, Coordinator, Attack Analysis Staff, reported on County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire. The Attack Analysis Staff met on October 6 to review answers to the questionnaires received to date. There was considerable discussion concerning Questions 1, 2 and 3 on the question- naire, and the Attack Analysis Staff came to the conclusion that clarifi- cation was needed from the Defense and Disaster Services Staff in Wash- ington. A letter will be written to the Defense and Disaster Services Staff regarding these questions. The County Defense Boards have been given an extension of time to December 31 to complete the County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire. They were granted this extension due to heavy workloads in county offices of all agencies. Mr. McKee also reported that Part E, Chapter 5, Appendices 5 and 6, Fed- eral Civil Defense Guide, contained the most recent instructions on plotting of fallout and county boards should be instructed to use these publications in solving future problems. The State Defense Board was able to furnish only one copy of the Federal Civil Defense Guide Excerpts to county boards and did not have copies available for State and area officials. Since the SCS instructors and area personnel have requested copies, Col. Jesse Ward offered to secure copies of these excerpts and mail them to Soil Conser- vation Service for distribution to their personnel. The Attack Analysis Staff will hold their next meeting on January 6 and will complete the grading of County Defense Board Survival Questionnaires. Civil Defense Training Dr, W. R. Bodine, Engineering Exttansion Service, furnished the board and visitors schedules of future civil defense training courses in Civil Defense Management, Radiological Defense Officer and Conferences for Local Officials. Dr. Bodine especially emphasized importance of Conference for Local Govern- ment Officials. This will involve mayors, county judges, etc., and will prepare them for emergency operations. They will have a simulated emergency operation based on conditions in their own localities. 3 County Food Profile Project Mr, Herndon had met with the Chairman of the Tarrant County Defense Board and discussed details of the pilot food profile. In working with the county food profile, they have found they need to know what food is actually in the county for consumption, how long food will last, what the county produces, what percentage of needs will fall on production, and what food requirements will have to be imported from outside the county. The county defense board is continuing work on the project and a complete report will be made when it is finished. No report was given on the progress in Travis County due to the absence of Mr. Palmer, SRS, Radio Receiver Questionnaire Mr, White reported that according to replies received to the questionnaire asking county defense boards whether they have a radio receiver available for use during an emergency, approximately 20% of the counties have a radio receiver Maps for Plotting Several county defense boards have requested that the State Defense Board furnish maps showing latitude and longitude lines for plotting future problems. The county boards are not always able to find oil company maps showing these lines and, also, some counties need maps that overlap sur- rounding states. Earl Butler and Col. Ward offered to check out various sources of maps and will send copies of maps they locate to Mr. David and Mr., H. N. Smith for their review. Col. Ward has suggested to the State Highway Department that they put latitude and longitude lines on their maps and this suggestion was taken under consideration. Col Matthews suggested using maps provided by the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Gordon McKee, SCS, will obtain copies of these maps and report to the State Defense Board on the feasibility of their use. Military Support Plans Office Cc10 Jay A, Matthews, Jr. of the Adjutant General's Department, Military Support Plans Office, Austin, Texas, met with the Board. Cola Matthews requested information on the function of the State Defense Board during an emergency. Col. Matthews will be put on the State Defense Board's dis- tribution list for defense material.: Emergency Programs Mr. White reported that Culberson, Hudspeth and Mitchell counties had been approved for emergency ACP assistance to repair conservation measures damaged in recent flooding, Presidio County has also made application for emergency ACP assistance and final approval is pending. 4 Meeting Dates The State Defense Board will meet on November 4 and December 2 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. BACKGROUND ON FARE AND FOOD PRICES 1. Farmers have been able to provide us with an abundant supply of food because of their record productivity. -- In 1965, one U. S. farmworker supplied the food and fiber needs of 37 persons, compared with 23 in 1957 -59. -- Output per man -hour on the farm increased 53 percent between 1957 -59 and 1965. Total farm output increased 15 percent. 2. In order to assure U. S. consumers of a continuing abundant and fEirly priced food supply, farmers must be adequately compensated. At today's prices, hourly earnings of most farmers still are much less attractive than are earnings of industrial workers: -- In 1965, factory workers averaged $2.61 per hour compared with $2.12 in 1957 -59. -- Allowing for a capital charge of 4.1 percent (long -term average paid on debts to Federal Land Banks), farmers on different types of farms have fared as follows: Type of farm Hourly earnings 1957 -59 1965 Dairy farms: New York $.80 $.60 Eastern Wisconsin (Grade A) .81 .75 Broiler farms: Delmarva .78 1.12 Corn Belt farms: Hog fattening -beef raising .63 1.62 Hog -dairy 1.35 2.26 Wheat farms: Southern Plains 2.31 1.80 Northern Plains .99 3.09 Cattle ranches: Northern Plains .67 1.15 3. Out of every dollar of gross farm income in 1965, about 70 cents went for production expenses. Agriculture is a vast employer and purchaser of goods, services and equipment; many jobs in urban areas depend of farming. U. S. Department of Agriculture September 1966 - 2 - -= In 1965, farm production expenses totaled $31 billion compared with $25 billion in 1957 -59. Important items of expense included: 1957 -59 1965 Feed purchases $4.4 billion $5.9 billion Property taxes 1.3 " 1.9 " Interest paid 1.1 2.2 " Fertilizer 1.1 1.6 " Hired labor 2.8 " 2.8 " Depreciation on motor vehicles and equipment 2.9 " 3.5 " 4. Prices farmers pay for these goods and services used in production have risen faster than the overall cost of living. - - The index of prices farmers pay for commodities, interest, taxes, and wage rates increased 12 percent from 1957 -59 to 1965. This compares with a rise of 10 percent in the overall consumer price index and a 9- percent increase in retail prices of food. - - Price changes from 1957 -59 to 1965 in important items of farmers' production expenses were: Feed - up 4 percent Fertilizer - down 1 percent Hired wage rates - up 25 percent Farm machinery - up 19 percent Motor vehicles - up 13 percent 5. Higher net incomes for farmers in 1965 were translated into stepped - up spending by farmers for products of our factories. -- In 1965, farmers spent a record amount of almost $1 billion for tractors. This compares with $482 million in 1960, and an average of $650 million in 1957 -59. - - Spending for other machinery and equipment in 1965 exceeded $2 billion for the first time compared with $1.5 billion in 1960 and an average of $1.4 billion in 1957 -59. -- Farmers purchase about 1 out of every 15 new trucks. -- In 1965 and recent years, farmers spent about $1.5 billion for petroleum fuel and oil for use in their farming operations. - - Farmers also spent $2.1 billion for automobiles in 1965, more than double that spent in 1960. The 1957 -59 average was $1.2 billion. -- As consumers, farmers spent approximately $3.5 billion for food in 1965 and $850 million for household furnishings. - 3 - 6. Farmers in 1966, with higher realized net incomes, are expected to be even setter customers of industry and business. In 1966, realized net farm income is estimated to be $15.7 billion compared with: - - $14.2 billion in 1965 -- $12.9 billion in 1964 - - $12.5 billion in 1963 - - $12.5 billion in 1962 - - $12.6 billion in 1961 -- $11.7 billion in 1960 7. Farmers receive less than half the dollar consumers spend for most food products. Farmers received an average of 39 cents of the dollar consumers spent for food in 1965, the same share as in 1957 -59 but 11 cents smaller than in 1947 -49. The farmer's share depends both upon the prices he receives for his product and the costs of marketing it. The more marketing services, the greater the cost. Thus, the farmer's share of the consumer's dollar is smaller for a highly serviced product such as bread (16 cents) than for an unprocessed product such as eggs (61 cents). -- The wide variation of the farmer's share of the consumer's dollar among products is shown by the tabulation below: 1965 1957 -59 Cents Cents Beef, Choice grade 57 62 Butter 73 72 Eggs, Grade A large 61 64 Corn flakes 9 10 Bread, white 16 16 Apples 31 29 Potatoes 38 31 Canned corn 13 13 Canned peaches - 16 18 8. Higher marketing costs account for the major part of the increase in food expenditures. In 1965, consumers spent $77.6 billion for food products that originated on U. S. farms. Of this total, farmers got $25.5 billion, the remaining $52.1 billion went for marketing services. -- Of the $17 billion increase in farm food expenditures since 1957 -59, $4.5 billion or about one - fourth went to farmers. - 4 - -- Of the $34 billion rise over 1947 -49, $6.5 billion or less than one -fifth went to farmers. 9. Food marketing provides many jobs and incomes. More than 5 million workers assemble, process and distribute farm -food products. Workers range from unskilled laborers to top executives -- included are milk truck drivers, processors, plant workers, ware- house men, supermarket checkers, restaurant waitresses, engineers, scientists, accountants and many other occupations. Twenty -two billion in paychecks and fringe benefits to these workers, about 5 billion more than in 1957 -59 and a 10 billion increase since 1950. 10. Productivity of food marketing workers is increasing. This helps keep food costs down. - - Despite the large increases in volume of food and services provided, the number of food marketing workers has not risen in the last 10 years. - - Hourly earnings of food marketing employees went up from $1.82 in 1957 -59 to $2.30 in 1965, an increase of 26 percent. However, increased productivity kept the rise in labor costs per unit of product marketed to less than 10 percent. 11. Food continues to take a smaller share of our incomes. Food expenditures as a percentage of income were: - - 18.2 percent in 1965 (still 18.2 in second quarter 1966) - - 18.4 percent in 1964 - -20.0 percent in 1960 -- 20.6 percent 1957 -59, average - - 22.2 percent in 1950 -- 24.6 percent 1947 -49, average 12. In terms of the amount of labor necessary to pay for our food supplies, we are better off today than we were even a few short years ago. - 5 - These examples indicate the amount of food an hour of factory labor would purchase: Change In 1929 In 1957 -59 In 1965 1957 -59 to 1965 Percent increase White bread, lb. 6.4 11.0 12.5 14 Round steak, lb. 1.2 2.1 2.4 14 Butter, lb. 1.0 2.8 3.5 25 Milk, qt. 3.9 8.4 9.9 18 Eggs, doz. 1.1 3.7 5.0 35 Pork chops, lb. 1.5 2.4 2.7 12 Bacon, sl., lb. 1.3 2.9 3.2 10 Margarine, lb. 2.1 7.3 9.4 29 13. Incomes rise faster than food expenditures; this provides more money for other purchases. Between 1957 -59 and 1965, on a per person basis: - - Income up $565; 31 percent. -- Food expenditures up $59; 16 percent - - Income less food expenditures up $506; 35 percent 14. Consumer expenditures for autos and gasoline rise much faster than for food. Between 1958 and 1965 (preliminary estimate): -- Sales in retail food stores were up 36 percent - -a part of this rise was caused by an increase in the proportion of nonfood items sold in retail stores. -- Sales by automotive dealers rose 76 percent. - - Sales by gasoline service stations rose by 53 percent. In 1965 combined dollar sales of automotive dealers and gasoline service stations were nearly 17 percent higher than sales of retail food stores. 15. Convenience foods add to the food bill; they also save homemakers many hours in the kitchen. - 6 - Differences in cost between these and home - prepared counterparts may pay the homemaker little for her effort. Here are a few examples of differences in cost per serving in July 1966: Cost per serving (cents) Serving size, oz. Purchased Home prepared Beef dinner 11.0 59.0* 44.6* Turkey dinner 12.5 59.0* 20.4* Pizza 8.3 40.6* 24.4¢ Hash brown potatoes 3.9 6.7¢ 3.6* Apple pie 4.7 9.9* 7.2* 16. Eating -out also adds to the food bill. Prices for food away from home have increased much more than prices for food at home. - - In 1965, restaurant meals were 18 percent higher than 1957 -59; grocery -store prices of food up 7 percent. 17. In the post -war period, farmers' prices have had an important stabilizing effect on food prices and the cost of living. -- Farm prices in 1965 were 7 percent below the 1947 -49 average. - - In the first half of 1966, they were 1 percent below 1947 -49. - - Retail food prices in 1965 were 28 percent above the 1947 -49 average. - - The overall consumer price index in 1965 averaged 35 percent above 1947 -49. 18. Between 1957 -59 and 1965, prices of food purchased for use at home increased 7 percent, compared with 18 percent for services. During the same period, the cost of transportation rose 11 percent; medical care increased 22 percent. 19. Food prices are only one of several factors in the higher cost of living in 1966. Between July 1965 and July 1966 the cost of a $100 "basket" of all goods and services bought by consumers rose by an average of $2.80. The major components of this increase were as follows: Food $0.71 Other nondurables fapparel, fuel, household supplies) .62 Durable goods .12 Services (medical care, personal services, utilities, transportation, etc.) 1.35 - 7 - 20. Prices of all major items in the Consumer Price Index rose in the past year. Between July 1965 and July 1966 the CPI rose by 2.8 percent, about twice the average annual gain between 1957 -59 and 1965. Increases by groups were as follows: Change, July 1965 to July 1966 Percent Food 3.1 Food at home 2.7 Food away from home 5.0 All services 4.1 Medical care 4.1 Personal care 3.5 Public transportation 6.3 Commodities less food 1.9 21. The greater- than - average increase in food prices in the last year reflects: -- Rising levels of employment and consumer income. r' -- Greater food use by the military. - - Strong export demand. -- Some reduction in total supply of livestock products; hence, farmers' prices for livestock and products in second quarter of 1966 were up 12 percent over the second quarter 1965, while prices received for crops were 2 percent lower. 22. During crop year 1966 -67, prices received by farmers are expected to have a stabilizing effect on retail food prices. - - Increases in production of meat, milk, and eggs expected. - - Any advances in retail prices are more likely to reflect rising marketing costs rather than tight supplies of farm food commodities. 23. The abundant production from U.S. farms makes possible an ever - growing finsil foreign trade - -an important source of income to the Nation. -- Exports of U.S. farm products set a record $6.7 billion in fiscal year 1966. -- Commercial agricultural exports earned more than $5 billion worth of dollar exchange and greatly helped the Nation's balance of payments. - 8 - -- The United States is the world's largest exporter of farm products- - supplying over 20 percent of world agricultural trade. 24. The American farmer has become a farmer for the world. Millions of people in other lands have a vital stake in the productivity of the American farmer. -- Over half of the 1965 wheat and rice crops, over one -third of our soybean and grain sorghum crops, and one -fifth of our cotton crop was shipped to consumers abroad. -- One out of every four harvested acres is produced for export. -- Since 1954, 145 million tons of U.S. food have gone to people all over the world. -- Two - thirds of the world's people live in countries with nutritionally inadequate national average diets. These countries are the ones in which the most rapid population growth also is expected. Thus, world needs for food are very great in the immediate future. -- Both consumers in prosperous countries and consumers in less developed countries look to the United States as an important source of food and fiber. Three - fourths of U.S. agricultural exports are sold to the prosperous countries; one - fourth moves as aid to the less developed countries. DEFENSE READINESS TEST - 1966 USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD (H +72) 6 -15 -66 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS W. T. SISTRUNK, COUNTY AGENT DUTIES OF THE USDA DEFENSE BOARD. . . J. E. FRIERSON, CHAIRMAN USDA DEFENSE BOARD EXPLANATION OF THE 1966 DEFENSE READINESS TEST W L. ROBERT, SCS EFFECT OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON BRAZOS COUNTY COL WALTER HENRY, RADEF OFFICER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION DAMAGE WHICH HAS OCCURRED TO THE FOOD INDUSTRY J. E. FRIERSON, CHAIRMAN EFFECT ON LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY IN BRAZOS COUNTY Dr. J. F. SOUSARES, ARS SURVIVAL AND PROTECTION EXERCISE . . . W. T. SISTRUNK, COUNTY AGENT COORDINATION OF CIVIL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES JAKE CANGELOSE, DIRECTOR COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD Fallout Conditions for Brazos County t , ` ' 1966 Defense Readiness Test When a plot of the fallout vies made it tery7 easy to see that the first assumptions that were agreed upon, "That the fallout would be uniform over the county ", would not held. The south end of the county will receive fallout from San Antonio, Del Rio and Waco while the north end will have fallout from only Waco. The east -vest difference will be small. Tie dose rate curves have been *de. One for the north end of the county, one for Bryan and one for the south end. An uniform gradient may be assumed between the three points. The following table summarizes the situation. North Bryan South Time of first arrival H +2 H +2 H +2 Maximum intensity 150r )a0! ° 950r Time of rrx. intensity H +2 :30 q +3 H +3 Total dose at H +72 828r 3656r 7038r Total dose at H +72 in Shelter of PF 40 21r 92r 176r Dose rate at H +72 1.5r/'hr 6r/hr 12r/hr Dose rate forecast H +1111 .6r/ 2.3r/hr 4r/hr From Navasota to San Antonio maximum dose rates exceeded 3000r/hr. i of W'aeo»tustin line almost no fallout occurred. To the northeast the fallout intensity is less. To keep within the guide lines of dose retest SrSryone in the south end of the county will have to stay in shelters for several more days. In Bryan and College Station, people in standard shelters, PF'40 could accept 6r /day for a two month period which would limit outside work to one hour, today. Those people in the north end of the county can be out for 8 to 10 hours a day but must remain in shelter the rest of the time form few more days. Proceed with caution, and rpdiological detective equipment must be used at all ties. Dose accumulation in individuals must be witched. DEFENSE READINESS TEST - 1966 USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD (H +72) 6 -15 -66 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS W. T. SISTRUNK, COUNTY AGENT DUTIES OF THE USDA DEFENSE BOARD J. E. FRIERSON, CHAIRMAN EXPLANATION OF THE 1966 DEFENSE READINESS USDA DEFENSE BOARD TEST W L. ROBERT, SCS EFFECT OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON BRAZOS COUNTY COL WALTER HENRY, RADEF OFFICER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION DAMAGE WHICH HAS OCCURRED TO THE FOOD INDUSTRY J. E. FRIERSON, CHAIRMAN EFFECT ON LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY IN BRAZOS COUNTY Dr. J. F. SOUSARES, ARS SURVIVAL AND PROTECTION EXERCISE . . . W. T. SISTRUNK, COUNTY AGENT COORDINATION OF CIVIL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES. JAKE CANGELOSE, DIRECTOR COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD 13RAZOS COUNTY CIVIL DEFENSE FILE COPY ctober 20, 1966 TL: W.C. Davis, County Judge Mr, Jack Cunlee, Bryan City Mayor Mr, Fred Sandlin, Bryan City Manager Mr, D,A, Anderson, College Station City ayor Mr, Ran Boswell, College Station City i Mr, John W. Hill, Personnel and Safety Director Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy uf a letter received from the Jtate U.S.D.A. Board, regarding the joint test exercise held June the 15th, sincerely yours Jake Canglose, Director Brazos County Civil Defense UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD College Station, Texas July 14, 1966 In reply refer to: 7 -LAW To: Chairman and All Members of Brazos County USDA Defense Board From: W. Lewis David, Chairman O�_ctctG; 6741u USDA State Defense Board / Subject: Commendation for Coordination with Local Civil Defense Organizations At the USDA State Defense Board meeting of July 8, a report was given on the joint meeting of the Brazos County USDA Defense Board and Brazos County Civil Defense Organization which was held on June 15. The cooperation between your county board and the local civil defense organizations in evaluating problems and developing solutions in connection with the 1966 Defense Readiness Test was considered exceptionally good by the repre- sentatives of the State Defense Board who attended the meeting. The work which your board has done with civil defense officials and local government is a good example of the type of coordination which must be developed between USDA County Defense Boards and other organizations with defense responsibilities in order to insure survival and recovery in the event of a nuclear attack. The USDA State Defense Board commends your board for the effort and initiative you have displayed in bringing about this co- ordination, and for the favorable publicity which was obtained. We would like for you to express our appreciation to the members of the Brazos County Civil Defense Director's office and to the other officials who participated in this meeting and the test exercise. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE ' i USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD ' V College Station, Texas °11 July 14, 1966 In reply refer to: • 7 -LAW .r �.. To: Chairman and All Members of Brazos County USDA Defense Board From: W. Lewis David, Chairman/2j .0(441 USDA State Defense Board Subject: Commendation for Coordination with Local Civil Defense Organizations At the USDA State Defense Board meeting of July 8, a report was given on the joint meeting of the Brazos County USDA Defense Board and Brazos County Civil Defense Organization which was held on June 15. The cooperation between your county board and the local civil defense organizations in evaluating problems and developing solutions in connection with the 1966 Defense Readiness Test was considered exceptionally good by the repre- sentatives of the State Defense Board who attended the meeting. The work which your board has done with civil defense officials and local government is a good example of the type of coordination which must be developed between USDA County Defense Boards and other organizations with defense responsibilities in order to insure survival and recovery in the event of a nuclear attack. The USDA State Defense Board commends your board for the effort and initiative you have displayed in bringing about this co- ordination, and for the favorable publicity which was obtained. We would like for you to express our appreciation to the members of the Brazos County Civil Defense Director's office and to the other officials who participated in this meeting and the test exercise. MI TES OF THE XAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD j Time: 10:00 a.m., January 6, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Dr. John L. Wilbur, Jr. - absent ARS (Represented by Dr. Jack R. Pitcher) H. N. Smith SCS L. D. Smith FHA *John H. Courtenay USFS Cary Palmer - absent SRS (Represented by Robert McCauley) Joe H. Rothe CES Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator, USDA Kenneth Denmark, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Morris Williamson, Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA John Kincaid, Regional Defense Staff, SCS A. E. Mandeville, Alternate State Defense Board Member, USFS Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Membership Change *Mr. David introduced John H. Courtenay, USFS, who is replacing Jack McElroy on the board. (New line of succession will be determined at next meeting). Meeting With Attack Analysis Staff The board met with the Attack Analysis Staff and were briefed on the re- sults of two county defense board exercises. The staff had graded the County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire and Exercise No. 2 - Priority Use and Conservation of Scarce Gasoline and Diesel Fuel in a Defense 2 Emergency. Mr. David commended the staff on their excellent work and emphasized the fact that in an emergency the Attack Analysis Staff would be a very important factor. The County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire dealt with radiological monitoring and involved considerable work. According to the National evaluation of the test, Texas boards were more accurate than the average for those in the other 47 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Texas had 84.9% of the answers correct while the National percentage was 54.3 %. This was probably due to the fact that Texas investigated the questionnaire rather thoroughly before completing the exercise and had gained valuable experience on a previous problem developed by the State Board. The answers were graded both according to the State Attack Analysis Staff's solutions and the Washington solutions since there was some con- fusion as to what reference material should be used to work the problem. The training the county defense boards in Texas have received was re- flected in the high percentage of correct answers to the questions. A map of the State showing results of the test by counties was viewed by the board. Exercise No. 2 concerning conservation of scarce fuel was discussed. The answers to this exercise were rated excellent, good, fair and poor. Nota- tions were made on the exercise and one copy will be mailed to county de- fense boards. The Attack Analysis Staff will prepare tabulations and comments on the two exercises and submit them to the State Defense Board. A recent memorandum from Robert S. Reed, Assistant to the Secretary, stated that the next exercise "Food Management" would be delayed until the second quarter. These problems are excellent training tools for county boards and the Attack Analysis Staff but the board feels that this delay is needed to allow • • -r ac ivi i -s9 — _ The Attack Analysis Staff will meet on May 4 and Frank Malek, Instructor Civil Defense Training, will conduct a RADEF course. This course will be C quite helpful to the new members nd a refr- • - - •- m ers. Tim Moore, ASCS, was selected-.§ Secretary for the Attack Analysis Staff 4. Mr. Moore will prepare and distribute notices of meetings, minutes of- meetings and reports. Report on Maps Gordon McKee, Coordinator, Attack Analysis Staff, briefed the board on maps to be used by county defense boards and Attack Analysis Staff in plotting fallout. The SCS Cartographic Laboratory has revised a State Highway map, eliminating Farm to Market roads and inserting latitude and longitude lines at 15 minute intervals. These maps have been distributed to county defense boards and trained SCS monitors with instructions to order any necessary additional copies directly from the SCS Cartographic Laboratory in Ft. Worth. 3 The U. S. Air Force Map Service at St. Louis, Missouri, can furnish navi- gation charts of Texas and adjacent states and Mr. McKee has written to them requesting 250 -260 copies. The Air Force furnishes charts to all Government agencies free of charge. The Army Map Service also has fur- nished a supply of useable maps, but two sections of the State are un- available at this time Mr. Earl Butler stated that he would try to secure 300 copies of each of these sections from the Army Map Service. Out of the three maps available, the staff felt they would be able to accurately plot any data that is needed. Minutes Motion was made by H. N. Smith, seconded by Charles Herndon, and passed, that the minutes of the December 2 meeting be approved as written and distributed. Meeting Dates Set by County Defense Boards County boards were recently requested to inform the State Defense Board of their regular monthly meeting dates. From these replies, a list was prepared showing meeting date for each county and distributed to board members. The lists will be given to area and district personnel of all agencies and it is hoped that knowledge of county defense board meeting dates will enable agencies to hold State and area meetings when they would least interfere with county defense board meetings. It was emphasized that TAP and County Defense Board meetings should be held on the same day if at all possible. Community Shelter Planning Mr. Butler stated that the Office of Civil Defense was seeking an organ- ized group to work with in 153 counties that were not funded for making shelter surveys. It had been suggested that the County Program Building Committees would be able to work with the Office of Civil Defense in this respect. Attendance at County Defense Board Meetings Reports on absences of county defense board members at monthly meetings have been sent to all State Agency Representatives covering the months of October, November and December, This procedure will be followed during the month of January also It is recommended that the minutes of the county defense board meetings show the reason for an absence and whether or not a representative attended. The Extension Service is in the process of appointing alternate members in every county where there are two or more employeees. If the regular member nor alternate cannot attend a meeting, they should notify the de- fense board chairman. 4 Federal Emergency Assignee Identification Cards The review of identification cards was discussed. Mr. Rothe requested a guideline for issuance of identification cards. The Soil Conservation Service issues cards to all trained instructors and members of county de- fense boards; FHA issues cards to board members only. In view of these practices, the Extension Service will now issue cards to board members only. It was emphasized that these identification cards should be used only for official purposes. Correspondence The board has received a memorandum from the Louisiana State Defense Board indicating that the Louisiana and New Mexico Attack Analysis Staffs would like to exchange minutes of meetings with the Texas Attack Analysis Staff. Gordon McKee, Coordinator, Attack Analysis Staff, has been informed of this request and will send copies of minutes to Louisiana and New Mexico. County Food Profile Project The County Food Profile was discussed and the board decided to go ahead with the project since county boards would not receive another problem until April. Instructions will be prepared by the committee previously appointed to initiate this project in pilot counties. Financial Transactions During an Emergency Earl Butler discussed financial transactions and arrangements to carry out the responsibilities of USDA county defense boards in case of an emergency. A draft of a document has been prepared on emergency loan guarantees to be used on authority of the President or Secretary of Agriculture. Production loans would be handled just as they are now. Payment for requisitioned food, items stalled in transit, etc., would be handled, according to the current draft, by issuance of Treasury checks or CCC Sight Drafts. Loans and credit guarantee from CCC funds for processing, payment for storage and distribution of foods, or distribution of farm equipment are to be set up within established programs and would be in addition to this Meeting Date The next meeting of the State Defense Board will be held on February 3 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 11 :50 a.m. EXHIBIT A RESULTS OF THE SURVIVAL QUESTIONNAIRE ON A QUESTION -BY- QUESTION BASIS FOR USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARDS IN TEXAS Question Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent No. Right Right Wrong Wrong Omitted Omitted 1 182 74.6 61 25.0 1 0.4 2 236 96.7 7 2.9 1 , 0.4 3 181 74.2 62 25.4 1 • 0.4 4 157 64.3 86 35.2 1 0.4 5 182 74.6 61 25.0 1 • 0.4 6 207 84.8 36 14.7 1 0.4 7 226 92.6 17 7.o 1 0.4 8 200 82.o 43 17.6 1 0.4 9 178 73.o 65 26.6 1 o.4 10 241' 98.8 1 0.4 2 0.8 11 241 98.8 2 0.8 1 0.4 12 129 52.9 114 46.7 1 0.4 13 236 96.7 7 2.9 1 0.4 14 239 97.9 4 1.6 1 0.4 15 208 85.2 35 14.3 1 0.4 16 215 88.1 27 11.1 2 0.8 17 231 94.7 11 4.5 2 0.8 18 208 85.2 34 13.9 2 0.8 19 241 98.8 1 0.4 2 0.8 GRAND TOTAL 3,938 84.9 674 14.5 24 0.5 EXHIBIT B RESULTS OF TEXAS USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD READIITESS EXERCISE No. 2 EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 26 (11%) 133 (56 %) 68 (28%) 12 (5 %) i W. Lewis David, Chairman January 6, 1967 USDA State Defense Board College Station, Texas From: Gordon S. McKee, Coordinator Texas Attack Analysis Staff 44446"(...(21.5.)de---/. Subject: DEFENSE Attack Analysis Staff Meeting, January 5 -6, 1967 The Texas Attack Analysis Staff met in College Station for its regular scheduled meeting. The main purpose of this meeting was to grade the USDA County Defense Questionnaires completed in accordance with Defense Policy Memorandum #49 and to grade Defense Exercise #2. Members Present: Gordon S. McKee, Coordinator Jack Pitcher, ARS Tim Moore, ASCS - Harold J. Baker, ASCS Thomas W. Neumann, CES Ersel H. Matthews, C&14S John C. Schweda, CMS Ed Manning, FI-IA 0. H. Barham, Plant Pest Control Div., ARS • H. A. Moncrief, SCS Leroy Werchan, SCS Robert S. McCauley, SRS Lewis H. Curry, USFS William J. Gourney, USFS ;;hers Present: Frank Malek, Eng. Ext. Serv. Civil Defense, Texas A&M Bill Tidball, Eng. Ext. Serv. Civil Defense, Texas A&M Leonard White, ASCS W. W. Fuchs, SCS Members Absent: Bobby Joe Ragsdale, CES Harold Carter, FHA • The group discussed the instructions from the State Defense Board on grading the USDA County Defense Board Questionnaire, in addition to supplemental guidance in the memo dated November 9, 1966, from Walter Bieberly, ASCS, to the Texas Defense Board, regarding Questions 1, 2 and 3. This staff deter- mined that the answer to Question f2 (the number of weapons, either 2 or 3) contributing to fallout at the County Seat determines the correct answers to Questions 1 and 3. The papers were graded according to this reasoning. Attached is a summary, identified as Exhibit A, of the results of the completed questionnaires returned by the County Defense Boards. This summary was compared with the National summary from 47 other States, Puerto Rico, and the 2 Virgin Islands. Texas County Defense Boards, on a percentage basis, exceeded the National average by 30.6 percent on total correct answers. This was partly due to flexibility allowed in answer to Question 2, which affected the correct answers to Questions 1 and 3. In addition, Texas ranked higher than • the National average on each of the other 16 questions. Texas USDA County Defense Board Readiness Exercise No. 2 - Priority Use and Conservation of Scarce Gasoline and Diesel Fuel in a Defense Emergency. Leonard White, ASCS, led the discussion on explanation of this exercise. The. Attack Analysis Staff agreed to use four ratings - Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor - in grading the exercise. An overall rating was given td each completed exercise. The rating for a given county board's answers to the exercise was based on the County Defense Board's indicated use of instructions in the reference materials, instructions on the back of the exercise sheet, and reasoning shown as reflected in their answers. The results of this type of exercise is difficult to analyze, because of the judgment factors involved in it. Attached is a summary, identified as Exhibit B, of the ratings given. Frank Malek, Instructor, Engineering Extension Service Civil Defense, met with the staff and discussed training needs. Mr. Malek agreed to present training on RADEF officer duties and damage assessment at the meeting on May l.. The Attack Analysis Staff agreed to meet May 4 instead of April 6 because of a scheduled RADEF School to be attended by some members of the Staff and because Mr. Malek is to instruct that class. Tim Moore was elected by members of the Attack Analysis Staff to serve as Secretary to the Staff. As Secretary he will maintain a list of the member- ship, complete and distribute reports, and send out meeting notices. Maps for use by County Defense Boards were discussed with the State Defense Board for its consideration. Attachments MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD j \ \ ,/ 1 Time: 10:00 a.m., February 3, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe, Deputy Chairman CES Dre John Lo Wilbur - absent ARS (represented by Dr. Jack Pitcher) H. N. Smith - absent SCS (represented by Gordon McKee) Lo D. Smith FHA John H. Courtenay USFS Cary Palmer SRS Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: Raymond Holmstrom, Office Manager, Grimes County ASCS Alton McGilberry, Chairman, Grimes County ASC Committee Kenneth Denmark, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Thomas Neumann, Attack Analysis Staff, CES A. E. Mandeville, Alternate State Defense Board Member, USFS Colo John Christian, Division of Defense and Disaster Relief, Department of Public Safety Jack Bradshaw, Regional Defense Staff Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant Guests Mr. David welcomed Mr. Alton McGilberry, Chairman, Grimes County ASC Com- mittee, and Raymond Holmstrom, Office Manager, Grimes County ASCS. Mr. McGilberry is Chairman of the Grimes County USDA Defense Board as Mr. Holmstrom is a member of the Ready Reserve and therefore ineligible to serve as chairman. 2 Conference for Texas Civil Defense Directors Mr. David announced that he has been invited to address the Seventh Annual State Conference for Texas Civil Defense Directors on February 27 at the Villa Capri Motor Hotel in Austin. The topic of Mr. David's speech will be "USDA Responsibility for Civil Defense." The board members were asked to attend the meeting if possible. Quarterly Defense Report A letter received from the Acting Assistant to the Secretary, George H. Walter, was read to the board. Mr. Walter had noted in the Defense Report covering the months of October, November, and December that the county de- fense boards in Texas had a very good record for meetings held during that period. The members of the State Defense Board were also commended on the leadership and guidance given to the county defense boards. Minutes The minutes of the January 6 meeting were approved as written and distributed. County Food Profile Mr. Charles Herndon reported that instructions for preparing the County Food Profile were ready for distribution to county defense boards. The infor- mation for the profile is to be prepared showing needs and supply on a daily basis by food groups and one copy will be placed in the State Defense Board Emergency Records. The profile is to be reviewed annually and revised if necessary. Motion was made by Cary Palmer, seconded by Joe Rothe, and passed that the instructions be mailed out to county boards as soon as possible and the completed food profiles returned to the State Defense Board by May 1. The board voted to commend Mr. Herndon for his work in developing informa- tion and formulating instructions for the County Food Profile Project. Peacetime Radiological Incidents Dr. Jack Pitcher reviewed Part E, Chapter 5, Appendix 10, Annexes 1-4 of the Civil Defense Guide which outlines the responsibilities and actions to be taken by representatives of State and local governments in event of a peacetime radiological incident. An example of a peacetime radiological incident would be the spilling of radioactive material from a truck in- volved in an accident. In this case, the local police should notify the nearest Army Post and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Army Post would send a radiological assistance team properly equipped to assume command of the situation with the assistance of the local police. When the AEC team arrived they would take over performing such actions as retrieving the material, controlling the radiation hazards, and taking any other action necessary. If the accident happened on private property of an organization licensed to handle radioactive material where the public would not have access, it would probably be handled by the licensee under the auspices of the Atomic 3 Energy Commission, with local authority becoming involved only to the ex- tent of keeping the public away. In any kind of an accidental spill of radioactive material, the immediate responsibility belongs to the party in possession of the material. New Line of Succession The chairman consulted the board members regarding the establishment of a new line of succession to the chairmanship. Joe H., Rothe was appointed Deputy Chairman of the State Defense Board since his headquarters is College Station and in the event of an emergency would more likely be able to reach the Emergency Operating Center than the other members of the board. Mr. John Courtenay will retain Mr. McElroy °s place in the line of succession. Emergency Programs Mr. White discussed the drouth situation over the State. A drouth of three months has now exhausted the moisture supply in most sections. Applications for the Livestock Feed Program have been received from four counties and one county has applied for emergency grazing and haying. Mr. Ralph T. Price, Chairman, State Disaster Committee, Dr. Clarence Carter, Extension Service, and Mr. Leonard White recently surveyed 15 counties near the Edwards Plateau region. Livestock have generally re- mained in good condition in spite of the fact that very little grazing was available from winter grain, winter grasses, or weeds. Farmers and ranchers were fortunate in having a good supply of dry grass on most ranges. Nearly all livestock are being fed but prices have held up well and bankers are generally supplying the necessary credit for additional feed. The State Disaster Committee concluded that conditions are not now severe enough to justify recommending emergency programs but the situation will be watched closely and any available assistance will be recommended if conditions become sufficiently critical. Publications Mr. White discussed defense publications received by the board members since the last meeting. Regional Defense Staff Meeting Mr. Jack Bradshaw reported on the Regional Defense Staff meeting he at- tended in Denton on January 23-24. The purpose of the meeting was to orient the staff on radiological monitoring, fire damage, fallout, in- tensity of dosages, agricultural damage, etc. It is necessary that the staff have a knowledge of plotting in order to read and analyze the re- ports from the Attack Analysis Staff. There were ARS, SCS, and ASCS rep- resentatives from the Washington office present to teach the staff these procedures. The staff also discussed their responsibilities and what material they should take to the Federal Center in the event of an emer- gency. Mr. Earl Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator, agreed to for- mulate this information and transmit it to the regional defense staff. 4 Mr. Bradshaw made a report to the regional staff on the results of the two test exercises recently completed by county defense boards. Maps Gordon McKee showed the board members a map secured from the U. S. Air Force Map Service. This map is composed of five parts and must be as- sembled. Each county defense board has received this map and instructions for assembling. Dr. Pitcher stated that the maps could be constructed with Photographer's Rubber Cement and covered with a protective cover of Mylar. Mylar is a type of plastic with adhesive backing which can be applied directly to the map. Both of these items can be secured from GSA. By using a wax pencil on the Mylar the markings can then be wiped off. Meeting Date The State Defense Board will hold its next meeting on March 3 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. 