The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-13-19-2e - Resolution - 05/13/2019RESOLUTION NO. 05-13-19-2e A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE COLLEGE STATION PORTION OF “MITIGATING RISK: PROTECTING THE BRAZOS VALLEY FROM ALL HAZARDS, 2019-2024 PLAN” (PLAN). WHEREAS, certain areas of College Station are subject to periodic flooding and other natural hazards with the potential to cause damages to people and properties within the area; and WHEREAS, under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that local jurisdictions have in place a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Action Plan as a condition of receipt of certain future Federal mitigation funding after November 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, This Plan, a five-year blueprint for the future, aimed at making communities in Brazos County disaster resistant by reducing or eliminating the long-term risk of loss of life and property from the full range of natural disasters; and WHEREAS, This Plan meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106- 390); Section 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 201.6 and Part 206; and State of Texas Division of Emergency Management standards. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLL EGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the City Council hereby adopts and approves those portions of the Plan entitled, Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Brazos Valley from All Hazards, 2019- 2024, that pertain to the City of College Station attached as Exhibit A. PART 2: That the City Council hereby approves and authorizes Brian Hilton, Emergency Management Coordinator with the responsibility, authority, and the means to: a. Inform all concerned parties of this action. b. Develop an addendum to this Hazard Mitigation Plan if College Station’s unique situation warrants such an addendum. PART 3: That the City Council hereby appoints the Emergency Management Coordinator to assure the Hazard Mitigation Plan is reviewed at least annually and that amendments to the City of College Station addendum to the Hazard Mitigation Plan be developed and presented to the City Council for consideration and approval PART 4: That this Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 2 of 184 ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2019. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 3 of 184 EXHIBIT A MITIGATING RISK: PROTECTING THE BRAZOS VALLEY FROM ALL HAZARDS 2019-2024 PLAN Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Mitigating Risk: Protecting Brazos County from All Hazards 2019-2024 Department of Emergency Management 110 N. Main Street Suite 100 Bryan, Texas 77803 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 4 of 184 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE AND PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT This updated document, “Mitigating Risk: Protecting Brazos County from All Hazards, 2019 – 2024,” was prepared by the jurisdictions within Brazos County. The participating entities in the planning area of the Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan include Brazos County, the Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, Wixon Valley and Texas A&M University. These will be referred to as “Brazos County and participating entities”, “participating entities” or the “planning area”. This plan is a five-year blueprint for the future, aimed at making communities in Brazos County, to include all of the planning area; disaster resistant by reducing or eliminating the long-term risk of loss of life and property from the full range of natural disasters. It meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390); Section 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 201.6 and Part 206; and State of Texas Division of Emergency Management standards. An open public process was established to provide multiple opportunities for all sectors in Brazos County and participating entities to be involved in the planning process and provide input during its drafting stage. HAZARDS FACING THE PLANNING AREA The plan identifies and assesses the potential impact of nine natural hazards that threaten Brazos County and participating entities. Hazards were identified based on a review of historical records, national data sources, existing plans and reports, and discussions with local, regional, and national experts. The list of hazards that may threaten Brazos County and the participating entities are: Floods Droughts Fires Severe Winter Storms Tornadoes Hail Thunderstorms Dam failures Excessive Heat Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 5 of 184 3 MITIGATION VISION A vision statement, 6 goals, and 21 objectives were developed to guide the participating entities in the planning area in reducing or eliminating the long-term risk of loss of life and property from the full range of natural disasters. The mitigation vision for Brazos County and participating entities incorporates: An informed citizenry aware of the risks they face and the measures that can be taken to protect their families, homes, workplaces, communities and livelihoods from the impact of disasters. Local governments and regional entities that are capable of hazard-mitigation planning and project implementation, and of leveraging state, federal, and private resources for investments in mitigation. Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation on mutual issues of concern related to floodplain management and hazard mitigation. A commitment to locate buildings outside hazardous areas and to promote building methods that result in structures able to withstand the natural hazards that threaten them. The integration of mitigation into routine budgetary decisions and planning for future growth and development in the planning area, making disaster resistance an integral part of the livability and sustainability of the county. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS The overall goal of this plan is to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of loss of life and property damage in Brazos County and participating entities from the full range of disasters. Individual goals are: GOAL 1. Develop new, and upgrade existing capabilities for identifying the need for and implementing hazard mitigation activities. GOAL 2. Generate support for and increase public awareness of the need for hazard mitigation. GOAL 3. Increase awareness of public officials, community and business leaders of the need for hazard mitigation, and support actions to protect public health and safety. GOAL 4. Promote resource-sharing and increase coordination and cooperation among governmental entities in conducting hazard mitigation activities. GOAL 5. Mitigate damage to and losses of new and existing real property. GOAL 6. Promote sustainable growth. Twenty-one objectives in support of these goals are presented in Section 3. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 6 of 184 4 Mitigation Actions This plan sets forth mitigation actions and action plans to be carried out by Brazos County and the participating entities to reduce the risks to these hazards facing the planning area. Each action statement includes a description of the action, estimated costs, benefits, the responsible organization for implementing the action, an implementation schedule, priority, and potential funding sources. Some actions are directed at reducing the risk from a single hazard, such as flooding. Others pertain to multiple hazards or all nine hazards. The hazards differ in important ways, such as in their predictability, length of warning time, speed of onset, magnitude, scope, duration of impact, and the possibilities of secondary impacts. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 7 of 184 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Process of Development ......................................................................................................... 2 Hazards Facing the Planning Area ............................................................................................................... 2 Mitigation Vision ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Goals, Objectives and Actions ...................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN ............................................................... 8 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Organization .................................................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 2: THE PLANNING PROCESS .........................................................................................10 Preparation of the Plan ............................................................................................................................... 10 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Partners in Planning .................................................................................................................................... 14 SECTION 3: MITIGATION VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES ...........................................................17 Vision ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 17 SECTION 4: BRAZOS COUNTY PLANNING AREA AT A GLANCE .......................................................19 Geography................................................................................................................................................... 19 Population ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Higher Education ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Development Trends ................................................................................................................................... 23 Communities Designated for Special Consideration .................................................................................. 25 SECTION 5: HAZARDS THE PLANNING AREA FACES AND WHAT'S AT RISK ..................................26 Risk Assessment Methodologies ................................................................................................................ 26 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 26 Hazards of Concern .................................................................................................................................... 34 Historical Disaster Declarations .................................................................................................................. 35 Economic and Social Losses ...................................................................................................................... 35 Hazard Ranking .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Unique Hazards .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 37 SECTION 6: FLOOD.....................................................................................................................42 Why Floods Are a Threat ............................................................................................................................ 42 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 43 History of Flooding ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Location of Hazardous Areas ...................................................................................................................... 46 NFIP Program Participation ........................................................................................................................ 48 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 49 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 50 Repetitive Losses ........................................................................................................................................ 50 SECTION 7: DROUGHT ................................................................................................................52 Why Drought Is a Threat ............................................................................................................................. 52 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 53 History of Drought ....................................................................................................................................... 57 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 58 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 58 SECTION 8: URBAN AND WILDLAND FIRES ...................................................................................59 Why Urban and Wildland Fires Are a Threat .............................................................................................. 59 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 61 History of Wildfire in the Planning Area ...................................................................................................... 61 Location of Hazardous Areas ...................................................................................................................... 62 History of Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 68 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 8 of 184 6 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 68 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 69 SECTION 9: WINTER STORMS .....................................................................................................70 Why Winter Storms Are a Threat ................................................................................................................ 70 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 70 History of Severe Winter Storms ................................................................................................................. 71 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 72 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 73 SECTION 10: TORNADOES ..........................................................................................................74 Why Tornadoes Are a Threat ...................................................................................................................... 74 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 75 History of Tornadoes ................................................................................................................................... 77 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 79 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 79 SECTION 11: HAIL ......................................................................................................................80 Why Hailstorms Are a Threat ...................................................................................................................... 80 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 80 History of Hailstorms ................................................................................................................................... 81 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 82 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 83 SECTION 12: THUNDERSTORMS ..................................................................................................84 Why Thunderstorms are a Threat ............................................................................................................... 84 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 84 History of thunderstorms ............................................................................................................................. 85 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 87 SECTION 13: DAM FAILURE .........................................................................................................88 Why Dam Failure Is a Threat ...................................................................................................................... 88 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 88 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 89 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 92 SECTION 14: EXCESSIVE HEAT ...................................................................................................95 Why Excessive Heat Is a Threat ................................................................................................................. 95 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 95 History of Excessive Heat in the Planning Area.......................................................................................... 96 Location of Hazardous Areas ...................................................................................................................... 96 People and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 96 Potential Damages and Losses .................................................................................................................. 97 SECTION 15: PREVIOUS MITIGATION ACTIONS .............................................................................98 Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs ................................................................................. 98 Previous Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 98 Building and Fire Codes ............................................................................................................................ 100 Fire Codes ................................................................................................................................................. 102 Inspection and Permitting Processes ........................................................................................................ 103 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedules and Fire Ratings .......................................................... 104 Floodplain Management Ordinances ........................................................................................................ 104 FEMA Community Assistance Program Involvement ............................................................................... 105 Previous Action Items ............................................................................................................................... 107 SECTION 16: MITIGATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................... 116 SECTION 17: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ..................................... 135 Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 135 Evaluation and Enhancement ................................................................................................................... 136 Continued Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 138 APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... 139 APPENDIX C: LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION TEAM ........................................................................ 174 APPENDIX D: CRITICAL FACILITIES IN BRAZOS COUNTY AND PARTICIPATING ENTITIES .................. 176 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 9 of 184 7 APPENDIX E: LOCAL ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS ........................................................................... 181 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 10 of 184 8 SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN PURPOSE The Brazos Valley Council of Governments (BVCOG) is made up of the seven-county Brazos Valley region that consists of Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Leon, Madison, Robertson and Washington Counties, as well as incorporated cities and several unincorporated communities in those counties. Its boundaries are based on geographic features, economic market areas, labor markets, commuting patterns and media coverage areas. The BVCOG was established in 1966 and is charged by the Texas legislature with addressing regional issues and opportunities. BVCOG’s goal is to create and enhance partnerships among local governments, private businesses and service organizations to collaboratively plan for and maintain the highest quality of life in the Brazos Valley. The organization provides, in consultation with and through the cooperation of the local elected officials, housing, health, workforce, and senior services programs throughout the Brazos Valley. The council also administers the regional 9-1-1 plan, community and economic development programs, criminal justice planning and grants, Homeland Security planning and grants, and solid waste planning and grants. Brazos County and participating entities developed the update to the comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan for planning area. Entities participating in this Hazard Mitigation Action Plan include Brazos County, Texas A&M University, and the cities of Bryan, College Station, Wixon Valley, and Kurten. Role of this Plan This Hazard Mitigation Action Plan was prepared by the Hazard Mitigation Team, on behalf of the six participating entities. It is intended as a blueprint for future hazard mitigation, defined as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from all hazards.” The plan is designed to help build sustainable communities that, when confronted by natural disasters, will sustain fewer losses and recover more quickly. It is also intended to: Minimize disruption to Brazos County communities following a disaster; Streamline disaster recovery by articulating actions to be taken before a disaster strikes, to reduce or eliminate future damage; Serve as a basis for future funding that may become available through grants and technical assistance programs offered by state or federal governments. The plan will enable Brazos County and participating entities to take advantage of rapidly developing mitigation grant opportunities as they arise; and ensure that Brazos County and participating entities maintain their eligibility for the full range of future federal disaster relief. Certain forms of federal mitigation assistance for projects will be available only to cities and counties that have a FEMA- approved hazard mitigation plan in place. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 11 of 184 9 ORGANIZATION The executive summary is at the beginning of the plan. Sections 1 and 2 of this plan address how it was prepared and who was involved in planning. Section 3 articulates the vision, mitigation goals, and objectives that guided the development of the plan. The goals are general guidelines that articulate a desired end state. They are expressed as policy statements of global visions. Objectives are specific, measurable, and define the strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals. Section 4 profiles the planning area’s geography, population, land use and development trends in the planning area. Section 5 identifies the major natural hazards that have affected and may again affect planning area and describes the people and property at risk from these hazards. Sections 6 through 14 discuss each of the natural hazards that affect the planning area. The plan addresses why each hazard is a threat and profiles each hazard in terms of its severity of impact, frequency of occurrence, hours of warning time, and existing warning systems. If the hazard has a geographic boundary, it is identified and mapped if possible. Data on the property and number of people at risk from each hazard are presented, along with the history of hazard events in Brazos County and participating entities. Section 15 discusses previously implemented mitigation actions. These include federal projects such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Public Assistance projects, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program projects, and other federal mitigation projects; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) studies, plans, and projects. It also includes plans, studies and projects of the Texas Water Development Board, and local plans, ordinances, and inspection and permitting processes. Section 16 contains actions to be undertaken by each participating entity to mitigate the hazards identified in Sections 6 to 14. Mitigation action plans describe each mitigation action, the hazard addressed, the estimated costs, benefits, organization responsible for overseeing implementation, implementation schedule, objectives the action is designed to achieve, priority, and potential funding sources. Section 17 discusses plan maintenance procedures, including how the plan is to implemented, maintained and evaluated, and how the public will continue to be involved. Appendix A defines acronyms used in this plan. Appendix B reports the results of a web-based hazard survey to elicit information from the public on issues of concern about hazard mitigation. Appendix C identifies members of the local hazard mitigation team who updated this plan. Appendix D identifies the critical facilities in the planning area. Appendix E will contain the resolutions adopted by jurisdictional authorities when the plan is approved and the resolutions are adopted. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 12 of 184 10 SECTION 2: THE PLANNING PROCESS PREPARATION OF THE PLAN This document was prepared by the Hazard Mitigation Team, in coordination with Brazos County and the participating entities. It was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, Federal Regulations (44 CFR 206), and the planning standards adopted by the Texas Division of Emergency Management. The hazard mitigation planning process for Brazos County and participating entities was started in January 2016 and a draft was completed for submission to the State in March 2018. Entity Participation This updated plan covers Brazos County, Cities Bryan, College Station, Kurten, Wixon Valley and Texas A&M University. The entities all participated during the update process. Each entity contributed during the update process by: Forming a new local Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) with representatives from their jurisdiction, including numerous local Emergency Management Coordinators. Attended kick-off meetings, mitigation workshops and public meetings. Reviewed and analyzed the existing plan and updated each section, as necessary. Provided an updated risk assessment for their jurisdiction. Discussed the status of previous action items and provided new mitigation actions. Devised a way to keep the plan maintained from 2019-2024. Open Public Process An open public process was established to give Brazos County and the participating entities an opportunity to become involved in the planning process and make their views known. Neighboring jurisdictions, federal and state agencies, businesses, Texas A&M University, non- profit organizations and the public participated in the process. Each participating entity, established a Hazard Mitigation Team composed of broad-based representatives of cities and the county. A list of team members is provided at Appendix C. The Hazard Mitigation Team members from each jurisdiction participated actively throughout the planning process. They attended a kick-off workshop in the county, attended additional mitigation workshops in the county, updated mitigation actions and devised a way to keep the plan current from 2019-2024. Non-participating jurisdictions were notified about the planning effort and invited to participate. They were given the opportunity to attend a kick-off meeting, public meetings and the mitigation workshops and to fill out the Hazard Mitigation Survey Form. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 13 of 184 11 A mitigation workshop was held November 2nd and 4th, 2015, and a kick-off meeting was held in Brazos Community Operations Center (CEOC) on July 28, 2016. A stakeholders meeting was held December 11, 2017. County commissioners, mayors, city council members, academia, elected officials, city managers, floodplain managers, emergency management coordinators, fire marshals, police chiefs, sheriffs, county engineers, building officials and inspectors, and other interested officials were invited to the kick-off meeting and subsequent workshops. At the workshop, TDEM provided a briefing on the FEMA hazard mitigation planning requirements and the respective roles and responsibilities of the local jurisdictions. An opportunity was provided for Brazos County and participating entities officials to discuss how they would like to approach the planning process throughout the county. A public meeting was held November 8, 2018 to inform the public about the planning process and solicit their ideas and recommendations. A second public meeting for Brazos County and participating entities will be held after FEMA’s review of the draft plan. A Hazard Survey was developed to solicit opinions from the public about hazards of concern. The Hazard Surveys were distributed to the public during public outreach opportunities, via jurisdictional websites, local media partners, and social media. The survey provided a mechanism to gain input from agencies, businesses, academia, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties. A total of 653 responses were received. The responses are summarized in Appendix B. Identify Hazards Profiles of hazards were prepared to show their severity of impact, frequency of occurrence, seasonal patterns, warning time, cascading potential, and applicable warning systems. Assess Risks The characteristics and potential consequences of each hazard were assessed to determine how much of the planning area could be affected and the potential effects on local assets. An inventory was taken of “at risk” populations, buildings, infrastructure and lifelines, and commercial facilities in the planning area classified as “critical” or “special” or housing hazardous materials. A list of critical facilities is provided in Appendix D. The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment sections were revised continually throughout the update process to ensure completeness. Nine hazards that have the potential or probability to affect Brazos County and participating entities were identified based on a review of historical records, national data sources, existing plans and reports, and discussions with local, regional, state, federal and national experts. Develop Mitigation Strategies Based on a review of the vision statement, goals, and priorities of the previous plan with the local elected officials and the Hazard Mitigation Team, it was determined that the vision statement, goals, and objectives are still relevant and should remain the same. These goals and Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 14 of 184 12 objectives will reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to life and property from hazards. The goals are general guidelines that articulate a desired end state. They are expressed as policy statements of global visions. Objectives are specific, measurable, and define the strategies or implementation steps necessary to attain the identified goals. The vision statement, goals, and objectives are presented in Section 3 of this plan. Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) members reviewed various documents, reports and plans, including Capital Improvement Plans for Bryan and College Station, Brazos County Emergency Operations Plans, Building Codes and Floodplain Maps. Additionally, a hazard survey was circulated throughout the county through city and county websites. Citizens were asked to rank hazards and propose mitigation projects based on their observations. Some surveys were returned to the Emergency Operations Center for review and discussion by the Hazard Mitigation Team. In addition, local floodplain ordinances from participating jurisdictions were studied and the HMT discussed whether local floodplain management could be strengthened in an effort to improve mitigation. The HMT discussed if safety would be improved with the addition of freeboard requirements for building permits. Freeboard is defined as the additional amount of height above a flood elevation at which a structures’ lowest floor must be elevated to. The HMT also reviewed local building codes to determine if stronger ordinances would help strengthen new buildings from some hazards, such as tornadoes. Section 15 and the hazard-specific sections of the plan summarize the findings from the studies, plans, reports and technical information. Other sources of the information included the Federal Emergency Management Agency, USACE, the Insurance Services Office, the U.S. Fire Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the State Comptroller, the Texas State Data Center, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management. Section 15 and the hazard-specific sections of the plan summarize the findings from the studies, plans, reports and technical information. An inclusive and structured process was used to develop and prioritize mitigation actions for this Hazard Mitigation Plan. It included the following steps: A vision statement, mitigation goals and objectives were formulated to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from each hazard. Mitigation team members considered the benefits that would result from the mitigation actions versus the cost of those projects. For those actions in which the benefits could be quantified, an economic evaluation was one factor that helped team member’s select one mitigation action from among many competing ones. Cost-effectiveness of actions was considered as each team member developed their final list of mitigation actions. Economic considerations were part of the community’s analysis of the comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered. Each participating entity did a review of benefits and costs for the mitigation actions/projects. The review of benefits and costs considered: 1) how many people will be affected; 2) what size of an area will be affected; and 3) which critical facilities will be affected. Then, the following questions were answered: Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 15 of 184 13 Are costs reasonable compared with the size of the problem and probable benefits? Does the project make sense for the overall community? Each mitigation action/project was ranked based on the following criteria: Does this project address multiple goals and objectives outlined in this plan? Does this project impact a large percentage of the population or involve multiple participating entities? Will project result in life safety and/or property protection? Does the project address multiple hazards? Is funding available? Is the project cost effective (future benefits exceed cost)? Each criteria was given a score between 0 to 4 and the overall mitigation action/project score was a summation of criteria scores. Each mitigation action/project was categorized as low (0 – 8), medium (9 – 16), or high (17 – 24) based on its overall score. Participants received a briefing on the risk assessment results and identified any unique hazards for the entity’s planning area that varied from those hazards affecting the planning area as a whole. Participants discussed potential mitigation actions to identify any that might be relevant to the risks they face in jurisdiction and to solicit ideas. Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress A formal process was established at the workshops to ensure that the plan is implemented and remains an active and relevant document. Plan maintenance is addressed in Section 17. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Because public involvement is critical to the success of hazard-mitigation planning, public input was sought in several ways. Public input was solicited during the drafting stage, upon development of the draft, and prior to adoption of the plan. The public also was given the opportunity to provide comments, input into the planning process, and discuss other issues of concern to the entire planning area. A public meeting was held at the CEOC November 8, 2018 to inform the public about the planning process and solicit their ideas and recommendations. Announcements of the public meeting were distributed to the media and civic organizations, as well as being posted to Facebook, Twitter, jurisdictional websites, and displayed in public places. Members of the general public, residents, local businesses, community leaders, educators, representatives of neighboring jurisdictions and private and non-profit groups were invited to attend and participate. A second public meeting for Brazos County and participating entities will be held after FEMA’s review of the draft plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 16 of 184 14 The county-wide public meetings provided an opportunity for the public to give input in the planning process during the drafting stage. The public was also provided an opportunity to comment on the draft plan prior to its submission to the Texas Division of Emergency Management and FEMA. A Hazard Survey was made available to the public and was distributed at the public meetings. The survey sought information from citizens about hazards that have affected them and recommendations for action to reduce future risks. A total of 653 responses were received. The survey results provided an important source of information for use in formulating mitigation actions. Survey results appear in Appendix B. Finally, the draft of this plan was made available on the Brazos County Department of Emergency Management website (www.bcdem.org/plans ) for public review and comment. Each participating jurisdiction made a copy of the plan available for public inspection and review and formally solicited public review and comment prior to their governing bodies’ adoption of the plan. A copy of each resolution adopting the plan will be in Appendix E after the participating jurisdictions each adopt the plan. PARTNERS IN PLANNING Hazard Mitigation Teams The Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT), which had a central role throughout the planning process, was composed of local officials throughout Brazos County and participating entities. For a complete list of the HMT, see Appendix C. The local Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) was comprised of various members of the communities and local government with wide-ranging expertise. In addition to Emergency Managers, membership included Floodplain Administrators, Risk Managers, Public Works Supervisors, Code Enforcement Agents, Public Health Officers and Urban/Regional Planners. Mitigation projects were discussed and weighted, then considered for inclusion in the Mitigation Action Plan. Members attended planning meetings as well as public meetings to discuss hazards in the planning area. The HMT was chaired by the Emergency Management Coordinator for Brazos County. Representatives were invited from the participating entities by the Emergency Management Coordinators for each entity, to meet in a central location to discuss the mitigation plan and the update process. Talking points, slide shows and hand-out materials were provided during the meetings. Discussions were held on mitigation planning, the update process, and what hazards impact each of the participating entities. The HMT discussed which new hazards, if any, should be included in the plan and if any hazards should be removed from the plan. Mitigation actions for the 2012-2017 update needed to be reviewed and updates given on each action. The HMT then discussed ideas for new mitigation projects which will need to be included in the updated plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 17 of 184 15 The HMT laid the groundwork for the plan, examined risk in county jurisdictions, sought the participation of stakeholders and the public, and articulated the mitigation actions and action plans presented in the document. The team, in short, served as the primary vehicle through which to share information, invite active participation, and coordinate the plan’s development, implementation, and maintenance within participating jurisdictions. Federal and state agencies guidance and data were utilized in the planning process. These included the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland Security, the USACE, the Texas Division of Emergency Management, the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Department of Transportation, and the Texas A&M Forest Service. Weather event data were provided by the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). The Mitigation Section of the Texas Department of Emergency Management reviewed the plan and provided input and guidance, which assisted the team in developing the plan. Hazard mitigation team members assessed their capabilities, examined previous mitigation efforts, and developed mitigation actions. Throughout the process, they reached out to police and fire departments, emergency medical services, code enforcement entities, floodplain managers, neighboring jurisdictions, local businesses, community leaders, educators and other private and non-profit organizations to inform them of the planning process and seek their views. Updated Plan Participation This Hazard Mitigation Action Plan was created in 2005 and updated in 2012. This 2019 update covers Brazos County and the participating entities. As part of the update process, a local Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT) was formed and tasked with reviewing and updating each section of the plan, as necessary. The process by which the HMT undertook to determine whether a section warranted an update began with the HMT reviewing the 2012 version of the plan. Local team members were then tasked to review and analyze the information that pertained to their local planning area. The HMT would then determine if that data needed to be updated based on whether it contained outdated information or, in the case of mitigation actions, had already been accomplished. Likewise, sections of the 2012 plan that did not warrant an update were not revised in this 2019 version. The following is a summary of the sections that were updated by the Hazard Mitigation Team: The Executive Summary and Section 1: Purpose and Organization of the Plan was updated to reflect changes in the plans development. In keeping with the 2012 Version, this update reflects a continuing focus on Brazos County and participating entities. Section 2: The Planning Process was updated to reflect the local planning process undertaken by Brazos County and participating entities. This includes the formation of the local Hazard Mitigation Team to review and analyze each section of the plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 18 of 184 16 Section 3: Mitigation Vision, Goals, and Objectives were not revised by the Hazard Mitigation Team (HMT). The HMT discussed the vision, goals, and objectives of the original version of the plan and felt they were still valid. The team voted to keep the vision, goals and objectives the same for this version of the plan. Section 4: Brazos County Planning Area at a Glance reflects a focus on the planning area. Section 5: Hazards the Planning Area Faces and What’s at Risk reflects a focus on Brazos County and the participating entities. Sections 6-14 contain the risk assessment for each of the nine hazards listed in the plan and was revised as necessary to reflect any changes to the risks that can affect the planning area. The HMT discussed the hazards listed in the original plan and decided not to include the chapter on hurricanes. The hazards the participating entities experience during hurricanes is covered in the chapters for flood, tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms. The chapter on thunderstorms includes information on windstorms and lightning hazards. The team then discussed the man-made hazards listed in the plan and voted again to eliminate the four (4) man-made hazards of energy pipeline failures, hazardous materials incidents, nuclear power plant accidents and terrorism. These four man-made hazards were eliminated because they are difficult to mitigate with the available federal mitigation funds, and because they are not required by Section 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 201.6(c)(2)(i), which requires a risk assessment for all natural hazards that can affect the participating entities. Section 15: Previous Mitigation Actions discusses mitigation actions supported by federal and state agencies, and local programs relating to building and fire codes and floodplain management ordinances. This section was revised to reflect any updated building and fire codes, and floodplain ordinances that were re-adopted since the original version of the plan. Section 16: Mitigation Actions contains actions to be undertaken by each of the participating entities to mitigate the hazards identified in Sections 6 through 14. This section was reviewed and analyzed by the HMT to review previous actions, identify any previous actions items from the original plan that could be deferred to this updated plan, and to include new action items to help achieve the vision, goals and objectives listed in Section 3. Section 17: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Procedures discusses the plan maintenance procedures and was revised to reflect how Brazos County and the participating entities will maintain, update and evaluate the plan during the next five years. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 19 of 184 17 SECTION 3: MITIGATION VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES VISION The mitigation vision for the planning area is: Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation on mutual issues of concern related to hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness; Local governments and regional entities with high levels of capability for hazard mitigation planning and project implementation, leveraging state, federal and private resources for investments in mitigation; An informed citizenry aware of the risks they face and the measures that can be taken to protect their families, homes, workplaces, communities and livelihoods from the impact of disasters; Build structures outside of hazardous areas and ensure built to withstand the natural hazards that threaten them; Communities integrating hazard mitigation concerns into routine planning and budgetary decisions and plans for future growth and development; with disaster resistance an integral part of the livability and sustainability of the region. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Overall Goal: To reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of loss of life and property damage in the planning area from the full range of natural disasters. The following mitigation goals and objectives, from the previous version of this plan, were re- evaluated by the Hazard Mitigation Team in 2012 and determined to remain valid and effective. GOAL 1. Build the capability for carrying out hazard mitigation activities. Objective 1.1 Encourage education and training for personnel involved in hazard mitigation to develop high levels of expertise. Objective 1.2 Ensure, to the extent feasible, adequate levels of staffing for hazard mitigation activities. Objective 1.3 Create and foster partnerships to help communities reduce their exposure to hazards. Objective 1.4 Focus on identifying and obtaining federal, state, and private-sector funds available for hazard mitigation. Objective 1.5 Upgrade operational systems and facilities that support hazard mitigation. GOAL 2. Heighten public awareness and support for hazard mitigation. Objective 2.1 Ensure that communication between disaster personnel and the public in advance of and during hazard events is adequate in content and coverage. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 20 of 184 18 Objective 2.2 Inform area citizens about the full range of natural and man-made hazards they face, and the need for guarding against injury and loss of life caused by those hazards. Objective 2.3 Devise programs to educate the public about how to prevent or reduce the loss of life or property from all hazards, including specific actions that can be taken. GOAL 3. Increase awareness of public officials, community and business leaders of the need for hazard mitigation, and support actions to protect public health and safety. Objective 3.1 Encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation measures by local governments, businesses, institutions, and individuals, and communicate information about specific, effective actions they can take. Objective 3.2 Ensure that communication among disaster personnel and public officials in advance of and during hazard events is adequate in content and coverage. Objective 3.3 Focus on protecting particularly vulnerable areas during hazard events (e.g., hospitals, nuclear reactors, areas crossed by fuel transmission lines). GOAL 4. Promote resource-sharing and increase coordination and cooperation among governmental entities in conducting hazard-mitigation activities. Objective 4.1 Improve and expand communication and coordination within and among federal, state, and local governments and the Brazos Valley Council of Governments in mitigating hazards. Objective 4.2 Identify and map critical facilities and take action to ensure that critical facilities and services can continue to operate in disaster situations. Objective 4.3 Create hazard-specific and general hazard-mitigation partnerships among Brazos Valley counties, cities, the Brazos Valley Council of Governments and other stakeholders. GOAL 5. Mitigate damage to and losses of new and existing real property. Objective 5.1 Protect public infrastructure and private buildings from known hazards. Objective 5.2 Support methods, codes, and ordinances that reduce threats to existing and new development and ensure that citizens are not unnecessarily exposed to potential hazards. Objective 5.3 Reduce repetitive losses to the NFIP. Objective 5.4 Protect against financial losses caused by hazard events through liberal application of insurance coverage. GOAL 6. Promote sustainable growth. Objective 6.1 Promote beneficial uses of hazardous areas while expanding open space and recreational opportunities. Objective 6.2 Incorporate hazard mitigation into long-range planning, budgeting and development activities. Objective 6.3 Prevent creation of future hazards to life and property. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 21 of 184 19 SECTION 4: BRAZOS COUNTY PLANNING AREA AT A GLANCE GEOGRAPHY The planning area claims 588 square miles of southeast central Texas between the Navasota River and the Brazos River for which it was named. Brazos County includes four incorporated cities: Bryan, College Station, Kurten, and Wixon Valley. Rolling prairie and woodlands that rise 200 to 350 feet above sea level characterize the county. Businesses throughout the county are involved in higher education, defense electronics, research, medical, agriculture, and varied manufacturing. Information is included in this section about the population and demographics of the county, as well as information about businesses in the county (higher education, agriculture, minerals, housing, economic development, and tourism). Figure 4-1. Brazos County in the Brazos Valley Region Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 22 of 184 20 Figure 4-2. Planning area POPULATION The population of Brazos County and participating entities in 2010 was 194,851 people. It is now currently estimated to be 209,896, with the largest cities in the planning area being College Station (93,857) and Bryan (80,552). Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 23 of 184 21 Table 4-1. Demographics of planning area General Demographics Totals Percent Total Population 209,896 Male 106,391 50.69% Female 103,505 49.31% White Only 155,512 74.09% Black/African American 22,208 10.58% American Indian/Alaskan Native 874 0.42% Asian 12,608 6.01% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 71 0.03% Other Race 12,507 5.96% Two or More Races 6,116 2.91% Figure 4-3. Gender Composition of Planning area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 24 of 184 22 Figure 4-4. Racial Composition of Planning area HIGHER EDUCATION Texas A&M University, located in College Station, was the state’s first public institution of higher education. It was opened on Oct. 4, 1876 as the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. The school owes its origin to the Morrill Act of 1862, which established the nation’s land-grant college system. The initials "A" and "M" are a link to the university’s past; they no longer represent any specific words as the school’s curriculum has grown to include not only agriculture and engineering, but architecture, business, education, geosciences, liberal arts, medicine, science, and veterinary medicine. The university’s enrollment includes 66,425 students. Blinn College is a two-year institution with its main campus in Brenham. It is the oldest county owned junior college in Texas and began in Washington County. Blinn College serves a 13 county service area and also has campuses in Bryan and Schulenburg in Fayette County. Table 4-2. Higher Education Institutions Institution Location Enrollment Fall 2016 Number of Faculty Texas A&M University College Station 66,425 3,995* Blinn College Bryan** 12,338 ~750 *Faculty includes professors, associate professors, assistant professors, other faculty, and teaching assistants. Source: Texas A&M University **Main campus in Brenham (Washington County) Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 25 of 184 23 LAND USE The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts a census of agricultural uses of land. The 1,412 farms in the planning area averaged about 212 acres in size. Of this about 62,733 acres of the total farmland, were devoted to harvested crops. Of the harvested cropland, about 5,563 acres were irrigated. Table 4-3. Agricultural Land Use in Brazos County, 2012 County Number of Farms Ave. Size of Farm (acres) Harvested Cropland (acres) Irrigated Land (acres) Brazos 1,412 212 62,733 5,563 Source: US Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Farms in the area covered by the planning area produce a wide variety of agricultural products with cattle being the most common. Table 4-4. Agricultural Products in Brazos County County Agricultural Products Annual Value Brazos Cattle, poultry, cotton, hay, horses and horticulture. $95 million Source: Texas Almanac In terms of minerals, oil is produced in each of the seven counties making up the BVCOG. Table 4-4 lists the chief minerals found in the planning area. Table 4-5. Minerals in Brazos County County Minerals Brazos Sand, gravel, lignite, gas, oil DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Although building of new structures will continue throughout the planning area, primary focus of construction will be the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which includes all of planning area and which accounts for about 57 percent of the population in the BVCOG region. Pressure on the housing stock is greater in Brazos County and participating Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 26 of 184 24 entities, than in the other counties because of the very high percentage of housing units that are occupied. Table 4-6. Housing Units in Brazos County, as of 2016 County Total Housing Units Percent of Housing Units Occupied Brazos 83,504 91 % Source: U.S. Census The primary impetus for development is, of course, population growth. The Texas State Data Center projects continued moderate growth for the Bryan/College Station MSA, 8.6 percent between 2002 and 2010 and 10.9 percent between 2010 and 2020. However, the Texas Water Development Board forecasts a much steeper climb in population, 24.7 percent and 14.2 percent over the same two periods. If the Water Board’s numbers are closer to what actually occurs, residential development will pose an especially difficult challenge for the two adjoining cities. Since the previous plan approval, the population within Brazos County has increased by approximately 7% and the number housing units have increased by nearly 30%. There has also been an increase in commercial structures and roadways to support the growing population. While the completion of some mitigation actions from the previous plan have reduced the vulnerability for each jurisdiction, such continued growth will put pressure on using land in high hazard areas in each jurisdiction. Thus, such growth may increase the vulnerability within each jurisdiction. Local governments are also working to develop the economic potential of the area and bring high quality jobs to the MSA. They are working hard to develop commercial research opportunities. Table 4-8 contains the name, telephone number and e-mail address of the economic development organization for Brazos County. Table 4-7. Number and Value by Property Type in Planning Area, as of 2016 Residential Rental Commercial Industrial Number Value ($1,000) Number Value ($1,000) Number Value ($1,000) Number Value ($1,000) Bryan 18,653 $2,682,007 1,2722 $778,219 1,804 $1,957,137 81 $120,778 College Station 19,909 $4,564,110 1,947 $2,183,466 994 $2,532,657 5 $36,052 Kurten 112 $9,642 0 0 10 $3,979 0 0 Wixon Valley 59 $8,007 0 0 22 $8,067 0 0 Unincor porated 45,516 $8,961,868 3,280 $2,975,321 3,238 $4,688,558 119 $201,834 Source: Brazos County Appraisal District Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 27 of 184 25 Table 4-8. Regional Economic Development Organization County Organization Name Telephone Number E-Mail Address Brazos Brazos Valley Economic Development Corp* 979-260-1755 mprochaska@researchvalley.org *website: www.researchvalley.org Although all of the communities in the planning area are projected to grow in population, the cities of Bryan/College Station are the only metropolitan areas in the planning area and hence will face the most severe development challenges and thus pressure will increase to build in areas that are hazard-prone. Several of the smaller towns and communities will, however, deal with similar problems of maintaining the quality of life during periods of growth and paying for new schools, roads, and other types of infrastructure. As part of the five-year plan update, depending upon resource availability, a review will be undertaken of development trends in each jurisdiction and vulnerability. Also as part of the five- year plan update, depending upon resource availability, a review will be undertaken for each hazard of the type and number of existing and future buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities within each hazard area, and an estimate will be undertaken of the vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure in terms of potential dollar losses from each hazard. Also depending upon resource availability, land uses and development trends will also be re- examined, including the types of development occurring, location, expected intensity, and pace by land use for each jurisdiction. This will help complete and improve future vulnerability assessment efforts. Based on the analysis, a summary of vulnerability will be provided for the participating entities. COMMUNITIES DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION The State of Texas requires that hazard mitigation plans identify any Small and Impoverished Communities in the planning area. These communities may receive special consideration in some federal and state grant programs. According to the established criteria, Small and Impoverished Communities 1) have a population less than 3,000 and are not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city and 2) are economically disadvantaged, with residents having an average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of the national per capita income and a local unemployment rate that exceeds by one percentage point or more the most recently reported national unemployment rate. At this time, there are no small and impoverished communities within the planning area. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 28 of 184 26 SECTION 5: HAZARDS THE PLANNING AREA FACES AND WHAT'S AT RISK RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES A risk assessment evaluated the probability of occurrence of a hazard event and the potential associated losses in Brazos County and participating entities. The resulting loss estimates are a starting point from which to evaluate mitigation measures if a real hazard event occurs. The loss estimates also are intended to support mitigation decision-making. It is important to note, however, that loss estimates calculated during the risk assessment used available data and methodologies and are approximate. The estimates should be used to understand relative risks from hazards and potential losses and are not intended to predict precise results. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss-estimation methodology and arise, in part, from incomplete scientific knowledge about natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications (such as incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic, or economic parameter data) that are necessarily used during a comprehensive analysis. These data can result in a range of uncertainty in loss estimates, perhaps at a factor of two or more. In addition, a variety of previous studies and reports were reviewed for additional risk data. PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Hazard identification consists of defining the study area in terms of scale and coverage and collecting and compiling a list of prevalent hazards in the planning area to help narrow the focus of the analysis. Figure 5-1 below shows the extent of the planning area, as well as the population density distribution at the county level (based on Census 2010). Table 5-1 provides the types of critical facilities. Figure 5-2 is a map of critical facilities in the planning area. Detailed lists of critical facilities, identified by county, can be found in Appendix D. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 29 of 184 27 Figure 5-1. Population Density Distribution Map for the Planning Area Table 5-1. Social Vulnerability Indicators for the Planning Area Social Vulnerability Indicators Totals Percent Under 5 13,235 6.31% 65 and Over 17,225 8.21% Non-White 48,268 23.00% Persons in Poverty1 52,652 26.98% Persons over 25: Less than High School2 15,385 14.36% Single Parent Households with Children3 11,551 15.24% Vacant Housing Units4 5,408 6.48% Mobile Homes, RVs, Boats, Etc4 7,707 9.23% 1 Persons in poverty is based on persons whose income-to-poverty threshold ration is 0.99 and below. The percentage is based on the total population for whom poverty status has been determined. 2 The percentage of persons with less than a high school education is based on the total population of persons over the age of 25. 3 Single parent households with children are the total households with only a male or female parent. The percentage is based on the total number of households. 4 The percentage of vacant housing units and mobile homes/recreational vehicles/boats/etc. are based on the total housing units. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 30 of 184 28 The maps that follow are representative of the geographical locations that have populations with higher vulnerabilities. For instance, educating all county residents about multiple ways into and out of their residence. This is particularly important when Brazos County and the entire planning area experiences heavy rain incidents with localized flooding. Figure 5-2. Social Vulnerability Map for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 31 of 184 29 Figure 5-3. Total Population Map for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 32 of 184 30 Figure 5-4. Population 65 and Over Map for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 33 of 184 31 Figure 5-5. Population of Persons in Poverty Map for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 34 of 184 32 Figure 5-5. Persons Living in Mobile or Other Homes Map for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 35 of 184 33 Table 5-2. Critical Facilities by Type in the Planning Area Jurisdiction Infrastructure and Lifelines Oil Pipe (km) Gas Pipe (km) Highway (km) Railroad (km) Brazos 375.9 1,819.9 216.4 113.2 Brazos County Bryan College Station Texas A&M University Wixon Valley Airport 1 1 Bus 2 1 City Hall 1 1 1 Communication 6 1 1 Courthouse 1 Electric 1 1 2 Emergency 1 1 Fire Station 12 5 6 Highway 6 2 Medical 2 3 1 Police Station 1 2 1 1 School 1 32 16 Wastewater 3 2 2 Multiple Jurisdictions Highway 14 Railway Bridge 2 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 36 of 184 34 Figure 5-6. Critical Facilities Distribution Map for the Planning Area HAZARDS OF CONCERN Based on input such as historical data, public perception, and technical requirements, the following hazards (listed alphabetically) were considered for analysis: Dam failures Drought Excessive Heat Fires Floods Hail Severe Winter Storms Thunderstorms Tornados Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 37 of 184 35 HISTORICAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS Of the 1,037 major disaster declarations in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and nine U.S. territories between 1972 and 2010, the State of Texas, at 84, claims the highest number of presidential disaster declarations for any state or territory. Presidential disaster declarations and Small Business Administration declarations for Brazos County and participating entities are identified in Table 5-3. Since 1965, there have been five Presidential Disaster and five Small Business Administration Declarations for Brazos County and the participating entities. Table 5-3. Disaster Declarations in the Planning Area County Year Disaster Number Primary Incident Type Presidential Declaration SBA Declaration Brazos 1991 930 DR Flood Yes Yes Brazos 1994 1041 DR Flood Yes Yes Brazos 2005 1606 DR Hurricane Yes Yes Brazos 2008 1791 DR Hurricane Yes Yes Brazos 2016 4272 DR Flood/Tornado Yes Yes ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LOSSES Risk (vulnerability) assessments are presented, whenever possible, in terms of annualized losses. The annualized data are useful for three reasons: Contribution of potential losses from all future disasters is accounted for with this approach. Results in this form from different hazards are readily comparable and, hence, easier to rank. For purposes of evaluating mitigation alternatives, use of annualized losses is the most objective approach. Annualized losses for hazards where the parametric approach is used are computed in a three- step process: Compute / estimate losses for a number of scenario events with different return periods (e.g., 10-year, 100-year, 200-year, 500-year) Approximate the probability versus loss curve through curve fitting Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 38 of 184 36 Calculate the area under the fitted curve to obtain annualized losses. Computations of loss predictions from the other hazards that used a statistical approach are based primarily on observed historical losses. Impact on Critical and Essential Facilities Hazard mitigation plans often focus on critical facilities vulnerable to hazards simply because it is usually most cost-effective to mitigate the assets that are the most important to the community. These could be facilities critical to emergency operations, or ones that house important government functions or vulnerable populations, or ones simply deemed important to the community for their economic or cultural value. Consequently, these facilities are considered high-priority when evaluating structures for the purpose of increasing their disaster resistance. Critical and essential facilities include: Facilities critical to normal and emergency response operations in the planning area (fire stations, police stations, and the EOC) Infrastructure and facilities critical to community survivability or continuity of community services (transportation facilities; post offices; radio station and other communication facilities; electrical transmission and distribution; water and wastewater treatment), Facilities needed to assist vulnerable populations during and after a disaster (schools, hospitals, residential care facilities), and Facilities in which key government functions take place (sheriff’s office, county courthouse, town halls). In general, for most of the hazards addressed in this study, the potential for significant damage exists primarily at critical facilities located in flood-prone areas. Critical facilities that happen to be in the tornado path or nearby energy pipelines where incidents could occur also may sustain considerable damage. HAZARD RANKING Based on the priority risk index in Table 5-4 below, the hazards in the planning area are: Floods Thunderstorms Drought Urban and Wildland Fire Dam Failure – except Wixon Valley and Kurten Hail Excessive Heat Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 39 of 184 37 Winter Storm Tornado UNIQUE HAZARDS This plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan developed to address common risks faced by Brazos County and the participating entities. Members of the Hazard Mitigation Team conducted an assessment of risks their entity faces in comparison to the other communities in the planning area. CONCLUSIONS Tables 5-4 and 5-5 on the following page provides an overall summary of the planning area’s vulnerability to hazards. Table 5-4 provides the definitions utilized in the priority risk index (PRI). Table 5-5 provides the ratings of the priority risk index. The PRI as a function of probability, special extent, impact, duration of incident, and warning time. For each participating entity, each hazard was given a rating of 1 to 4 (with 1 being the lowest) within each area. Section 201.6(c)(2)(iii) of FEMA regulations indicate that for multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each participating entity’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. These ratings were developed based on the best acceptable data and will be updated during the five-year plan review and update process. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 40 of 184 38 Table 5-4. Definitions for the Priority Risk Index PRI Category Degree of Risk Assigned Weighting Factor Level Criteria Index Value Probability Unlikely Less than 1% annual probability 1 30% Possible Between 1 and 10% annual probability 2 Likely Between 10 and 100% annual probability 3 Highly Likely 100% annual probability 4 Impact (Impact is subdivided into 3 categories: social impact, property impact, and CIKR impact) Minor Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. 1 30% Limited Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. 2 Critical Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week. 3 Catastrophic High number of deaths/injuries possible. More than 50% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more 4 Spatial extent Negligible Less than 1% of area affected 1 20% Small Between 1 and 10% of area affected 2 Moderate Between 10 and 50% of area affected 3 Large Between 50 and 100% of area affected 4 Warning Time More than 24 hours Self-explanatory 1 10% 12 to 24 hours Self-explanatory 2 6 to 24 hours Self-explanatory 3 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 41 of 184 39 Less than 6 hours Self-explanatory 4 Duration Less than 6 hours Self-explanatory 1 10% Less than 24 hours Self-explanatory 2 Less than one week Self-explanatory 3 More than one week Self-explanatory 4 Source: Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Team (adapted from North Caroline Emergency Management Division) Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 42 of 184 40 Table 5-5. Priority Risk Index by Planning Entity PROBABILITY EXTENT DURATION WARNING TIME PRI Property Impact CIKR Impact Incident Exposure Probability Spatial Extent Historical Human Possible Human Extent of Damage Duration of Shutdown Average Impact Duration of Exposure Warning Time Priority Risk Index Weights 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Brazos County P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.00 3 3 3 Drought 3 4 1 1 2 1 1.25 4 1 2.575 Urban and Wildland Fires 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.275 Winter Storms 1 4 2 1 1 1 1.25 2 3 1.975 Tornados 1 2 1 3 3 3 2.50 1 4 1.95 Hail 3 2 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.175 Thunderstorms 4 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2 3 2.675 Dam Failure 1 2 1 4 4 4 3.25 3 3 2.275 Excessive Heat 1 4 2 2 1 1 1.50 4 1 2.05 City of Bryan P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.00 3 3 3 Drought 3 4 1 1 2 1 1.25 4 1 2.575 Urban and Wildland Fires 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.275 Winter Storms 1 4 2 1 1 1 1.25 2 3 1.975 Tornados 1 2 1 3 3 3 2.50 1 4 1.95 Hail 3 2 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.175 Thunderstorms 4 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2 3 2.675 Dam Failure 1 2 1 4 4 4 3.25 3 3 2.275 Excessive Heat 1 4 2 2 1 1 1.50 4 1 2.05 City of College Station P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.00 3 3 3 Drought 3 4 1 1 2 1 1.25 4 1 2.575 Urban and Wildland Fires 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.275 Winter Storms 1 4 2 1 1 1 1.25 2 3 1.975 Tornados 1 2 1 3 3 3 2.50 1 4 1.95 Hail 3 2 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.175 Thunderstorms 4 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2 3 2.675 Dam Failure 1 2 1 4 4 4 3.25 3 3 2.275 Excessive Heat 1 4 2 2 1 1 1.50 4 1 2.05 City of Kurten P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.00 3 3 3 Drought 3 4 1 1 2 1 1.25 4 1 2.575 Urban and Wildland Fires 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.275 Winter Storms 1 4 2 1 1 1 1.25 2 3 1.975 Tornados 1 2 1 3 3 3 2.50 1 4 1.95 Hail 3 2 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.175 Thunderstorms 4 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2 3 2.675 Dam Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 Excessive Heat 1 4 2 2 1 1 1.50 4 1 2.05 City of Wixon Valley P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.00 3 3 3 Drought 3 4 1 1 2 1 1.25 4 1 2.575 Urban and Wildland Fires 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.275 Winter Storms 1 4 2 1 1 1 1.25 2 3 1.975 Tornados 1 2 1 3 3 3 2.50 1 4 1.95 Hail 3 2 1 1 2 1 1.25 1 4 2.175 Thunderstorms 4 3 1 1 2 1 1.25 2 3 2.675 Dam Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 Excessive Heat 1 4 2 2 1 1 1.50 4 1 2.05 TAMU P1: Prob S1: Extent H1: Extent H2: Number Pr1: Extent CI1: Shutdown Severity D1: Duration W1: Warning PRI Flood 3 1 1 4 4 4 3.25 2 2 2.475 Drought 1 4 1 1 1 1 1.00 4 1 1.9 Urban and Wildland Fires 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.3 Winter Storms 1 4 1 1 1 1 1.00 2 1 1.7 Tornados 1 3 1 3 3 3 2.50 2 4 2.25 Hail 2 3 1 1 1 1 1.00 1 3 1.9 Thunderstorms 3 4 1 1 1 1 1.00 1 3 2.4 Dam Failure 1 1 1 4 4 4 3.25 1 1 1.675 Excessive Heat 1 4 1 1 1 1 1.00 4 1 1.9 Social Impact IMPACT Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 43 of 184 41 The hazard-event profiles relevant to Brazos County and the participating entities reveal historic hazard trends and provide a reference point for understanding the potential effects of future hazard events. A review of historic data helps to evaluate hazard-event profiles and answer questions: How often may a particular disaster occur? Who and where are most likely to be affected? How bad can it get? Sections 6 through 14 of this plan contain reviews of the historical frequency of occurrence and/or loss and damage estimates, by hazard, in the planning area. Each section discusses why the hazard is a threat, profiles the hazard, identifies areas at risk to hazards that have distinct geographic boundaries, identifies the people and property at risk, and summarizes the history of hazard events and potential damages and losses. The results of this study are useful in at least three ways: Improving our understanding of the risk associated with the natural hazards in the planning area through better understanding of the complexities and dynamics of risk, how levels of risk can be measured and compared, and the myriad factors that influence risk. An understanding of these relationships is critical in making balanced and informed decisions on managing the risk. Providing a baseline for policy development and comparison of mitigation alternatives. The data used for this analysis present a current picture of risk in the planning area. Updating this risk “snapshot” with future data will enable comparison of the changes in risk with time. Baselines of this type can support the objective analysis of policy and program options for risk reduction in the region. Comparing the risk among the natural hazards addressed. The ability to quantify the risk to all these hazards relative to one another helps in a balanced, multi-hazard approach to risk management at each level of governing authority. This ranking provides a systematic framework to compare and prioritize the very disparate natural hazards that are present in the planning area. This final step in the risk assessment provides the necessary information for the Mitigation Planning Committee to craft a mitigation strategy to focus resources on only those hazards that pose the most threat to the region. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 44 of 184 42 SECTION 6: FLOOD WHY FLOODS ARE A THREAT Unique Geographic and Atmospheric Conditions Texas, according to American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters published by the National Academy Press, consistently outranks other states in deaths and damage from floods. This is due to the location and size of the state. Texas is second in casualties and damages from hurricanes and tropical storms. The state’s vulnerability is the result of several factors: miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline; proximity to the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of Mexico; geographical location near the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Arizona; the high-altitude jet stream; and nearness to the unique West Texas “dry line,” a shifting, invisible atmospheric separation of dry desert air from the moist Gulf air. These factors create a breeding ground for the big storms of spring and fall that spawn tornadoes and suck up Gulf or Pacific moisture that feed the heavy rains that cause flash flooding. All these geographic factors cause Texas to experience extensive, annual storms. Figure 6-1 shows the state’s vulnerability to damaging storms. Flooding takes many forms in the planning area. Figure 6-1. Texas Sources of Moisture Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 45 of 184 43 Flash Flooding Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, by thunderstorms repeatedly moving over the same area, or by heavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms. Flash floods can occur within a few minutes or after hours of excessive rainfall. Often there is no warning that flash floods are coming. Flash flooding can pose a deadly danger to residents of the planning area. A number of roads run through low-lying areas that are prone to sudden and frequent flooding during heavy rains. Motorists often attempt to drive through barricaded or flooded roadways. It takes only 18-to- 24-inches of water moving across a roadway to carry away most vehicles. Floating cars easily get swept downstream, making rescues difficult and dangerous. Riverine Flooding Riverine flooding is natural and inevitable. It is the overbank flooding of rivers and streams, typically resulting from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area. Some river floods occur seasonally when winter or spring rainfalls fill river basins with too much water, too quickly. Torrential rains from decaying hurricanes or tropical systems can also produce river flooding. Urban Flooding Urban flooding occurs as land is converted from fields or woodlands to roads, buildings and parking lots and when the natural land loses its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization changes the natural hydrologic systems of a basin, increasing runoff two to six times over what would occur on natural terrain. During periods of urban flooding, streets can become swift moving rivers, while highway underpasses and underground parking garages can become death traps as they fill with water. HAZARD PROFILE Major flooding and flash flooding events can have a substantial severity of impact to the Brazos County and the participating entities. They can cause multiple deaths, completely shut down facilities for thirty days or more, and cause more than fifty percent of affected properties to be destroyed or suffer major damage. The frequency of occurrence of flooding in the planning area is likely. The extent of flooding in Brazos County and participating entities, can be water depths from between one and four feet deep in structures located in the identified flood hazard area. Brazos County and participating entities have infrastructure and critical facilities that are vulnerable to floods. There are also residential structures that are vulnerable to flooding, and mitigation actions regarding those structures are addressed in Section 16 of this plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 46 of 184 44 Flooding occurs in seasonal patterns. Thunderstorms form when warm, moist air collides with cooler, drier air. Since these masses tend to come together during the transition from summer to winter, most thunderstorms and resulting flooding occur during the spring (April, May and June) and fall (October, November, and December). HISTORY OF FLOODING Flood events in the planning area reported to the National Weather Service are listed in Table 6- 1. Table 6-1. Reported Flood Events, January 1, 1994, to September 1, 2017 Type Location Date Deaths Injuries Property Damage ($) Crop Damage ($) Flash flooding Brazos 10/16/1994 0 0 $5.0M $50K Flash flooding/ flood Brazos 12/15/1994 0 0 50K 5K Flash flood Bryan/ College Station 09/21/1995 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood Countywide 02/20/1997 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood North Portion 10/13/1997 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood College Station 01/06/1998 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood College Station 10/17/1998 0 0 5K 0 Flooding, riverine County 10/17/1998 1 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 10/18/1998 0 0 2K 0 Flash flood Countywide 10/18/1998 0 0 15K 0 Flooding, riverine County 11/12/1998 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/02/2000 0 0 1.0M 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/03/2000 0 0 25K 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/03/2000 0 0 25K 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/03/2000 0 0 1.0M 0 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 47 of 184 45 Flash flood Countywide 09/09/2001 0 0 50K 0 Flash flood Bryan 07/14/2002 0 0 20K 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/04/2002 0 0 95K 0 Flash flood Countywide 02/20/2003 0 0 8K 0 Flash flood Bryan 05/13/2004 0 0 250K 0 Flash flood College Station 06/15/2004 0 0 55K 0 Flash flood Bryan 06/30/2004 0 0 15K 0 Flash flood Countywide 11/22/2004 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Bryan 05/01/2007 0 0 130K 0 Flash flood Countywide 12/15/2007 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood Bryan 04/25/2009 0 0 1K 0 Flash flood Bryan 06/09/2010 0 0 1K 0 Flash flood College Station 06/09/2010 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 06/09/2010 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 06/09/2010 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 06/09/2010 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 02/03/2012 0 0 100K 0 Flash flood Bryan (Edge) 02/03/2012 0 0 2K 2K Flash flood Bryan 05/09/2013 0 0 10K 0 Flash flood College Station 09/28/2013 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Bryan 06/25/2014 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 07/17/2014 0 0 50K 0 Flash flood Bryan 09/12/2014 0 0 3K 0 Flash flood Bryan 05/25/2015 0 0 5K 0 Flash flood Bryan 10/24/2015 0 0 0 0 Flash flood College Station 12/27/2015 0 0 0 0 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 48 of 184 46 Flash flood County Wide 05/26/2016 0 0 100K 0 Flood County Wide 08/24/2017- 08/28/2017 0 0 TBD 0 LOCATION OF HAZARDOUS AREAS Flood-hazard areas are determined using statistical analyses of records of riverflow, storm tides, and rainfall; information obtained through consultation with communities; floodplain topographic surveys; and hydrological and hydraulic analyses. FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) identify areas subject to flood hazard. These include Special Flood Hazard Areas, which are defined as areas that will be inundated by a flood event having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one-percent-annual-chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. Moderate flood-hazard areas are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the two-tenths of a percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The location of flood hazard areas for Brazos County and participating entities are shown in Figure 6-2. Flooding is primarily located along the Brazos River on the west side of the county and along the Navasota River on the east side of the county. Depths of flood waters can range from one to four feet deep along the Brazos River and one to three feet deep along the Navasota River. Figure 6-2 on the following page depicts the flood zones throughout the planning area, where there is potential for damage to property and loss of life. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 49 of 184 47 Figure 6-2. Riverine Flooding Potential for the Planning Area Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 50 of 184 48 NFIP PROGRAM PARTICIPATION Flood insurance offered through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the best way for home and business owners to protect themselves financially against the ravages of flooding. According to FEMA, jurisdictions participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary. Brazos County, cities of Bryan, College Station, and Wixon Valley are currently the jurisdictions within the county that participate in the NFIP. It should be noted that Wixon Valley participates in the NFIP but has no floodplain within the city limits. There is no floodplain within the city limits of Kurten that would require participation in the NFIP. However, the City of Kurten has identified the desire to participate in the NFIP as one of their projects to mitigate for flooding. These jurisdictions maintain their continued NFIP compliance in several ways, including: Requiring all new development in the identified flood hazard area to be permitted Requiring revisions to existing structures in the identified flood hazard area to be permitted Requiring Elevation Certificates to be submitted as part of the permitting process Persons looking to purchase flood prone property are being advised of the flood hazard area through credited hazard disclosure measures Continued preservation of open space in the floodplain Acquisition of existing structures from the floodplain Keeping track of building improvements and repairs to structures located in the identified flood hazard area Continued enforcement of stream dumping regulations The cities of Bryan, College Station, and Wixon Valley participate in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS). This voluntary incentive program recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Additional activities are verified annually and community success is translated into ratings which equal policy holder discounts. For more information regarding the floodplain management ordinance of each community, see Section 15. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 51 of 184 49 Table 6-2. National Flood Insurance Program, Policies and Losses for the Planning Area (as of (5/31/2018) Community Policies in Effect Total Coverage in Thousands Total Losses Dollars Paid, Historical Brazos County 236 $68,635 34 $1,155,567 Bryan 673 $168,691 280 $4,406,382 College Station 641 $202,581 185 $1,082,188 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK To assess flood risk, flood areas were modeled for 100-year and 500-year events. Flood depth was estimated at the pixel level for affected areas, along with proportion of the area affected within the census block. Table 6-3 shows the estimated buildings and people at risk to flooding. Because detailed information was not available to calculate potential losses due to flood, it is assumed that in a worst-case-scenario event, all exposed areas would be impacted and the exposed values would equal the potential losses. Table 6-3. Potential Wet Exposure for 100-Year Flood (Riverine Flooding) Residential Rental Commercial Industrial Number of Parcels Value ($1,000) Number of Parcels Value ($1,000) Number of Parcels Value ($1,000) Number of Parcels Value ($1,000) Bryan 1192 $204,781 104 $96,394 179 $445,253 14 $40,561 College Station 564 $189,914 78 $530,835 108 $506,456 2 $29,990 Kurten 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wixon Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorpo rated 520 $127,312 4 $2,443 56 $78,095 6 $2,541 Brazos County - TOTAL 2276 $522,006 186 $629,672 343 $1,029,804 22 $95,956 Market Value: $3,494,789,179 Land Value: $1,585,952,326 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 52 of 184 50 Improvement Value: $1,908,836,853 POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES To estimate annualized losses due to flood, the exposed values were multiplied by the probability of the occurrence of a 100-year flood event (1 percent) to calculate the estimated annualized losses. Annualized losses by county are shown in Table 6-4. Potential impacts to critical facilities and infrastructure are provided in Table 6-5. Repetitive losses are provided in Table 6-6. Table 6-4. Potential Annualized Losses (Riverine Flooding) Planning Entity Total Exposure ($1,000) Annualized Loss (Residential) Annualized Loss (Commercial) Annualized Loss (Industrial) Total Annualized Loss Annualized Loss Percentage Ratio Brazos County $210,391 $69,920.00 $249,728.86 $303,325.74 $622,974.60 0.30% City of Bryan $786,989 $431,794.18 $284,055.76 $224,273.04 $940,122.98 0.12% City of College Station $1,257,195 $77,627.34 $43,801.11 $19,002.26 $140,430.71 0.01% Table 6-5. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Potentially Damaged, Brazos County County Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Total Number Number Inside the 100-year Floodplain Percentage Susceptible to Flooding Brazos 298 129 43.29 REPETITIVE LOSSES Brazos County has four (4) structures on FEMA’s Repetitive Loss (RL) list and no Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) structures. The City of Bryan has twenty-eight (28) structures on FEMA’s RL list and seven (7) structures on the SRL list. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 53 of 184 51 The City of College Station has four (4) structures on FEMA’s RL list and one (1) structure on the SRL list. Forty-one (41) structures are residential, and three (3) are commercial. They are primarily constructed of brick and mortar on concrete slab foundations. None of the other participating entities within this plan have either RL or SRL structures listed by FEMA. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 54 of 184 52 SECTION 7: DROUGHT WHY DROUGHT IS A THREAT According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, “Drought is one of the most complex, and least understood, of all natural hazards, affecting more people than do other natural hazards, but differing from them in important ways. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, drought unfolds at an almost imperceptible pace with beginning and ending times that are difficult to determine, and with effects that often are spread over vast regions. Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall that persists from one year to the next. Drought is a normal part of virtually all-climatic regimes, including areas with high and low average rainfall. Drought is the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation expected over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. Droughts can be classified as meteorological, hydrologic, agricultural, and socioeconomic. Table 7-1 shows the drought classification definitions. Table 7-1. Drought Classification Definitions Meteorological Drought The degree of dryness or departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales. Hydrologic Drought The effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels. Agricultural Drought Soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually crops. Socioeconomic Drought The effect of demands for water exceeding the supply as a result of a weather-related supply shortfall. Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy, FEMA Over time, droughts can have very damaging effects on crops, municipal water supplies, recreational uses, and wildlife. If droughts extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant. Droughts can affect a large area and range in size from a couple of counties to several states. Their impact on wildlife and area farming is enormous. Droughts can kill crops, grazing land, edible plants and even in severe cases, trees. The historic Texas drought of 2011 led to a record $5.2 billion in agricultural losses, making it the most costly drought on record, according to Texas AgriLife Extension Service economists. The $5.2 billion in losses exceeds the previous Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 55 of 184 53 record of $4.1 billion during the 2006 drought. Additionally dying vegetation also serves as a prime ignition source for wildland fires. The following is a list of economic drought losses from 1998 through 2011 compiled by AgriLife Extension economists: 2011– $5.2 billion 2009 – $3.6 billion 2008 – $1.4 billion 2006 – $4.1 billion 2002 – $316 million 2000 – $1.1 billion 1999 – $223 million 1998 – $2.4 billion A heat wave combined with a drought is a very dangerous situation. Although drought can occur in any season, when extreme heat combines with drought conditions, the result can be a community disaster. Droughts occur regularly in Texas and are a normal condition. They can vary greatly, however, in their intensity and duration. On average, a yearlong drought takes place somewhere in Texas once every 3 years and a major drought every 20 years. Major droughts can last for years. In 2011, the planning area experienced a severe drought event. HAZARD PROFILE The potential severity of impact of droughts is substantial, especially taking into consideration the economic losses that may result. The frequency of occurrence of drought in the planning area is likely. The planning area has critical facilities or infrastructure that are vulnerable to drought. The participating entities in this plan all have back-up water supply systems in place to provide water to commercial and residential structures should a drought affect the water supply system. Most residences in the planning area rely on water from underground wells. Livestock and agriculture losses could occur in the county during periods of drought. Additionally, drought increases the risk of wildfires due to lack of soil and plant moisture. The risk of wildfires is address in the subsequent section. Droughts are slow onset hazards. Warning time for drought is long, since drought events take place over long periods of time. Drought warnings are issued by the state Drought Preparedness Council, as directed by H.B. 2660, based upon input from NOAA, the Office of the State Climatologist, the U.S. Geological Service, the Texas Water Development Board, Texas Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 56 of 184 54 Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. Warnings utilize five “levels of concern” and take into account assessments of climatology, agriculture, and water availability for each of 10 climatic regions of the state. According to the Palmer Drought Index, shown in Table 7.2 on the next page, the extent of droughts can range from minor or moderate to extreme or exceptional. The maximum extent of drought that can affect the planning area would be exceptional, as shown in Figure 7.1. This occurred during the summer and fall of 2011. The minimum extent of drought that can affect Brazos County and the participating entities would be moderate, as shown in Figure 7.2. This occurred during the spring of 2017 after some much needed rain. Table 7-2. Palmer Drought Index Figure 7-1. Extent of Drought for the United States during 2011 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 57 of 184 55 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 58 of 184 56 Figure 7-2. Extent of Drought Specific to the State of Texas during 2011 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 59 of 184 57 HISTORY OF DROUGHT The data collected for this hazard is from the National Weather Service and provides estimates of historical losses for property and crop damages (see Table 7-3). Table 7-3. Exposure to Droughts in the Planning Area as Reported to the National Weather Service, 01/01/1996 to 11/30/2017 Date Death Injury Property Damage Crop Damage Notes 4/1/1996 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 5/1/1996 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 6/1/1996 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 5/1/1998 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 6/1/1998 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 7/1/1998 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 8/1/1998 0 0 23.0M 167.9M Entire county affected No data to separate damages within area 8/1/2000 0 0 0 0 Entire county affected 9/1/2000 0 0 0 102.3M Entire county affected No data to separate damages within area 7/1/2011 0 0 0 TBD Entire county affected 8/1/2011 0 0 0 TBD Entire county affected Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 60 of 184 58 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Droughts have the potential to impact large geographical areas, thus all the agricultural property, population, and built environment are considered exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted. In the planning area, drought does not have specific location. Drought has the ability to adversely affect agriculture such as reduced crop productivity as well as harm to livestock through reduced water levels, additional stress, and reduced forage. Economic impacts to agriculture can be found in “Potential Damages and Losses” below. Vulnerable populations due to drought are the elderly (ages 65 and above) and the young (ages 5 and below) as well as populations living at or below poverty level. The elderly are more vulnerable to drought possibly due to underlying health conditions as well as to possible limited access to potable water. Through the reduction of soil moisture, drought can impact the built environment through the shrinking of soils. This could affect building foundations, bridge construction, and dam construction. POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES In order to analyze the risk of Brazos County and participating entities to drought and estimate potential losses, 100 years of statistical data from the University of Nebraska was used (this data was developed by the University based on Palmer Drought and Crop Severity Indices) as well as 1997 USDA agriculture data. A drought event frequency-impact was then developed to determine a drought impact profile on non-irrigated agriculture products and estimate potential losses due to drought in the area. Table 7-4 shows annualized expected exposure for the planning area. Table 7-4. Annualized Expected Agricultural Product Market Value Exposed to Drought in the Planning Area in 2017 County Annualized Expected Exposure ($1000) Brazos 24,856.7 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 61 of 184 59 SECTION 8: URBAN AND WILDLAND FIRES WHY URBAN AND WILDLAND FIRES ARE A THREAT The fire problem in the United States on a per capita basis is one of the worst in the industrial world. Thousands of Americans die each year from fire, tens of thousands of people are injured, and property losses reach billions of dollars. To put these figures in context, the annual losses from floods, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters combined in the United States average just a fraction of the losses from fire. According to the National Fire Data Center of the U.S. Fire Administration, recent trends show a decline in the numbers of fires, deaths, injuries, and dollar loss to property. However, despite these encouraging trends, an average of over 3,000 deaths and 16,000 injuries to civilians, and over 85 firefighter deaths occurred annually over the 10–year period from 2005-2015. The fire death rate, by state, is shown in Figure 8-1. This plan addresses both wildland fires and major urban fires. For purposes of this plan, major wildland fire events are those that were greater than or equal to two-alarm fires. Major urban fires are defined as those structure fires that were greater than or equal to three-alarm fires. Figure 8-1. Fire Death Rate by State Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 62 of 184 60 Major Urban Fires The leading causes of fires nationally are arson, open flames, and cooking. Urban fires cause most fire deaths and injuries. The leading causes of fire deaths are smoking, arson, and heating. Between 70 and 80 percent of deaths result from residential fires. People under age 5 and over age 55 have a much higher death rate than the average population. These two age groups account for more than one-third of all deaths nationally. Wildland Fires A wildland fire is any fire occurring on grassland, forest, or prairie, regardless of ignition source, damages, or benefits. According to the National Fire Plan, 2000, the wildland fire risk is now considered by authorities as “the most significant fire service problem of the century.” The National Fire Plan was issued by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior. It defines the urban/wildland interface as “the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.” The interface problem has grown dramatically over the last twenty years, spawned by increases in population, urban expansion, land-management decisions that place neighborhoods adjacent to wildland preserves, parks, and greenbelts, and the ever-present desire to intermingle with nature. The marriage between humans and their property and wildland areas has significantly increased human exposure to wildfires. More and more people are building their homes in woodland settings in or near forests, rural areas, or remote mountain sites. Many of these homes are nestled along ridgelines, cliff-edges, and other classic fire-interface hazard zones. There, homeowners enjoy the beauty of the environment but they also face the very real danger of wildfire. Years of fire suppression have significantly disturbed natural fire occurrences—nature’s renewal process. The result has been the gradual accumulation of understory and canopy fuels to levels of density that can feed high-energy, intense wildfires and further increase the hazards from and exposure to interface problems. Multiple devastating interface-area fires over the past several years have demonstrated the disastrous potential inherent in the interface. Wildland fires can occur at any time of the year. Climatic conditions such as severe freezes and drought can significantly increase the intensity of wildland fires since these conditions kill vegetation, creating a prime fuel source for these types of fires. The intensity of fires and the rate at which they spread are directly related to wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Three different classes of wildfires exist. A “surface fire” is the most common type and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A “ground fire” is usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor in the humus layer down to the mineral soil. “Crown fires” spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Humans start about 90 percent of wildfires (cigarettes thrown from cars, burning of refuse, etc.); lightning starts the other 10 percent. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 63 of 184 61 HAZARD PROFILE The extent of both urban and wildland fires in the planning area is major; fires can completely shut down facilities for at least two weeks and cause more than 25 percent of affected properties to be destroyed or incur major damage. The frequency of occurrence of urban and wildland fire events in the planning area is likely. Winter is the peak period for major urban fires and fire deaths. The wildland fire risk varies considerably by month. Warning time for urban and wildland fire events is minimal or none. HISTORY OF WILDFIRE IN THE PLANNING AREA Table 8-1 shows the number of voluntarily reported incidents by Precinct in Brazos County and participating entities during 2005 through 2017. It is likely that more fire incidents occurred during this timeframe that were not reported. Reporting is voluntary and thus not consistent. Table 8-1. Wildland Fire Incidents and Losses in the Planning Area, 2005-2017 (over 25 acres) Fire Dept. Name Date Type Acres Cause Agencies Responding Brazos County Pct. 4 VFD 10/6/2005 Wildfire 320 Debris burning 8 Brazos County Pct. 4 VFD 12/3/2005 Wildfire 375 Equipment use 6 Brazos Co. Dist. 2 VFD 12/24/2005 Wildfire 300 Miscellaneous 5 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 12/24/2005 Wildfire 500 Miscellaneous 7 Brazos Co. Dist. 2 VFD 1/3/2006 Wildfire 500 Incendiary 7 Brazos Co. Dist. 2 VFD 1/7/2006 Wildfire 300 Incendiary 7 Brazos Co. Dist. 2 VFD 2/27/2006 Wildfire 40 Debris burning 2 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 2/27/2006 Wildfire 30 Debris burning 2 Brazos Co. Dist. 2 VFD 3/31/2006 Wildfire 30 Debris burning 2 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 9/2/2006 Wildfire 148 Miscellaneous 3 South Brazos County FD 7/11/2008 Wildfire 25 Miscellaneous 5 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 7/11/2008 Wildfire 50 Debris burning 5 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 11/5/2008 Wildfire 25 Debris burning 6 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 64 of 184 62 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 12/7/2008 Wildfire 50 Debris burning 3 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 1/7/2009 Wildfire 35 Debris burning 3 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 1/21/2009 Wildfire 40 Debris burning 4 Brazos County Pct. 3 VFD 1/31/2009 Wildfire 145 Debris burning 3 Brazos County District 2 VFD 5/9/2011 Wildfire 100 Unknown 8 Brazos County District 2 VFD 11/04/2017 Wildfire 40 Debris burning 5 LOCATION OF HAZARDOUS AREAS There is no defined geographic hazard boundary for urban and wildland fires in the planning area. Due to the recent droughts of 2009 and 2011, along with the excessive heat of the summer months during those years, most people, buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines are considered exposed to the urban and wildland fire hazard and could potentially affect the planning area. Figure 8-2 on the following page shows wildfire risk locations across Brazos County and the participating entities, as determined by the Texas Forest Service. The map represents the cumulative weights of (1) the risks associated with fuel complexes, (2) the risks associated with population, and (3) the weighted factors of population growth. These combined variables determine the following risk categories: Low risk: Areas are primarily those that have little population or population densities that are not located near or in a hazardous fuel complex. Moderate risk: Areas that may have a high population but are located near or in a moderate- or low-hazard fuel complex. Also, areas that have a low population but have significant growth located near or in a high-hazard fuel complex are included in this category. High risk: Areas that have a moderate population and a high growth rate and are located near or in a high- or moderate-hazard fuel complex. Very High risk: Areas that have high population numbers and moderate-to-high growth rates and are located near or in a high-hazard fuel complex area. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 65 of 184 63 Figure 8-2. Areas at Risk to Wildfire in the Planning Area From Texas Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Report for Brazos County (11/13/2017) Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 66 of 184 64 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 67 of 184 65 The majority of Texas A&M University campus is within the City of College Station; however, some portions are in the City of Bryan. Regardless, Texas A&M University falls under the category of “low” when considering the risk of wildfire. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 68 of 184 66 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 69 of 184 67 This overall hazard rating by the Texas Forest Service is descriptive and not predictive, based on wide-ranging parameters. In most cases, the interface risk in a county will change based on the distribution of hazardous wildland fuels and population and growth within the county. Keeping this in mind, counties that have an overall low-hazard rating may have isolated areas within the county that are at high risk, just as counties identified as high risk may have isolated areas within the county that are at low risk. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 70 of 184 68 A major component of the risk assessment was the relation of population and urban development to hazardous wildland fuels. To achieve a rating, the fuels model map for Texas was categorized in to fuel complexes that represented low, moderate and high hazard fuels. This correlation was developed under the direction of Karen Allender and the UWI division of the Texas Forest Service. Fuels were grouped by NFDRS and Anderson Fuel Model ratings and the resulting descriptors of low to high hazard were assigned. These descriptors were based on the fuel complexes potential for spread rates, heat output (BTUs) and duration of output, difficulty of control and potential for fire movement in the canopy of the vegetation. Fuels that had the highest potential for crowning, difficulty in control and heat output for duration posed the most hazards. Any structure is exposed to the urban fire risk. The wildland fire risk is a function of the following: the climate (patterns over time); fuel complexes (vegetation); topography (slope, aspect and elevation); human factors (structures and infrastructure). HISTORY OF FIRE Table 8-2 shows the number of voluntarily reported incidents and the total dollar losses by Brazos County and the participating entities. It is likely that more fire incidents occurred during this timeframe that were not reported. Reporting is voluntary and thus not consistent. Table 8-2. Urban Fire Incidents and Losses in the Planning Area, 1989-2017 County Incidents Total Dollar Loss ($) Brazos 4,272 14,570,651 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK The urban fire hazard can occur throughout the entire planning area. Historically most urban fires have been in residential facilities. Table 8-3 below shows the total number of residential facilities by participating entity. Table 8-3. Total Number of Residential Facilities by Participating Entity Participating Entity Number of Residential Facilities City of Bryan 19,925 City of College Station 21,856 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 71 of 184 69 City of Kurten 112 City of Wixon Valley 59 Texas A&M University ~40 Unincorporated Brazos County 48,796 For a breakdown of residential types per entity, refer to Chapter/Section 5. The potential for wildland fires will be limited to the rural areas of the planning area. These areas are identified in Table 8-4 below: Table 8-4. Total Number of Facilities by Participating Entity Area (Sq Mi) Residential (Structures) Commercial/Industrial (Number of Facilities) Critical Infrastructure Kurten 4.60 112 10 Post Office/VFD/Church Unincorporated 490.49 48,796 3,357 BISD Campus off Mumford/VFDs/Churches/ Post Offices Wixon Valley 1.81 59 22 City Hall, Industrial Complex POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES Table 8-3 shows potential annualized losses for Brazos County and the participating entities due to urban fire, which were calculated using the statistical risk assessment methodology. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are; to compile data from local and national sources, clean up the data by removing duplication, identify patterns in frequency and vulnerability, extrapolate the statistical patterns, and produce meaningful results with the development of annualized loss estimates. Table 8-5. Potential Annualized Losses to Urban Fire in the Planning Area County Annualized Expected Property Losses ($) Brazos 1,553,605 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 72 of 184 70 SECTION 9: WINTER STORMS WHY WINTER STORMS ARE A THREAT A severe winter storm event includes a storm with snow, ice or freezing rain—all of which can cause significant problems for area residents. Winter storms that threaten Texas usually start out as powerful cold fronts that push south from central Canada. Most of the precipitation seen in the planning area from severe winter storms takes the form of ice or sleet. Freezing rain occurs when rain developing in a relatively warm (above freezing) layer of air falls through a layer of air that is below freezing (25-32° F). The rain is “supercooled” as it falls through the cold layer near the surface of the earth. When the supercooled but still liquid raindrops strike the ground or an object already below freezing, they freeze on contact. The resulting coating of ice is commonly known as glaze. A heavy accumulation of ice can topple power and telephone lines, television towers, and trees. Highways become impossible to travel on, and even stepping outdoors can be extremely risky. The severity of an ice storm and the amount of damage caused by the storm depends on the amount of rain and thus the amount of icing taking place, the strength of the wind, and whether or not the storm strikes an urban or rural area. Urban areas tend to suffer more damage than rural areas because of the concentration of utilities and transportation systems (aircraft, trains, buses, trucks, and cars), all of which may be affected to a great degree by the icing. HAZARD PROFILE The severity of impact of winter storms is generally minor. Winter storms can cause injuries and completely shut down facilities for more than one week, and cause more than ten percent of affected properties to be destroyed or suffer major damage. The extent of winter storms on the planning area can extend from something as minor as winter weather advisory’s or as major as freezing temperatures with sleet, snow and wind chill. The maximum extent of winter storms for Brazos County and participating entities include low temperatures below 32 degrees, freezing rain and sleet, and/or snow amounts up to 6-10 inches. The frequency of occurrence of winter storms in the planning area is unlikely. Warning time for winter storms is generally six to twelve hours. Table 10.1 shows the definitions for winter weather alerts. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 73 of 184 71 Table 9-1. Winter Weather Alerts Winter weather advisory This alert may be issued for a variety of severe conditions. Weather advisories may be announced for snow, blowing or drifting snow, freezing drizzle, freezing rain, or a combination of weather events. Winter storm watch Severe winter weather conditions may affect your area (freezing rain, sleet or heavy snow may occur separately or in combination). Winter storm warning Severe winter weather conditions are imminent. Freezing rain or freezing drizzle Rain or drizzle is likely to freeze upon impact, resulting in a coating of ice glaze on roads and all other exposed objects. Sleet Small particles of ice, usually mixed with rain. If enough sleet accumulates on the ground, it makes travel hazardous. Blizzard warning Sustained wind speeds of at least 35 mph are accompanied by considerable falling or blowing snow. This alert is the most perilous winter storm with visibility dangerously restricted. Frost/freeze warning Below freezing temperatures are expected and may cause significant damage to plants, crops and fruit trees. Wind chill A strong wind combined with a temperature slightly below freezing can have the same chilling effect as a temperature nearly 50 degrees lower in a calm atmosphere. The combined cooling power of the wind and temperature on exposed flesh is called the wind-chill factor. HISTORY OF SEVERE WINTER STORMS Winter storm events that have occurred in the Planning Area from 1997 to 2017 are presented in Table 9-2, along with reported injuries, deaths and damages. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 74 of 184 72 Table 9-2. Severe Winter Storms for the Planning Area, 1997–2017 Type Location Date Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage Winter storm (ice) County 01/12/1997 0 0 0 0 Winter Storm County 12/23/1998 0 0 75K 0 Winter storm (ice) County 12/13/2000 0 0 1.0M 0 Ice Storm County 12/07/2005 1 2 70K 0 Ice Storm County 1/16/2007 0 0 1K 0K Ice Storm County 2/04/2011 0 0 0K 0K Winter Storm County 2/04/2011 0 0 0K 0K Winter Weather (Ice) County 12/07/2013 0 0 0 0 Winter Weather (Ice) County 01/28/2014 0 0 0 0 Winter Weather (Ice) County 01/28/2014 0 0 0 0 Winter Weather (Ice) County 02/06/2014 0 0 50K 0 Winter Weather (Ice) County 03/02/2014 0 0 0 0 Winter Storm County 03/03/2014 0 0 0 0 Heavy Snow County 12/07/2017 0 0 0 0 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Winter storms usually impact large geographical areas; thus, all the population, buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, and hazardous materials facilities in the Planning Area are considered exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted. Winter storms impact large geographical areas of the planning area, thus the entire population, buildings, identified critical infrastructure, lifelines, and hazardous materials facilities are considered exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted. In the planning area, winter storms do not have a specific location. However, all participating entities are at risk and could be affected by this hazard. It is understood, however, that there are populations throughout the planning area that are more vulnerable than others. Information is provided in Chapter 5 – Hazards the Region Faces and What’s at Risk on the different populations found within the planning area. In analyzing the relative risks from hazards, potential losses and ability Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 75 of 184 73 to recover from losses, it is understood that the more vulnerable populations are those that are in the lower socio-economic levels. POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES Table 9-3 presents annualized expected property losses due to winter storms in Brazos County and participating entities, which were calculated using the statistical risk assessment methodology. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are; to compile data from local and national sources, clean up the data by removing duplication, identify patterns in frequency and vulnerability, extrapolate the statistical patterns, and produce meaningful results with the development of annualized loss estimates. Table 9-3. Potential Annualized Losses due to Winter Storms in the Planning Area County Annualized Expected Property Losses ($) Brazos 66,249 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 76 of 184 74 SECTION 10: TORNADOES WHY TORNADOES ARE A THREAT Tornadoes are unquestionably the most violent storms on the planet. A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between, and in contact with, a cloud and the surface of the earth. The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction with wind speeds of 250 miles per hour or more. The most powerful tornadoes are spawned by “super-cell thunderstorms.” These storms are affected by horizontal wind shears (winds moving in different directions at different altitudes) that begin to rotate the storm. This horizontal rotation can be tilted vertically by violent updrafts, and the rotation radius can shrink, forming a vertical column of very quickly swirling air. This rotating air can eventually reach the ground, forming a tornado. Table 10-1. Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale implemented February 1, 2007 EF-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed (mph) Type of Damage Done EF0 Gale tornado 65-85 Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages sign boards. EF1 Moderate tornado 86-110 The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads; attached garages may be destroyed. EF2 Significant tornado 111-135 Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. EF3 Severe tornado 136-165 Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted. EF4 Devastating tornado 166-200 Well-constructed homes leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. EF5 Incredible tornado Over 200 Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles flying through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete badly damaged. The planning area is affected by frequent severe weather and thunderstorms. Thunderstorms form when warm, moist air collides with cooler, drier air. Since these masses tend to come Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 77 of 184 75 together during the transition from summer to winter, most thunderstorms occur during the spring and fall months. Severe thunderstorms can produce tornadoes, high winds, and hail— any of which can cause extensive property damage and loss of life. Tornadoes occasionally accompany tropical storms and hurricanes that move over land. Tornadoes are the most common to the right and ahead of the path of the storm center as it comes ashore. Tornadoes vary in terms of duration, wind speed and the toll that they take, as shown in Table 10-2. Table 10-2. Variations Among Tornadoes Weak Tornadoes Strong Tornadoes Violent Tornadoes 69% of all tornadoes Less than 5% of tornado deaths Lifetime 1-10+ minutes Winds less than 110 mph 29% of all tornadoes Nearly 30% of all tornado deaths May last 20 minutes or longer Winds 110 – 205 mph 2% of all tornadoes 70% of all tornado deaths Lifetime can exceed one hour Winds greater than 205 mph HAZARD PROFILE The impact of tornadoes can be substantial. They can cause multiple deaths, completely shut down facilities for thirty days or more, and cause more than fifty percent of affected properties to be destroyed or suffer major damage. The maximum extent of tornadoes that can affect Brazos County and the participating entities is an EF5, which according to the Enhanced Fujita Scale, would be an incredibly strong tornado with winds speeds over 200 miles per hour. While the frequency of occurrence of tornadoes in the planning area is less than 1% per year, millions of dollars of damage has occurred within the planning area. Seasonal patterns are relevant to tornadoes. Thunderstorms form when warm, moist air collides with cooler, drier air. Since these masses tend to come together during the transition from summer to winter, most thunderstorms and resulting tornadoes occur during the spring (March, April, May and June) and, at a lesser intensity, during the fall (September, October, and November). Warning time for tornadoes is minimal. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 78 of 184 76 Figure 10-1. Occurrence of Texas Tornadoes, by Month Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 79 of 184 77 HISTORY OF TORNADOES Historical evidence, as reflected in Table 10-3, shows that most of the planning area is vulnerable to tornado activity. There is no defined hazard boundary for tornadoes. Since the Enhanced Fujita Scale was not implemented until 2007, the original Fujita Scale is included here to help understand the History of Tornado Events scale in Table 10-3. Table 10-3 identifies reported tornado events in the planning area, and Table 10-4 gives the total number of tornadoes in the Planning Area. Table 10-3. History of Tornado Events in the Planning Area as Reported to the National Weather Service, 01/01/1950 to 08/26/2017 Type Date Time Magnitude Death Injury Property Damage Crop Damage Tornado 12/2/1953 1530 F2 0 0 25K 0 Tornado 4/30/1954 0730 F2 0 0 0K 0 Tornado 4/5/1956 1515 F3 0 0 250K 0 Tornado 3/31/1957 1610 F0 0 0 3K 0 Tornado 5/20/1960 0615 F0 0 0 0K 0 Tornado 5/17/1965 1456 F0 0 0 0K 0 Tornado 2/10/1981 0245 F1 0 1 25K 0 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 80 of 184 78 Tornado 11/19/1983 0910 F2 0 0 2.5M 0 Tornado 4/27/1990 1758 F0 0 0 0K 0 Tornado 5/13/1994 1525 F0 0 0 0 0 Tornado 5/18/1995 0230 F0 0 0 60K 0 Tornado 5/18/1995 0230 F0 0 0 60K 0 Tornado 1/21/1998 1644 F0 0 0 35K 0 Tornado 10/17/1998 1540 F1 0 0 20K 0 Tornado 10/12/2001 1150 F1 0 0 60K 0 Tornado 12/23/2002 1120 F0 0 0 5K 0 Tornado 6/13/2003 1500 F0 0 0 1K 0 Tornado 10/5/2003 1705 F1 0 1 750K 0 Tornado 10/5/2003 1730 F0 0 0 3K 0 Tornado 2/24/2004 2110 F0 0 0 25K 0 Tornado 3/17/2004 0040 F0 0 0 3K 0 Tornado 5/13/2004 0545 F1 0 0 515K 0 Tornado 12/29/2006 1523 F1 0 3 2.8M 0K Tornado 4/28/2009 1441 F0 0 0 0K 0K Tornado 05/26/2016 1130 EF1 0 0 7M 0K Tornado 08/26/2017 0705 EF0 0 0 0M 0K Table 10-4. Overall Historical Impact of Tornadoes in the Planning Area County Number of events Maximum EF-Scale Brazos 26 EF3 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 81 of 184 79 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Tornadoes can occur throughout the entire planning area. Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado will touch down, almost all of the buildings and facilities in the Planning Area are considered to be vulnerable to tornadoes. Greater losses would be expected in areas where there is substandard housing. Infrastructure such as power poles and lines could be downed during a strong tornado. Critical facilities within the Planning Area that have back-up generators could continue to operate. It is understood, however, that there are populations throughout the planning area that are more vulnerable than others. Information is provided in Chapter 5 – Hazards the Region Faces and What’s at Risk on the different populations found within the planning area. In analyzing relative risks from tornadoes, potential losses and the ability to recover from losses, it is understood that the more vulnerable populations are those that are in the lower socio-economic levels. They are more likely to suffer greater losses due to damages to substandard housing. They may also lack resources, such as insurance, to recover from losses. Of note, mobile and manufactured homes are especially vulnerable to tornadoes. There are a total of 5,255 mobile or manufactured homes within the entire planning area, as of 2016 (2016 5-year ACS survey). POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES Table 10-5 shows potential annualized expected property losses for the Planning Area, which were calculated using the statistical risk assessment methodology. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are; to compile data from local and national sources, determine the average exposed value based on likely tornado intensity and path area, and calculate annualized loss estimates. Table 10-5. Potential Annualized Losses from Tornadoes in the Planning Area Jurisdiction Exposed Value Annualized Loss Annualized Loss Percentage Bryan $5,538,141,000.00 $3,488,846.54 0.06% College Station $9,316,285,000.00 $6,628,623.26 0.07% Kurten $13,621,000.00 $35,994.79 0.26% Wixon Valley $16,074,000.00 $107,952.79 0.67% Unincorporated $16,827,581,000.00 $420,384.81 0.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 82 of 184 80 SECTION 11: HAIL WHY H AILSTORMS ARE A THREAT Large hail results in nearly $1 billion in damage annually to property and crops in the United States. Hail is made up of spherical balls of ice. It is a product of thunderstorms or intense showers. It is generally white and translucent, consisting of liquid or snow particles encased with layers of ice. Hail is formed within the high tops of a well-organized thunderstorm. An updraft will sometimes throw rain droplets high up into the tops of a cloud, where the temperature is well below freezing. The droplet freezes, then falls and can become caught in another updraft. This time, a second coating of ice is added, making the hail stone larger. This cycle continues until the hailstone is too heavy to be lifted again and falls to the ground as hail. The stronger the updraft, the longer the hail develops and the bigger the hailstone is when it falls. Hail is not to be confused with sleet, which consists of frozen raindrops that fall during winter storms. Hail can be smaller than a pea or as large as a softball and can be very destructive to plants, cars, homes, buildings and crops. The development and maturation of hailstones are very complex processes. Numerous factors impact the size of the hailstone including updraft strength, storm scale wind profile, height of the freezing level, and the mean temperature and relative humidity of downdraft air. The complexities of hail formation and sub-cloud processes make utilizing Doppler radar data to forecast the occurrence of large hail difficult. Verification of hail events is also important, but is a cumbersome process due to the limited temporal and spatial distribution of the event. Large hailstones fall at speeds faster than 100 mph. Large falling balls of ice can be very dangerous. Large hail can do significant damage to automobiles, windows, roofs, crops and animals. When caught in a hailstorm, it is important to seek shelter immediately. Pets and livestock are particularly vulnerable to hail, and should be brought into a shelter. HAZARD PROFILE Hailstorms are generally localized and their impact is considered limited since the injuries they cause are generally treatable with first aid, they shut down critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less, and less than ten percent of affected properties are destroyed or suffer major damage. Hail events in the planning area are likely. Most hailstorms occur during the spring (March, April and May) and the fall, during the month of September. Warning time for a hailstorm is generally minimal to no warning. The National Weather Service classifies a storm as severe if hail of ¾ of an inch in diameter (approximately the size of a penny) or greater is imminent based on radar intensities or observed by a spotter or other people. The extent of hail in the Planning Area can range from ¾ of an inch up to 1.75 inches. The frequency of occurrence of hail in planning area is approximately 2 incidents per year. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 83 of 184 81 HISTORY OF HAILSTORMS Table 11-1 shows the historical hail events that hit the planning area. Historical hail events with hailstone size one inch or greater are listed in Table 12-1 below. Table 12-2 aggregates historical hail events by jurisdiction. Table 11-1. Overall Historical Hail Impact for Brazos County (National Climatic Data Center), 2005-2017 Location or County Date Tim e Type Magnitude Death Injury Property Damage Crop Damage Bryan 3/19/2005 5:50 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 30K 0 Bryan 3/19/2005 6:02 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 30K 0 College Station 3/19/2005 6:02 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 4K 0 College Station 3/19/2005 6:08 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 5K 0 College Station 3/19/2005 6:25 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 30K 0 College Station 3/19/2005 6:35 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 30K 0 Bryan 4/5/2005 8:45 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 6K 0 College Station 10/31/2005 3:05 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 2K 0 College Station 4/25/2006 11:30 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 20K 0 Bryan 5/1/2007 16:06 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0K 0K Bryan Coulter Airport 4/4/2008 8:03 AM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 1K 0K Bryan Coulter Airport 4/4/2008 8:29 AM Hail 1.25 in. 0 0 1K 0K College Station 7/19/2009 17:55 PM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 5K 0K Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 84 of 184 82 College Station 7/19/2009 17:57 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0K 0K College Station 7/20/2009 18:25 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 0K 0K College Station 8/12/2009 16:15 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 0K 0K College Station 4/07/2010 16:58 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0K 0K College Station 2/03/2012 19:15 Hail 1.00 in 0 0 5K 0K College Station 2/03/2012 19:35 Hail 2.25 in 0 0 30K 0K College Station 12/09/2012 18:30 Hail .75 in 0 0 0K 0K College Station 05/09/2013 16:48 Hail 1.00 in 0 0 0K 0K Millican 05/09/2014 19:50 Hail 1.00 in 0 0 0K 0K Bryan 04/16/2015 16:09 Hail 1.50 in 0 0 0K 0K Bryan 04/19/2015 14:40 Hail .88 in 0 0 0K 0K Bryan 04/19/2015 15:02 Hail 1.00 in 0 0 0K 0K Bryan 03/27/2017 01:20 Hail 1.25 in 0 0 0K 0K Table 11-2. Overall Historical Hail Impact by County (National Climatic Data Center) County Number of Events Maximum Diameter (inches) Brazos 26 1.75 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Hail may impact large geographical areas of the planning area, thus the entire population, buildings, identified critical infrastructure, lifelines, and hazardous materials facilities are considered exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted. In the planning area, hail does not have a specific location. However, all participating entities are at risk and could be affected by this hazard. It is understood, however, that there are populations throughout the planning area that are more vulnerable than others. Information is provided in Chapter 5 – Hazards the Region Faces and What’s at Risk on the different populations found within the Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 85 of 184 83 planning area. In analyzing the relative risks from hazards, potential losses and ability to recover from losses, it is understood that the more vulnerable populations are those that are in the lower socio-economic levels. POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES To estimate losses due to hail, PBS&J used NOAA historical hail loss data to develop a hail stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled to account for inflation; Average historic hail damageability was used to generate losses for historical hail events where losses were not reported; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data; and Probabilistic losses were scaled to account for would-be losses where no exposure/instrument was present at the time of the event. Table 11-3 shows potential annualized losses in the Planning Area. Table 11-3. Overall Historical Hail Impact for the Planning Area (National Climatic Data Center) County Annualized Expected Property Damage ($) Brazos 281, 565 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 86 of 184 84 SECTION 12: THUNDERSTORMS WHY THUNDERSTORMS ARE A THREAT A thunderstorm is defined as a storm of heavy rain accompanied by lightning, thunder, wind, and sometimes hail. Damaging winds are often called “straight-line” winds to differentiate the damage they cause from tornado damage. Strong thunderstorm winds can come from a number of different processes. Most thunderstorm winds that cause damage at the ground are a result of outflow generated by a thunderstorm downdraft. Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 50- 60 mph. Damage from severe thunderstorm winds account for half of all severe reports in the lower 48 states and is more common than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles. Since most thunderstorms produce some straight-line winds as a result of outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft, anyone living in thunderstorm-prone areas of the world is at risk for experiencing this hazard. People living in mobile homes are especially at risk for injury and death. Even anchored mobile homes can be seriously damaged when winds gust over 80 mph. Lightning is a massive electrostatic discharge between electrically charged regions within clouds, or between a cloud and the Earth’s surface. Thunderstorms occasionally accompany tropical storms and hurricanes that move over land which may produce damaging winds and dangerous lightning. HAZARD PROFILE Thunderstorms are generally localized events. The severity of impact of thunderstorms is considered to be limited since they generally result in injuries treatable with first aid, shut down critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less, and less than ten percent of affected properties are destroyed or suffer major damage. Most thunderstorms occur during the spring (March, April and May) and the fall, during the month of September. Warning time for thunderstorms is generally minimal to no warning. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 87 of 184 85 The maximum extent of thunderstorm winds in the planning area can reach 78 knots. Some minor localized flooding may also occur if the thunderstorms bring substantial rain amounts. The frequency of occurrence of thunderstorms in the planning area is between 1 and 2 per year. HISTORY OF THUNDERSTORMS Table 12-1 gives aggregated historical thunderstorm information for the planning area. Historical thunderstorm events are detailed in Table 13-2. It is important to note that only thunderstorms that have been reported are recorded in these tables. It is likely that a higher number of occurrences have not been reported. Table 12-1. Thunderstorms in Brazos County, 2000-2017 http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms County Number of Events Brazos 23 Table 12-2. Thunderstorms in Brazos County, 2000-2017 Type Location or County Date Time Magnitude Death Injury Property Damage Crop Damage Thunderstorm Winds Brazos 02/10/2009 2325 52 kts. 0 0 8K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Kurten 03/31/2009 0445 50 kts. 0 0 3K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 05/03/2009 0454 55 kts. 0 0 2K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Kurten 05/03/2009 0454 55 kts. 0 0 2K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 05/03/2009 0500 55 kts. 0 0 5K 0 Thunderstorm Winds College Station 07/19/2009 1800 56 kts. 0 0 1K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 02/01/2011 0440 52 kts. 0 0 5K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 05/12/2001 1030 58 kts 0 0 0 0 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 88 of 184 86 Thunderstorm Winds Kurten 06/06/2011 1735 52 kts 0 0 1K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 08/24/2011 1829 52 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 01/09/2012 0412 52 kts 0 0 3K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 01/25/2012 0715 50 kts 0 0 6K 0 Thunderstorm Winds College Station 01/25/2012 0724 55 kts 0 0 15K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 02/03/2012 1938 65 kts 0 0 5K 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 08/07/2012 1645 50 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Wind College Station 10/13/2013 0158 52 kts 0 0 15K 0 Thunderstorm Wind Bryan 05/23/2015 2230 55 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 08/25/2015 1115 55 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Winds College Station 08/25/2015 1128 59 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Winds Bryan 04/27/2016 0136 60 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Winds College Station 04/27/2016 0140 60 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Wind Edge 01/02/2017 0635 52 kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Wind Smetana 03/27/2017 0120 51 kts 0 0 0 1K Thunderstorm Wind Millican 05/21/2017 0008 60kts 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorm Wind Bryan 05/28/52017 1853 53kts 0 0 0 0 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 89 of 184 87 Thunderstorm Wind Smetana 05/28/2017 1853 52kts 0 0 0 0 Table 12-3. Lightning in Brazos County, 2000-2017 Type Location or County Date Time Magnitude Death Injury Property Damage Crop Damage Lightning Bryan 7/8/2009 1515 0 2 0 0 Lightning College Station 5/15/2010 445 0 0 2000 0 Lightning College Station 6/9/2010 855 0 0 5000 0 Lightning College Station 5/12/2011 1030 0 0 5000 0 Lightning Wellborn 5/12/2011 1400 0 0 5000 0 Lightning Bryan 5/27/2014 2305 0 0 35000 0 Lightning College Station 4/11/2017 1030 0 0 300 0 PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK Thunderstorms impact large geographical areas of the planning area, thus the entire population, buildings, identified critical infrastructure, lifelines, and hazardous materials facilities are considered exposed to the hazard and could potentially be impacted. In the planning area, thunderstorms do not have a specific location. However, all participating entities are at risk and could be affected by this hazard. It is understood, however, that there are populations throughout the planning area that are more vulnerable than others. Information is provided in Chapter 5 – Hazards the Region Faces and What’s at Risk on the different populations found within the planning area. In analyzing the relative risks from hazards, potential losses and ability to recover from losses, it is understood that the more vulnerable populations are those that are in the lower socio-economic levels. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 90 of 184 88 SECTION 13: DAM FAILURE WHY D AM FAILURE IS A THREAT Dams are water storage, control, or diversion barriers that impound water upstream in reservoirs. Dams provide many benefits and are an important part of our public works infrastructure. They are built for a variety of reasons, including maintenance of lake levels, flood control, power production, and water supply. Although dams have many benefits, the risk that a dam could fail still exists. Dams can pose a risk to communities if not designed, operated and maintained properly. Dam failure is a collapse or breach in the structure. While most dams have storage volumes small enough that failures have little or no repercussions, dams with large storage amounts can cause significant flooding downstream. Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes: Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which cause most failures; Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping flows; Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping; Improper maintenance, including failure to remove trees, repair internal problems, or maintain gates, valves, and other operational components; Improper design, such as use of improper construction materials; Failure of upstream dams in the same drainage basin; Landslides into reservoirs, which cause surges that result in overtopping; High winds, which can cause significant wave action and result in substantial erosion; Earthquakes, which typically cause longitudinal cracks at the tops of the embankments, leading to structural failure. The nation’s infrastructure of dams is aging. Old age and neglect can intensify vulnerability to these same influences. Furthermore, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have brought an increased focus on infrastructure protection nationwide, including the safety of dams. Dam failures may result in the quick release of all the water in the lake. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind the dam is capable of causing rapid and unexpected flooding downstream, resulting in loss of life and great property damage downstream of the dam. HAZARD PROFILE The frequency of occurrence of a major dam failure in the planning area is a highly unlikely event. If a major dam should fail, however, the severity of impact could be substantial. It could Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 91 of 184 89 cause multiple deaths, completely shut down facilities for thirty days or more, and cause more than fifty percent of affected properties to be destroyed or severely damaged. The extent of a major dam failure in our planning area is that several thousand gallons of water could be released at a sudden and unexpected rate. Over 2,000 people could be affected, 700 buildings could be flooded and several million dollars in damages could occur. A flooding-related dam failure would most likely occur in months when floods are most likely -- during the spring (April, May and June) and fall (October, November, and December). Warning time for dam failure, or the potential speed of onset, varies with the causes but is estimated to be three to six hours. There are about 80,000 dams in the United States today. Catastrophic dam failures have occurred frequently throughout the past century. Between 1918 and 1958, 33 major dam failures in the United States caused 1,680 deaths—an average of 42 deaths a year. According to information from damsafety.org and damfailures.org, there were sixty-six major dam failures worldwide from 1959 - 2018. There have been 3 dam failures in the planning area – Leisure Lake in 2009, Bryan Utilities Lake in 2016, and Clifty Creek Lake (spillway breech) in 2017. PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK High-hazard-potential dams are those at which failure or misoperation would probably cause loss of human life. Significant-hazard-potential dams are those at which failure or misoperation probably would not result in loss of human life but could cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or other significant damage. Significant-hazard-potential dams often are located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in populated areas having significant infrastructure. Low-hazard-potential dams are those at which failure or misoperation probably would not result in loss of human life but might cause limited economic and/or environmental losses. Losses would be limited mainly to the owner’s property. Table 13-1. Dam Failure Hazard-Potential Classifications, FEMA Hazard Potential Classification Loss of Human Life Economic, Environmental, and Lifeline Losses Low None expected Low and generally limited to owner Significant None expected Some local damages High Probable. One or more expected Yes (but not necessary for this classification) Low hazard dams pose no threat to the communities participating in this plan, and thus, will not be profiled further. Significant hazard dams do pose some threat to property damage and high hazard dams, pose a threat to human life as well as property damage for the participating entities and are profiled in this plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 92 of 184 90 LOCATION OF HAZARDOUS AREAS Figure 13-1 shows the location of dams in planning area. Detailed maps of dam failure inundation areas are not currently available for all dams. This is noted as a data deficiency and a hydrology study to address this data deficiency is included for Brazos County in the list of mitigation projects for 2019-2024. It is assumed that dam breaks happen most likely at the time of maximum capacity of the lake and that the location of the released water would inundate a downstream quarter-circle buffer proportional to the maximum capacity of the dam to represent the maximum impact area. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 93 of 184 91 Table 13-2. Summary Status of Dams in Brazos County County High Significant Low Undetermined Total Brazos 7 5 26 0 38 Legislation was passed on September of 2013 allowed for some dams to be designated as exempt if they met all of the following five criteria: Privately owned Less than 500 acre foot maximum capacity Located in a county with population of less than 350,000 (per 2010 census) Located outside the city limits Low or significant hazard rating While owners are still required to do maintenance on those dams, TCEQ is not required to do the every 5 year inspection on those dams. For those dams that are non-exempt (see Table 13- 3), the owners must continue the maintenance of the dams, schedule inspections every 5 years with TCEQ, and if they are high and significant hazard dams, they must also produce an emergency action plan. As part of the emergency action plan, the owners need to do a tabletop exercise every five years and submit an annual update or a letter stating there were no updates necessary. Table 13-3. High and Significant/Exempt and Non-ExemptDams in Brazos County Dam Name Exemption Status Latitude/Longitude Dam Height (Ft.) Maximum Storage (acre feet) Normal Storage (acre feet) Has Available Data BRYAN UTILITIES LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.710067 / - 96.453721 59 20763 13647 Data Deficient CARTER LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.594992 / - 96.248677 32 2196 481 Data Deficient COUNTRY CLUB LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.639827 / - 96.358982 10 128 42 Yes Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 94 of 184 92 CSISD AT ANDERSON ST DETENTION STRUCTURE NO 3 Non-Exempt 30.613940 / - 96.327372 11.7 9 0 Data Deficient FIN- FEATHER LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.649868 / - 96.371041 16.1 300 156 Data Deficient LAKE ARAPAHO DAM Non-Exempt 30.510553 / - 96.250460 37 924 436 Data Deficient LEISURE LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.633847 / - 96.411916 25 322 175 Data Deficient NANTUCKET DAM Non-Exempt 30.543651 / - 96.243367 20 428 140 Data Deficient OAKLAND LAKE DAM Non-Exempt 30.776483 / - 96.235630 32 550 272 Data Deficient TAMU DETENTION DAM NO 8 Non-Exempt 30.621050 / - 96.333642 8.2 140 0 Yes THOUSAND OAKS DAM NO 11 Non-Exempt 30.544471 / - 96.231595 22 120 58 Data Deficient TERRY LAKE Exempt 30.6211 / -96.334 17.5 21 18 Data Deficient POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES Tables 13-4 & 5 show the risk to people and buildings of failure of Country Club Lake (Figure 13-2) and TAMU Detention Dam #8 (Figure 13-3), respectively. It was assumed that dam breaks happen most likely at the time of maximum capacity and that a downstream quarter-circle buffer proportional to the maximum capacity of dams represents the maximum impact area. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 95 of 184 93 Figure 13-2. Country Club Lake Table 13-4. Exposure of People and Buildings to Country Club Lake Parcels Value Structures Value Population Residential 54 $4,904,587 44 $4,624,447 ~180 Commercial 40 $12,358,400 36 $12,211,670 Additionally, Villa Maria and College Avenue are highly trafficked roadways. So, there could be numerous motorists within the inundation area depending on the time of day. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 96 of 184 94 Figure 13-3. TAMU Detention Dam #8 Table 13-5. Exposure of People and Buildings toTAMU Detention Dam #8 Parcels Value Structures Value Population Residential 73 $20,926,630 66 $19,451,270 769 Commercial 19 $48,037,109 18 $44,322,719 Rural Land – not defined 1 $1,020,000 Additionally, Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive are highly trafficked roadways. So, there could be numerous motorists within the inundation area depending on the time of day. Vulnerabilities and impacts can not be determined for the other dams due to data deficiencies. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 97 of 184 95 SECTION 14: EXCESSIVE HEAT WHY EXCESSIVE HEAT IS A THREAT Texas is known for its long hot summers. These conditions can pose problems for those not accustomed to the climate or who are outside for prolonged periods of time. Excessive heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the high average temperature for a particular region and last for several weeks. Excessive heat can pose a threat even to individuals and communities that are accustomed to high temperatures. Heat disorders can occur when victims are overexposed to heat or have over-exercised for their age and physical condition. Heat kills by pushing the body beyond its limits. Under normal conditions an internal thermostat produces perspiration that evaporates and cools the body. In excessive heat and high humidity, however, evaporation is slowed, and the body must work extra hard to maintain a normal temperature. Excessive heat kills more people nationally than any other natural disaster. According to the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, an average of 1,500 American city dwellers die every year from the effects of excessive heat. Elderly residents, young children, those who are overweight, and people suffering from serious illnesses are especially prone to heat-related problems. Excessive heat disorders include sunburn, heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. Heat stroke is a severe medical emergency. Table 14-1. Urban Heat Deaths City Duration of heat wave Heat-related deaths % Increase in deaths over norm Chicago 7 days in 1995 739 147 New York 7 days in 1972 891 62 Los Angeles 9 days in 1955 946 122 Kansas City 1 month in 1980 236 65 St. Louis 1 month in 1980 308 57 HAZARD PROFILE Excessive heat waves usually come on subtly, raising summer temperatures higher than normal, leaving casualties in their wake. Excessive heat can have a major impact, causing multiple Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 98 of 184 96 deaths, but sparing property. With excessive heat, there is little physical destruction, although roads can buckle, trains derail, and livestock die. The frequency of occurrence of excessive heat in the Planning Area is likely. There are seasonal patterns to excessive heat waves, with an event most likely to occur in the summer months. Warning time is long with a slow speed of onset. Excessive heat can also cause utility outages due to an increased demand for electricity. Utility outages can severely cripple a city’s ability to provide services. Facilities can become inoperable and have to be closed without power or water. Local warning systems that may be utilized for excessive heat events include local television and radio stations and the Internet. HISTORY OF EXCESSIVE HEAT IN THE PLANNING AREA There have been no reported excessive heat events in the planning area from 01/01/1950 to present. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov LOCATION OF HAZARDOUS AREAS The entire planning area is subject to excessive heat. PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK The entire population of the planning area is at risk from excessive heat, but those at highest risk are the poor, the elderly, those who live alone, and those who lack access to transportation and air-conditioning. People living in urban areas may be at greater risk from the effects of a prolonged heat wave than people living in rural regions. An increased health problem can occur when stagnant atmospheric conditions trap pollutants in urban areas, thus adding contaminants to excessively hot temperatures. Excessive heat generally affects people rather than property. The extent of excessive heat in the planning area can be temperatures above 100 degrees for several days or weeks in a row. During the summer of 2011, temperatures above 100 degrees were recorded for over 30 days in the planning area. Based on the Heat Index Chart, the extent of excessive heat in Brazos County can be placed in the Danger Range when the conditions are present of high temperatures and high relative humidity. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 99 of 184 97 Source: https://www.weather.gov/safety/heat-index POTENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES Potential dollar loss estimates for excessive heat are not available. The potential impact of excessive heat on Brazos County is the possible deaths of the poor, the elderly, those who live alone, and those who lack access to transportation and air conditioning. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 100 of 184 98 SECTION 15: PREVIOUS MITIGATION ACTIONS FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROGRAMS The effectiveness of previously implemented hazard mitigation measures was examined as part of the hazard mitigation planning process. The effectiveness of each previously implemented mitigation program was evaluated based on its effect on overall risk to life and property, ease of implementation and political and community support. A total of five Presidential and five Small Business Administration Disaster Declarations have been issued since 1965 for Brazos County and participating entities, paving the way for assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal agencies. FEMA’s Individual Assistance Program helps disaster victims to secure temporary housing, low-interest loans, unemployment assistance, and legal aid; makes grants to low-income individuals; conducts crisis counseling; and assists victims with income tax, Social Security, and veteran’s benefits issues. “Public Assistance” is aid to state or local governments and certain private non-profit entities to pay part of the approved costs (generally 75 percent) of rebuilding a community’s damaged infrastructure. Public assistance may include debris removal; emergency protective measures; repair, replacement, or restoration of damaged public property; loans needed by communities to restore essential government functions; and grants for public schools. Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), FEMA has financially helped the state to permanently reduce or eliminate future damages and losses due to natural hazards. HMGP funds promote safer building practices that improve existing structures and supporting infrastructure. The HMGP currently provides post-disaster funds, which can be used anywhere in the state, equal to 7.5 percent of obligations for individual and public assistance. Grants are for planning and projects, including acquisition of real property, relocation and demolition of structures, seismic retrofitting, strengthening of existing structures, initial implementation of vegetative management programs, elevation of residential structures, elevation or dry flood- proofing of non-residential structures, and other activities that bring a structure into compliance with the floodplain management requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. A review of the state’s HMGP records reveals no hazard mitigation projects conducted within the BVCOG jurisdictions. There were also no Project Impact, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, or Hurricane Property Protection Mitigation Projects. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS All participating entities in the planning area have performed numerous planning activities. As shown in Table 15-1, Brazos County has received Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) from FEMA. These grants are intended to help develop comprehensive, all-hazards emergency management and improve local capabilities for emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Assistance includes grant funding covering 13 key Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 101 of 184 99 functional areas, including laws and authorities; hazard identification and risk assessment; hazard management; resource management; planning; direction, control, and coordination; communications and warning; operations and procedures; logistics and facilities; training; exercises; public education and information; and finance and administration. The previous hazard mitigation action plans have been utilized in the updating of our Interjurisdictional Emergency Management Plan and associated annexes, the threat and risk assessment (THIRA), drainage and stormwater plans, and flood mitigation plans. Brazos County and participating entities have undertaken previous planning efforts that have complemented the region-wide planning conducted during the development of this Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. These other related planning efforts include development of hazard analyses, Annex P, comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, drainage and stormwater plans, long-range growth plans and flood mitigation plans. Table 15-1 details these previous planning efforts. Table 15-1. Previous Planning Efforts for Brazos County and participating entities Participating Entities Received EM Grant Funds? Y(es), N(o) Planning Documents Completed for State Department of Emergency Management Other Planning Efforts Undertaken (list) Basic Plan Annexes* All participating entities are covered under one plan (Brazos County, City of College Station, City of Bryan, City of Kurten, City of Wixon Valley, Texas A&M University) Y Y All * Annexes Annex A Warning Annex B Communications Annex C Shelter and Mass Care Annex D Radiological Protection Annex E Evacuation Annex F Firefighting Annex G Law Enforcement Annex H Health and Medical Services Annex I Public Information Annex J Recovery Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 102 of 184 100 Annex K Public Works and Engineering Annex L Utilities Annex M Resource Management Annex N Direction and Control Annex O Human Services Annex P Hazard Mitigation Annex Q Hazardous Materials and Oil Spill Response Annex R Search and Rescue Annex S Transportation Annex T Donations Management Annex U Legal Annex V Terrorist Incident Response Texas A&M University is largely located within College Station city limits within Brazos County, Texas. Because Texas A&M University is a state entity, it is subject to code regulations that are required by the State of Texas. The university has staff that includes emergency management, police, environmental health & safety, facilities, and engineers that meet regularly to discuss safety, security, and mitigation action items for current and future buildings. In the event of an opportunity to apply for a hazard mitigation grant key people from each department would be assigned, creating a team to manage the hazard mitigation project. The assigned department, in conjunction with emergency management, would be the lead department on each respective hazard mitigation projects. Texas A&M University would consult with the City of College Station and/or Brazos County if beneficial or if necessary. The planning team reviewed existing regulatory capabilities and opportunities for establishing new capabilities and enhancing existing ones. All jurisdicitons can improve their capabilities by: budgeting for mitigation actions and support, passing policies and procedures to implement mitigation actions, adopting and implementing stricter building regulations, approving the hiring and training of staff for mitigation activities, and approving mitigation action updates and additions to existing plans as new needs are recognized. BUILDING AND FIRE CODES Building codes are laws, ordinances, or government regulations that set forth standards and requirements for the construction, maintenance, operation, occupancy, use, or appearance of buildings, premises, and dwelling units. Building codes are an effective way to ensure that development is built to withstand natural hazards. Building codes apply primarily to new construction. Adherence to existing building codes and standards is essential to maintain public safety and promote an effective local mitigation program—so much so that the insurance industry has moved to rate communities according to their ability to enforce the building code and by the qualifications and training of their staff. There are four principal types of building codes, promulgated by various code organizations: Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 103 of 184 101 Uniform Building Code, promulgated by the International Conference of Building officials (ICBO), National Building Code, promulgated by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), Standard Building Code, promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress, International (SBCCI), and International Building Codes, promulgated by the International Code Council (ICC). The building codes are periodically reviewed by the respective organizations and revised, as appropriate, when new requirements and materials are introduced. In the past, local governments have adopted these codes either in their entirety or as amended to adapt them to their local conditions. Legislation passed by the Texas Legislature in 2001, however, now requires communities to adopt the International Building Code. Table 15-2 shows the effective date of each jurisdiction’s building code, the name of the code, the type of code on which it is based, and whether any amendments have been made. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 104 of 184 102 Table 15-2. Building Codes Jurisdiction Current Building Code Effective Date Name Type Amend- ments made (Y /N) UBC NBC SBC IBC Other Brazos County September 2009 2003 International Residential Code and 2002 National Electrical Code N City of College Station December 2009 International Building Codes X Y City of Bryan October 2010 and June 2011 International Building Codes X Y FIRE CODES Fire codes are laws, ordinances, or government regulations that set forth standards and requirements for the construction, maintenance, operation, occupancy, use, or appearance of buildings, premises, and dwelling units in order to prevent damage and loss of life from fire hazards. There are three principal types of fire codes, promulgated by various code organizations. They are: Uniform Fire Code (UFC), published by the International Fire Code Institute, International Fire Code (IFC), published by the International Code Council, and Standard Fire Code (SFC), published by the SBCC. The fire codes are periodically reviewed and revised by the relevant organizations, as appropriate, when new requirements and materials are introduced. Local governments have adopted these codes either in their entirety or amended them as appropriate to their local conditions. Table 15-3 shows the effective date of each jurisdiction’s fire code, the name of the code, the type of code on which it is based, and whether any amendments have been made. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 105 of 184 103 Table 15-3. Fire Codes for Brazos County and Participating Entities Jurisdiction Current Fire Code Effective Date Name Type UFC IFC SFC Other Brazos County N/A City of College Station December 2009 International Fire Code X City of Bryan November 9, 2010 International Fire Code X INSPECTION AND PERMITTING PROCESSES Adherence to existing building and fire codes and standards is essential to maintaining public safety and promoting an effective local mitigation program. New buildings can fail in a disaster if builders or inspectors do not adequately observe the code. Studies of the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 attributed one-quarter of the storm’s total damages to “shoddy workmanship and poor enforcement of building codes.” Well-trained inspectors are more likely to recognize building practices that are suspect with regard to hazard resilience than are poorly trained or untrained inspectors. Training is critical to the inspection and permitting process. Table 15-4 shows the number of building inspectors and their average years of experience in each jurisdiction and, of those, the number certified. It also shows the number of building starts and inspections conducted in the last twelve months. Table 15-4. Building Inspections and Permitting Jurisdiction Number of: Building Inspectors (FTEs) Inspectors Certified Yrs. Experience (Average) Building Starts (last 12 months) Inspections (last 12 months) Brazos County N/A College Station 6 6 5 782 11,067 Bryan 5 5 11 700 17,094 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 106 of 184 104 A vigorous fire inspection process and well-trained inspectors are critical to saving lives and property from fire hazards. It also gives the number certified and number having received the Texas State Certification course. BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULES AND FIRE RATINGS The Insurance Services Office maintains Building Code Effectiveness Grading (BCEG) ratings and Public Protection Classification (PPC) ratings. The latter gauge the capacity of the local fire department to respond if flames engulf a property. PPC ratings are recorded for each individual street address in Texas. There are 10 classes of ratings in BCEG schedule. Class 1 is the best rating, i.e., strongest program of building code enforcement, and 10 is the lowest rating. The date identified is the date of the rating by ISO. This rating applies to all structures built after that date and can lead to lower insurance rates. Table 15-5. Community Mitigation Classifications Community PPC Fire Grading Classification BCEGS (Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule) for Personal Property (Single Family Dwelling) BCEGS (Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule) for Commercial Property Date of Rating Bryan 2 03 03 2017 College Station 3 04 04 2002 FLOODPLAIN M ANAGEMENT ORDINANCES Table 15-6 below describes the floodplain management ordinances currently in use in the planning area, while Table 15-7 provides information regarding floodplain administration. This includes the number of: people on the administrator’s staff; certified managers; inspections in the past month; and variances. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 107 of 184 105 Table 15-6. Floodplain Management Ordinances in Brazos County Jurisdiction Current Flood Ordinance Effective Date Description Brazos County May 2012 Each newly built or installed structure requires permit; structures not in floodplain receive exemption; structures in floodplain must be at least one foot above BFE and have special septic system; enforced by spot inspections. College Station November 2009 All work in or near floodplains is required to obtain a Drainage Development Permit. Applications are reviewed for effects to surrounding areas, as well as meeting requirements for publicly maintained drainage facilities. Bryan November 2010 All work in or near floodplains is required to obtain a Drainage Development Permit. Applications are reviewed for effects to surrounding areas, as well as meeting requirements for publicly maintained drainage facilities. Wixon Valley May 2012 Each newly built or installed structure in a floodplain requires a permit; structures not in a floodplain receive an exemption; structures in a floodplain must be at or above BFE. Table 15-7. Jurisdictional Floodplain Administration Process Jurisdiction Number of: Floodplain administration professional staff Certified floodplain managers Average years of experience of professional staff Inspections in last twelve months Floodplain variances in last twelve months Brazos County 3 3 15 Not Applicable 0 College Station 2 2 10 40 0 Bryan 3 7 15 144 0 Wixon Valley 1 0 0 Not Applicable 0 FEMA COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Community Assistance Program (CAP) is a product-oriented financial assistance program directly related to the flood loss reduction Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 108 of 184 106 objectives of the NFIP. States and communities that are participating in the NFIP are eligible for this assistance. The CAP is intended to identify, prevent, and resolve floodplain management issues in participating communities before they develop into problems requiring enforcement action. The program involves Community Assistance Contacts (CACs) and Community Assistance Visits (CAVs). During CACs and CAVs, officials discuss current local ordinances, the number of floodplain insurance policies in the community, floodplain administration, permitting, and annexation issues. Table 15-8 shows the dates of CACs and CAVs according to FEMA records. Table 15-8. Community Assistance Contacts and Community Assistance Visits from FEMA, 2004 - 2018 Jurisdiction CAC CAV Brazos County 05/14/2018 12/03/2015 11/03/2014 06/27/2012 02/20/2012 07/07/2008 05/22/2007 05/02/2007 02/20/2004 None Bryan 07/15/2014 02/22/2012 08/09/2011 07/09/2008 06/22/2006 5/14/2004 11/18/2013 College Station 10/27/2014 02/20/2012 07/09/2008 07/11/2006 07/27/2016 08/18/2008 Wixon Valley 11/03/2014 02/22/2012 07/07/2008 None Kurten 02/20/2012 07/07/2008 None Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 109 of 184 107 PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS The following items submitted from the previous 2012 plan have been addressed. Projects - 2012 -2017 Jurisdiction Mitigation Action 2012 - 2017 Completed? If not, why not? Brazos County Enhance the County's ring- down notification system and increase public education in the role of 2-1-1. Project is on- going A new emergency notification system (ENS) was implemented in 2017 with plans to further upgrade the system in 2018. Brazos County Enhance Emergency Alert System (EAS) and expand capability to other counties in the region to activate EAS. Project is was not completed and will not be carried forward Work on the project was ceased due to lack of technical expertise and loss of institutional knowledge need to expand the system into other counties in the region. Brazos County Place NOAA weather radios in existing critical facilities such as churches, schools, and high population buildings. Project is not complete Lack of funding Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 110 of 184 108 Brazos County Increase public awareness of flood hazards, as related to continued NFIP compliance. Many NWS campaigns, such as "Turn around, don't drown" have increased awareness of these dangers. On the local level, we will broadcast public awareness spots on local government channels and local network television if funds are available. Also, the Floodplain Administrator's Office distributes public awareness material to the public on a limited basis. Project is on- going Project is on-going Brazos County Purchase generators to power existing emergency communications. Two BVWACS tower sites do not have back-up generators but do currently have battery back- up power systems. We plan for all sites to eventually have a generator. Project is not complete Lack of funding Brazos County Back-up power generators for existing critical facilities. Assess and install "quick- connect for emergency generator hook-ups at critical facilities. The EOC and the Courthouse Administration Building now have (partial) back-up power generators and the County has purchased (4) large generators for use at critical facilities as needed. Project is on- going Purchase and installation of generator for the Brazos Center planned for 2018. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 111 of 184 109 Brazos County Eliminate burning of hazardous materials and/or non- hazardous materials. Project is on- going Brazos County Sheriff's Office has created a position for an environmental enforcement. This individual works to educate the citizens about how to handle hazardous materials and the laws that dictate guidelines for outdoor burning. Brazos County Identify possible funding for the purchase of thermal energy scanners, floating pumps, and eight new electronic defibrillators. Some VFDs have been equipped with thermal scanners and all have been equipped with electronic defibrillators. Not completed using hazard mitigation funds. The VFDs were able to purchase this equipment either with money own budgets or by using Texas A&M Forest Service grants. Brazos County Partner with Texas Forest Service (TFS) and their Firewise program to develop public awareness information and Public Service Announcements about fire risks and steps that homeowners can take to protect themselves and their existing homes against fire, including wildfires. Project is on- going Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 112 of 184 110 Brazos County Create a data layer of FEMA repetitive loss claims for our web GIS. This will help the County prioritize the purchase of existing repetitive loss properties throughout the County, and possibly prevent new structures from being built in the flood hazard area. Project is on- going Brazos County Provide "fan drives" for people in the County who do not have the means to keep themselves cool. Project not completed. Utilize 2-1-1 to provide information regarding availability of fans through local non- for- profits for individuals that need them and provide information on places for individuals to go if they need to escape the heat. Brazos County Determine the flood inundation areas for Bryan Utilities Lake and acquire structures located in the identified hazard area. Project not completed. Lack of funding. Brazos Valley COG Stand-by Electric Generator for the existing COG Building. Yes; action completed. Generator has been in service for over four years and tested on a routine bases. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 113 of 184 111 Brazos Valley COG Purchase and install new individual safe rooms throughout the County. Yes; action completed. BVCOG managed a regional Individual Safe Room grant. The grant closed December 6, 2014. Only 36 citizens took advantage of the grant. City of Bryan Implement a new Records Management System for the Fire and Police Departments. Fire Department completed, Police Department on-going City of Bryan Improve EOC software so that all governmental agencies can communicate better. On-going City of Bryan Create a map showing low water crossings in the City of Bryan. The results of the flood mapping will be used to determine which low water crossings should be eliminated first with the building of a bridge with 404 Mitigation Funds. Mapping completed (although continuously updated). Results used to prioritize bridge replacements City of Bryan Improve new shelter capabilities. On-going Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 114 of 184 112 City of Bryan Provide "cooling center" for people in the City who do not have the means to keep themselves cool during periods of excessive heat. On-going, continually working with College Station and Brazos County utilizing GIS to coordinate “shelters” that could be used in times of excessive heat City of Bryan Purchase NOAA Radios. No The advent of technology has made weather radios more accessible to a wide range of residents. No funding at this time City of Bryan Obtain updated low level aerial photography and topographic mapping within the city limits and ETJ. Completed, on-going City of Bryan Perform detailed studies of areas prone to flooding to determine the most cost effective means to reduce potential loss. The flood studies will be used to prevent new buildings from being built in the flood hazard area, and studies will be used to determine which existing Repetitive Loss properties should be purchased first. Completed, on-going Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 115 of 184 113 City of Bryan Purchase or elevate existing properties subject to repetitive loss or severe repetitive floodplain losses. On-going, received HMGP grant to purchase 4 (with 1 alternate) SRL properties City of Bryan Replace drainage culverts identified in Stormwater Master Plan to improve their efficiency. This will also have a positive effect on new buildings. Completed, on-going City of Bryan As related to continued compliance with the NFIP, install paired rain and stream gauge units with the major watersheds of the City of Bryan to better calibrate rainfall and flooding projections. This will result in more accurate Base Flood Elevations (BFE), which in turn will allow for new buildings to be built higher above the floodplain. No Annual maintenance too costly. Water Services installed rain gauges to monitor infiltration/inflows, data is being used to monitor/calibrate hydrologic and hydraulic models. City of Bryan This Project was listed under City of College Station. These dams are not in City of College Station - this project should be on City of Bryan's list. Determine the flood inundation areas for Country Club Lake and Finfeather Lake and acquire structures located in the identified hazard area. Partially completed, emergency action plan has been completed for Country Club Lake Finfeather Lake will be removed since it is not in the City’s control. Acquisition of structures located in the hazard area is unlikely to occur. City of College Station Offer tree pruning education classes to the public to reduce debris caused by limbs failing due to excessive snow or ice. Project is on- going Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 116 of 184 114 City of College Station Increase public awareness of the effects of hail and mitigation activities that can lessen damage. Project is on- going City of College Station Purchase existing flood-prone properties to remove structures subject to chronic flooding and to facilitate stream restoration project in the Wolf Pen Creek basin. Project is not complete Funding is not available to purchase the property or properties and the/one of the owners is unwilling to sell. City of College Station Mitigate existing structures with Repetitive Loss flood insurance claims by either elevating them above the base flood elevation, or purchase and demolish them to remove them from the floodplain. Project is not complete Funding is not available City of College Station Purchase existing flood-prone properties, remove structures subject to chronic flooding, and construct a regional flood control/detention pond project in the Bee Creek basin. Project is 90% complete 1 homeowner is unwilling to sell City of College Station Educate and purchase NOAA weather radios for the citizens of College Station. Project is complete City of College Station Maintain/enhance public education programs regarding fire dangers for identified risk areas and population groups. Enhance fire hydrant maintenance program. Provide adequate/required- staffing levels. Provide optimum resource distribution. Project is complete Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 117 of 184 115 City of College Station Improve outdated Emergency Operations Center technological capabilities for monitoring, recording, and responding to disasters. Project is complete City of College Station Implement a water conservation program. Project is complete City of College Station Create a hurricane hazard information center to better inform the public. Continue to recruit and certify shelter facilities. Project is on- going City of Kurten Public education and awareness about floods, droughts, excessive heat, and tornadoes Project is on- going City of Kurten To buyout, relocate or elevate any existing repetitive loss flood properties located within the floodplain. No such properties known to exist in the city limits City of Kurten Purchase and install a generator on the existing City of Kurten Municipal Building. Project not completed No funding City of Wixon Valley Public education and awareness about floods, droughts, excessive heat, and tornadoes Project is on- going City of Wixon Valley To buyout, relocate or elevate any existing repetitive loss flood properties located within the floodplain. No such properties known to exist in the city limits City of Wixon Valley Purchase and install a generator on the existing City of Wixon Valley Municipal Building. Project is on- going Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 118 of 184 116 SECTION 16: MITIGATION ACTIONS NEW PROJECTS 2019-2024 Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County; Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, and Wixon Valley; and TAMU) Action: Develop an annual public workshop or expo for all residents to educate them on all the hazards, NFIP, and develop methods to mitigate damage to personal properties from all the hazards. Additionally, educate residents about the need for and creation of preparedness kits. Hazard Flood, Drought, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Tornadoes, Hail, Thunderstorms, Dam Failure and Excessive Heat Priority High Estimated Cost $2,000 Responsible Organization All participating entities Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds and corporate donations Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County; Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, and Wixon Valley; and TAMU) Action: Purchase generators for critical facilities Hazard Flood, Drought, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Tornadoes, Hail, Thunderstorms, Dam Failure and Excessive Heat Priority High Estimated Cost Up to $150,000 per generator Responsible Organization All participating entities Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grant and General Funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 119 of 184 117 Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County; Cities of College Station, Kurten, and Wixon Valley; and TAMU) Action: Build, renovate, rehabilitate or convert a building or buildings for use as emergency shelters for individuals and families. Hazard Flood, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Tornadoes, Hail, Thunderstorms, Dam Failure and Excessive Heat Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1million Responsible Organization Brazos County Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grant monies and general funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create 2D “rain on mesh” model to better identify flooding hazards outside of riverine areas (local flooding hazards) Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $100k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Drainage and general funds Jurisdictions Brazos County Action: Do a hydrology study of the watersheds that exist in Brazos County that contribute to flooding during heavy rain incidents Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $25,000 Responsible Organization Brazos County Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grant monies and general funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 120 of 184 118 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create a map showing low water crossings in the City of Bryan. The results of the flood mapping will be used to prioritize low water crossing replacements/improvements Hazard Flood Priority High Estimated Cost $10k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources Drainage and general funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Perform detailed studies of areas prone to flooding to determine the most cost effective means to reduce potential loss. The flood studies will be used to prevent new buildings from being built in the flood hazard area. Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $250k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Drainage and general funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Purchase or elevate existing properties subject to repetitive loss or severe repetitive losses Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $7M Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Drainage and general funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 121 of 184 119 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Replace drainage culverts identified in the Stormwater Master Plan to improve efficiency. Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $5M Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Drainage and general funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Improve flood risk assessment Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $50k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Design and construct detention ponds to control runoff of rainwater from Texas A&M University property. Hazard Flood Priority Medium Estimated Cost $12M Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grand and local funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Continue to enforce building codes and STP’s Hazard Flood Priority High Estimated Cost $6k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 122 of 184 120 Jurisdictions City of Kurten Action: Join the National Flood Insurance Program so residents can be eligible for flood insurance Hazard Flood Priority High Estimated Cost N/A Responsible Organization City of Kurten Target Completion Date High Funding Sources N/A Jurisdictions City of Wixon Valley Action: Include space for a Shelter in the new City Hall Hazard Flood Priority High Estimated Cost $3M Responsible Organization City of Wixon Valley Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grant and general funds Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County; Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, and Wixon Valley; and TAMU) Action: Create a series of PSA’s/outreach for topics such as Burn Bans, foundation watering how to’s, water conservation in times of drought Hazard Drought Priority High Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization All participating entities Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 123 of 184 121 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Aquifer storage & recovery (ASR) Hazard Drought Priority High Estimated Cost $24M Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources SWIFT Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Monitor water supply Hazard Drought Priority Medium Estimated Cost $5k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Educate residents on water saving techniques Hazard Drought Priority Medium Estimated Cost $5k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Incorporate drought tolerant practices into landscaping of current and new open spaces to reduce dependence on irrigation Hazard Drought Priority Medium Estimated Cost $500k Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grant and local funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 124 of 184 122 Jurisdictions Brazos County, Cities of Kurten and Wixon Valley Action: Develop wildfire plan for the unincorporated areas of Brazos County, to include cities of Kurten and Wixon Valley Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority High Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization Brazos County, Cities of Kurten and Wixon Valley Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources Grant Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Obtain updated low level aerial photography and topographic maps within the city limits and ETJ. Imagery can be used to delineate areas susceptible to urban/wildland fire hazards Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority High Estimated Cost $250k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Update/maintain wildfire plan Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority High Estimated Cost $5k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources Grant funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 125 of 184 123 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Work with Red Cross to initiate a smoke alarm program. Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority High Estimated Cost $2k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Map and assess vulnerability to wildfire Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority Medium Estimated Cost $5k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Increase wildfire risk awareness Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority Medium Estimated Cost $3k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Continue to enhance and improve the fire inspection program Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority Medium Estimated Cost $45k Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2022 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 126 of 184 124 Jurisdictions City of Wixon Valley Action: Purchase and install flag pole and burn ban warning flags. Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority High Estimated Cost $1,500 Responsible Organization City of Wixon Valley Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Wixon Valley Action: Install/expand City of Wixon Valley hydrant coverage. Hazard Urban & Wildfires Priority Medium Estimated Cost $15k Responsible Organization City of Wixon Valley Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create an SOP for winter storm events including roadway safety, power outages, etc. Hazard Winter Storm Priority High Estimated Cost $10k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 127 of 184 125 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Maintain weather condition information on the city’s website, including closures, safety tips, etc. Hazard Winter Storm Priority High Estimated Cost $50k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Conduct winter weather risk awareness activities. Hazard Winter Storm Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Assist vulnerable populations Hazard Winter Storm Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 128 of 184 126 Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Planning for and maintaining adequate road/sidewalk and debris clearing capabilities Hazard Winter Storm Priority Medium Estimated Cost $10k Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Maintain hazardous weather condition information on the city’s website and PSA’s, including closures, safety tips, etc. Hazard Tornado Priority High Estimated Cost $50k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create PSA’s, procedures to provide residents regarding cleanup/permit requirements after events, and choosing contractors Hazard Tornado Priority High Estimated Cost $10k Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 129 of 184 127 Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Encourage construction of safety rooms Hazard Tornado Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grant and general funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Conduct tornado awareness activities Hazard Tornado Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1k Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Enhance building emergency plans to include “areas of refuge” Hazard Tornado, hailstorms, thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $45,500 Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Maintain hazardous weather condition information on the city's website and PSA's, including closures, safety tips, etc. Hazard Hail Storms Priority High Estimated Cost $50,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 130 of 184 128 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create PSA's, procedures to provide to residents regarding cleanup/permit requirements after events, and choosing contractors Hazard Hail Storms Priority High Estimated Cost Less than $10,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Locate safe rooms to minimize damage Hazard Hail Storms Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1,000 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Increase hail awareness Hazard Hail Storms Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1,000 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General Funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 131 of 184 129 Jurisdictions City of Kurten Action: Create mailouts and/or social media messages that provide information to residents regarding the use of weather radios, teach residents about the dangers of lightning and safety precautions to take when severe weather and lightning threatens Hazard Hail Storms Priority High Estimated Cost $250 Responsible Organization City of Kurten Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Maintain hazardous weather condition information on the city's website and PSA's, including closures, safety tips, etc. Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority High Estimated Cost $50,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Install lightning detectors in areas where there may be significant numbers of residents congregating outside (pools, parks, etc.) Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority High Estimated Cost $150,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grants Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 132 of 184 130 Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Create/maintain tree trimming program (BTU) Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority High Estimated Cost $2 million Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources Enterprise Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Conduct lightning awareness programs. Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $1,000 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grants Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Create and mail lightning safety brochures with COCS water bills. Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $2,500 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion 2021 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 133 of 184 131 Date Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of Kurten Action: Create mailouts and/or social media messages that provide information to residents regarding the use of weather radios, teach residents about the dangers of thunderstorms and safety precautions to take when severe weather threatens. Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Benefits Priority High Estimated Cost $250 Responsible Organization City of Kurten Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of Wixon Valley Action: Install surge & strike reduction rods/system in the new City Hall. Hazard Thunderstorms (to include lightning and wind storms) Priority High Estimated Cost $10,000 Responsible Organization City of Wixon Valley Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources General and Grant Funds Jurisdictions Brazos County, Bryan, College Station Action: Conduct hydrology studies to identify the extent for each dam on the list for Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 134 of 184 132 which there is no current information. The extent will be stated in the form of water depth in the inundation area for each dam. This project is to address data deficiencies identified in Section 13 Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $50,000 Responsible Organization Brazos County Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grant monies Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Maintain/update Emergency Action Plans for Country Club Lake and Lake Bryan Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $100,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources Drainage/General Funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Update development regulations within the hazard areas identified with the EAP's. Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost Less than $10,000 Responsible Organization City of Bryan Target Completion Date 2020 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Conduct a study estimating economic consequences for dam failure scenarios. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 135 of 184 133 Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $40,000 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grants Funds Jurisdictions City of College Station Action: Conduct a study estimating loss of life for dam sector for dam failure scenarios. Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $40,000 Responsible Organization City of College Station Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources Grants Funds Jurisdictions Texas A&M University Action: Enhance routine dam maintenance to include vegetation evaluation and removal (as appropriate) annually. Hazard Dam Failure (and levee failure) Priority Medium Estimated Cost $10,000 Responsible Organization Texas A&M University Target Completion Date 2021 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County, Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, Wixon Valley, and TAMU) Action: Provide information to the public on where they can go to stay cool during periods of excessive heat Hazard Excessive Heat Priority High Estimated Cost $1,500 Responsible Organization All participating entities Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 136 of 184 134 Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions All participating entities (Brazos County, Cities of Bryan, College Station, Kurten, Wixon Valley, and TAMU) Action: Educate vulnerable populations about sources of fans and sources of programs that can assist citizens having trouble paying utility bills. Hazard Excessive Heat Priority High Estimated Cost $1,500 Responsible Organization All participating entities Target Completion Date 2019 Funding Sources General Funds Jurisdictions City of Bryan Action: Study and quantify possible urban heat island effects in Bryan and subsequently assess a possible need for a mitigation program. Hazard Excessive Heat Priority Low Estimated Cost $200,000 Responsible Organization All participating entities Target Completion Date 2023 Funding Sources Grants and General Funds Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 137 of 184 135 SECTION 17: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTATION This section discusses how this Hazard Mitigation Plan will be implemented by Brazos County and the participating entities listed in this plan. It also addresses how the plan will be evaluated and improved over time and how the public will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process. Brazos County and participating entities will be responsible for implementing its own mitigation action plans contained in Section 17. Each action has been assigned to a specific person or local government office that is responsible for implementing it. The governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction have adopted the mitigation action plan for their jurisdictions. Copies of the governing body resolutions are contained in Appendix E. A funding source has been listed for each identified action. This source may be used when the jurisdiction begins to seek funds to implement the action. An implementation time period or a specific implementation date also has been assigned to each action as an incentive for seeing the action through to completion and to gauge whether actions are timely implemented. Participating jurisdictions will integrate implementation of their mitigation action plans with other, existing planning mechanisms such as capital improvement plans, long range growth plans, master stormwater and drainage plans, and regional planning efforts. Jurisdictions will ensure that the actions contained in the mitigation action plans are reflected in these other planning efforts. These other planning efforts will be used to advance the mitigation strategies of the jurisdictions. Each participating entity will conduct periodic reviews of their comprehensive and land use plans and policies and analyze the need for any amendments in light of the approved hazard mitigation plan. Participating entities will ensure that comprehensive or capital improvement planning in the future will also be integrated into this hazard mitigation plan to reduce the long- term risk to life and property from all hazards. Within one year of formal adoption of the hazard mitigation plan, existing planning mechanisms will be reviewed by each participating entities and incorporated into the plan, as necessary. The process to be used to integrate any plans into this mitigation plan will be for the local jurisdictions to amend their portion of the mitigation plan by including any action items from other planning mechanisms that are relevant to mitigation. Likewise, any mitigation actions that are relevant to comprehensive planning will be incorporated from the mitigation plan into those comprehensive plans. Upon formal adoption of the plan, hazard mitigation team members from each jurisdiction will review all comprehensive land use plans, capital improvement plans, transportation plans, and any building codes to guide and control development. The hazard mitigation team members will work to integrate the hazard mitigation strategies into these other plans and codes. Each jurisdiction will conduct periodic reviews of their comprehensive and land use plans and policies Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 138 of 184 136 and analyze the need for any amendments in light of the approved hazard mitigation plan. Participating jurisdictions will ensure that capital improvement planning in the future will also contribute to the goals of this hazard mitigation plan to reduce the long-term risk to life and property from all hazards. Within one year of formal adoption of the hazard mitigation plan, existing planning mechanisms will be reviewed by each jurisdiction. EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT Periodic revisions and updates of the plan are required to ensure that the goals, objectives, and mitigation action plans for the Brazos County and participating entities are kept current. More importantly, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the plan is in full compliance with federal regulations and state statutes. This portion of the plan outlines the procedures for completing such revisions and updates. Monitoring and Five-Year Plan Review and Update The Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be monitored and evaluated for any updates, input and planning for the next revision due in the year 2024. Brazos County Emergency Management and City of Bryan Emergency Management will coordinate the monitoring and maintenance of the 2019 through 2024 plan, including all four elements and serve as the plan contacts. The Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Team (BCHMT) will be notified of the status of the plan upon approval. On the third Thursday in April of 2020 and 2021, a request for updates will be sent to the BCHMT along with any updates that have been added to the plan during the last three years. This will be followed up with a meeting two weeks later to review the planning process and review the plan. The plan contacts will work with the TDEM Hazard Mitigation Section Staff to keep up to date on requirements and will attend any appropriate training needed. January of 2022, the plan contacts will arrange and hold a Hazard Mitigation Team Meeting and continue the process to evaluate, update and submit the new HMP as required for approval through the State of Texas and FEMA. This will allow plenty of time for proper involvement from the HMPT, all stakeholders and the public as outlined in our plan and sufficient time to have the plan revised and approved before the expiration date occurs in 2024. Hazard mitigation team members from each jurisdiction (see Appendix C) are responsible for continual monitoring those components of the hazard mitigation plan that pertains to their entity on an annual basis. As part of the monitoring process, team members will assess any changes in risk; determine whether implementation of mitigation actions is on schedule or if there are any implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or coordination issues; and reflect changes in land development or programs that affect mitigation priorities or actions. This mitigation action plan will be formally reviewed and updated every five years to determine whether significant changes may have occurred in Brazos County and participating entities that could affect the plan. Increased development, increased exposure to certain hazards, the development of new mitigation capabilities or techniques, and revisions to federal or state legislation are examples of changes that may affect the currency of the plan. Criteria to be included in the evaluation will include, at a minimum: Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 139 of 184 137 · The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions; · The nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks has changed; · The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan; · There are implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues with other agencies; · The outcomes have occurred as expected; and, · The agencies and other partners participated as originally proposed. The review also will give community officials an opportunity to evaluate successful actions and to explore the possibility of documenting losses avoided because of actions taken. The plan also will need to be revised to reflect lessons learned following a disaster declaration or to address specific circumstances arising from changing conditions surrounding disaster events. As part of the plan review process, participating jurisdictions will be asked to review each goal and objective to determine their continued relevance; review the risk assessment portion of the plan to determine if the information should be updated or modified; report on the status of each of their mitigation actions; report on which implementation processes worked well, any difficulties encountered, how coordination efforts are proceeding, and which mitigation actions should be revised; and evaluate the effectiveness of their mitigation action plans and recommend changes or amendments. As part of the five-year plan update, depending upon resource availability, a review will be undertaken of development trends in each jurisdiction and vulnerability. Also as part of the five- year plan update, depending upon resource availability, a review will be undertaken for each hazard of the type and number of existing and future buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities within each hazard area, and an estimate will be undertaken of the vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure in terms of potential dollar losses from each hazard. Also depending upon resource availability, land uses and development trends will also be re- examined, including the types of development occurring, location, expected intensity, and pace by land use for each jurisdiction. This will help complete and improve future vulnerability assessment efforts. Based on the analysis, a summary of vulnerability will be provided for participating jurisdictions below the county level. Plan Amendments and Updates At any time, minor technical changes may be made to the plan to keep it up to date. However, any changes to the mitigation actions or major changes in the overall direction of the plan or the policies contained within it must be subject to formal adoption by the participating jurisdictions. After initial adoption, any amendment to the mitigation action plan contained in Section 18 must also be approved by the governing body of the participating city or county for inclusion in an amended plan. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 140 of 184 138 At the end of the comment period, the proposed amendment and all comments will be forwarded to the governing body of the proposing jurisdiction for consideration. If no comments are received from the reviewing parties within the specified review period, this will also be noted. The governing body will then review the proposed amendment and comments received, and vote to accept, reject, or amend the proposed change. The public will have an opportunity to provide input during the governing body meeting at which the request is considered. Upon ratification, the amendment will be included in the plan and forwarded to the Texas Division of Emergency Management. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered: · Errors or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs during the preparation of the plan; · New issues or needs that were not adequately addressed in the plan; · Changes in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the plan was based. CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public input was an integral part of the preparation of this plan and will continue to be essential as the plan grows and changes. As with any officially adopted plan or ordinance, a significant change to this plan shall require an opportunity for the public to make its views known. This Hazard Mitigation Action Plan will be posted continuously on the website of the Brazos County Department of Emergency Management, where the public is invited to provide ongoing feedback. The public will be notified that the plan is available on the website and social media through the participating entities. For more information, contact the CEOC at 979-821-1000. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 141 of 184 139 APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AL Annualized Loss ALR Annualized Loss Ratio BCEG Building Code Effectiveness Grading BCEGS Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule BOCA Building Officials and Code Administrators BTU British Thermal Unit BVCOG Brazos Valley Council of Governments CAC Community Assistance Contact CAP Community Assistance Program CAV Community Assistance Visit CDBG Community Development Block Grant CERT Community Emergency Response Team CFS Cubic feet per second CHER-CAP Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Emergency Response – Capability Assessment Program CHEMTREC Chemical Transportation Emergency Center COG Council of Governments COOP Continuity of Operations Plan COPS Community Oriented Police Services CTP Cooperating Technical Partner DEM Texas Division of Emergency Management DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DOD Department of Defense EAS Emergency Alert System Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 142 of 184 140 EM Emergency Management EMP Emergency Management Plan EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grants EMS Emergency Medical Services EO Emergency Operations EOC Emergency Operations Center EP Exceeding Probability EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps GIS Geographic Information System HAZUS Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazards U.S. HMT Hazard Mitigation Team IFC International Fire Code ISO International Organization for Standardization NFDS National Fire Danger Rating System NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHC National Hurricane Center NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PPC Public Protection Classification SFC Standard Fire Code TEEX Texas Engineering Extension Service UFC Uniform Fire Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 143 of 184 141 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS (2017) Introduction: The public survey collects information from the citizens of Brazos County and the participating entities on their knowledge of local natural hazards. One goal of the survey is to gauge impacts to the citizens of the planning area from previous natural disasters. Another purpose of this survey is to provide information to the citizens about local hazards and convey strategies to reduce loss of life and property from future disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires community involvement in the creation of a hazard mitigation plan to: · Increase education and awareness around threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities; · Build partnerships for risk reduction involving government, organizations, businesses, and the public; · Identify long-term, broadly-supported strategies for risk reduction; · Align risk reduction with other state, tribal, or community objectives; · Identify implementation approaches that focus resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities; and · Communicate priorities to potential sources of funding. The ‘Public Survey for the Brazos County and Participating Entities Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – 2017’ (Community Survey) was designed for citizens to share their opinions and participate in the mitigation planning process. Responses to the Community Survey give emergency managers, hazard mitigation planning committee members, and elected officials a snap shot of information about the survey respondents and their concerns as well as provide an opportunity to compare this information to Brazos County and participating entities as a whole. Community involvement in the Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is a requirement for a FEMA approved-hazard mitigation plan. A FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan enables Brazos County and participating entities to receive certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance. This funding is used to complete hazard mitigation projects to reduce the loss of life and property and reduce the impacts of disasters within the planning area. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 144 of 184 142 Information to be collected: The Community Survey includes questions to gather information on public perception of hazard risks within the Brazos County and participating entities. Other questions in the survey aim to identify previous citizen experiences from disaster impacts. Brazos County and participating entities officials requested that a particular focus be given to floods and flooding hazards. Officials also requested information on how citizens receive warnings regarding severe weather events. In regard to these requests, the survey included questions directed at collecting these types of data from the respondents. Basic information, such as the respondent’s zip code and simple demographics, was collected to help officials better understand who was received the survey. Officials will then better understand which populations are underrepresented or missing from the survey responses. As a result, future distribution channels and methods of data collection will have an opportunity for improvement and encourage a greater and more diverse sample of the population of the planning area. Development of the survey instrument: In order to develop the survey instrument, several activities were undertaken. First, examples of past hazard mitigation survey instruments were collected from a variety of sources including Galveston, Texas, San Leandro, California, and Fort Bend County, Texas. Once the initial draft was developed the survey was distributed to emergency managers and other city and county officials for review and comments. Two separate meetings were held with emergency managers and officials to review the survey and make revisions. Concern with the difference between perceived risk by the public and the actual risk to the public was expressed by the survey developers therefore, questions to help understand this paradigm were created and included in the survey. The thought behind this was, for example, to identify respondents that might not perceive flooding as a risk yet they reside in a flood zone. Consequently, these findings would be used to target areas within the County where officials will provide public education on actual local risks and deliver information about achievable mitigation strategies aimed to help reduce the loss of life and property from future disasters. Questions were designed to help guide the respondent in giving comprehensive answers yet stay within measurable bounds. This was done in an effort to help quantify the various responses and later visualize the percentages of the answers given. By providing charts and graphs depicting survey responses, officials and the public will have the opportunity to quickly assess where they stand on perceived risks and recognize what actual risks exist within the County. The visuals also aid in identifying areas within the County where public outreach will be directed and where additional mitigation strategies need to be applied. The survey as distributed to the public follows on the next 11 pages. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 145 of 184 143 Page 1 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 146 of 184 144 Page 2 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 147 of 184 145 Page 3 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 148 of 184 146 Page 4 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 149 of 184 147 Page 5 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 150 of 184 148 Page 6 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 151 of 184 149 Page 7 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 152 of 184 150 Page 8 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 153 of 184 151 Page 9 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 154 of 184 152 Page 10 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 155 of 184 153 Page 11 – Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Community Survey Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 156 of 184 154 How the Survey was conducted: Survey Distribution The Community Survey was distributed to the citizens of Brazos County and participating entities through a variety of means including paper copies distributed at public meetings and events, in public locations such as libraries and City Halls, and digitally through an online form available by hyperlink located on publically-accessible websites. This hyperlink to the online survey was also sent via email to Brazos County employees and employees of the City of Bryan and the City of College Station. The table below indicates the form of distribution used throughout the planning area. County-wide Brazos County City of Bryan City of College Station Texas A&M University Paper Copies at Public Locations x Paper Copies at Public Meetings x Paper Copies at Public Events x Digital Copy via Website x x x x Digital Copy via Email x x x x A digital copy of the survey was available by following the hyperlink - https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BCHMPUpdate from either an email sent to a city or county employee or by visiting one of the websites listed below: - brazosceoc.org - www.cstx.gov - www.bryantx.gov - www.tamu.edu Survey Data Entry Responses to the survey submitted via digital means (hyperlinks available on websites and through email) were captured and recorded through the SurveyMonkey website (www.surveymonkey.com). Responses to the survey submitted via printed means were entered into the digital format of the survey and added to the SurveyMonkey website totals. By the closing date of the survey there were a total of 653 responses (digital and print combined) which were recorded and saved for analysis. Survey results for questions 1 through 15 are detailed on the following pages. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 157 of 184 155 Community Survey Results: 1. How concerned are you about your area being impacted by a natural disaster? Concern about being affected by a natural disaster? Frequency Percent Cumulative Not Concerned 128 19.72% 19.72% Somewhat Concerned 419 64.56% 84.28% Extremely Concerned 102 15.72% 100.00% Total 649 100.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 158 of 184 156 2. Have you ever experienced a natural disaster? Have you ever experienced a natural disaster? Frequency Percent Cumulative No 265 40.58% 40.58% Yes 388 59.42% 100.00% Total 653 100.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 159 of 184 157 3. Which of the following natural hazard(s) have you experienced while living in Brazos County that have resulted in structural damage, personal displacement, loss of utility services for more than 24 hours, or other issues? Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following natural hazards they have “experienced” – with quite detail examples of experience, to frame their answers. The responses were simple yes (1) or no (0) answers. So, if a mean or average is calculated, that indicates the proportion of respondents experiencing a particular natural hazard. The following table rank orders the responses, indicating the most likely to least likely natural hazards experienced by the respondents to this survey. Natural Hazard Percent Wind or Thunder Storm 29.1% Hail 28.3% Drought 25.7% Flooding 24.3% Extreme Heat 22.4% Tornado 20.4% Lightning 19.6% Hurricane 14.5% Winter Storm 13.9% Expansive Soils 9.6% Urban Wildfire 2.0% Dam Failure .3% Please see chart of results on following page. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 160 of 184 158 As can be seen from the chart below, the highest proportion of nearly 30% reported having experienced a wind/thunder storm, 28.3% hail, 25.7% drought, etc. Dam failure was the hazard least experienced by the respondents at .3%. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 161 of 184 159 4. Do you rent or own the place where you live? Do you own or rent the place where you live? Frequency Percent Cumulative Own 600 91.88% 91.88% Rent 48 7.35% 99.23% Other 5 0.77% 100.00% Total 653 100.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 162 of 184 160 5. Please select the housing type that best describes your dwelling. Type of Home Frequency Percent Cumulative Single Family 601 92.18% 92.18% Duplex 5 0.77% 92.94% Apartment 12 1.84% 94.79% Condo/Townhome 9 1.38% 96.17% Manufactured Home 25 3.83% 100.00% Total 652 100.00% Tenure by Ownership: Do you own or rent the place where you live? Type of Home Own Rent Other Total Single Family 574 22 5 601 Row Percentage 95.51% 3.66% 0.83% 100.00% Column Percentage 95.83% 45.83% 100.00% 92.18% Duplex 1 4 0 5 Row Percentage 20.00% 80.00% 0.00% 100.00% Column Percentage 0.17% 8.33% 0.00% 0.77% Apartment 0 12 0 12 Row Percentage 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% Column Percentage 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 1.84% Condo/Townhome 5 4 0 9 Row Percentage 55.56% 44.44% 0.00% 100.00% Column Percentage 0.83% 8.33% 0.00% 1.38% Manufactured Home 19 6 0 25 Row Percentage 76.00% 24.00% 0.00% 100.00% Column Percentage 3.17% 12.50% 0.00% 3.83% Total 599 48 5 652 91.87% 7.36% 0.77% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 163 of 184 161 6. Is your home in a floodplain? Floodplains are areas that are vulnerable to flooding and are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Is your home located in a floodplain? Frequency Percent Cumulative Not Sure 87 13.36 13.36 No, not in a floodplain 527 80.95 94.32 Yes, in a floodplain 37 5.68 100.00 Total 651 100.00 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 164 of 184 162 7. Do you have flood insurance? Flood insurance is not included in a standard home owner's insurance policy/renter's insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Do you have flood insurance? Frequency Percentage Cumulative Not Sure 49 7.55% 7.55% No Flood Insurance 512 78.89% 86.44% Yes, I have Flood Insurance 88 13.56% 100.00% Total 649 100.00% 7.1 Flood insurance by owning and renting: This table suggests that both renters and homeowners that responded to the survey are carrying flood insurance. Do you own or rent the place where you live? Do you have flood insurance? Own Rent Other Total Not Sure 41 7 1 49 % 6.88% 14.58% 20.00% 7.55% No Flood Insurance 477 31 4 512 % 80.03% 64.58% 80.00% 78.89% Yes, I have Flood Insurance 78 10 0 88 % 13.09% 20.83% 0.00% 13.56% Total 596 48 5 649 % 100% 100% 100% 100% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 165 of 184 163 7.2 How about the relationship between having (and not having) flood insurance when the respondent says their home is location in a floodplain? This table is specific to the people indicating that they are in a floodplain: Do you own or rent the place where you live? Do you have flood insurance? Own Rent Other Total Not Sure 2 1 0 3 % 6.67% 16.67% 0.00% 8.11% No Flood Insurance 11 3 1 15 % 36.67% 50.00% 100.00% 40.54% Yes, I have Flood Insurance 17 2 0 19 % 56.67% 33.33% 0.00% 51.35% Total 30 6 1 37 % 100% 100% 100% 100% * Note - There are 15 of the 37 respondents (51.4%) that report knowing they are in a floodplain but, DO NOT have flood insurance. * Note - This includes 17 of 30 homeowners (56.7%) and 2 of 6 (33.3%) renters. * Again, be cautious, since this is not a random sample, it is unknown if these figures hold true for the full population of Brazos County and participating entities. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 166 of 184 164 8. If you do not have flood insurance, why? The following table summarizes the detail tables below – it presents the proportion of respondents that indicated specific reasons for not having flood insurance. This is for both homeowners and renters. The highest proportion of respondents, reported that they did not have flood insurance because they do not think they are located in a floodplain. This may or may not be technically correct, but they believe they are not in a floodplain, and that is the main reason they report not having flood insurance. Reason For No Flood Insurance? Percent Not in a floodplain 58.8% Not required by mortgage 18.2% Never considered 17.5% Too expensive 12.9% No flooding in my area 12.1% Home is elevated or protected 9.3% Some other reason 5.4% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 167 of 184 165 9. Please indicate how concerned you are that your neighborhood would be impacted by these natural hazards. ***Respondents were asked to rate between Not Concerned (1) at all to Extremely concerned (3). However, a variable number of respondents did not rate some of these at all such as the 19 that did not rate tornados and 50 that did not rate wildfires. These were left in with a value of 0, which would deflate the ratings, perhaps better capturing the overall concern of this group of respondents. In general, therefore, the higher the rating, the greater the concern over each of these natural hazards for this particular group of respondents. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 168 of 184 166 10. Natural hazards can have significant impacts, but planning for these impacts can help to reduce them. The following statements will help determine citizen priorities regarding planning for natural hazards. Thinking about the community as a whole, how important are the following priorities? For this set of questions, respondents were asks to rate how important different criteria or principles were for them when it comes to planning for natural hazards and hazard mitigation. These ranged from private property rights to preserving the environment. Ratings ranged from very important (3) to not very important (1). Again a few (9 to 7) people did not answer some, they were coded with a 0 and left in this analysis. So the table below presents the average importance scoring for each of the criteria or principle rated by these respondents. The closer the value is to 3, the more important the priority when planning for natural hazards. Interestingly protecting critical facilities (hospitals, fire station, etc.) and lifeline infrastructure (utilities) were rated the highest priorities. These were followed by critical infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.) and emergency response services. Even more interesting, to me, was the virtual tie between protecting private property rights and environmental features such as wetlands. These two are often in conflict – and here they are tied in terms of priorities. The least, but still in the somewhat important range, was protecting cultural and historic landmarks. It is worth noting that signage was a somewhat important priority – something that many in the development community do not want to necessarily see prominently displayed. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 169 of 184 167 11. Disasters occur at different times of the day. Are you aware of local school, business or religious organization emergency plans? In general there does not appear to be much solid familiarity, but perhaps limited only familiarity with the emergency planning efforts of other organizations in the community among the respondents to this survey. Familiarity with Emergency Plans of Schools and Religious Organizations? Frequency Percent Cumulative Not Familiar 313 48.30% 48.30% Somewhat Familiar 236 36.42% 84.72% Familiar 99 15.28% 100.00% Total 648 100.00% ***In general there does not appear to be much solid familiarity, but perhaps limited only familiarity with the emergency planning efforts of other organizations in the community among the respondents to this survey. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 170 of 184 168 12. Families may want to have household plans for a variety of events. Which of the following has your family planned for? Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 171 of 184 169 13. How do you receive warnings regarding severe weather events? Respondent were asked to indicated how they received sever weather warnings for a specific set of media types. The responses were codes yes (1) or no (0). The following table indicates the percentage of respondents indicating that they receive warnings from each media source. Cell phone and television far surpass other media forms when considering this group of respondents. Source Percent Cell Phone 74.45% Television 72.90% Radio 55.30% Social Media 37.70% Code Maroon 38.60% Brazos County Emergency Management 34.20% NOAA Radio 21.90% Cable TV 17.00% Other 4.00% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 172 of 184 170 14. What would be the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more aware and better prepared for natural hazards? Communication Sources Percent Emergency Notification System 63.70% Emails 53.10% Television 42.40% Social Media 39.80% Direct Mailing 36.90% Utility Bills 32.60% Radio 29.40% Roadside Notification Boards 24.30% Newspapers 22.70% Website 22.10% Meetings 8.10% Schools 7.50% Library 3.80% Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 173 of 184 171 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 174 of 184 172 15. Zip code The map below shows a breakdown of the number of survey responses received from each zip code within Brazos County. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 175 of 184 173 Strengths and limitations of the survey: As with any data collection method there are advantages and disadvantages to the process and the results. The ‘Public Survey for the Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – 2017’ proved to garner more information from public participation than the previous survey conducted in 2012. Although over 650 community members responded to the survey, it must be noted that the data presented reflects only the responses of the survey- takers and may not accurately reflect the County as a whole. The survey results have helped local officials better understand some of the community’s perceived risks and in turn, this information will help to provide education to the residents that will create better preparedness and assist in the implementation of mitigation actions. Conclusions: Public participation during the drafting stage of the planning process is required in the guidelines laid out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of an acceptable Plan. At the same time, the intent of the survey is to provide the citizens of Brazos County and participating entities an opportunity to offer input on community vulnerabilities and mitigation activities and for officials to inform the citizens as to what the community is doing on their behalf. Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 176 of 184 174 APPENDIX C: LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION TEAM Michele Meade EMC, Emergency Management, Brazos County Jason Ware Deputy EMC, Emergency Management, Brazos County Kim Hinton Floodplain Coordinator, Road & Bridge Department, Brazos County Megan Lott GIS Coordinator, Road & Bridge Department, Brazos County James Hall Environmental Deputy, Sheriff’s Office, Brazos County Mike Paulus Emergency Preparedness and Response Coordinator, Brazos County Roger Sheridan Manager, Public Safety Planning, Brazos Valley Council of Governments Robert Santarsiero Homeland Security Senior Planner, Public Safety Planning, Brazos Valley Council of Governments Jerry Henry EMC, Emergency Management, City of Bryan Johnnie Price Engineering, Development Services, City of Bryan Cody Cravatt Development Manager, Development Services, City of Bryan Brian Hilton EMC, Emergency Management, City of College Station Monica Martinez EMC, Office of Safety & Security, Texas A&M University Leslie Lutz Assistant EMC, Office of Safety & Security, Texas A&M University Jeff Truss Assistant Director, EHS, Texas A&M University Ralph Davila Director, Facilities, Texas A&M University Valerie Hadley Assistant Director, Facilities and Dining Administration, Texas A&M University Rob Meyer Supervisor, UES, Texas A&M University Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 177 of 184 175 Robert Meyer Assistant Chief of Police, University PD, Texas A&M University Shannon Van Zandt Professor & Interim Head, Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, Texas A&M University Walter Peacock Professor, Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, Texas A&M University John T. Cooper Associate Professor of Practice, Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, Texas A&M University Kelly Trietsch-Hall Graduate Student, Master’s Level, Texas A&M University Jim Soefje Mayor, City of Wixon Valley Philip Mundine Mayor, City of Kurten Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 178 of 184 176 APPENDIX D: CRITICAL FACILITIES IN BRAZOS COUNTY AND PARTICIPATING ENTITIES Name Type Jurisdiction Coulter Field Airport COB Easterwood Field Airport COCS, TAMU Brazos Transit District Bus COB Greyhound Bus Station Bus COB Transportation Services Bus TAMU City of Bryan City Hall City Hall COB City of College Station City Hall City Hall COCS City of Wixon Valley City Hall City Hall WV KYLE Communication COB WTAW Communication COCS KEOS Communication COB KNFX-FM Communication COB KKYS Communication COB KORA Communication COB KAMU Communication TAMU KBTX Communication COB Brazos County Courthouse Courthouse BC Bryan Texas Utilities Electric COB College Station Utilities Electric COCS Central Utilities Plant Electric TAMU West Campus Cogeneration Company Electric TAMU Community Emergency Operations Center Emergency COB Kyle Field Command Emergency TAMU College Station Fire Department Station #1 Fire Station COCS College Station Fire Department Station #2 Fire Station COCS College Station Fire Department Station #3 Fire Station COCS College Station Fire Department Station #4 Fire Station COCS College Station Fire Department Station #5 Fire Station COCS College Station Fire Department Station #6 Fire Station COCS Bryan Fire Department Station #1 Fire Station COB Bryan Fire Department Station #2 Fire Station COB Bryan Fire Department Station #3 Fire Station COB Bryan Fire Department Station #4 Fire Station COB Bryan Fire Department Station #5 Fire Station COB Brazos County District 2 VFD Station #1 Fire Station BC Brazos County District 2 VFD Station #2 Fire Station BC Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 179 of 184 177 Brazos County Precinct 3 VFD Station #1 Fire Station BC Brazos County Precinct 3 VFD Station #2 Fire Station BC Brazos County Precinct 3 VFD Station #3 Fire Station BC Brazos County Precinct 4 VFD Station #1 Fire Station BC Brazos County Precinct 4 VFD Station #2 Fire Station BC Brazos county Precinct 4 VFD Station #3 Fire Station BC South Brazos County FD Station #1 Fire Station BC South Brazos County FD Station #2 Fire Station BC South Brazos County FD Station #3 Fire Station BC South Brazos County FD Station #4 Fire Station BC Business 6/ Texas Avenue Highway BC, COB, COCS Earl Rudder Freeway/ State Highway 6 Highway BC, COB, COCS Farm to Market 50 Highway BC Farm to Market 60 (Raymond Stotzer/University Dr) Highway BC, COB, COCS Farm to Market 158 (Boonville Road/ William J. Bryan Parkway) Highway COB, BC Farm to Market 159 Highway BC Farm to Market 974 (Tabor Road) Highway BC, COB Farm to Market 1179 (Briarcrest/ Villa Maria) Highway COB, BC Farm to Market 1687 (Sandy Point Road) Highway COB, BC Farm to Market 1688 (Leonard Road) Highway COB, BC Farm to Market 2038 Highway BC Farm to Market 2154 (Wellborn Road) Highway BC, COB, COCS Farm to Market 2223 (Old Cameron Ranch Road) Highway BC Farm to Market 2347 (George Bush Dr) Highway COCS Farm to Market 2776 Highway BC, WV Farm to Market 2818 (Harvey Mitchell Parkway) Highway BC, COB, COCS Old San Antonio Road (OSR) Highway BC State Highway 21 Highway BC, COB, WV, Kurten State Highway 30 (Harvey Road) Highway BC, COB, COCS State Highway 40 Highway COCS State Highway 47 Highway COCS, COB, BC State Highway 105 Highway BC College Station Medical Center Medical COCS St Joseph Regional Health Ctr Medical COB Scott and White Medical COCS The Physician Center Medical COB Rock Prairie Behavioral Health Medical COCS Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 180 of 184 178 University Emergency Medical Service Medical TAMU City of Bryan Police Department Police Station COB City of College Station Police Police Station COCS Brazos County Sheriff’s Office Police Station BC Texas Department of Public Safety Police Station COB University Police Department Police Station TAMU Union Pacific Railroad Railway bridge BC, COB, COCS Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway bridge BC,COB, COCS A & M Consolidated High School School COCS A&M Consolidated Middle School School COCS Aggieland Country School School COCS Allen Academy School COB Anson Jones Elementary School COB Arthur Davila Middle School School COB Ben Milam Elementary School COB Bonham Elementary School COB Brazos Christian School School COB Bryan Collegiate High School School COB Bryan High School School COB Center For Alternative Learning School COCS College Hills Elementary School COCS College Station High School School COCS College Station Middle School School COCS Cornerstone Christian Academy School COB Creekview Elementary School School COCS Crockett Elementary School COB Cypress Grove Intermediate School COCS Disciplinary Alternative Educational Program School COB Fannin Elementary School COB Forest Ridge Elementary School School COCS Greens Prairie Elementary School School COCS Harmony Science Academy School COB Harvey Mitchell Elementary School COB Henderson Elementary School COB Jane Long Middle School COB Johnson Elementary School COB Kemp Elementary School COB Keystone Montessori School School COB Mary Branch Elementary School COB Mary Catherine Harris School of Choice High School School COB Montessori School House School COB Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 181 of 184 179 Navarro Elementary School COB Neal Elementary School COB Oakwood Intermediate School COCS Pebble Creek Elementary School COCS Rock Prairie Elementary School COCS Rudder High School School COB Sam Houston Elementary School COB Sam Rayburn Middle School COB South Knoll Elementary School COCS Southwood Valley Elementary School COCS Special Opportunity School School COB St. Michaels Academy School COB St. Joseph Catholic School School COB Stephen F Austin Middle School COB Still Creek Christian School School BC Sul Ross Elementary School COB Burton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater COB City of Bryan Thompsons Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater COB Texas A&M University Wastewater TAMU Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Wastewater COCS Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Wastewater COCS City of Bryan Still Creek Wastewater Treatment Wastewater COB Utilities and Energy Services Wastewater TAMU Legend: COB - City of Bryan, COCS - City of College Station, BC - Brazos County, TAMU - Texas A&M University, WV - City of Wixon Valley, and Kurten - City of Kurten Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 182 of 184 180 Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 183 of 184 181 APPENDIX E: LOCAL ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS To be included after FEMA issues the “Approvable Pending Adoption Letter” Resolution No. 05-13-19-2e Page 184 of 184