771-2/ e MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., March 3, 1967 Place: Memorial Student Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas ituiR pp Lot 490 Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe - absent CES (represented by Thomas Neumann) U Dr. John L. Wilbur ARS H. N. Smith SCS / L. D. Smith - absent FHA �J (represented by Howard Williamson) ✓` John H. Courtenay USFS n p 11 � Cary Palmer SRS �p v J V Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: / n ,. ,y John H. Stockton, Chairman, Harris County " " "��l U\ USDA Defense Board Ralph McKinney, Chairman, Robertson County USDA Defense Board Inspector C. 0. Layne, Chief, Division of Defense and Disaster Relief, DPS, Austin Col. John Christian, Division of Defense and Disaster Relief, DPS, Austin Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Meeting Place Due to lack of electricity at the USDA Building, the board relocated at the Memorial Student Center, Texas A &M University, to hold this meeting. Guests Mr. David welcomed Mr. John Stockton, Chairman, Harris County USDA De- fense Board, and Mr. Ralph McKinney, Chairman, Robertson County USDA De- fense Board, to the meeting. The board intends to invite chairmen of county boards to meetings whenever possible in order that they may observe and meet the members of the State Defense Board. 2 Approval of Minutes Motion was made by H. N. Smith, seconded by Dr. John Wilbur, and passed that the minutes of the February 3 meeting be approved as written and distributed. State of Texas Emergency Operations Plan Inspector C. 0. Layne, Chief, Division of Defense and Disaster Relief, reviewed the base plan for emergency operations in the state of Texas. This plan covers general responsibilities of state and local government and will be supplemented by annexes providing for all functionsrequired. The Texas Civil Protection Act of 1951 enabled the Governor to provide for the organization and coordination of a program of civil defense and disaster relief adequate to protect life and property in the state in case of natural disaster, enemy action, or the threat thereof. The Governor placed the responsibility for the State Civil Defense Program in the Department of Public Safety, and it is administered through the Division of Defense and Disaster Relief. The Emergency Operations Plan was developed by the Division of Defense and Disaster Relief to provide direction and control of emergency opera- tions during periods of national emergency, major accidental disaster or natural disasters. To effectively carry out this plan, the State Defense and Disaster Relief Council was organized. The Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, who is also the Director for Defense and Disaster Relief, is chairman of the State Defense and Disaster Relief Council. The Council includes the heads of State Departments and agencies whose normal functions relate to important phases of defense activities and others who may be designated by the Governor. The field organization is comprised of State Disaster Districts and Subdistricts which parallel the Highway Patrol Districts and Subdistricts of the Department of Public Safety. The Highway Patrol Captain of each District and the Lieutenant of each Subdistrict will serve as Chairman of the District Disaster Com- mittee and as State Liaison Officer for purposes of organization and co- ordination. On the local level, the responsibility for civil defense and disaster relief is invested in the County Judge in unincorporated areas and in the Mayor in incorporated cities and towns. The Division of Defense and Disaster Relief is now working on three pri- ority projects: Community Shelter Planning, Development of Emergency Operating Centers, and Training Programs. Under the Community Shelter Plan, the entire population of a community is related to all the shelter available, regardless of quality. Pre- assign- ment to shelters is made on the basis of place of residence, using best available shelter first. The Division of Defense and Disaster Relief has one Community Shelter Officer assigned to write these plans for areas not qualifying for planning funds. A survey will be made in each community 3 which will cover any and all existing structures that were not surveyed previously. The first survey conducted by the Corps of Engineers covered only those structures with a protection factor of 40 or more and a capac- ity for 50 people. The city of Austin and Travis County implemented their Community Shelter Plan in April 1966, the first in Texas. Protected emergency operating centers to be used by local government and civil defense officials during an emergency are being developed. Finan- cial assistance is available to cities, towns, and counties for construc- tion of the emergency operating centers. A training program is being conducted to educate citizens in necessary civil defense work such as shelter management and monitoring. Training must be continued indefinitely because trained people are being constantly lost through movement to other areas, death, disabilities, etc. Conference for Texas Civil Defense Directors Mr. David and Mr. White briefed the board on highlights of the Seventh Annual State Conference for Texas Civil Defense Directors held in Austin on February 27 -28. The entire meeting was considered very good and the *NORAD demonstration given by an Air Force Team was especially interesting and informative. The team demonstrated their capability of photographing and identifying objects as small as a ballpoint pen in space 300 miles distant. NORAD's headquarters is located under a mountain near Colorado Springs, Colorado. USDA Emergency Programs Mr. White discussed drouth conditions over the State. There is still a lack of moisture and conditions have deteriorated over much of the State in the last month. A few requests for emergency assistance have been received and these will have to be acted upon soon. Attendance at Count Defense Board Meetin•s The practice of checking county defense board members' attendance at meet- ings is to be continued indefinitely at the request of the State Agency Representatives. Pub lications and Correspondence Mr. White discussed publications and correspondence received since the February 3 board meeting. In regard to State Defense Board Emergency Records Memorandum No. 135, the SCS and FS representatives were asked to furnish the material listed in the inventory for the State Defense Board Emergency Records. Emergency Records Memorandum No. 140 requires that the State Defense Board obtain a copy of a weather map daily and a copy of the upper air wind report about once monthly. The board is also to make arrangements for consultation with a trained meteorologist in the emergency period. The board suggested that the Chairman invite a meteor- ologist from the Texas A&M University to a meeting in the near future. *North American Air Defense Command 4 Mr. White read a letter from the Deputy Administrator, ASCS, stating that it has been determined that all ASCS farmer fieldmen should be issued Fed- eral Emergency Assignee Identification Cards. All the Texas ASCS farmer fieldmen were issued these identification cards previously. Meeting Date The State Defense Poard will meet on April 7 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. • 4 \\■\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD College Station, Texas March 28, 1967 In reply refer to: 7-LAW To: Chairman, USDA County Defense Board From: Chairman, USDA State Defense Board Subject: Food Management Exercise Enclosed is a copy of USDA State Defense Policy Memorandum No. 49, Supplement 2, with two copies of the County Readiness Exercise - Food Management. Please complete this exercise in duplicate, mail the original to this office not later than June 20 and retain the copy in your files. It should be noted that food needs in this exercise are based on the average per capita consumption for 1967 instead of on the Emergency Food Consumption Standards. Information for your county obtained in connection with the County Food Profile Project can be used to deter- mine food requirements in Part A and food deficits or surplus in Part B, but it will be necessary to convert your present figures from the emergency standards to the normal consumption averages. Counties which have no food facilities of more than local importance were not furnished the food facility listings referred to on page 5, Part B. These counties should make a notation to this effect on pages 5, 6, and 7 of Part B and should not complete these pages. Although this is a comparatively simple exercise, it is suggested that all county boards begin work on it at the next meeting and submit the completed copy as soon as possible in order that we may have time to complete an evaluation of the exercise to be included in our quarterly report as of June 30. Enclosures � ) 4 4.A401 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, O. C. 20250 February 28, 1967 USDA STATE DEFENSE POLICY MEMORANDUM NO. 49, SUPPLEMENT Z Assistance for USDA. County Defense Boards PURPOSE The attached readiness exercise is the third of the exercises announced in USDA State Defense Policy Memorandum No. 49. This Food Manage- ment Exercise is intended to again demonstrate to County Boards that their first responsibility in preparing themselves for any emergency is to be well informed about the needs of their community. As noted in the accompanying instructions to the County Defense Boards, the information developed by this exercise is vital if the County Defense Boards are to accomplish several initial responsibilities set out in their Defense Operations Handbook. State Defense Boards should use this opportunity to again ask the County Defense Boards to review their responsibilities for food management in case of emergency. Very simply, the USDA responsibility is to direct and assure adequate resupply of food in an emergency. Since emergency control over retail food distribution at the local level is a local government responsibility, County Defense Boards should be instructed to invite the local official in charge of civil defense to partici- pate i,n this exercise. This exercise can then further the development of mutual understanding of the kinds of local food problems that could occur in an emergency. BACKGROUND Distribution of this "Food Management" exercise should follow the pro- cedure outlined in USDA State Defense Policy Memorandum No. 49. ACTION The State Defense Board will receive separately, enough copies of Readiness Exercise on Emergency Food Management so that two can be sent to each USDA County Defense Board. Parts A and B of the � 4 -2- readiness exercise should be completed by each County Defense Board by June 30, 1967. County Defense Boards should answer the questions on the basis of their personal knowledge and the records currently in their possession. They are not to undertake surveys and they are not required to make a special effort to obtain the information prior to completion of the exercise. However, County Boards may seek the missing information after completing the exercise to the extent they can do so without undertaking an industry survey. No request for information should be made to any segment of the local food industry. One copy of the completed exercise will be retained by the County Defense Board, and one will be returned to the State Defense Board. County Defense Boards should be instructed to indicate in their Defense Board meeting minutes any special problems encountered. The State Defense Board will evaluate the completed readiness exercise from each county in relation to the Board's knowledge of each county's food situation. The Board is requested to indicate in the quarterly report for the April - June period: (a) the number of counties which have completed both parts of the readiness exercise; (b) the nature and extent of any follow -up action planned; and (c) the nature and scope of assistance needed by the counties, especially that which the State Board is unable to furnish or obtain. Note particularly that no basis exists for scoring the exercise. Attachments include: 1. Instructions to County Defense Board on Readiness Exercise; 2. Part A of the Readiness Exercise - Normal County Food Requirements; 3. Part B of the Readiness Exercise - Emergency Food Management Questions. • Alec G. Olson Assistant to the Secretary Atta chments L COUNTY READINESS EXERCISE - FOOD MANAGEMENT Instructions to County Defense Board BACKGROUND s Effective management of food under emergency conditions will require very substantial knowledge about food and the local food industry. The same knowledge is necessary now for pre- emergency evaluation of the potential effects of nuclear attack. For a USDA County Defense Board, this need cannot be satisfied by broad generalizations. Rather, the need is for specifics which best can be described in the form of such questions as: What foods are produced in my county? Where, when and by whom are they processed and stored? Besides all or part of our own county population, who else depends on us for what kinds of food, where are they, and through what channels does the food move? What are the sources of the food consumed in my county? By food groups (see Part A), to what extent are we self- sufficient? When, where and from whom do we get the rest of what we need? For distant shipments, 111/1 what are the likely stoppages, and what secondary sources might be accessible? The attached readiness exercise is by no means exhaustive. It covers only some of the more important aspects of any county's food supply. Whether surplus or deficit with respect to any food group, solid knowledge of the status and functioning of the food industry is vital if the County Defense Board is to: (a) accomplish the initial situation analysis (Pars. 326 -331 CDH); (b) develop the first Food Situation Report (Par. 343 CDH); (c) issue and administer Defense Food Order No. 2 at county level in a cut -off situation (Par. 416 CDH). In preparation for completion of this Food Management Readiness Exercise, each County Defense Board should review the Emergency Food Program material in its emergency records. (For food facility listings, see emergency records under filing code SS 2 -4.) The Board will attempt to answer exercise questions from its collective personal knowledge and the records currently in its possession. If information is lacking, it is permissible to answer "don't know." A special effort to obtain data for completion of the exercise is not required. However, any County Board may seek needed information after completing the exercise so long as no unauthorized industry surveys are undertaken. No request for information should be made to any segment of the food 0 industry. The best quickly available sources are the County ASC committee and other Federal State and local government officials in position to know the nature and extent of food industry operations in the county. 2. PROBLEM al i Part A of the Readiness Exercise provides a means of developing estimated county food requirements under emergency conditions, based on (a) United States average per capita consumption figures for 1967 (see column 1) and (b) the 1960 Census of Population for the county (see column 2). Valuable information on the probable size and scope of the resupply problem which ' the County Defense Board may have to cope with in the event of a national emergency is provided by column 4 thru 6. R Part B of the Readiness Exercise provides a means of developing some basic information on the size and scope of the food industry in the county, and some evaluation of the county's relative position with respect to having a deficit or surplus supply of ready -to -use food stocks. To repeat, these questions are highly selective and by no means exhaustive. ACTION The Readiness Exercise will be completed by the County Defense Board during one or more Board meetings before the end of June 1967. One copy of the Readiness Exercise will be retained in the County Defense Board files and the other returned to the State Defense Board. Any special problems encountered in the completion of the Readiness Exercise should be described fully in the Defense Board meeting minutes which -.I.11/ should accompany the completed exercise. February 1967 C .."-', CO Co O U E c v w E • T H o a ro .,1 r1 Ca a t o • I o ¢ O a) -1 4 U (n O• a H H • ¢a -1 co w C -4 In a o 0 4-4 E U C d T N a w ro.,-1 °-1 4 X 2 a .0 0 • I o' \U 2 O a) r1 0 w co >, +) • 1-. C -1 V Z E0 C O (1)4, E U >- H o a co •r1 r1 .-1Q 0 C 0 0 N\ H ac0 III O w a N 0 5-5 cn ¢ 0 0 Z E o E U C • Q ft •H r1 .1 O 0O C 6 r1 U a C (1) o I ch W T 411) 0 + 0 N w C O 0 oa E a • w U a a • Ix .--1 r1 f- a 0 .O ¢, U • cn a` a o w Q .-1 0 N I w r0 c(1 0 51 a a +' .r1 N 0' 0 CO . C .H + ' O 0 • �" Q co J E 0 E co ' - r .00 a` ~ l'•-• U N a O N CO .-1 CO Z • O rn co o C U - • U r1 a U .11 _ H N a) •.1 In +' N N • O•- 5 CO (cO O• O• 0) a.0 U 0 N .0 0 110 CO N 0 CO rcc) O .0 a N '0 0 V O) I� 03 ('0 c'0 +' 'o tom 5--1 d' N V 0 N N CO In N O• 1 10 c -H .-4 .-i 0) .L O r-1 co 0) In N O• In +' r1 0 0) H .1 • . • • as • • a) • r .r1 a N • • • C . 1= - a 0 a) H • • 0 a 3 .-1 .1I 5-4 I 1�-' In U +' c N ' (0 0 . . . • 0 0 X U H ' X • '0 N N N ' U -I- H 0 .,1 10 • T o a) • • . • o O co ro H 2) 4-' 0 ,-1 0 H c > r1 a a) • • • .-1 • • v-■ a) a • a) +) 42 • • .Q • 0 • 0 C: • • -° a E T • ro 0 c 0 • -P . 0 4-' c2 cd O C C U c0 H E .Y - o O c0 N •,1 r1 N o • • +' •,1 • • c0 0 `0 • In •r1 .-1 0 a) +' a • ,0 rT + O ' +' ' ') H 0 '° 0) X •H H "0 H r1 c 0 a) • u 0 • • a a • • .0 0 o 0 Cr 0 o_ a) a) a +' '4-, . +' > 0 E -4 N as C C C w H 1-' 0 H •51 0 • • 0 c0 T U . 0 • • N •r1 r a 1 c0 a 'o . 0) - a 'o X H '0 '6 a) I 0. H --1 1 H N I .. 0 N C w a) a 0 .O Q 4-1 •,1 a 1 w 0 U N co - .---- a) T 0 11 +' F1 .- I-1 m 0 > • • • • T 0 0 o } I-1 .x 0 0 0 0 - 0 I-4 F-1 -° 1-1 I-1 +) 0 > .c (1) C x a) 4, '-4.0.0 U .2 .0 m 0 0 0 U c0 c0 (1) 0 0 ,-1 N U O N U H H C 0. v N r0 E H •,1 H u) U •r1 m m 0. 65 a .-1 O 0. N a) U H +� H a 44 O r) N O 3 ) (1:1 O L r a � •r+ O 0 0) 0 •-1 T •,1 0 It N 0 N H H a CO P7 >5 - 1aOrw a 0 w O¢ 0 X W 0 ti• a wa C7 0 0 0 0 1 r t r 1 r 1 I A C i 4- c • C ,H ,o • t 0 0 0 a te ) 0 U C 0 E ON 0 C >• H w 0 O 0 , -1 i-) F. .,-1 (0 •. . 0 (0 o 2 I s� c 0 0 Ft ° U (1) 0 0 E + o - ' ( w c .o o Q +' • +' Z • ¢ w C n 0 F" a E c 0 C • . 0 L Q o'� 0 Q• °' ( 0., W 0 •e--1 ° ,H _ a ca 0 . o Q Q 4 s ° c \ U 0 0 ( O ▪ N0 a `• (o +' Ow W 0 i. ( 0 es -• C ra 0 F V ) .A H I (1) 0 (0 .0 O a) U E 0. a) 0 (0 •H ° •I .O o a (� O N o -1 a) e ,O a \ •H > 0 2 0 L 44 ILI u) N X (0 0 W +> • 0 0 H 1 U C r-0 CO H Cl. t Q 0 0 0 a (3) ca 0 X E H • -- i H 0 (0 4-. (n d CO •r+ •-1 . a (0 O 0 a 0 U o .i 0 i f 4( 0 Q U) +' •r+ ) C E ••+ chl o O III + C N +' C E 0 O +' E E 0 0 F a a . 0 0 •0. H k rn o (0 4 t 0) as '-o 0 • W 0 u) 1 ,__I C N I { . 0 (n Q co (o O 0 0 CO '0 0 0. 0 >. a) . X C •H +> - 0 C CO N t- O, U f\ U C a a 0 E dt ON ,-1 ,-1 O ONO w Q (0 E 0 ,-- 0' r '' '0 f : Z '0 H 0 a 0 ' 0 a) T z ' a' o o C �� - W O N C F. U '� Q. U .,..1 .--i ..0 C O ti 0 •r' (0 E 'O 0 " 0 H 0 • N O 0 0 (0 u) 4 -4 0 3 a U O 0 •> 0. H z O .0 '0O 'N CO N 0 Z 0 C, f) O :. Cr 0\ in to V \0 O to a) (1) 0. 0 u) .--1 r-( 0 a) .0 U .a D • • • .--1 • ( 3 H Q' a) 7 (0 C 0 0 U u) • . • . • H • •r+ (0 .0 0 ,--1 • • • 0 A 76 .0 w • t r-1 0 § o • • • -1- - 0) 0 0 a) a) a) O .0 H H r - 1 g 0 4-' W (0 0 S] a • • . as a) H N 0.. o 0 • ( n 0) a) 1-+ (0 '0 0 0 .,H ••i i. • • 'a • • u) • as u) .Q v CC 4 o 0 0 3 -, r-� . H + 0 4-. C7 • • • 0 • ' 0 ' O 0 . .0 0 H CC 0 4+ (0 . u) C 0 0 u) 0 "0 • • 'O • • 0 a) 7 (0 L4 0 "0 •H 0 0 0 0 m . - 4 a o cn a cn (0 i w ' O O • 0 111 w H +' 0).0 (n +� • ,0 ) 0 a 0 • 0 0 C ) o+ + (0 0 + 0 0 0 C - ° 4.•' - i - o• 0.0 (0 o (-i 0 w i E o. ° •r( C C 0 O H O 0 O . )--i �--� 2 H H H (0 .Y a) H C 'O O - Q N >• +' o 0.. H >' a) () H +' H 'O > a) O +' +' > H a a) '0 O 44 +' Q) 'C) O H 0 C N H (6 a) n3 a 4. ,1 H u) a) U rt1 P. +� H H S2. O .� 0 0. O O. +' 0 0. 0) W 4, a N O . U ) n) rt r+ H o 3 U o Q w H H ( 0 H o m a cn O o w a U) o CC) cn U H 0 i l l a a a O C7 t7 C� H I N I c 71 w k" I i 1 PART B I IC) COUNTY READINESS EXERCISE - FOOD MANAGEMENT Note: Please use a separate continuation sheet for each question which cannot be answered in the space provided. 1. Based on the annual requirements figures in Column 3 of Part A, indicate below, with one check mark per food group, whether the county's own farm production and food processing output normally provides supplies of 1 ready -to -use foods which are: i a. about equal to the county's normal food requirements; b. more than the county's normal food requirements; c. less than the county's normal food requirements thereby indicating that the county is dependent upon other counties or States for supplies of these ready -to -use foods. ,Normal Normal Supply of Ready -to -use foods Annual Food _Which Originate within the County Food Groups Requirements About Equal More than Less than 11::) (Co1.3 Part A) Amounts in Amounts in Amounts in Column B Column B Column B (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) I Meat and meat alternates II Eggs III Milk IV Cereals and cereal products V Fruits and vegetables VI Food fats and oil VII Potatoes VIII Sugars and other sweeteners Miscellaneous food items k 1/ The National Emergency Food Consumption Standard (exhibit 6, page 73, CDH) is the source for the food group headings used herein. i February 1967 i i 2. 2. For food rou s of which supplies are in excess of normal requirements 9 P PP q (column D of question 1, Part B), name the principal city (and State) identifying the general area to which county's more - than - required supplies of ready -to -use foods are sent initially for eventual distribution through the Nation's food pipeline. We hope that this question will assist each county in developing a rough picture of the • food distribution system currently used by the food industry to get the ready -to -eat food from the processor to the wholesaler in a general area similar to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas as established by the Bureau of the Budget and used by a number of Federal Government agencies, or to the Basic Trading Areas as established by the Rand McNally and Company and used by many companies in their sales planning. Name o City an. tate Food Groups 2/ Identifying General Area of Initial Distribution (A) (B) I Meat and meat alternates II Eggs III Milk IV Cereals and cereal products V Fruits and vegetables VI Food fats and oil VII Potatoes VIII Sugars and other sweeteners Miscellaneous food items 0 2/ The National Emergency Food Consumption Standard (exhibit 6, page 73, CDH) is the source for the food group headings used herein. IC 3. 3. For food groups of which supplies are less than normal requirements 9 P pP q (column E of question 1, Part B), name the city (and State) identifying the general area from which the majority of the ready - to -use food supplies are obtained to supplement that which may be available from within the County. Name of City (and State) Food Groups 3/ Identifying General Source I. of Majority of In- shipments (A) (B) I Meat and meat alternates II Eggs III Milk IV Cereals and cereal products V Fruits and vegetables VI Food fats and oil VII Potatoes VIII Sugars and other sweeteners Miscellaneous food items 0 3/ The National Emergency Food Consumption Standard (exhibit 6, page 73, CDH) is the source for the food group headings used herein. I ' 4. 4. Indicate the approximate number of meat - animals of all ages on hand in the county during an average month. Type of Meat - Animals Approximate Number (A) (8) 1. Beef cattle 2. Calves for veal 3. Hogs 4. Sheep and lamb 5. Dairy cattle 4/ 1 Only the culls from dairy_herds that are going to slaughter 5. Indicate the approximate number of birds normally raised commercially in the county during an average month. Type of Poultry Approximate Number (A) (B) 1. Chickens a. Broilers /Fryers b. Fowl; both light and heavy 2. Turkeys 3. Other (Ducks, geese, guineas, capons, etc. specify) T a ID 5. 6. Based on the latest food facility listing (see emergency records file code SS 2 -4) for the county, indicate for each SIC code covered: a. the number of food facilities listed under each; b. the major food items handled by those facilities;and c. which season of the year is the maximum and minimum inventory on hand. Use "MAX" for maximum and "MIN" for minimum inventory. 4. Number of Major Food Seasons of Year with Maximum SIC Code Facilities Items _ and Minimum Inventory Spring Summer Fall Winter (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 0 2/ The SIC code is explained in detail on the page entiti J "Identification of Codes on Defense Resource Listings" (food facility listings) which has 1 been provided each county for insertion at the beginning of each county set of listings. 1 1 11: 1 6. i a' s a f s which o food resource 7. Indicate the major or type of raw food Item whi th oo facilities in your county obtain from sources outside of the county and identify those sources. ► Sources Outside County Major Types of Raw Food Items (City and State Identifying General Area) (A) (B) 7. 11::) Indicate the major types of non -food requisites which the food resources facilities in your county obtain from sources outside of the county and identify those sources. I. Major Outside County Major Types of (City and State Non -Food Requisites Identifying General Area) (A) (B) A . 9. Based on the latest food facility listing for the county, indicate for each SIC code covered the number of facilities which normally supply food to the Armed Forces under a contract arrangement. (Note: See section 7 -e, page 8 of the Defense Food Order on Food Management, file code ASCS 6, for additional background information.) SIC Code 6/ Number of Facilities (A) (B) 6J The SIC code is explained in detail on the page entitled "Identification of Codes on Defense Resource Listings" (food facility listings) which has been provided each county for insertion at the beginning of each county set of listings. (...., 8. a the number of retail food stores operating in the count f 10. Indicate t o p g county by each of the major food chains (A &P, Safeway, Kroger, Acme, Food Fair, National Tea, etc.) and the location (city and State) of the warehouse supplying these retail stores. Name of Major Number of Chain Location of Food Chain Retail Stores Warehouse (A) (B) (C) 1 1:: ) 11. Indicate the number of "other than major chain" retail food stores operating in County, their association with voluntary chain or cooperative wholesalers, if any, and the location of the major warehouses, including independent wholesalers, which supply such retail stores. - Number of "Other Name of Voluntary Chain than Major Chain" or Coop. Association Location of Retail Food Stores Wholesalers Major Warehouse (A) (B) (C) c February 1967 2 Minutes The minutes of the December 3 meeting were approved as written on motion by H. N. Smith, seconded by L. Do Smith. Regional Defense Conference - January 25 -26, 1966, Dallas. Texas Mr. Earl Butler furnished the Board members copies of the agenda for the conference and discussed some of the items that are to be covered. It was agreed to hold a meeting of the Texas State Defense Board at 10 :00 a.m., January 26, in Banquet Room No. 5, Baker Hotel. Letter from Rayford Young Mr. Leonard White read a letter from Rayford Young, State Department of Public Welfare, who had been invited to this meeting. Mr. Young stated he was unable to attend this meeting, but hoped to meet with the State Defense Board in the near future. He described the areas of responsibility of the State Department of Public Welfare in natural disasters and nuclear attack. Readiness Status Check Sheets Mr. Earl Butler distributed a summary of the Readiness Status Check Sheets which he had prepared showing comparison of national, regional and state averages. Mr. Butler said he anticipated a follow -up questionnaire in a few months and perhaps the county boards will have been able to correct some of their problems by this time. The Board members plan to review the summary and discuss it more thoroughly at the January meeting in Dallas. Role of State Department of Public Welfare in Natural Disasters and National Emergencies Mr. William Herndon discussed the size and scope of the Commodity Distribution Programs in Texas. There are 3,753 schools with 863,266 children participating in the School Lunch Program. Aid is given to 310 institutions with 45,008 patients, and 90 city and county distribution programs are in operation with 153,283 persons certified as eligible to receive surplus commodities in Texas. Assistance was furnished 187 summer camps with 39,781 children in the 1965 fiscal year. Texas schools operating a school lunch program received 331 cars of Section 6 commodity items purchased with funds appropriated by Congress. This included canned fruits, canned vegetables and high protein items. All agencies com- bined received 1,959 cars of Section 32 surplus commodities and Section 416, plentiful foods. This amounts to a total of 2,290 cars representing 105,310,434 pounds valued at $24,052,505. This program might be compared to a large wholesale grocery company operating on a state-wide basis. The state is divided into 16 districts and each district headquarters has a warehouse or commercial storage space to receive, store and handle ship- ments to that district. About one month's inventory is maintained in 3 district warehouses and each recipient agency also keeps a one month's supply on hand. The commodity items already available in terms of dis- tribution to needy people are basically the items that would be needed in an emergency, such as canned beef, butter or margarine, corn meal, flour, dry milk, peanut butter, raisins, rice, etc. This represents a large supply of readily available food which can be used for emergencies. School lunch rooms are utilized during emergencies because reserve food supplies are available and they have facilities and trained personnel for the preparation of large quantities of food. Supplies at the district level or in the hands of recipient agencies may be used and replaced later, and shipments may be made from one district to another, if needed. If a disaster is of such scope that the President invokes Public Law No 875, all relief programs would function through the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the State Office of Defense and Disaster Relief. Disaster programs may be initiated by a request from a relief agency such as the Salvation Army or Red Cross, or upon request of a local government official. A pamphlet titled "Donated Foods for Disaster" was sent to all County Judges in Texas with instructions on how to initiate the program and was also furnished USDA County Defense Boards. In the event of a nuclear attack, food supplies held by the Department of Public Welfare would become part of the state food supply and would be subject to control by the State and Federal Government. Since most items in inventory are packaged or canned, supplies would be generally well protected from fallout contamination. ASCS Emergency Programs Mr. White discussed the Livestock Feed Program and notified the Board that three counties had been recommended for approval due to drouth conditions. County T Defe nse Board g rainin Meetin gs It was agreed to hold 18 one -day meetings, as tentatively scheduled, during the last week in March and the first week in April. Meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4 :00 p.m. If the distance from County Defense Board Headquarters to the meeting place is over 125 miles, authorization to spend the night prior to the meeting will be granted. The distances of more than 125 miles will be determined and State Defense Board members notified. In case of three member boards, travel will be by SCS pickup trucks. If there are over three members, other arrangements will be worked out by the members themselves, with one agency furnishing transportation for each county board. District and area personnel will be responsible for I the equitable distribution of travel expenses among agencies. The county 1 boards are to invite civil defense directors, county judges, and other i interested local officials with whom the county boards would work during 4 an emergency. a J • • 4 Inspector Layne expressed the opinion that the State Food Plan would be approved by March. Tommy Hollmig discussed the proposed agenda prepared by the Extension Service. Publications Mr. Leonard White discussed the following publications: 1. USDA County Information Memorandums No. 57 and 58. 2. USDA State Defense Policy Memorandum No. 43. 3. Texas Defense CD Digests - October, November and December. Afternoon Session County Defense Board Training Meetings (continued) A proposed agenda was prepared and copies will be forwarded to the Board members as soon as possible. Further details will be worked out at the conference in Dallas on January 25 -26. Selection of Vice- Chairman Dr. John Wilbur, ARS, was nominated for position of Vice - Chairman by H. N. Smith, seconded by A. E. Mandeville, and all members unanimously agreed. A new line of succession was established as follows: W. Lewis David, Chairman Dr. John L. Wilbur, Vice- Chairman H. N. Smith L. D. Smith John McCollum Jack McElroy Cary Palmer Joe Rothe Meeting Dates Since the State Defense Board will hold a meeting at the Defense Con- ference in Dallas, January 26, a meeting will not be held in February. The Board will meet on March 11 at which time the selected members of the Training Teams will present the program to be given to County Defense Boards in March and April. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. MINUTES OF THE \54 TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD (iel) Time: 10:00 a.m., February 4, 1966 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman. ASCS Dr. John Lo Wilbur, Jr. ARS (represented by Dr. Ted Rea) H. No Smith' SCS (represented by Jo R. Coover) Lo Da Smith FHA John McCollum C&MS Jack McElroy USFS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary P. lmer SRS Joe Rothe CES Others Present: Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator, USDA Inspector Co O. Layne, Office of Defense and Disaster Relief, Department of Public Safety Morris Williamson Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA Sherilyn Bailey, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Thomas W. Neurmnn, Alternate State Defense Board Member, CES Le;nnard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Minutes The minutes cf the January 7 -nd January 26 meetings were approved as written on moth., ►gin by Dr. Ted Rea, seconded by Lo Da Smith. Report on Region V Defense Conference Mr. Earl Butler commended the Texas State Defense Board on their solutions and work accomplished on the 1966 Readiness Test problems at the Region V USDA Defense Conference At Dallas on January 260 J ` 2 County Defense Board Training Meetings Members for the three training teams were selected and assignments of sub- jects on the agenda were made to the agencies. The teams consist of per- sonnel from all USDA agencies, State Office of Defense and Disaster Relief, and Texas State Department of Agriculture. Schedule for County Defense Board Training Meetings March 29 March 30 March 31 April 5 April 6 April 7 Pampa Amarillo Lubbock Mt. Pleasant Nacogdoches Beaumont Odessa Sweetwater Brownwood Del Rio Alice San Antonio Vernon Denton Dallas Wharton Austin College Station The ASCS Fieldmen will be asked to arrange for meeting places and to assure that public address systems are available where needed. Portable public address equipment can be furnished by Extension Service State Office, if not available locally. The County Defense Boards will be requested to invite civil defense directors, county judges, and other interested local officials to attend the training meetings. The State Defense Board exercise given at Dallas on January 26 was discussed as a basis for County USDA Defense Board exercises. It was agreed that representatives of the Attack Analysis Staff would make necessary revisions in the problems to adapt them for use at the county level. The exercise will be given to USDA County Defense Boards at the training meetings for solution at their next regular meeting. In the meantime, the Attack Analysis Staff will meet to review the exercise for the State as a whole and arrive at more detailed and exact solutions than was possible at the State Defense Board meeting. State Civil Defense Directors' Conference Inspector Layne issued an invitation to the State Defense Board and all other personnel in attendance to attend the State Civil Defense Directors' Conference in Austin on February 21 and 22. The conference will be held at the Villa Capri Motel. The program begins at 9:00 a.m. each day and will terminate at noon on February 22. Discussion of County Food Industry Profile Protect Messrs. McCollum, Palmer and White discussed the County Food Industry Pro- file project proposed by the Washington USDA Defense Staff. It was brought out that information in the publication "County Business Patterns, 1964" published by the U. S. Department of Commerce is not complete for all counties because of methods of reporting. Also, the proposed questionnaires 3 to be completed by USDA County Defense Boards require information which would be difficult or impossible to obtain without violating regulations concerning surveys by U. S. Government personnel. Although closer cooper- ation is needed between most County Defense Boards and the food industry, this project does not appear feasible. The Board decided not to send the questionnaire forms to County Defense Boards, pending further study. Meeting Date The next meeting of the State Defense Board will be held March 11 at College Station. The members of the training teams will present the program which will be given at the County Defense Board training meet- ings in March and April. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon. • BRAZOS COUNTY CIVIL DEFENSE FI CO? TO: All County and City - Count;; Civil Defense Directors FRAM: Inspector C. 0. Layne SUBJECT: U. S. Department of Agriculture Defense Training Meetings The United States Department of Agriculture through its State Defense Board will conduct a series of two -day training conferences for USDA County Defense Boards. Purpose of these training conferences is to explain and discuss the relationship of the County Defense Boards to the State Defense Board and their relationship to city, county and state governments particularly in the field of Civil Defense and Disaster Relief. The Chairman of each County Defense Board will extend an invitation to his Ccunty Judge and County Civil Defense Director t:- attend these meetings. The State Office of Defense and Disaster Relief will parts ^spate in each of,these conferences nnf? we urge the attendance of all County Civil Defense Directors and County Judges who can fit these conferences into their schedules. rates and locations for these trainin conferences are as follows: August 5 - 6 { August 7 - 8 Dallas alter hotel J Mt. Pleasant - Alps ps Courts College Station - Student Memorial Nacogdoches - Fredonia Hotel Center, A. & M. Beaumont - King Edwards Hotel Wharton - American e September 9 -10 September 11 - 12 Pampa - Fooles Steak House Amarillo - Trade Winds Motel Lubbock - Mew REA Building Odessa - Holiday Inn Denton - Headquarters, Region 5 Vernon - Municipal Auditorium September 16 - 17 September 18 - 19 ircwnw. . . - Holiday Inn Sweetwatcy_ - Holiday Center Austin - Stephen F. Austin hotel Del Rio - Roswell Totes San Antonio - Gunter Hotel Alice - Alice Hotel C. 0. Layne Deputy Director ,,4 WtAZOS C0UN r, NSE AGENDA , �, i M1. USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD TRAINING College Station, Texas April 7, 1966 TEAM 3 9:00 - 9:15 A.M. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF MEETING - Chairman, H. N. Smith, SCS 9 :15 - 9:30 A.M. NATIONAL OPERATIONS AND PLANS - Washington Representative 9:30 - 10:00 A.M. CO- ORDINATION BETWEEN USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARDS AND LOCAL CIVIL DEFENSE - Sherilyn Bailey 10:00 - 10:35 A.M. COMMUNITY SHELTER PROGRAM - Col. Jesse R. Ward, State Civil Defense, DPS 10:35 - 10:50 A.M. BREAK 10:50 - 11:20 A.M. THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ADVISORY SERVICE, SLANTING TECHNIQUES, AND THE PROTECTED SCHOOL - Col. Jesse R. Ward, State Civil Defense, DPS 11:20 - 11:45 A.M. RESPONSIBILITY FOR NON -FOOD REQUISITES - Mike Watson, FHA 11:45 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH CURRENT CONCEPTS IN FOOD MANAGEMENT 1:00 - 1:40 P.M. A. USDA Responsibilities - Jones Vestal, C&MS 1:40 - 2 :10 P.M. B. State and Local Governments° Responsibilities - State Food Plan - Charles Vincent, State Department of Agriculture 2:10 - 2:40 P.M. ORGANIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR CIVIL DEFENSE Col. Jesse R. Ward, State Civil Defense, DPS 2:40 - 2:55 P.M. BREAK 2:55 - 3:30 P.M. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - County Defense Board Action - Leonard A. White, ASCS 3:30 - 4:00 P.M. PROBLEM ASSIGNMENT - Chairman GENERAL DISCUSSION - All Agencies ADJOURN 2 Minutes The minutes of the September 9 meeting were approved as written and dis- tributed. Attack Analysis Staff As stated in minutes of September 9, replacements were to be appointed tc the Attack Analysis Staff. Farmers Home Administration added Harold Carter to the staff which brought their membership up to the original number. Agencies which are in the process of designating replacements are FS, ARS and C&MS, Gordon McKee, Coordinator, Attack Analysis Staff, reported on County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire. The Attack Analysis Staff met on October 6 to review answers to the questionnaires received to date. There was considerable discussion concerning Questions 1, 2 and 3 on the question- naire, and the Attack Analysis Staff came to the conclusion that clarifi- cation was needed from the Defense and Disaster Services Staff in Wash- ington. A letter will be written to the Defense and Disaster Services Staff regarding these questions. The County Defense Boards have been given an extension of time to December 31 to complete the County Defense Board Survival Questionnaire. They were granted this extension due to heavy workloads in county offices of all agencies. Mr. McKee also reported that Part E, Chapter 5, Appendices 5 and 6, Fed- eral Civil Defense Guide, contained the most recent instructions on plotting of fallout and county boards should be instructed to use these publications in solving future problems. The State Defense Board was able to furnish only one copy of the Federal Civil Defense Guide Excerpts to county boards and did not have copies available for State and area officials. Since the SCS instructors and area personnel have requested copies, Cola Jesse Ward offered to secure copies of these excerpts and mail them to Soil Conser- vation Service for distribution to their personnel. The Attack Analysis Staff will hold their next meeting on January 6 and will complete the grading of County Defense Board Survival Questionnaires. Civil Defense Training Dr, W. R.. Bodine, Engineering Exteneien Service, furniehed the board and visitors schedules of future civil defense training courses in Civil Defense Management, Radiological Defense Officer and Conferences for Local Officials. Dr. Bodine especially emphasized importance of Conference for Local Govern- ment Officials. This will involve mayors, county judges, etc., and will prepare them for emergency operations. They will have a simulated emergency operation based on conditions in their own localities. f c vs ,< / You have just been handed the USDA County Defense Board Defense oc13 Readiness Test for 1966. We believe the problems are self - explanatory; however, we are going to re- emphasize several points covered bythe exercise. You may recall that in any nuclear attack, the recovery phase is divided into three roughly-defined operational periods. These are: Survival, Operational Recovery Phase, and Full Recovery. Gen- erally, these mean that the survival phase should be spent in good shelter for a period of time depending upon the outside radiation dose rate. For the purposes of our problem, we are in the operational recovery phase which permits limited essential activities to be carried on outside of sheltered areas. This period of time begins at any time after the attack when the total dose to the worker can be held to a maximum of 30r in any one day, with the added limitation that 200r maximum be received in the first week and 230r during any two consecutive weeks. When the worker receives this high level dose it should not be repeated for at least a period of two months. Keep in mind that these dose levels should be limited to those workers in essential activities and it is not for the general public. We suggest that the Boards discuss these limitations with their radiological monitoring personnel to further familiarize themselves with the dose restrictions. • r 2 You will note that Attachment A asked the Boards to plot the targets from the latitudes and longitudes listed on this attachment. We suggest you get a good road map which has coordinates to accomplish this task. (official Texas Road map prior to 1966 - many major oil companies) Other hints and data useful in plotting strikes and damage assessment. 1. Plot fallout patterns only from ground bursts. 2. All fallout patterns are uniform - therefore after one is plotted, others can be plotted using tracing or template. 3. Size of weapons Small - 5 megaton Medium - 10 megaton Large - 20 megaton 4. Radius (miles) of zone of destruction of dwellings and buildings of similar construction from center of impact. Weapon size Ground Burst Air Burst (Radius - miles) (Radius - miles) Small 7.5 14 Medium 11 19 Large 14 24 5. Radius (miles) of zone of grass and woods fires initiated by thermal radiation under conditions assumed for this exercise. Size of Weapon Air Bursts Ground Bursts (Radius- miles) (Radius- miles) Small 10 6 Medium 14 7.5 Large 19 12 3 Solutions should be forwarded to the State Defense Board Chairman as soon as all problems have been completed, but not later than July 1, 1966. The State Attack Analysis Staff will review County solutions as time permits and comments will be forwarded County Defense Boards when available. • • USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARD MEETING "1966 Defense Readiness Test" This is a County USDA Defense Board "readiness Test" designed to provoke recognition of the type of problems that could develop as a result of a nuclear attack on this country. For purposes of this test, during your next County Defense Board meeting, we want you to make a narrative report of the problems that you would anticipate in your county under the following assumed conditions. You should submit this narrative to the State Defense Board headquarters upon completion. The questions that we would like covered in this report should be answered on the basis of the following assumed conditions: ASSUMPTIONS: A nuclear attack has occurred on continental United States during previous 72 hours. You are meeting on June 15, 1966. You are at your USDA County Defense Board emergency operating center. Communications have just been restored on a limited basis and you are requested by the Texas USDA State Defense Board to report briefly on the agricultural situation. You have received reports by various means that nuclear weapons have hit at points shown on Attachment "A ". Points are identified by latitude and longitude. List the most likely targets after plotting the latitude and longitude. - The upper wind forecast for your area during the three -day period is listed on Attachment "B". Also indicated on Attachment "B" is a list of the strikes outside Texas which might affect food distribution and agriculture. Ground and air bursts are shown on Attachment "A" along with list of size of weapons, indicated as small, medium and large. • We also assume that we are in the operational recovery phase after the attack. • From the National standpoint, assume that the President has made a radio • announcement that, although the Nation has suffered severe damage, our retaliation has been devastating and that few, if any, further missle attacks are to be expected. Our ports have been heavily damaged and the use of remaining ports for exporting for the next 30 days will be very limited except for military cargoes. TEST EXERCISE -2- The President 114s ordered price controls and has also ordered that non- perishable foods be conserved in warehouses and wholesale distributor facilities while States set up a food - rationing program. This is to conserve supplies, •at least until we can "take stock" of the effects of the attack. Few, if any, more nuclear weapons are expected to hit this country. PROBLEMS: The Chairman of the USDA State Defense Board in Texas has ' requested you to report briefly as follows: 1. How serious is the damage which has occurred to the major food distributors (wholesalers, processors, and chainstore warehouses) located in your county, and what, if any, special assistance may be required from State USDA Defense Board or other County Defense Boards during the next 30 days to assure adequate food for distribution in the county? (Assume rationing by the State at levels in the Food Consumption Standard or recommend a modified ration level.) What food would be needed from outside the county within the next 90 days? 2. Is the fallout situation in the county likely to result in widespread losses of poultry , livestock, and milk production? If the answer is Yes, what is recommended with respect to: a. Use of milk, considering quantity and iodine problem? b. Slaughter and use of livestock, when and how? c. Slaughter and use of poultry, when and how? 3. Assuming availability of gasoline and other tractor fuels is reduced to • 50% of normal levels per week for farmers over the next 90 days, how would this affect agricultural production? Which farm production operations should have priority for available fuel supplies, and what steps would you take, as conditions permitted, with a view to getting this priority established? What other actions would you need to take? 4. Has the damage to the banking system in the county been sufficiently serious to necessitate USDA supplying emergency credit to get food processed and distributed? How would you do this? 5. How much fire spread can be expected before fires resulting from the attack can be brought under control? Will help be needed fr om outside the county? What are the problems in control of these fires ?, TEST EXERCISE -3- 6. How soon will it be possible for the County Defense Board to estimate accurately theie ffect of the attack on 1966 crop production, poultry and livestock numb+rs, and poultry and livestock to be available for slaughter from your county for the rest of the year? 7. In what parts of the county is fallout of sufficient intensity to limit farm activity? What advice is being given to farmers, by whom, and how? 8. Which regular markets for grain and livestock are in operating condition? What needs to be done to assure orderly marketing of raw farm products? Will there be sufficient local grain storage if railroad boxcars and /or trucks are short during the next 90 days for moving grain? 9 + A biological agent known as foot - and -mouth disease was introduced in cattle moving through the Fort Worth Stockyards two days prior to the attack. These cattle moved to the following counties: Randall, Potter, Hale, Panola, Dallas and Bexar. In addition, cattle exposed to the animals moved into the above counties were moved to most all the other counties of the state. What action would the'County Defense Boards take? We recommend that the County Board briefly discuss these questions and then assign the responsibility of preparing answers to each question to the agency or agencies most concerned. Prepare brief replies and submit them to the State Defense Board in accordance with procedures as outlined in County Defense Board Handbook. Final answers for any one question should not be more than one page double spaced and half that length would be preferred. Also submit the list of targets developed from Attachment "A". • • ill TEST EXERCISE "ATTACHMENT A" Latitude Longitude TEXAS North 1/ West 2/ Size Burst II 3200 10206 small ground 3151 10223 small air • 2952 09357 small ground 3129 . 10025 small air 2927 09850 large ground 2609 09736 small air 3325 09405 small ground 3223 09518 small ground 3136 09706 small air II 3357 09829 medium air 3359 09830 medium air 3225 09946 large air 3227 09950 large - air 3517 10140 large air 3517 10141 large air 3017 09745 medium air 3007 09408 small air • 2745 09725 small air 3244 09658 large air 2921 10052 small ground 3151 10623 large air . 3151 10624 large air 3247 09726 large , air 3242 09726 large air 3244 09720 large air 2918 09448 large air 2612 09742 small ground 2940 09515 large ground 3106 09747 small ground 2730 09931 small ground 3315 10156 small ground 1/ The first two digits give the degrees; the second two give the minutes. 2/ The first three digits give the degrees; the last two give the minutes. TEST EXERCISE "ATTACHMENT B" NUCLEAR STRIKES IN ADJOINING STATES WHICH COULD AFFECT AGRICULTURE IN TEXAS STATE CITY SIZE TYPE ARIZONA: Chandler small ground Phoenix large air Tucson large air ARKANSAS: Blytheville AFB medium air Blytheville AFB medium air Fort Smith small ground Little Rock AFB large air Little Rock AFB large air COLORADO: Colorado Springs large air Denver large air Pueblo • small . ground LOUISIANA: Alexandria small ground Baton Rouge small air Lake Charles medium ground Monroe small ground New Orleans large ' ground Shreveport large air NEW MEXICO: Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque small air Clovis small ground Walker AB, Roswell large air Walker AB, Roswell large air Oil Well, Roswell large ground OKLAHOMA: Altus AFB, Altus large ground Burns Flat medium air Elk City medium air Ft. Sill, Lawton small . ground Oklahoma -City large ground Tulsa small air UPPER AIR PREDICTION IN YOUR AREA: 11409 21209 40912 60816 80718 1 �J }► M INUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOAT Time: 10 :00 a.m., May 6, 1966 'lace: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Nember.r; "resent: Lewis David, Chairman - absent ASO (represented by Leonard A. '•:'bite) rr. J'Ihn L. W )bur, Jr. - absent AR$ (represented by Dr. Ted Rea) L. N. Smith L. D. Smith Jack McElroy - absent *$FS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer SRS Joe Rothe - absent CES (represented by Thomas Neumann) *Charles H. Herndon CAMS Others Present: Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator, USDA Morris Williamson, Alternate State Defense Board Member, PIIA William A. McClung, Rural Civil Defer** Specialist, CES Ben F. Jordan, State birictti SIC Tim Moore, Attack Analysis Staff ASCS John L. McCollum, Manager, Southwestern Area, C &MS Member:rhip Chances In the absence of W. Lewis David, H. N. Smith, Acting Chaim,, iatreced Charles li. Herndon who is replacing John L. McCollum on thr term This change ip membership will require a new line of succession to the chairman- ship and'a motion was made by Cary Palmer and seconded by D)r. lid Rea, and passed, that the Chairman of the State Defense Board designate the line of succession. Ur. ::rnith also announced that Dr. Ted Rea, who hos sorved as, atWroate board member. and Co- Chairman of the Attack Analysis Staff, is beg trans- ferred to Puerto Rico and would be leaving in June. Minutes The minutes of the February 4 and March 11 meetings were appr*ved as written. a 2 USDA County Defer se Board Training Meetings Each member of the training teams present was asked to comment on the re- cent training meetings. All members expressed the opinion that the meet- ings were well planned, and the preparation and presentation of the material was good. Audiences appeared attentive and interested, and team members thought the county board members and local government officials gained some useful information. It was noted that almost all county board members attended the meetings, but in a few cases neither the member nor his alternate was present. It was agreed to give each agency representative a list of personnel from his agency who were absent according to register signed at the meetings. Several suggestions were offered for use in future training meetings. Leonard White read a letter from Russell V. Oliver, Defense & Disaster Services Staff, Washington, D. C., in which he gave his observations of the training meetings. A motion was made by L. D. Smith, seconded by A. E. Mandeville, and passed, that letters be sent to Robert S. Reed, Russell V. Oliver, Col. M. P. Bowden, Col. Jesse R. Ward and Col. John W. Christian, expressing the State Defense Board's appreciation for their assistance in the training meetings, and to Dr. Ted Rea and John L. McCollum for their excellent service to the Board for the past 52 years. Each board member was given a list of the questions submitted at the train- ing meetings by participants. These questions were reviewed and briefly discussed. It was decided to send these questions, with the answers, to the county boards at a later date. Several answers to the test problem have been received and these were dis- cussed. The county boards have until July 1 to complete the solutions and submit answers. County Food Industry Profile The Board has been requested to make a recommendation regarding county food profiles to Washington by May 15. Dr. Ted Rea made a motion, seconded by Thomas Neumann, and passed, that a committee be appointed to study the material on food management and the proposed County Food Profile project. Mr. H. N. Smith then appointed a committee consisting of Charles Herndon, Cary Palmer and Leonard White and instructed them to prepare and submit the recommendation to Washington for the Board, to present a plan for de- veloping County Food Profiles at the next Board meeting, and to review in- formation received from C&MS on Food Management and prepare pertinent material for county boards. Maintenance of Radiological Instruments Dr. Ted Rea reviewed new instructions for maintenance of radiological monitoring instruments. There has been considerable confusion among the agencies involved in radiological defense maintenance. A maintenance shop i 3 has been set up in Austin and a plan has been initiated whereby once each year the agencies send in their radiological instruments to be serviced. The instruments should be sent in once each year for servicing whether they are operational or not in order that batteries may be changed and calibration checked. Each county monitoring officer should send self- addressed, franked labels and list of model numbers to: Radiological Defense Maintenance Shop, State Department of Health, 512 - 5th St., Austin, Texas. The Defense Main- tenance Shop will develop a schedule and using the self - addressed, franked labels, they will mail similar instruments to the individual agency. When these instruments are received, the agency will then use the same box to mail in the instruments they have in their possession. By this method, ' monitors will always have instruments in good working condition. Of c. e of Earl Butler discussed future plans o:"! OEP and OCD. OEP will finish up the contract with the State and try to narrow scope of operations down to eco- nomic stabilization. An agreement has been entered into with OCD to take resources planning down to local level through civic d Tense organizations Memorandum of Understanding. it is intended to go into each state with two pilot projects between now and 1967. OCD has placed priority on community shelter planning and wants to delay on resource p an un it community shelter program is completed. This has been discussed by representatives of OEP, OCD and USDA, and it appears that the State Resources Planning Committee in cooperation with OCD will start on the resources operation using P&A funds. The State Food Task Group plans to develop a handbook and sample documents on state and local food management and distribute to county judges and mayors. Request frc-- Counr`' fense Board C ~ -=r 7.1 to be Appointed Civil Defense Director Leonard White read a letter from a County Defense Board Chairman requesting permission to accept appointment as a County Civil Defense Director. This request was denied since paragraph 213 of the County Defense Operations Hand- book states that "In the pre - emergency period, no member of a County Defense Board may undertake any emergency assignment for an outside organization which would interfere with his emergency assignment from USDA. For example, no County 3oard member is eligible to serve as a me -:__r of an outside civil defense organization." Meeting Date The next meeting of the State Defense Board will be held June 3 at College } Station. Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. // /AA OF THE TEXAS USDA N STATE DEFENSE BOARD 14 OCT 19 G macs DL Time: 10:00 a.m., October 7, 1966 TIL �'Y` ��•L Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Dr. John L. Wilbur, Jr. - absent ARS (represented by Dr. Jack R. Pitcher) H. N, Smith - absent SCS (represented by Gordon McKee) L. D. Smith FHA Jack McElroy - absent USFS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer - absent SRS (represented by Robert McCauley) Joe H. Rothe CES Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: Col. Jay A. Matthews, Jr., State Adjutant General's Department, Austin Col. Jesse R. Ward, Defense & Disaster Relief, Dept. of Public Safety, Austin Kenneth Denmark, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Thomas Neumann, Member, Attack. Analysis Staff, CES Earl R. Butler, Emergency Programs Coordinator Tim Moore, Member, Attack Analysis Staff, ASCS W. H. Hare, Plant Pest Control, ARS Dr. W. R. Bodine, Civil Defense Training, Engr. Extension Service Morris Williamson, Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS 3 County Food Profile Project Mr. Herndon had met with the Chairman of the Tarrant County Defense Board and discussed details of the pilot food profile. In working with the county food profile, they have found they need to know what food is actually in the county for consumption, how long food will last, what the county produces, what percentage of needs will fall on production, and what food requirements will have to be imported from outside the county. The county defense board is continuing work on the project and a complete report will be made when it is finished. No report was given on the progress in Travis County due to the absence of Mr. Palmer, SRS. Radio Receiver Questionnaire Mr, White reported that according to replies received to the questionnaire asking county defense boards whether they have a radio receiver available for use during an emergency, approximately 20% of the counties have a radio receiver Maps for Plotting Several county defense boards have requested that the State Defense Board furnish maps showing latitude and longitude lines for plotting future problems, The county boards are not always able to find oil company maps showing these lines and, also, some counties need maps that overlap sur- rounding states. Earl Butler and Col. Ward offered to check out various sources of maps and will send copies of maps they locate to Mr. David and Mr. H. N. Smith for their review. Col. Ward has suggested to the State Highway Department that they put latitude and longitude lines on their maps and this suggestion was taken under consideration. Col. Matthews suggested using maps provided by the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Gordon McKee, SCS, will obtain copies of these maps and report to the State Defense Board on the feasibility of their use. Military Support Plans Office Ccle Jay A. Matthews, Jr. of the Adjutant General's Department, Military Support Plans Office, Austin, Texas, met with the Board. Col. Matthews requested information on the function of the State Defense Board during an emergency. Col. Matthews will be put on the State Defense Board's dis- tribution list for defense material, Emergency Programs Mr. White reported that Culberson, Hudspeth and Mitchell counties had been approved for emergency ACP assistance to repair conservation measures damaged in recent flooding, Presidio County has also made application for emergency ACP assistance and final approval is pending. 4 Meeting Dates The State Defense Board will meet on November 4 and December 2 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD � ti k , Time: 10:00 a.m., May 5, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe CES Dr. John L. Wilbur - absent ARS (represented by Dr. Jack Pitcher) H. N. Smith SCS L. D. Smith FHA John H. Courtenay USFS Cary Palmer - absent SRS (represented by Robert McCauley) Charles Herndon COS Others Present: L. J. Cappleman, Member FHA Regional Defense Staff Earl Butler, EPC USDA Region V W. A. McClung CES Rural Civil Defense Specialist Kenneth Denmark CES Rural Civil Defense Specialist Leonard A. White ASCS Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant Jake Canglose, Research Engineer, Meteorology Department, Texas A&M University, and Brazos County Civil Defense Walter K. Henry, Assistant Professor, Department of Meteorology, Texas A&M University Sam Green, Communications Officer, Texas Department of Public Safety, Division of Defense & Disaster Relief Captain Leroy Cobb, Adjutant General's Department, Military Support Plans Office, Austin 2 Minutes Motion was made by Charles Herndon, seconded by Robert McCauley, and passed that the minutes of the April 3 meeting be approved as written and distributed. Handbook for Aerial Radiological Monitors Dr. Jack Pitcher reviewed the "Handbook for Aerial Radiological Moni- tors" recently furnished the State Defense Board. This handbook is a supplement to the Handbook for Radiological Monitors" (FG -E -5.9 OCD). This document provides technical and operational guidance for aerial radiological surveys. Some of the advantages provided by aerial radio- logical monitoring surveys are: (1) The additional flexibility and range provided by the use of aerial surveys. (2) Monitoring areas of high radiation intensities where surface mobile monitors would receive an excessive exposure dose. (3) The system is especially adapted to monitoring broad areas and transportation routes for planning remedial movement of personnel and high priority transport of equipment, supplies and emergency workers. ( They can be used where ground monitoring stations are either in- operative, inadequate or communications have failed. (5) They may be used for rapid collection of large mounts of radiation data when such information is essential for use in early postattack planning. (6) Surveying agricultural lands for planning the disposition of live- stock, harvesting of crops, and future land utilization. The equipment most suited for this would be either fixed or rotary -wing aircraft capable of flying at low altitudes and slow speeds -- 150 miles an hour. An aerial monitoring team consists of a pilot and a monitor. The pilot should possess a certified pilot's rating that is commensurate with the assignment and he should also be familiar with the area in which the team would be required to fly missions. The monitor must be able to follow the Standing Operating Procedures for monitors, know the type, use and operation of aerial survey equipment and survey techniques, and be able to promptly advise the pilot on appropriate alterations to flight direction and altitude when required to assure reliable monitoring infor- mation and personnel safety. In time of emergency, all privately or corporately owned aircraft are potentially Harts of the emergency transportation system. There may be multiple emergency functions for light low -speed aircraft most suit- able for aerial monitoring, including general damage assessment recon- naissance, aerial radiological survey, airlift of key personnel, and airlift of lightweight critical supplies, such as drugs and medicines. 3 There could be unusual hazards associated with these flights during cer- tain phases of attack and defense, so the State should exercise general control of aerial survey operations. The development of a plan for aerial radiological survey is primarily the responsibility of the State civil de- fense director, in coordination as required with the FAA, State Aviation Administration, State Transportation Agency, and other governmental agencies. The capability of such organized flight groups as the Civil Air Patrol should be considered in the development of the plan. Accuracy of data obtained in aerial monitoring is based on ground level radiation. All ground monitoring should be done at 3' above ground level, therefore, when surveying by aircraft, correction factors must be taken into account due to the altitude or the distance off the ground. The aircraft also provides some shielding. A correction factor of 1.25 is used for most single engine aircraft. The definition of pattern of radiation from these reports is entirely dependent on altitude. The higher the altitude, the more general the readings will be. Optimum survey height is given as 300 -500' and will provide relative safety for personnel. Speeds up to the maximum cruising speeds (150 -180) of light aircraft are suitable for broad surveys of a general nature. For fairly detailed readings on a transportation route, it would probably be advisable to go into a slower aircraft. Maps ap- propriate to the mission are essential to the most effective survey operations. Aircraft in fallout areas would not likely be significantly contaminated if kept in hangars or under covers. The wheels might pick up some par- ticles during takeoff, but if the tires are dry, the air currents will pretty well clean off the particles by the time the plane is airborne. Although major responsibilities for planning and directing aerial surveys rest at State level, the members of the survey team and ground support personnel are directly responsible for knowing and observing protective measures. The responsible RADEF officer will indicate a maximum permis- sible mission dose. If necessary, the potential radiation exposure of the survey team can be reduced by increasing the altitude. Tape recorders can be used to record data while in flight. This would save considerable time in preparing survey reports. Also, if necessary, the survey report and /or tape could be air - dropped to the EOC by prior arrangement and mission continued. Mr. Sam Green of the Office of Defense and Disaster Relief at Austin stated that local governments should develop their own plans for aerial surveys where possible. The State would have to rely on local resources for these aerial surveys, using such organizations as the Civil Air Patrol and Air Posse. All local governments would report the h e resu of the aerial surveys to the State Emergency Operating aerial monitoring equipment is far more expensive than the ordinary ground monitoring equipment, therefore, there is a scarcity of this equipment at present. 4 The Board unanimously agreed that the possibility of coordinating USDA's ground monitoring with aerial monitoring should be investigated. Mr. H. N. Smith was asked to contact the Division of Defense and Disaster Relief in Austin and secure more information on this aspect of monitor- ing and see how USDA would fit into or supplement the plan for aerial surveys. Perhaps the USDA's monitors could be utilized for the purpose of aerial monitoring in an emergency to supply data to the county de- fense boards and local civil defense, provided aerial survey equipment could be obtained. Use of Aircraft for Moveraent of Kew Personnel Mr. Earl Butler stated that in an emergency it might be possible for the board members to use aircraft to reach the Emergency State Office. If this transportation is desired, the local government should be contacted to see if aircraft were available. Revision of State and C°otanty Defense Operations Handbooks The Washington office has requested suggestions on how the County and State Defense Operations Handbooks can be improved, The Board recom- mended that a memorandum be sent tc county boards asking for their suggestions concerning the county handbook. These suggestions are to be in Washington by July 30. It was brought out that the terminology could be improved by using the same terms consistently. For instance, the use of "alternates" and "successors" is intermingled and causes some confusion at the county level. The board members were also asked to send the Chairman suggestions for improving the State Defense Operations Handbook. These suggestions are due in Washington by June 15. Practice Alert for Count Defense Boards Reviewed meetings of county boards during the practice alert held the first week in May. A complete report will be given to the Board at the June meeting. County Defense Board Meath Dates a Times Mr. Joe Rothe s=tated that it had been brought to his attention that some county boards did not have a definite hour of the day to meet. When the State Board requested the County Boards to set a definite date for their meetings, they were not asked to set a definite hour. County defense board chairmen usually hold meetings on the set date but not always at the same hour of the day. This has created some problems among other members in attending meetings. The Board agreed that county boards should set a definite hour of the day for meetings and adhere to it. 5 County Food Profiles Most of the County Food Profiles, which were due May 1, have been completed and mailed to the State office. It was suggested that the C&MS Food Sup- port Staff review these profiles and. make suggestions for improvement. Mr. Herndon confer with these members and let the Board know if this is feasible. It was also tentatively agreed that Messrs. Herndon, White and Palmer will make a preliminary review of these profiles after they are all received. Emergency Programs Mr. White reviewed the drouth situation in the State. Out of the 14 appli- cations received for. Haying and. Grazing, 4 were recommended to Washington for approval, 4 were disapproved and 6 were deferred. Ten applications for the Livestock Feed Program were considered and none were recommended for approval. Meeting with Attack Analysis Staff The State Defense Board joined the Attack Analysis Staff in the afternoon for a briefing on Weather Forecasting and Reporting given by Mr. Walter K. Henry, Assistant Professor, Meteorology Department, Texas ABM University. Meeting Date The State Defense Board will meet on June 2 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. To: W. Lewis David, Chairman May 5, 1967 USDA State Defense Board From: Gordon S. McKee, Coordinator Texas Attack Analysis Staff Subject: Defense Meeting of Attack Analysis Staff The Attack Analysis Staff met in College Station for its scheduled meeting May 4 and 5, 1967. Members Present: Gordon S. McKee, SCS, Coordinator Jack Pitcher, ARS O. H. Barham, ARS Tim Moore, ASCS Ersel H. Matthews, CMS John C. Schweda, C&MS Harold Carter, FHA Leroy Werchan, SCS H. A. Moncrief, SCS Robert S. McCauley, SRS Lewis H. Curry, USFS William J., Gourray, USFS Others Present: Frank Malik, Engineering Extension Service, Civil Defense, College Station Capto Leroy Cobb, Military Support Plans Office, Adjutant General's Dept., Austin Members Absent: Harold Baker, ASCS Thomas We Neumann, CES Bobby Joe Ragsdale, CES Mr. Frank Malik furnished instructions on basic civil defense consisting of the principles of nuclear weapons, radioactivity, and on radiological instruments. The staff prepared replies to county defense boards, evaluating their solutions to the 1966 County Defense Board Readiness Test. Also, in a joint meeting with the State Defense Board, the staff heard a discussion on weather reporting by Mr. Walter K. Henry, Assistant Professor, Meteorology Department, Texas AM University. The Attack Analysis Staff agreed that the next meeting will be Thursday, September 7, 1967. At this meeting Mr. Malik is to furnish instructions on plotting fall -out and prediction of radioactivity. By Tim Moore, Secretary MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., June 2, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: L. D. Smith, Acting Chairman FHA W. Lewis David - absent ASCS (represented by Tim Moore) Joe H. Rothe - absent CES (represented by Kenneth Denmark) Dr. John Wilbur - absent ARS (represented by Dr. Jack Pitcher) H. N. Smith - absent SCS (represented by Gordon McKee) John H. Courtenay - absent USFS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer SRS Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: Earl R. Butler, EPC USDA Region V Leonard A. White ASCS Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant Minutes Motion was made by Charles Herndon, seconded by A. E. Mandeville, and passed that the minutes of the May 5 meeting be approved as written and distributed. County Defense Boards' Practice Alert Mr. White reported on the practice alert recently carried out by the county defense boards. A summary of the results is attached to these minutes. The board entered into a discussion on what type of communication would be available during an actual emergency to alert the county defense boards. It was agreed that a definite procedure should be established for alert- ing county defense boards. Mr. White was asked to outline a plan and present it to the board at the July 7 meeting. Aerial Monitoring Gordon McKee, SCS, reported on coordination of aerial monitoring by State Civil Defense and USDA agencies. Mr. Leroy Werchan, SCS, member of the Attack Analysis Staff, had contacted Mr. Frank Cox, Plans and Operations 2 Officer, Office of Defense & Disaster Relief, and James W, Robinson, Editor of' Defense Digest,' regarding aerial monitoring. He ac- companied them on their first test of aerial monitoring and observed use of aerial monitoring equipment, The State is still in the early stages of developing a plan for aerial monitoring and at this time does not have any planes available for their own use; therefore, they would have to depend on the Civil Air Patrol to provide the planes, Also, the cost of equipment for one plane would amount to approximately $800. The aerial monitoring would be a valuable asset as large areas could be surveyed and information relayed to ground monitoring teams, giving location of high intensity radiation areas to avoid and time when it would be safe for the ground monitoring teams to start surveys, The board decided that at this time there is no feasible action to be taken by the USDA State Defense Board in relation to aerial monitoring, but will continue to keep informed on the progress being made by the State Civil Defense Organization. It was also pointed out that the State Office of Defense & Disaster Relief would use radio and teletype to communicate with Federal agen- cies during an emergency, The Emergency State Office is equipped with radio and teletype and therefore would be able to contact the Office of Defense & Disaster Relief in an emergency situation, Priority Use of Telephones Board members were urged to check on availability of priority telephone service during an emergency, All county defense boards had previously been instructed to contact the telephone companies and have the office and home telephone numbers of personnel with emergency assignments placed on essential line service lists. Emergency Programs The State Disaster Committee is meeting tcday to consider 31 applications for haying and grazing and 5 applications for the livestock feed program, Six of these applications for haying and grazing had been considered on May 5 and action was deferred, On May 16. 4 counties were approved for haying and grazing through July 15, Emergency Credit Mr, L, D, Smith reviewed Farmers Home Administration Instruction 440.4 on "Defense Emergency Loan Policies and Authorizations," FHA is responsible for defense emergency loans to farmers and stockmen during national emer- gency periods and an agreement has been made between ASCS and FHA on ad- vancing CCC funds to FHA under specified defense emergency situations. FHA and ASCS will send these instructions to county boards as soon as possible. The instructions state that immediately upon a surprise enemy attack on the United States, proclamation of a civil defense emergency by the President, or declaration of war by Congress, the Chairman of the USDA 3 State Defense Board will request the FBA State Director to cease making any loans except those for emergency credit to farmers and stockmen. There would be two types of loans: critical defense emergency loans for certain crops, etc., and regular defense emergency loans. Publications Mr, White discussed publications received since the May 5 meeting. The "Sign of the Times" contained an interesting article on the new auto - mated procedure to be tested in seven states, including Louisiana and Texas, starting in June to encourage more architects and owners of projected buildings to plan for and develop the fallout shelter poten- tial of their projects while still in the design stage. This technique is called Direct Mail Shelter Development System ( DMSDS) The DMSDS is based on information obtained and compiled by the Fs W. Dodge Corporation. This firm supplies information on new construction projects when its owner and architect are known, but before many basic decisions concern- ing the building have been made. Each listing includes the names and addresses of the owner and architect, and the building's type, size, valuation and location, A letter will be sent to each building owner urging him to have his architect check into the possibility of including fallout protection in the new building, At the same time a letter will be sent to his architect informing him of ways in which he can obtain professional advisory service and a report will also be sent to the State Civil Defense Office who will follow up with a personal visit or letter to the building owner, The board members expressed concern over the lack of fallout shelters and the fact that so many new buildings being constructed are not designed for fallout protection. Region V USDA Defense Staff Mr. Butler gave Mr, White a copy of the "Guide for Region V Defense Staff." The guide was formulated for the Regional Defense Staff to use in an emergency. Mr. Butler thought perhaps the State Defense Board would be interested in preparing a similar guide- Meeting Date The State Defense Board will meet on July 7 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. RESULTS OF USDA COUNTY DEFENSE BOARDS PRACTICE ALERT On May 1 at 12 :40 p.m., a memorandum was mailed to the 242 USDA County Defense Boards in Texas instructing them to assemble as soon as possible upon receipt and conduct their regular meeting for the month of May. The minutes of the previous State Defense Board meeting had indicated that a surprise practice alert would be called during the first two weeks in May The date of May 1 was selected at random for mailing the notice without regard to any district or area meetings which had been scheduled by the various agencies. Results of the practice alert are as follows: Quickest time assembled: Immediately (Crosby, Ward- Winkler & Glasscock) Longest time to assemble: 9 days 160 - Assembled within 15 minutes 36 - Assembled in 15 - 30 minutes 27 - Assembled in 30 minutes - 1 hour 9 - Assembled in 1 - 2 hours 4 - Assembled in 2 - 3 hours 6 - Took over 3 hours 108 - Boards had all regular members present 82 - Boards had regular members and 1 alternate 19 - Boards had regular members and 2 alternates 0 - Boards had more than 2 alternates 48 - Boards had one agency not represented 5 - Boards had two agencies not represented 1 Board had more than two agencies not represented Time Required to Assemble Support Staff Quickest time to assemble: Immediately Longest time to assemble: 11 hours 154 - Support Staffs assembled within 15 minutes 39 - Support Staffs assembled in 15 - 30 minutes 25 - Support Staffs assembled in 30 minutes - 1 hour 8 - Support Staffs assembled in 1 - 2 hours 3 - Support Staffs assembled in 2 - 3 hours 8 - Support Staffs assembled in over 3 hours 5 - No answer The county boards were generally able to assemble a majority of their members quickly with 66% having a quorum present within 15 minutes and 92% being able to assemble a quorum within 1 hour. In the three boards which met immediately, a majority of the members were in the ASCS office 2 at the time the notice was received. The chairman of the county board which took 9 days to meet disregarded instructions and decided that since a meeting had been held a few days before, the called meeting would be delayed until a more convenient time, In reviewing reports from county boards on this practice alert, it was found that a majority of ASCS county offices received the notice between 7:45 and 8 :30 a.m, so that they were able to contact most other members before they left their offices for duties in the field. The offices which received the notice later in the day had more difficulty contacting members and required longer to assemble a quorum than those receiving it at the beginning of business. Only 45% of the county boards had all regular members present. This was partly due to a bi-district meeting being held by ASCS and partly because boards receiving the notice in the afternoon were unable to locate board members who were away from their offices. Generally, alternates were available, but 22% of the boards did not have representation from one or more agencies. In many cases, neither the board member nor the alternate could be located while the meeting was in session but part of this is also accounted for by the fact that some agency representatives do not have alternates and no one was available to represent the agency when the mem- bers could not be contacted, County boards were asked to show the time at which a majority of their support staff could have been assembled, Generally, they reported that the support staff could have been in operation at about the time the board assembled with a majority being present in 90% of the counties within 1 hour.. County defense boards have generally indicated that they feel this practice alert was useful in testing their ability to assemble quickly and in bringing to their attention the problemswhich :night be encountered in an emergency. However, it is believed that a better test of the time required to assemble under emergency conditions would result from notifi- cation by means other than mail during the middle of the day or after working hours MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., July 7, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe - absent CES (represented by Kenneth Denmark) Dr. John L. Wilbur, Jr. ARS H. N. Smith SCS L. D. Smith FHA John H. Courtenay - absent USFS (represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer SRS Charles Herndon C&MS Others Present: John I. Kincaid SCS Regional Defense Staff Dr. Jack Pitcher ARS Alternate, State Defense Board J. D. McKenzie, Chief FHA Operating Loans Leonard A. White ASCS Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant Captain Leroy Cobb State Adjutant General's Department Minutes The minutes of the June 2 meeting were approved as written and distributed. Procedure for Alerting County Defense Boards Mr. White reported that he had tentatively outlined a procedure to alert county defense boards during an actual emergency. Upon receipt of alert from National Headquarters, the ASCS State office will contact their fieldmen, who in turn will relay the message to county ASCS offices. In order to facilitate quick handling of messages, the fieldmen will select two or three key counties in their districts to contact other counties. This system would be used if the telephone service was intact. If tele- phone service was disrupted, the alerting would have to be handled by radio through the Department of Public Safety. The board suggested that 2 a numerical or color code be devised for this purpose and appropriate DEFCONS be included in alert messages, Mr. White stated that he would finalize the plan and present it to the board at the August meeting. Defense Food Orders 1 and 2 Mr. Herndon reviewed Defense Food Orders 1 and 2 and Instructions for Use and Interpretation of Defense Food Order No. 2 which have been dis- tributed to county defense boards. Defense Food Order No. 1 establishes a procedure governing Petitions and Appeals and Defense Food Order No. 2 covers Food Management. Defense Food Order No. 2 would be issued at the county, state or national level immediately after a nuclear attack upon the United States. The purpose of this order is to provide a means for the orderly maintenance of processing, storage and wholesale distribution of food during an emergency by the use of appropriate suborders. This would be a temporary oroer and would be in effect only until conditions improve to the point where more specific procedures can be used. The order would allow food to keep moving instead of being frozen. One of the major items of the food order is the resupply bases (special and general). This is a means of controlling the nature and level of dis- tribution according to need, The board questioned whether the Food industry Trade was aware of these food orders. In 1963 they were issued bulletins telling them what they should do in case of a nuclear attack but didn't deal especially with distribution of foods Mr. Herndon agreed to find out what has been done in this respect and will report to the board at the August meeting. It was also suggested that a special effort be made to have the processors and wholesalers attend the 1968 County Defense Board training meetings. This would be an excellent opportunity to orientate the county boards and Food Industry on the Defense Food Orders. At the present time, National Guard Forces which are mobilized for emer- gencies purchase food supplies from both wholesalers and retailers and Captain Cobb inquired as to how this would be handled. Mr. Herndon pointed out that the food order specifies that any contracts with the Armed Forces will be continued without disruption and there shall be no reduction in the amount to be provided. It would be the responsibility of the County Defense Board in the area where the military was deployed to see that they received food supplies. The county boards are reminded that they should be familiar with the procedures required to furnish food to the Armed Forces in an emergency. Also, in a cut -off situation, it will be necessary that the neighboring county boards work together in order to determine locations of food supplies. FHA Emergency Financing Mr, J. D. McKenzie showed the board transparencies explaining the Defense Emergency Loan Program to be administered by Farmers Home Administration during an emergency. This is a loan program for production purposes that would be in effect during a National emergency. This was discussed briefly in the minutes of June 2 3 There are two types of defense emergency loans -- regular and critical. Regular loans are made to enable applicants to continue normal operations other than production of critical crops, livestock or livestock products. Critical emergency loans are made to enable applicants to produce crops, livestock and livestock products classified by USDA as critical at that time. Critical crops, livestock and livestock products are those for which in- creased production is needed at the time as determined by USDA and for which USDA production goals are effective at the time. Loans will be available immediately after a surprise enemy attack on the U. S., or proclamation of a civil defense emergency by the President, or declaration of war by Congress. The Chairman of the USDA State Defense Board will request the FHA State Director or Acting State Director to instruct the FHA County Supervisors to make defense emergency loans available at once and suspend all other FHA lending programs except for servicing outstanding loans. The State FHA Director will comply with the request and instruct FHA County Supervisors to make regular defense emergency loans available and critical defense emergency loans if goals have been established. Eligibility requirements for regular defense emergency loans are the same as for emergency loans under FHA Instruction 441.2. Eligibility require- ments for critical defense emergency loans are the same as for regular defense emergency loans except applicant must be in area where USDA production goals have been established. Other eligibility requirements are: must be citizen of U. S., must be established farmer or rancher, must operate in area in which defense emergency loans are available, be unable to obtain the credit needed elsewhere, must be a person having ability and experience to provide reasonable prospects for production with the assistance of the loan, and have legal capability to contract for the loan. If the applicant is a partnership or corporation, must qualify as an established farmer or rancher, be primarily engaged in farming or ranching, and must be managed by a partner or major stockholder. The FHA. County Committee will determine eligibility of'applicattts and establish maximum amount of credit which may be extended to meet the actual needs of the applicant during his crop year. Loan purposes are the same as for emergency loans except that critical defense emergency loans will be made only for authorized purposes neces- sary to meet minimum expenses for production of crops and livestock. These loans can be made to repair or replenish buildings, silos, storage, or irrigation facilities and to purchase breeding stock. Critical defense emergency loans are made in order that critical enterprises may be continued. Critical loans may not include living expenses, equipment purchases, pay- ment of interest, taxes, payment of old bills, or be used for real estate purposes. The applicant must have had experience in producing the critical crops An applicantmay receive critical defense emergency loans to finance critical enterprises and regular defense emergency loans to finance his other normal living expenses and farming operations. The interest rate is 3% -- annual 4 recurring operating expenses are usually scheduled for repayment with income from crops and livestock as normally received (one year). Loans for repayment of livestock and equipment are payable up to 7 years. For real estate purposes, not to exceed 20 years. Security requirements are the same as for regular program loans. These loans secured by crops being produced, by livestock products, or increases. FHA County Supervisors will be authorized to approve the critical or reg- ular defense emergency loans up to an amount which would not cause the unpaid principal balance owed by the applicant on defense emergency loans to exceed $18,000. The District Supervisor will be authorized to approve the critical or regular defense emergency loans up to an amount which would not cause the total principal balance on loans to exceed $25,000. The State Director will approve loans which would not cause the total principal balance on loans to exceed $35,000. Loans which would cause principal balance to exceed $35,000 must be approved by the National FHA office. Second defense emergency loans may be made when the applicant is still unable to obtain loans from other sources or second loan is necessary to protect the interest of the Government in defense emergency loans previously made. The County FHA office will process loans the same as they do now. They are processed by the County Supervisor with assistance of the County Committee and District Supervisor. If the loan document cannot be sub- mitted to the FHA finance office or office cannot function, the County Supervisor will submit docket for each approved loan to ASCS county office. The ASCS county office will issue CCC Sight Drafts and FHA will reimburse CCC as soon as possible. When the County Supervisor receives the CCC draft for a particular applicant, the loan may be closed in the same manner as if a treasury check had been received. ASCS will retain the loan dockets until the services and functions of the FHA finance office and treasury disbursement office have been restored. The local ASCS office will then return loan dockets on hand to the County Supervisor requesting the reimbursement. The County Supervisor will prepare Standard Form 1034 and forward with the loan documents to the finance office. Each loan account established will bear interest to CCC from the date of the draft covering the loan, plus any additional charges. Defense emergency loans will be serviced in accordance with established policy for serving emergency loans made under FHA except for cancellation of deficits on critical defense emergency loans. 5 An applicant must apply for cancellation of deficit on a critical defense emergency loan. Must be supported by a report on his use of due diligence, good husbandry and proper management and an accounting for all income from his critical enterprises. The County Supervisor and FHA County Committee must recommend approval or rejection and support the recommendation with a narrative report. The State Director will act on applications recommended by County Committee and his action will be final. If County Committee does not recommend approval of the application, the County Supervisor will notify the applicant accordingly and retain all copies in the county office. If the State Director approves cancellation, he will send the original and executed copy of application to the Finance Office which will go back through channels to the County Supervisor and producer. The Farmers Home Administration will hold meetings in September to review this material on defense emergency loans with their personnel. Emergency Programs Mr. White discussed current emergency programs. At present there are 31 counties approved for haying and grazing and 3 for livestock feed. Meeting Dates The board will meet next month on August 4 and in September they will meet on the 8th instead of the 1st. The Attack Analysis Staff has scheduled a meeting on September 7. Correspondence Mr. White read a memorandum from the Sabine County Defense Board requesting that civil defense personnel in the Piney Woods Soil Conservation District be given radiological monitoring training. This district includes Sabine and San Augustine counties. Mr. H. N. Smith, SCS, suggested that this training be given when the SCS personnel hold their training meetings this fall. A letter was read from the Director, South Central Area, ASCS, stating they appreciated the results of the USDA County Defense Board Practice Alert and commended the board on their initiative and leadership in developing in- structions for the exercise and in compiling results for use in follow -up guidance to County Defense Board Chairmen. The Bell County Defense Board minutes of June 22 were read to the board. This board had resolved that a letter be written Congressman Bob Poage asking a 50% grant for cost of approved fallout shelters for newly con- structed homes in rural areas with the suggestion that FHA handle the administration if such a plan_is feasible. This cost to be a form of grant to encourage rural home builders to build approved shelters or improve existing fallout shelters in rural areas. A letter was read from Alec Olson, Assistant to the Secretary, regarding availability of civil defense material to the general public. On June 5, 1967, the President approved PL 90 -23 which revised the public information 6 section of the Administrative Procedure Act. The provisions of this law became effective on July 4, 1967. It provides that disclosure of the information to the public when requested shall be the general rule rather than the exception. Information shall be withheld only if it falls within specific categories which are exempt under the law. Generally, defense instructions and records originating in Washington and maintained for Department -wide use by State and County Defense Boards do not fall into exempt categories. Defense information requests received by the County Defense Board Chairmen should be referred to the Chairman of the State Defense Board. Requests for State or County Defense Operations Handbooks are to be referred to the appropriate Area Director, Attention, Disaster and Defense Services Staff. The board members were not sure they understood what material would be restricted to the public since none of the defense information in the State or county offices seems to be in the exempt category except data on food facilities. This board has encouraged County Defense Board Chairmen to furnish all available information on USDA defense operations to county judges, civil defense officials, and city officials as it is important that they understand the role of the Department in civil defense work. Mr. White was asked to write to the Defense and Disaster Services Staff requesting clarification. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. 1 MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., August 4, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas , Members Present: ~ If W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS "°, Joe H. Rothe, Deputy Chairman CES Dr. John L. Wilbur, First Member ARS (Represented by Dr. James Sousares) H. N. Smith, Second Member SCS (Represented by Logan Crews) L. D. Smith, Third Member FHA John H. Courtenay, Fourth Member USFS (Not Represented) Cary Palmer, Fifth Member SRS (Not Represented) Charles Herndon, Sixth Member C&MS Others Present: Ralph T. Price, Chairman, State ASC Committee E. Babe Smith, Member, State ASC Committee Weber Pool, Member, State ASC Committee Col. Laurence Ayres, Community Shelter Planning Officer, Division of Defense & Disaster Relief Thomas Neumann, Rural Civil Defense Specialist, CES Tim Moore, Member, Attack Analysis Staff, ASCS Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Minutes The minutes of the July 7 meeting were approved as written and distributed on motion by Charles Herndon and seconded by L. D. Smith. Report on Notification to Food Industry Regarding Defense Food Orders Mr. Herndon reported that the time for submission of comments on Defense Food Orders 1 and 2 as printed in the Federal Register had been extended another 30 days. This time was required to send out questions and answers to the Food Trade Associations on the Defense Food Orders in order to ob- tain their views on food distribution in an emergency. The C&MS National office has proposed a new text on instructions pertaining to the food orders, which will probably be sent to all Food Trades Associations by the end of August. � ! , - ~ > : . . � \ � > #. > � > � . � i 2 Distribution of Food During Riots Mr. Herndon reported he had an inquiry from a county defense board asking for information on handling food during riots. C&MS distributes food under these circumstances the same as in any other disaster. It is required that the area requesting food be declared a disaster by the Secretary of Agri- culture before food can be distributed. This is to prevent dual programs from operating because some areas already have the Food Stamp Program. For instance, Detriot was operating the Food Stamp Program and the Secretary designated it a disaster area and the Red Cross and other organizations were then able to serve food to the victims of the riot. C&MS shipped food to this area in the same manner as they would for the School Lunch Program. Ordinarily, in an emergency situation, the Red Cross distributes the food, but any organized group can be used for this purpose. If any county defense boards are confronted with food problems as a result of riots, they should contact the C&MS office in Dallas for assistance. State Food Management Staff Conference Mr. Herndon verified with Mr, David and Mr. White that the date of September 29 would be suitable for them to attend the Food Management Conference in Dallas. Emergency Programs Mr. White reviewed current emergency programs. At present there are 36 counties approved for haying and grazing and 4 for livestock feed due to severe drouth. The State Disaster Committee has recommended 4 additional counties for haying and grazing and 2 for the livestock feed program. Rural Shelter Handbook Mr. Thomas Neumann reviewed the new "Rural Shelter Handbook" which was developed primarily for the County Agents tousein working with rural people to inform them on the need for protection from nuclear and natural disasters and how to evaluate protection available in existing structures. Mr. Neumann stated he would be holding training meetings with the County Agents to acquaint them with the new handbook. The Board members thought it would be desirable for all county defense board members to receive this type of training. As soon as definite schedules are finalized, the Board will be notified and arrangements for having some district and area per- sonnel attend these meetings will be considered. Plans will be made to include discussion of the handbook in the next county defense board train- ing meetings. Combination of Hardin and Liberty Counties Mr. White reported that for ASCS purposes the counties of Hardin and Liberty had been combined and would operate as a single unit. The county defense boards will also be combined and it will be necessary for the SARs involved to make new appointments to the county board. A meutorandum to this effect will be sent to the SARs affected by this combination. 3; e4t �'" v •:f w , p" x'1 • r1� � y s� u° R 3i 3 Meetins Date The State Defense Board will meet on September 8 at College Station. The State Attack Analysis Staff will meet on September 7. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. F {: 6 x. 4 � 4 ' 4 £ g;k f5 yi ry ' k' ri Yfi � MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., September 8, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe, Deputy Chairman CES (Represented by Kenneth Denmark) Dr. John Lo Wilbur, First Member ARS (Represented by Dr. Jack Pitcher) Ho No Smith, Second Member SCS (Represented by Gordon McKee) La D. Smith, Third Member FHA John Ho Courtenay, Fourth Member USFS Cary Palmer, Fifth Member SRS (Represented by Robert So McCauley) Charles Herndon, Sixth Member C&MS Others Present: Earl R. Butler, EPC, USDA, Region V Cole Jesse Ward, Department of Public Safety, Division of Defense & Disaster Relief Captain Leroy Cobb, Texas Adjutant General's Department, Austin Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Minutes The minutes of the August 4 meeting were approved as written and distributed. Scale Plotters for County Defense Boards and Attack Analysis Staff Since some county defense boards have requested that scale plotters be purchased for their use in plotting fallout, the Attack Analysis Staff was asked for their opinion regarding the necessity for these plotters. Most county boards now use a template which does not have a mileage scale corresponding to the scale of the two types of maps to be used by county defense boards, whereas the scale plotter does. Mr. McKee, Chair- man, Attack Analysis Staff, reported that the staff had decided the pur- chase of these scale plotters would be advisable. Mr. Leonard White had 2 obtained two samples of scale plotters which werc inspected by the board members. Mr. McKee recommended the purchase of two of the large -size scale plotters for each county defense board. He also stated that they would like to have a pl with 1" and 1/2" circles but that this is not essential. Mr, Butler said that he believed the Washington office was contemplating furnishing plotters to all county defense boards but he wasn't positive about the type and size, Mr. David will check with the Washington office and find out what they have planned at this time. Mr. McKee also reported on the Attack Analysis Staff meeting held September 7. Minutes of the meeting are attached. Alerting Procedure for USDA County Defense Boards Each member was given a copy of the tentative plan for alerting county defense boards during test exercises or actual emergency. This plan was approved and will be finalized and sent to all county defense boards. Colonel Ward offered to furnish a list of the protected EOC's in the State which will be helpful in designating key counties in the alerting procedure. Colonel Ward also requested that the Department of Public Safety be alerted ahead of time in the event a test exercise is held involving that Department. Emergency Programs Mr. White reviewed current emergency programs. At present there are 47 counties approved for haying and grazing through September 30 and 3 approved through October 31. There are 6 counties approved for the Livestock Feed Program through September 30. Since diverted acres have been released for grazing on October 1, and some rains have been received, it is believed that the demand for emergency programs will decrease. Handbook for Attack Analysis Staff Mr. McKee inquired if there was a Handbook for Attack Analysis Staff members. Mr. Butler stated that he would send Mr. McKee the material currently available. Hurricane Season Mr. Herndon, C&MS, stated that the hurricane season was upon us and we should all be aware of the possibility of one striking Texas. He pointed out that food would be readily available for mass feeding and would be served by the Red Cross in most places. If a town is hit by a disaster and food is needed, the local government should contact the Department of Public Welfare or local Red Cross and request that food be supplied for mass feeding or individual distribution, Only if an area is operating the Food Stamp Program does the Secretary of Agriculture need to declare that an emergency exis:s. This is to prohibit two programs from operating at the same time for the same purpose. 3 4 -H TV Action Club Kenneth Denmark, CES, distributed information on a series of 4 -H TV Action Club programs to be shown on television beginning September 23 in Tyler. The series consists of ten 30 minute films on tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, nuclear accidents, blizzards and cold, floods, living indoors and outdoors under emergency conditions and overexposure to heat. This is an effort to teach children emergency preparedness and should be quite worthwhile. Food Management Conference Mr. Herndon reminded board members of the Food Management Conference to be held in the C&MS Conference Room, 500 S. Ervay, Dallas, on September 29, 9:00 a.m. Correspondence and Publications Mr. White read the reply from Washington in answer to a letter written asking for clarification on availability of civil defense material to the general public. The letter stated that the new instructions did not change the policy of furnishing material concerning our operations to participants in civil defense. If non - participants request such material, the request should be referred to the State office. The Bell County Defense Board minutes of August 24 stated that they had received a reply to their letter to Congressman Poage suggesting a 50% grant for cost of approved fallout shelters for newly constructed homes in rural areas. Another letter will be written to Mr. Poage as the board believes their proposal was not completely understood. The Karnes County Board has suggested that homeowners constructing fallout shelters be allowed a deduction for this on their income tax returns. This suggestion will be included in the Quarterly Defense Report. Meeting Date The next meeting of the State Defense Board will be on October 6, 1967, at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 N. • 17 - - . • To: W. Lewis David, Chairman September 7, 1967 USDA State Defense Board From: Gordon S. McKee, Coordinator Texas Attack Analysis Staff Subject: Defense Meeting of Attack Analysis Staff The Attack Analysis Staff met in College Station September 7, 1967. Members Present: Gordon S. McKee, SCS, Coordinator Jack Pitcher, ARS 0. H. Barham, ARS Harold J. Baker, ASCS Tim. Moore, ASCS Thomas W. Neumann, CES Ersel H. Matthews, C&MS Harold Carter, FHA Leroy Werchan, SCS H. A. Moncrief, SCS Robert S. McCauley, SRS Lewis H. Curry, USFS William J. Gournay, USFS Others Present: Frank Malik, Engineering Extension Service, Civil Defense, College Station Capt. Leroy Cobb, Military Support Plans Office, Adjutant General's Dept., Austin Members Absent: Bobby Joe Ragsdale, CES John C. Schweda, C&MS Ed Manning, FHA Mr. Frank Malik furnished instructions on plotting fallout and prediction on radioactivity. He also discussed fallout vector reports. The staff plotted 3-hour and 6 -hour fallout forecast plots from OF messages. The pattern was plotted for 1 -9 megaton weapons. The staff discussed the need for a uniform scale plotter to be used with the operational navigation charts furnished to county defense boards. After considerable discussion it was decided to recommend to the State Defense Board that an adequate supply of Sanderson Flight Plotter SP -1A, Large, having a protractor and straight edge with two scales- - 1:500,000 and 1:1,000,000 -•.be purchased to furnish two to each county defense board and 20 fbr the Attack Analysis Staff. Thomas W. Neumann of the staff agreed to present at some future meeting a course in rural shelter analysis. It was agreed to schedule this course at a later date. 2 The next meeting of the staff will be Thursday, November 30, 1967. At this meeting Mr. Malik will discuss dose and dose rate calculations. Tim Moore, Secretary MINUTES OF THE TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD Time: 10:00 a.m., October 6, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman - absent ASCS 490 (Represented by Tim Moore) 1, 9 /0 Joe H. Rothe, Deputy Chairman - absent CES (Represented by Kenneth Denmark) Dr. E. S. Cox, First Member ARS H. N. Smith, Second Member - absent SCS (Represented by Gordon McKee) L. D. Smith, Third Member FHA John H. Courtenay, Fourth Member - absent FS (Represented by A. E. Mandeville) Cary Palmer, Fifth Member SRS Charles Herndon, Sixth Member C&MS Others Present: Earl R. Butler, EPC, USDA, Region V Col. Marion P. Bowden, Division of Defense & Disaster Relief, DPS, Austin Dr. Jack Pitcher, Member, Attack Analysis Staff, ARS Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Edna White, Secretary, Asst. to the State ASC Committee, ASCS Anita Eickenhorst, Secretary, USDA State Defense Board, ASCS Mr. L. D. Smith, Acting Chairman, introduced Dr. E. S. Cox, ARS, who is replacing Dr. John Wilbur on the State Defense Board. A new line of succession to the chairmanship will be established at the November meeting. Minutes Motion was made by Charles Herndon, seconded by A. E. Mandeville, and passed, that the minutes of the September 8 meeting be approved as written and distributed. 2 Emergency: Programs Po lowing Hurricane Beulah Mr. L. D. Smith stated that the board had been alerted for an emergency meeting immediately after the hurricane struck, but no meeting was called as all agency representatives were taking necessary actions in connection with the disaster and were keeping in contact by telephone. He asked each agency representative to review actions taken since Hurricane Beulah hit the Texas Coast on September 20 causing extensive wind and fiend damage. Col. Bowden., Division of Defense & Disaster Relief, DPS, stated that the Valley was still flooded in many places and if great amounts of rain were received, there will be considerable more damage. Some areas are in the process of pumping out water and in some cases this causes more flooding in other areas. It will be several days before damage can be completely assessed. As the water recedes, it is obvious that the damage is tre- mendous, and much more extensive than anticipated. Twenty -four counties were approved for Federal disaster assistance by the President and later three more were added, making a total of twenty -seven counties. The Division of Defense & Disaster Relief, DPS, has offices set up in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Planning in Harlingen at 222 Van Buren and the Jones Building, 317 Peoples Street, Corpus Christi. They are working with local governments in the disaster area and are re- ceiving project applications which are approved on the spot. The first project application was for vector control in the amount of $660,000. The State Health Department, Highway Department, Water Development Board, and Texas Education Agency all have their engineers working with Federal teams making appraisal of damage. At the present time, the State does not have any available funds for disaster work, and at a recent meeting with State Agency Heads, the Governor discussed this problem. It is hoped that the State legislature will provide funds for the State agencies to use in rehabilitation work in natural disasters. Colo Bowden pointed out that the most important thing now was to get the information on available assistance out to the genemal public via radio, newspapers, and television. Agency personnel living in the disaster area are so busy with cleaning up and other rehabilitation work that they don't have time to advise the public on these matters. The public should be advised on who to contact about assistance. In view of this, Charles Herndon made a motion which was seconded by Gordon McKee, that the State Defense Board compile uniform information on assistance available from USDA agencies to people in the disaster area. This information will be mailed to County Defense Board Chairmen who would release the information to the news media for dissemination to the public. The board agreed that each State Agency Representative whose agency had programs available to assist in the disaster area would submit a brief resume of these programs to Mr. David, no later than Monday, October 9, listing services available, names and addresses of persons to contact, and any other pertinent infor- mation. The information would be consolidated and copies sent to County Defense Board Chairmen in the disaster area as quickly as possible for release to the news media. Each SAR will receive a complete copy of the news release and copies will be sent to Col.. Bowden and John White, Com- missioner of Agriculture. z 3 ; 4 .. u t fit r #, f • fi x; Y 3 A> y i $ t ' 4 i 3 5$ x ' r t. e d r x. ;ii? ..,, i.. TP e fl t k t f,'2 3 Col. Bowden complimented Charles Herndon, C&MS, on his efficient handling of food problems during Hurricane Beulah. Mr. Herndon operated from the Emergency Operating Center at Austin. Mr. Charles Herndon, C&MS, stated that they had learned an aggressive approach is a necessary thing in a disaster. Sitting back and waiting for the people in need to request food doesn't always work. When it was evi- dent that Hurricane Beulah might hit the Texas Coast, Mr. Herndon contacted several key people, giving them his telephone number where he could be reached. In a disaster the first thing that people need after shelter is food. Personnel in school lunch rooms, county welfare, commodity distri- bution centers, and county officials change quite frequently and are not always aware that foods furnished for these programs can be used for feed- ing in a disaster. C&MS sent two representatives to the Valley on Monday before Beulah hit the coast on Wednesday. These representatives advised school officials, Red Cross and the Salvation Army that the food was there and available. This was to assure coordination and the knowledge that they could use the food without any red tape. The next step was resupply. A decision had to be made as to whether more food should be sent in, as roads were not always open and the railroad wasn't operating in that area. Whenever the roads were open, they sent in truckloads of food. They located the rail cars loaded with USDA food and transferred the food to commercial and Army trucks for delivery to the stricken area. The third phase of the C&MS food program is "Emergency Take Home Dis- tribution Program." This program allows people to obtain food free at county food distribution centers to take to their homes after signing a statement that due to a disaster they are in need of food. It has been many days since a lot of people have been able to earn money. It may be another month before they will be able to return to work and emergency feeding will still be needed. Five counties were approved for emergency feeding in the disaster area: Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy. In one county, the school and public welfare officials were unwilling to release the school lunch room food for mass feeding, feeling that it would not be replaced. The Chairman of the USDA County Defense Board attempted to contact the State Defense Board Chairman to ask for assistance in releasing the food, but due to poor communications, contact was not made. In order to get the food released, the Chairman of the County Defense Board assumed full responsibility for the replacement of the food by C&MS. The food was then served to the refugees without further delay. Besides using the school lunch rooms, Red Cross mobile units, and Salvation Army kitchens, the Army furnished four Army field kitchens which carry supplies with them and when their supplies are depleted, they call on C&MS for food supplies. Mr. Herndon commented that the Division of Defense & Disaster Relief staff was very well coordinated and performed efficiently in the disaster. It gave him an insight as to how they would function in a nuclear attack. 4 Foods provided by C&MS for use in the disaster area to date are as follows Commodity Cars Pounds Cost Dry Beans 4k 338,996 $26,678.98 Print Butter 5 190 126,463.68 Cheese 8 268,800 127,008,00 Cornmeal 9 450,000 17,415.00 Flour 13 685,000 45,210.00 Chopped Meat 6 397,350 182,979.67 Dry Milk 8 550,800 117,430.56 Rolled Oats & Wheat 6 322,092 22,771.90 Peanut Butter 4 249,216 69,481.42 Raisins 3 200,160 28,382.68 Rice 2 160,064 15,190.07 Shortening 2 120,000 19,536.00 Frozen Turkey 2 60,000 20,052.00 Totals 73? 3,992,878 $818,599.96 Mr. Gordon McKee, SCS, reported that their personnel went to the Valley as soon as possible after Hurricane 3eulah hit to survey damage to watersheds: They flew in a private plane and took pictures of the lower three counties to determine areas under water, They checked for effects of damaged water- sheds on upper lands, residue on land„ scouring, etc., In some places, they may get leeching and obtain some desirable results, and in some places where the salt was holding up the water table, there might be some damage from salt accumulation in the top soil. Mr, Leonard White reported that ASCS was mostly concerned with livestock and land damage. He had tried to contact the county offices the first week of the disaster to determine what assistance they needed, but com- munications were out the entire week. The fieldman headquartered in Corpus Christi was marooned in his home and unable to communicate. The State Disaster Committee went ahead and recommended temporary free grazing without charge on soil bank land, CAP, and diverted acreage in twenty -four counties-, After communications were in working order, it was discovered that there was a real shortage of hay in that area and in some other counties north of the Valley° The Seasonal Haying and Grazing Program was then extended in order that producers might cut hay off diverted acres. Mr. R, T, Price, Chairman, State Disaster Committee, and Leonard White attended a meeting of county office managers, county committeemen, and others in Edinburg to discuss emergency programs and found that hay for the stranded cattle was the most urgent need. It was decided to ask for an emergency hay program and to truck hay into the area to feed marooned cattle on levees, knolls, and sand dunes. The county disaster committees made a request for hay by wire tc the State office, stating number of stock stranded, length of time they would be stranded and the amount of hay needed_, The State Disaster Committee recommended the program and 5 approval was obtained from the Secretary through the Defense & Disaster Services Staff, ASCS, Washington, to purchase hay and deliver to the stricken area The Office of Emergency Planning will reimburse ASCS for purchase of the hay. As of this date, approximately 800 bales of hay have been delivered to the lower Valley and 385 bales have been furnished in Goliad County. There will probably be a need for addi- tional hay, and, if so plenty of hay has been located, but trans- portation is a problem. The first hay drops were made by Army heli- copters but the Army is leaving the disaster area and future drops will be made by National Guard planes. Lists of persons having hay for sale in other areas were compiled and distributed in the disaster area for the benefit of persons wishing to purchase hay for their livestock. Mr. Kenneth Denmark, Extension Service, said that they sent out packets of informational material to their County Agents when it was evident that the hurricane would hit the Texas Coast. These packets contained leaflets giving information on how to prepare for the hurricane and flood recovery steps. This information was also given to radio and television stations who gave spot announcements to the public. At the time Beulah hit the coast, most of the County Agents were at a tri- district meeting in San Antonio and they were again reminded of things they could do in the disaster area They informed the people on how to salvage flood damaged foods in the home, how to sterilize water, clean up debris, etc. Mr. Cary Palmer, SRS, said that their main responsibility in a disaster is to make an estimate of crops damaged. This report will be released shortly: A lot of citrus fruits were destroyed, and most fall vegetables were destroyed, It will be the middle of October before replanting can be started. Mr, Palmer stated that a cooperative agreement had been made between SRS and the Commissioner of Agriculture whereby a county estimate of crops would be published annually. Dr. Cox and Dr. Pitcher, ARS, reported very little physical damage to their facilities in the Valley. They turned over their airport facilities at Moore Field to the FAA when the McAllen Airport had to close down because of high water. The principal concern now is making sure that they are not letting Mexican cattle that may carry ticks move away from the river. There was considerable damage to cross- fencing in the pasture land near the river. Mr. L, De Smith, FHA, reported that all the counties in the Valley which suffered damage from Hurricane Beulah were already designated as emergency loan areas. Their instructions are that when a county is eligible for emergency loans at 3% and a subsequent disaster occurs, they are still eligible for whatever assistance is necessary as a result of the disaster. They have three main types of loans; the emergency loan, soil and water loan, and rural housing loan. The emergency loan had one change. Pre- viously, they had not made loans to an individual for vegetables only; whereas, now they can make a loan for vegetables alone. This is due to the fact that with so many vegetable crops destroyed, there will be a great demand for vegetables, The rural housing loan is for housing on farms and in towns with population under 5500 at 3% interest. lf i `a . 4 ir: •,r e b r'' $ 4 > Via; g s " x F "c 9 fi + ' ` '. 3 ��.. an y , kfit R�ia . ki, • "s } 3 ili Nt .; :: liq qt'' >a 6 Transportation for Surveys Mr. Earl Butler pointed cut that in a disaster such as hurricanes, OEP would furnish transportation for personnel to survey the area Aerial surveys could be made in flooded areas to ascertain number of livestock stranded and areas under water, USDA officials should contact Mr. Butler when this transportation is needed and he will then request air travel from OEP. The State agencies are furnished transportation fo aerial surveys by the Civil Air Patrol. Also, after a Presidential aeclaration of disaster, the National Guard is authorized to fly missions, Correspondence and Publications Mrs White reviewed minutes received from the New Mexico State Defense Board. It was noted that they were going to have a two -day training meeting in October with one day for civil defense and one day for TAP. A letter from the Washington office in reply to Chairman's letter re- garding scale plotters for county defense boards was read. The Board again recommended the purchase of two of the large -size scale plotters for each county defense board. Mr. White will proceed with this purchase as soon as possible. The Washington office also requested a set of the air force navigational charts furnished to county defense boards, Mr, White will mail a set of these maps to Washington, Meeting Date The State Defense Board will meet on November 3 at College Station. Meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. U MINUTES OF THE � � �� TEXAS USDA STATE DEFENSE BOARD ND Time: 10:00 a.m., November 3, 1967 Place: USDA Building, College Station, Texas Members Present: W. Lewis David, Chairman ASCS Joe H. Rothe, Deputy Chairman CES H. N. Smith, First Member SCS (Represented by John Kincaid) L. D. Smith, Second Member FHA John H. Courtenay, Third Member USFS (Represented by John Olson) Cary Palmer, Fourth Member SRS (Not Represented) Charles Herndon, Fifth Member C&MS *Dr. E. S. Cox, Sixth Member ARS Others Present: F. W. Blease, Director, SC Area, ASCS Earl R. Butler, EPC, USDA, Region V Major Leroy Cobb, Texas Adjutant General's Department, Austin Col, Marion P. Bowden, Division of Defense and Disaster Relief, DPS, Austin Charles Lyons, Alternate State Defense Board Member, FHA Leonard A. White, Special Agricultural Programs Staff Assistant, ASCS Anita Eickenhorst, Secretary, USDA State Defense Board, ASCS Membership Changes *A new line of succession to the chairmanship was established as shown above. Minutes The minutes of the October 6 meeting were approved as written and distributed. 2 Report on Food Management Meeting Mr. Herndon reviewed the highlights of the Food Management Conference held in Dallas on September 29. Jack Gannaway, Chief, Defense Programs Branch, C&MS, Washington, presided over the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to orient the Food Management Support Staff on the contents of Food Order No. 2 which would be used in case of a nuclear attack to assist the food industry through the wholesale level. In discussion, it was brought out that certain segments of the food industry would produce more than they needed in some areas and the surplus shipped out to other areas. For instance in the Valley, fruit is produced and shipped to the north for processing and then comes back to the Valley for resale. Most of food movement is by rail ant in an emergency it would probably be neces- sary to find alternate routes to move the food. Mr. Herndon said he had made arrangements to secure some railroad maps and would send Mr. David one for the State Defense Board files. In referring to the County Food Profiles, it was noted that Texas was the only state that had obtained these profiles. It will be necessary for the county defense boards to supplement these profiles periodically with information on where the surplus food goes and where they obtain food they do not produce themselves. The information contained in the county food profiles will be used to formulate a State Food Profile. Mr. Herndon suggested tFfat all board members review Defense Food Order No. 2 in order to become familiar with the procedure set forth. County Defense Board Training Meetings Mr. White pointed out that it would soon be time to set up training meet- ings for county defense boards this spring. This matter will be discussed in more detail at the December meeting. Emergency Programs Mr. Herndon reported that C&MS was still supplying food to needy families in Starr and Willacy counties and Live Oak has been added to the program. These counties are in the area affected by Hurricane Beulah. Mr. David and Mr. White reviewed the applications for Emergency ACP Funds from twenty -four counties which suffered land damage as a result of Hur- ricane Beulah. The State Disaster Committee recommended that these counties be allocated $7,420,014 for paying 80% cost - shares to producers performing emergency practices. An initial allocation of $5 has been received and additional funds may be authorized later. Mr. L. D. Smith advised that FHA was prepared to loan eligible producers the additional 20% for this work. It is questionable if all the work required can be completed by December 31 1968, as there is a shortage of heavy equipment in that area. NOV 71967 3 Mr. White discussed applications received from two county disaster com- mittees requesting seasonal haying and grazing due to drouth and one application requesting the livestock feed program. Free emergency grazing privileges have been extended through November 30 in two counties in the Valley where they still have land under water. Seasonal haying and grazing has also been extended through November 30 in nine counties for the purpose of cutting hay later that is too wet to cut now as a result of the heavy rains from Hurricane Beulah. The hay crop is short over all the State this year and people that raised hay won't sell it because they feel they may need it themselves this winter. Producers are starting to feed now in some areas and will probably run out of feed by the 1st or 15th of January. Publications and Correspondence Mr. White discussed publications receives' si_ncc the last Defense Board meeting. The Procedure Covering Military Claims-, for Food was re- viewed and copies given to Mr. Herndon and Major Cobb. The Attack Analysis Staff Supplement was discussed and Mr. Butler suggested that the glossary of terms be incorporated in the County Defense Operations Handbook or sent out to the county boards separately. OCD Information Bulletin No. 183 advised that a new OCD public information film, "Once to Make Ready," has been made available to the general public. The film is designed to explain to the average citizen what Community Shelter Planning can mean to him personally when his community undertakes a CSP program. Mr. Rothe was requested to obtain the film and show it at the board meeting in December. Meeting Dates The Attack Analysis Staff will meet on November 30 and the State Defense Board will meet on December 1. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.